Oh, I completely agree with you - #283 is obviously referring to evolution, although it doesn’t use the word “evolution” probably because evolution cannot be confirmed as a fact. Not to be deterred, this blantantly pro-evolution paragraph is very sneaky and cleverly worded, as it does its best to imply evolution IS a fact:
- Notice how the “scientific studies” into “the orgins … of man” are described as “knowledge” and “discoveries”. The impliction is, evolution is a fact, as only a fact can qualify as knowledge or discovery.
- The paragraph implies that the scientists who are responsible for this “knowledge” and “discoveries” about “the origins … of man” (ie, evolution) have been blessed by God with “unerring knowledge” - ie, infallible knowledge. This wording implies evolution is not only a fact, but it is infallible knowledge handed down from God - this is just absurd.
So it is fair to say I oppose the implictions of #283, because evolution is not a fact and can never be confirmed as a fact, and therefore cannot possibly be “infallible knowledge”. I believe #283 is in fact in error, is very misleading and should be removed from the Catechism.
No, I oppose non-human evolution on the basis of the verses in Genesis 1 which state that organisms were created “according to their kind”.