Darwinism in schools?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tigress
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Farsight001 said:
There’s a reason that when a pope says something positive about evolution it’s all anybody needs and when he says something negative, he is labeled incorrect. When a pope says 2+2=4, that’s all anybody needs. When he starts telling people 2+2=22, people object. And yes, that is an appropriate analogy because evolution is as clear and definite as 2+2=4, despite your adamancy otherwise.
Click to expand...
It’s not a mandate from the church.
 
johnnyjones said:
I guess according to you “disgrace to your religion” should be accepted and is in no way rude. Strange. Get out of the mix if you have nothing to add but flamebait.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the specific post you were responding to as a way to avoid addressing the issue. Nice try though.
 
edwest2 said:
That is incorrect.

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

“The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).”

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

"The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

Source: Catholic Answers library

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I didn’t say Genesis was mere legend. I said the Church does not teach that Genesis is to be interpreted literally as regards the science. And the quotes that you posted above do not contradict that. There is a big difference between scientific literalism and “mere legend”. Just because one avoids taking the science literally that does not mean he dismisses Genesis as “mere legend”. Genesis is true regarding what it was intended to teach, which is that God is the source of all of creation. Genesis was never intended to be a history or science text in the way that we mean them today. It was written in a style of the time in which accuracy in those areas was not the point. The quote you posted reaffirms that understanding.
 
edwest2 said:
I am asking for a reference to your statement that God created evolution. Where did you get this idea?
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Decisions decision…If I presume you wrote what you mean I give one answer, if I instead presume you are not as precise with language as I would hope it is another, what shall I do?

The 'idea" as you call it comes from Holy Mother Church. One need a basic understanding of theology, history, science, and Scripture. Evolution is a fact, ergo not a matter of Faith and Morals. God is the Creator, ergo God created evolution. (I hate syllogisms)

See, rule one of the RCC, we do not know everything. Rule two is alot like it, Science tells us what God wants us to know, God reveals what we believe. Hence, the reasonable inferences of Aquinas. Thus, if you deny evolution, you deny God. (He made it)

Evolution is now in the realm of 2+2=4, it is no longer open for discussion. Darwin was the first and like Aquinas, had incomplete information. Darwinism is OLD. That God created is the Dogma…How He created is immaterial to faith.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I didn’t say Genesis was mere legend. I said the Church does not teach that Genesis is to be interpreted literally as regards the science. And the quotes that you posted above do not contradict that. There is a big difference between scientific literalism and “mere legend”. Just because one avoids taking the science literally that does not mean he dismisses Genesis as “mere legend”. Genesis is true regarding what it was intended to teach, which is that God is the source of all of creation. Genesis was never intended to be a history or science text in the way that we mean them today. It was written in a style of the time in which accuracy in those areas was not the point. The quote you posted reaffirms that understanding.
Click to expand...
Why accept the part about Adam as “true” as the pope said and then make the rest an allegory? Part is true but what surrounds it isn’t? How do you know what Genesis was intended to be? I wouldn’t eliminate all science from it. Also, would Jesus reference people who arose from a fictitious creation?
 
johnnyjones said:
Why accept the part about Adam as “true” as the pope said and then make the rest an allegory? Part is true but what surrounds it isn’t? How do you know what Genesis was intended to be? I wouldn’t eliminate all science from it. Also, would Jesus reference people who arose from a fictitious creation?
Click to expand...
Wow, straw man and ad absurdum fallacies. What would Jesus do is now, and has always been an exercise in silly. Scripture contains the Revealed Truth of God does not mean every word as translated to and understood in English is accurate and factual. FYI ADAM means person. There are three traditions in the OT Y T and E. Every book is redacted. They are based on a previously existing oral tradition.
 
edwest2 said:
Then you’re reading of it is in error. Eve was created by God from Adam’s side. This is in contradiction to the slow, gradual development process in the textbooks
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
You will notice that the quote that you referenced from Pope Leo was not on evolution. It was on Christian Marriage. And the reference to the creation of Eve was to reinforce that concept. It was not part of a refutation of evolution. This understanding is confirmed by other writings in the Church. But if you want to pick and choose only the writings that work against evolution, those writings will probably not impress you. The poetic language of Pope Leo’s encyclical is evident by his use of the word “slime”. The Bible tells us God created Adam from the dust of the earth - not the slime. These are two very different things scientifically, but they are not very different in view of the intent of the encyclical.
 
johnnyjones said:
Why accept the part about Adam as “true” as the pope said and then make the rest an allegory? Part is true but what surrounds it isn’t? How do you know what Genesis was intended to be?
Click to expand...
Don’t ask me. I’m just reporting what the Church teaches. If you are interested in how the Church came to this nuanced understanding of Genesis, then ask the teachers of the Church.
Also, would Jesus reference people who arose from a fictitious creation?
Click to expand...
I never said Adam was fictitious. You keep trying to shift my position into one that is easier to argue against. For the record I accept the Church’s teaching that Adam refers to a real person. So I have no trouble with Jesus referring to Adam.
 
BrJuniper said:
Wow, straw man and ad absurdum fallacies. What would Jesus do is now, and has always been an exercise in silly. Scripture contains the Revealed Truth of God does not mean every word as translated to and understood in English is accurate and factual. FYI ADAM means person. There are three traditions in the OT Y T and E. Every book is redacted. They are based on a previously existing oral tradition.
Click to expand...
So, if the new Testament refers to Cain or Able, were they part of the characters in the make-believe world you imply Adam was? I didn’t say or ask about what Jesus would do now.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Don’t ask me. I’m just reporting what the Church teaches. If you are interested in how the Church came to this nuanced understanding of Genesis, then ask the teachers of the Church.

I never said Adam was fictitious. You keep trying to shift my position into one that is easier to argue against. For the record I accept the Church’s teaching that Adam refers to a real person. So I have no trouble with Jesus referring to Adam.
Click to expand...
I may have confused you with another poster.
 
johnnyjones said:
So, if the new Testament refers to Cain or Able, were they part of the characters in the make-believe world you imply Adam was? I didn’t say or ask about what Jesus would do now.
Click to expand...
Obviously you prefer making things up to fit your view. I have no time to engage trade fallacies of logic.
 
BrJuniper said:
Obviously you prefer making things up to fit your view. I have no time to engage trade fallacies of logic.
Click to expand...
I didn’t “make up” Luke 11:51. These are Jesus’ words. "From the blood of ABEL unto the blood of Zacharias…

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from ADAM to Moses…

There are plenty more verses. These are real people that lived in the world God created. Jesus’ words confirm that.
 
johnnyjones said:
I didn’t “make up” Luke 11:51. These are Jesus’ words. "From the blood of ABEL unto the blood of Zacharias…

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from ADAM to Moses…

There are plenty more verses. These are real people that lived in the world God created. Jesus’ words confirm that.
Click to expand...
I thought this was a Catholic forum, not fundamentalist. The Christ stands opposed to fundamentalism.
 
BrJuniper said:
I thought this was a Catholic forum, not fundamentalist. The Christ stands opposed to fundamentalism.
Click to expand...
Thankfully Catholics like me and multitudes of others read the bible. Same words in the Catholic bible. At least Adam and Abel are in these verses. Lets not take a real person that Jesus referenced and say he didn’t please.
 
  • Dogmas
    • The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
    • The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
    • Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
    • The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
    • Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
    • Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
    • A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
    • The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
    • God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
    • Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
    • The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
    • The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
    • The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
    • The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
    • Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
    • Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
    • Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
    • Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
    • Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
    • Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
    • Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
    • In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
    • Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)
 
** What Does The Catholic Church **Teach about Origins?
(pdf version)
  • God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
    (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
  • Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
  • Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
  • Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
  • Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
  • The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
  • The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
  • Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
  • Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
  • After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
  • Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
  • The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
  • We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
  • All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
  • The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
  • St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
  • The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
  • Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
    (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
  • Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.
 
Baelor said:
In which case not taking Genesis totally literally is permissible.
Click to expand...
Sure, you don’t have to. I’m just making the case that even the New Testament refers to these people in the creation story. So, Jesus speaks of these people. The Epistoles speak of them. But, according to the logic of some on this thread, if you believe these people are real, God put these people into a symbolic story. In other words, the people may be real, but the surrounding enviorment and how they got there isn’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top