[muawiyah]

Doctrine vs. Truth ~ rather provocative. There's a doctrine regarding the way to conduct scientific inquiry ~ are you suggesting that in some way that "doctrine" is not a path to "truth"?

It's pretty obvious that at some time in the last 150 years at least one Pope came on the scene as a Creationist and adapted his views to Evolution. The evidence for such an event is that the Catholic Church teaches that Evolution does not conflict with Genesis. The Catholic Church gets its interpretive viewpoints from the Pope.

Earlier Popes wouldn't have known beans about Evolution. Neither would scientists!

In any case, neither point of view is relevant in the long run. We will eventually discover things going on in our genome that we had only thought possible with super computers.

[spunkets]

"Doctrine vs. Truth ~ rather provocative. There's a doctrine regarding the way to conduct scientific inquiry ~ are you suggesting that in some way that "doctrine" is not a path to "truth"?"

There is no doctrine regarding scientific inquiry. There is only the scientific method, which is a method that only involves logical operations and physical evidence. Something carries the weight of doctrine and the the consequential quality of truth, because it's been declared so, or as such by a consensus of folks in authority. Nothing similar exists in science.

"It's pretty obvious that at some time in the last 150 years at least one Pope came on the scene as a Creationist and adapted his views to Evolution."

Darwin did the same.

"In any case, neither point of view is relevant in the long run."

The truth always matters, regardless of run.