G
grannymh
Guest
Is this the situation of – all grass is green; therefore, all green things are grass?
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
By placing human beings solely in the animal classification, they are misidentified.
"Biological species concept: This concept states that “a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
"This definition was attractive to biologists and became widely adopted by the 1940’s. It suggested a critical test of species-hood: two individuals belong to the same species if their gametes can unite with each other under natural conditions to produce fertile offspring.
"This concept also emphasized that a species is an evolutionary unit. Members share genes with other members of their species, and not with members of other species.
"Although this definition clearly is attractive, it has problems. Can you test it on museum specimens or fossil data? Can it explain the existence of species in a line of descent, such as the well-known lineage of fossil horses? Obviously not.
"In fact, one cannot apply this definition easily, or at all, with many living organisms. What if species do not live in the same place? What about the hybrids that we know occur in zoos? These problems are serious enough that some biologists recently argued for a return to the morphological species concept.
"So what is the best way to define a species?
“Most scientists feel that the biological species concept should be kept, but with some qualifications. It can only be used with living species, and cannot always be applied to species that do not live in the same place. The real test applies to species that have the potential to interbreed.”
Some Churches recognize the desire of some not for scientific accuracy but a reduction of man to a somewhat more developed animal. This is misleading at the least and propaganda at worst.
Peace,
Ed
"Biological species concept: This concept states that “a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
"This definition was attractive to biologists and became widely adopted by the 1940’s. It suggested a critical test of species-hood: two individuals belong to the same species if their gametes can unite with each other under natural conditions to produce fertile offspring.
"This concept also emphasized that a species is an evolutionary unit. Members share genes with other members of their species, and not with members of other species.
"Although this definition clearly is attractive, it has problems. Can you test it on museum specimens or fossil data? Can it explain the existence of species in a line of descent, such as the well-known lineage of fossil horses? Obviously not.
"In fact, one cannot apply this definition easily, or at all, with many living organisms. What if species do not live in the same place? What about the hybrids that we know occur in zoos? These problems are serious enough that some biologists recently argued for a return to the morphological species concept.
"So what is the best way to define a species?
“Most scientists feel that the biological species concept should be kept, but with some qualifications. It can only be used with living species, and cannot always be applied to species that do not live in the same place. The real test applies to species that have the potential to interbreed.”
Some Churches recognize the desire of some not for scientific accuracy but a reduction of man to a somewhat more developed animal. This is misleading at the least and propaganda at worst.
Peace,
Ed
P
Peter_John
Guest
I will correct you. It is not an attack on human nature.Would we try to fly if we never saw flying creatures? Animals naturaly make better skin than we do, and we kill them to clothe ourselves with what they have made. We create fabric to mimic the protection we get from animal skins. Even our computers only weakly mimic our own brains.Science has a number of ways of distinguishing species. One is difference in kind which means that the difference between two species,e.g., dogs and plants is so radical that they are considered totally separate species. The difference between humans and plants is also radical. Plus this radical difference is so extreme that it extends to the difference between humans and non-human animals.
Since this is definitely not Catholic teaching, I am interested in where it came from.
Since this is definitely not Catholic teaching, I am interested in where it came from.
Since this is definitely not Catholic teaching, I am interested in where it came from.
Please correct me. But this really sounds like an attack on human nature.
Blessings,
granny
Human nature is peerless.
Our talents and capabilities do not separate us from other creatures in and of themselves. God’s choice to be one of us distinguishes us from other creatures. That has always been part of the identity of God. Everything else you question is incarnation theology:
If God did not choose to incarnate as a human being, it means it is something he had to do. There is nothing God has to do. His autonmy is absolute, therefore, he chose to incarnate as a human being-one of his own creatures, and that sanctifies humanity. One may argue that he did not create man as an animal, but that is what the fall of man and original sin is all about. We are creatures-- and that is doctrine if not dogma.
The Trinity is eternal in all its aspects. Jesus is “eternally begotten of the Father”, and has always been one with the father. The Incarnation is an eternal part of the nature of God, or there is not one God but three. The Doctrine of the Trinity is not that God manifests three different ways as we perceive Him. Trinity means that is how the the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost each perceive the others – as manifested by Jesus’ converstaions with the Father. Trintiy is the self-perception of God, and the incarnation part of that.
The Son has always been in the Trinity of God, as has the Holy Ghost, as has the Father. The Son is and always has been begotten of God, or God would be changing, and in God there is no shadow of change… The Incarnation of Christ is an eternal and continual part of the nature of God. Among all the Trinity Jesus alone was born of man. In God Christ is “the Son of Man”. This is the internal dialogue of the Trinity, and Jesus’ self-perception as God. We call him the Son of God (don’t we?) He being God, calls himself, as Jesus, “The Son of Man”. In the communication among the Father and the Son manifest in the Gospels we have a window into the inner workings of the mind of God, and God shares with us his own self-perception.
God does not have a physical body other than the Body of Christ. Though in our manner of time the Incarnation had not happened when God created Adam, God’s eventual (by our measure) Incarnation already existed, because it is part of the nature of God. Man was created in God’s Image. God created man in the form God himself would take in His own Incarnation – and that Man was perfect – but that man failed to trust God. Man fell from a glorified state. This does not invalidate other sound exposition of what “created in God’s image” means, but it is completely sound in Christology and Incarnation Theology.
The Bible does not say we are born Children of God, it says that through Christ we can “become” children of God. That is what separates us from other creatures (probably the word we should use instead of “anmals”), not the nature of human beings in our fallen state. In fact, “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit,” (1 Cor. 2:14) Baptism removes us from our natural state and the Eucharist transforms us in Christ.
This becomes more significant applied to Mariology, recognizing what separates Mary from the rest of us.
K
kbachler
Guest
Nope.
Its the situation of: All grass is green, therefore all Kentucky Bluegrass is green.
K
kbachler
Guest
It’s appalling how little such a simple concept as classification is understood here.
Buffalo: Science ALSO tells us the two are distinct, and science ALSO classifies humans different from each and every OTHER animal. Science also tells us that first came OTHER animals and then came man.
Where is your disagreement?
As a category, we are all animals. We share with animals the attributes that defines animal. On what basis then do you claim that we are not an animal? Our body is an animal body.
There are very few choices for kingdom. Are you arguing that we are a plant?
None of which, however, is relevant to the definition of animal.
K
kbachler
Guest
OK, Don - here are the choices by definition, using the definition that gives you the most choices:
We start with:
Life.
This gets divided into 3 domains:
- Domain Bacteria - Bacteria (/bækˈtɪəriə/ ; singular: bacterium) are a large domain of single-celled, prokaryote (no cell nucleus) microorganisms.
- Domain Archaea - The Archaea (/ɑrˈkiːə/ ( listen) ar-KEE-ə) are a group of single-celled microorganisms. A single individual or species from this domain is called an archaeon (sometimes spelled “archeon”). They have no cell nucleus nor any other membrane-bound organelles within their cells. In the past they had been classed with bacteria as prokaryotes (or Kingdom Monera) and named archaebacteria, but this classification is regarded as outdated.[1]. In fact, the Archaea have an independent evolutionary history and show many differences in their biochemistry from other forms of life, and so they are now classified as a separate domain.
- Domain Eukarya - A eukaryote (pronounced /juːˈkæri.oʊt/ ew-KARR-ee-oht or /juːˈkæriət/) is an organism whose cells contain complex structures enclosed within membranes. The defining membrane-bound structure that sets eukaryotic cells apart from prokaryotic cells is the nucleus, or nuclear envelope, within which the genetic material is carried
This domain is then broken down as these Kingdoms:
Excavata — Various flagellate protozoa
Amoebozoa — most lobose amoeboids and slime moulds
Opisthokonta — animals, fungi, choanoflagellates, etc.
Rhizaria — Foraminifera, Radiolaria, and various other amoeboid protozoa
Chromalveolata — Stramenopiles (or Heterokonta), Haptophyta, Cryptophyta (or cryptomonads), and Alveolata
Archaeplastida (or Primoplantae) — Land plants, green algae, red algae, and glaucophytes
We fall into Opisthokonta. Within that we fit into animals, within that we continue to fit into subcategories until we get to human.
None of this infers or implies anything OTHER THAN how our bodies are physically constructed/engineered/made up.
So again, why are you not an animal? Why do you object to being labeled along with other creatures that share a similar (NOT THE SAME, A SIMILAR) physical make-up?
E
edwest2
Guest
Bacteria have the built-in machinery to protect themselves from dangers in their environment but always remain bacteria.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110411163918.htm
I think people need to understand that this resistance capability is built-in.
Peace,
Ed
sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110411163918.htm
I think people need to understand that this resistance capability is built-in.
Peace,
Ed
K
kbachler
Guest
Did I ever insist that a human is only physical?
All I stated was something VERY SPECIFIC. That the HUMAN BODY meets certain criteria. I never stated anything else. No limits on the spiritual. Nothing about belief.
What I am trying to get across is this absurd fear of anything scientific as being an anathema to Christian belief.
Science is concerned about a PRAGMATIC PHYSICAL definition so that we can learn about the function of physical life forms in relation to each other.
Except for fairly rare occasions, science is not concerned with the metaphysical, and when it is it is generally to question whether past metaphysical understanding works with new physical information. (Quantum electrodynamics is a great example.)
D
davidv
Guest
I think you missed my point. There are posters on this forum who use the human=animal equation to denigrate the human person to the level of ‘critter’, as to justify all manner of immoral behaviour on the sole basis that it is exhibitted in some critter. Any fear, and not of science per se, is real, not absurd. In reality it has nothing whatsoever to do with science, but of those who claim science for their support of such denigration.
E
edwest2
Guest
For some people, this is precisely true. While science done correctly looks for answers, it is also being used as a tool to downgrade the human being. I have seen clear examples where some people say, “Animals do it, so why not us?”
Science is done by human beings and is used by human beings. When scientists use their titles and standing as experts to connect science to their own personal philosophies then people are right to protest this blatant misuse. Those who do not know better sometimes view certain conclusions as being based on science. And I heard the following from a long-time friend of mine: “I don’t believe in God, I believe in science.” I grew up with this man. Later, after giving it some more thought, he was less sure about his position.
Peace,
Ed
K
kbachler
Guest
Then stand up against what they do as wrong. Don’t paint what is correct, truthful and right with the same broad brush. Be educated, be informed, so that one can reasonably stand up for one’s Christian faith, rather than sounding, frankly, like an uneducated hick. How does the latter help draw more people to God?
K
kbachler
Guest
Again, condemn what is wrong, not what is right. Be educated and stand up for ones faith. Instead, painting everything with the same broad brush simply makes Christians look uneducated, and incapable of defending their faith. I don’t see how that would ever help draw anyone to God.
D
davidv
Guest
Why the uncharitable an hom?
The Truth draw people to God, not equivocations on the meaning of ‘animal’.
E
edwest2
Guest
First of all, the primary mission of the Catholic Church is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I was not broadly painting everything and everyone, which is why I used the word some.
Drawing someone to God requires them knowing the truth about who they are. Science only offers one leg to stand on, not two. But I think it is clear that some people accept science as a kind of gospel. Go to any anti-theist forum. To them, science trumps faith. Science, properly understood, is beneficial and good, but today, science is the primary weapon of the anti-theist.
Peace,
Ed
D
donsnow
Guest
kbachler,
Buffalo had a good point, in that the lists of names for different creatures and the label animal for humans is a arbitrary construct of a very few straying minds. Just because that tradition of nomenclature has come from the Nineteenth century, taught as (or instead of?) gospel, doesn’t make it a fact. Labels are not facts. That’s another difference between humans and animals. Animals don’t make up labels for other things, and probably don’t make up names for themselves or other animals. Animals don’t label nor name us humans, either.
Because I hold the stance I do on this, doesn’t make me wrong. It points out an arrogant error in our education system. Just because an arbitrary label has erroneously been taught as a fact for 131 years does not make a fact nor true. Your entire educational system is wrong and in error. Not us who recognize that we are not animals, we aren’t the ones who are wrong.
You are.
God loves you,
Don
S
shoe
Guest
I think that one of the main reasons human beings are not animals is that they have the ability to reason. And this human ability to reason is made possible by their free will, which enables them to think rationally and to use logic to arrive at the justified beliefs about the world around them. Humans are able to analyze data and then to make decisions based upon that data; animals can only perceive things. Human beings are taught ideas, but animals are conditioned. Animals can be categorized in completely material terms, but human beings cannot be categorized that way because they are much more than material: they have immaterial minds that transcend space and time. Thus, a part of human beings exists not only within the body but also separate from the body and is capable of living immediately after the death of the body. Not so with animals. When they die they cease to be a living thing entirely.
G
grannymh
Guest
Clarification regarding post 421
I recognize that posters have a right to present any theology that they wish.
A difficulty arises when a post has non-Catholic teaching mixed in with some comments similar to Catholic teaching. The difficulty is compounded when essential Catholic teachings are omitted.
When it comes to theology, those interested in Catholic theology should use the resources of CAF and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
Blessings,
granny
John 3: 16 & 17
I recognize that posters have a right to present any theology that they wish.
A difficulty arises when a post has non-Catholic teaching mixed in with some comments similar to Catholic teaching. The difficulty is compounded when essential Catholic teachings are omitted.
When it comes to theology, those interested in Catholic theology should use the resources of CAF and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
Blessings,
granny
John 3: 16 & 17
K
kbachler
Guest
Its not an ad hom. When Christians dance around scientific knowledge, information for which there is considerable evidence, rather than grasping it and incorporating it head on, it leaves a HIGHLY UNFAVORABLE impression, and an impression of one that is uneducated.
I agree that the TRUTH draws people to God; so we need to quit ignoring evidence, quit trying to dress things up in ways that they aren’t and stick to simple truth. One is to use the actual accepted definitions of things - like animals.
We can then GO ON TO EXPLAIN how we have a special relationship with God beyond that of mere animals; but why dance around a definition?
If you believe in truth, stop the feinting.
K
kbachler
Guest
and that Ed, is PRECISELY WHY we need to understand it.
K
kbachler
Guest
No Don, Buffalo has a terrible point because this statement is untrue. The construct is not arbitrary, its based on significant and numerous observations of living things and finding the similarities between them.
Buffalo’s observation is at best incorrect, and is at worst an outright lie.
But that’s not what happened Don. What has happened is that person after person, teacher after teacher, student after student, biologist after biologist has made observations, written them down, discussed them, discussed commonalities and differences to a large degree.
So the way you characterize this is completely incorrect. The development of classifications is not, nor has it been, a whimsical event. To characterize it as such is again, at best highly uninformed, and at worst, dishonest.
Unfortunately Don, the above statement has long been known to be wrong. Washoe, the very first animal to learn sign language, did make labels for things, and did make up names for themselves and other animals. Both Koko and Mike, two gorillas who learned to sign, also did this. In fact, Mike even made up “swear words.”
You taking a stand doesn’t make you wrong. You using the word animal incorrectly, in denying a standardize classification that states nothing about man’s relationship to God - THAT makes you wrong.
Sorry, its not arbitrary. It’s there for a reason.
Yes, everyone is wrong but Don. do I have that correct now?
- Status