Very interesting, thanks...you have to write a big book of question answer, kinda like the summa for post moderns.

Rem acu tetugisti.

I have reasons to accept evolution by natural selection, the beauty of the Parthenon, and the postulates of ZF set theory. And I think they're good reasons.

As I recollect, marriage is sacred, inasmuch as it provides a stable environment for the raising of any possible children that might result from the coupling. In addition to this secular purpose, there is a religious purpose of perfecting the mutual love of the conjugal unit -- but that is "love" in the proper sense, not the Late Modern corruption of "making love" as a euphemism for copulation. There is also a third purpose, another secular one: that of domesticating young men. However, sexual union between two metaphysical humans is likely a different matter than in earlier evolutionary times.

Of course, Rover can suffer; but only at the moment of suffering. He does not spend time beforehand worried about potential suffering to come. Of course, pain comes with the sense of touch and without pain, animals would not know to avoid certain things in the world. An animal that felt no pain would soon die.

I'm pretty sure that the Catholic Church teaches that sex is sacred - I take it that you do not agree with this? Or are you saying that there are exceptions to this rule?

But Rover can still suffer. My question is this: If God is all-good and all-powerful, why is there evil? As I understand it, Adam and Eve's sin brought evil into the world, but the suffering of dogs is also evil. Animals suffered before the fall and God allowed it. How is he still all-good?

Is human copulation sacred? Is animal copulation sacred?

No and no. See, for example, forcible rape.

There also seems no evidence that animals experience existential angst. For Rover to encounter a dead body that looks a lot like Fido may be disconcerting, but neither Rover nor Fido seem to have pondered the matter much beforehand. IOW, it has not entered their mental world.

But you don't have to accept any of "my" "answers" any more than you have to accept evolution by natural selection, the beauty of the Parthenon, or the postulates of ZF set theory.

So if we assume that intellection has something to do with brains, then the brain structure must be prior to the intellection. As you say, "no wing; no flight." But it is entirely possible to possess something that is exactly like a wing but not yet used for flight. Hence, a creature might be biologically human without yet being metaphysically being human.

Copulation.
Is human copulation sacred? Is animal copulation sacred?

Also, I understand you saying that there was suffering and death before Adam received an immortal soul, however our ancestors were not aware of it, because they were just animals without immortal souls. Is this correct?

What made you suspect that I'm refusing to have anything to do with philosophy?

I studied some metaphysics while getting my philosophy degree. The questions it deals with are arguably unavoidable, but I don’t have to accept any of your answers just on your say-so.