Here we go again, the same old misunderstandings of evolution. Anyway, not going to deal with those at this time.
Thanks for the link above from the Theotokos.org.uk Catholic creation site. I was hoping for the statements directly rather than a paraphrase. It looks like that site is paraphrasing the 1909 Biblical Commission rather than quoting it directly.
Also, it is wrong on the Catechism not mentioning evolution. They write:
<< “Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place… they express the truths of creation its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation.” [para. 289] >>
<< Evolution: No mention of evolution anywhere in the text or in the Index. >>
That’s from the bottom of that same link here
I would suggest this paragraph below clearly mentions evolution, and also commends the modern scientific theory of evolution, without specifically using the word “evolution” :
283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers…
See the full section here
To what “many scientific studies” which have “splendidly enriched our knowledge” about “the development (read: evolution) of life-forms and the appearance of man” is the Catechism referring? Modern biologists and geologists who accept evolution or the ICR, AnswersInGenesis, Theotokos.org.uk, Dr. Dino who don’t?
In addition, the following paragraph 284 suggests that science deals with the study of physical origins, while religion and faith deal additionally with the purpose and meaning of creation. That is precisely Stephen Jay Gould’s position NOMA (the Non-Overlapping Magisteria idea). One deals in nature (science), the other in super-nature, with design, purpose and meaning (religion).
And paragraph 159 suggests there cannot be a contradiction between the true and honest findings of science and the true doctrines of the Church. “Truth cannot contradict truth” is what I believe, but reconciling them can be difficult. But I won’t give up by denying or misunderstanding modern science like some of you.
159. Faith and science: “…methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” [Vatican II GS 36:1]
And for the 4.5 billioneth time, here is my article on an old earth and evolution Now I need to write a follow up specifically on Genesis 1-3 and the Adam/Eve question, how to interpret that, and the 1909 Biblical Commission and reconciling all of it. Not so easy.