Darwinism in schools?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tigress
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This seems to rather support evolution than to deny it. For the “slim of the earth” is a more primitive form of life.

But I must say that after reading the quotes in post #113 I quite agree that the language used is unnecessarily philosophical and has no place in a science textbook.
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.

Just because you agree with me about certain things in textbooks, they are still out there, leading people astray from the truth and replacing it with an atheistic belief system.

Peace,
Ed
 
You’re operating under teh assumption there was an actual “Adam”. The creation stories in Genesis [there are two remember] are symbolic. Adam is simply the representation of the first human to have awareness of God.

Did God know how he would look? Of course he would, this is God we’re talking about. He created the beginning and from there he knew every little turn those genes would take, from what gene would cause dark hair to what gene would cause peopel to be really tall.

Think of those stories as being age appropriate. If a four year old came up to you and asked where babies come from, would you tell them? Would you give them all the mechanical details? Tellign them about sperm and egg and erections? Of course you wouldn’t, you’d tell them some cutesty story about “special mummy and daddy hugs” and maybe storks.

That’s what Genesis’ creation stories are. They’re the cutesy special hug story. Because does anyone here really think that those essentially illterate goat herders would understand the science behind evolution? People here in 2012 seem to have trouble grasping it.

Even St. Augustine didn’t think the story of Adam and Eve was literal; going so far as to make statements we should’n’t really waste our time over it. The bible isn’t a book about creation, its a boook about salvation.
That is totally 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).”

I suggest everyone dismiss the primitive goat herders nonsense and study actual Church teaching which exists today and is the authority on this matter.

Peace,
Ed
 
I don’t see anything wrong with teaching Darwinism in schools. There are much bigger “fish to fry” on the topic of school curriculum.
That is a diversion. It is not needed here. It adds nothing to the discussion.

Peace,
Ed
 
That is a diversion. It is not needed here. It adds nothing to the discussion.
Peace,
Ed
wow…So it is your position that Darwin is a) of no historical significance, b) added nothing to the study of biology and c0 Catholic Children should be ignorant of the world in which they live?
 
Not as described in the Bible I won’t.
Thou perhaps hast made the heavens with him, which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass.
  • Job 37:18
    I can see the sky, but I cannot see a solid layer, like molten brass, at around the distance of the Sun or Moon. Where is this waterproof (remember it separates the waters above) layer in the sky?
The literal interpretation of Genesis does not match with reality. That is why, wisely, the Catholic Church does not require a literal interpretation of Genesis. You would do well to follow the Church’s advice in this. A literal interpretation will only lead you into error.

rossum
You need to know where to apply figurative and literal language. The molten brass is a reference to a brass mirror. Job is a very old book. In those days mirrors were made from metal which had to be poured out, beaten flat and polished. Some bibles translate Job 37:18 as “can you spread out the skies, strong as a molten mirror.” .
 
The firmament is not a great vaulted dome in the sky but is the atmospheric expanse between the waters above and below. The Hebrew word raqiya means expanse, or even better, “stretched out thinness”.
You are failing to interpret your Bible literally. How can an “atmospheric expanse” separate water from water when it is not waterproof? How can it support the Sun and Moon being “in the firmament” (Genesis 1:17), when if the Sun was in the Earth’s atmosphere life on Earth would not be possible.

You are ignoring Job, which definitely mentions brass. Are you one of those people who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible you want to believe? Don’t you believe that the Book of Job is correct when it refers to “brass”, and to a metal mirror? A metal mirror is solid, not an “atmospheric expanse”.

How can an “atmospheric expanse” have windows in it? See Genesis 7:11.

The literal interpretation of the Bible is fraught with problems. I strongly suggest that you abandon it for something more sensible.

rossum
 
Please provide a scientific or Catholic source that states this please.
Evolution exists: populations’ genomes change over time. Since evolution exists, and God created everything that exists you have your proof. Science tells us that evolution exists. The Catholic Church tells us the God made everything.

rossum
 
You need to know where to apply figurative and literal language. The molten brass is a reference to a brass mirror. Job is a very old book. In those days mirrors were made from metal which had to be poured out, beaten flat and polished. Some bibles translate Job 37:18 as “can you spread out the skies, strong as a molten mirror.” .
I agree. That is precisely why the description of the firmament in the Bible says that is is solid. That was the standard ANE model of the universe: a solid dome over the Earth, holding back the “waters above”. It was common to a number of ANE peoples, not just the Jews:



The Bible used the model ist writers were familiar with, but that model is not correct. To try to retain that model in the light of modern observations is not very sensible, and likely to drive anyone with a little astronomical knowledge away from Christianity.

rossum
 
You are failing to interpret your Bible literally. How can an “atmospheric expanse” separate water from water when it is not waterproof? How can it support the Sun and Moon being “in the firmament” (Genesis 1:17), when if the Sun was in the Earth’s atmosphere life on Earth would not be possible.

You are ignoring Job, which definitely mentions brass. Are you one of those people who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible you want to believe? Don’t you believe that the Book of Job is correct when it refers to “brass”, and to a metal mirror? A metal mirror is solid, not an “atmospheric expanse”.

How can an “atmospheric expanse” have windows in it? See Genesis 7:11.

The literal interpretation of the Bible is fraught with problems. I strongly suggest that you abandon it for something more sensible.

rossum
Your making the mistake of interpreting the bible literally at all times. Listen, feel free to debate me on the issues, but I don’t need the continual condescending words. As a matter of fact your “disgrace to your religion” comment was way out of control several posts back.
 
Your making the mistake of interpreting the bible literally at all times. Listen, feel free to debate me on the issues, but I don’t need the continual condescending words. As a matter of fact your “disgrace to your religion” comment was way out of control several posts back.
Those who desire literalism tend to be either young or uneducated, both of which are easily ameliorated.
 
wow…So it is your position that Darwin is a) of no historical significance, b) added nothing to the study of biology and c0 Catholic Children should be ignorant of the world in which they live?
I am asking for a reference to your statement that God created evolution. Where did you get this idea?

Peace,
Ed
 
You are failing to interpret your Bible literally. How can an “atmospheric expanse” separate water from water when it is not waterproof? How can it support the Sun and Moon being “in the firmament” (Genesis 1:17), when if the Sun was in the Earth’s atmosphere life on Earth would not be possible.

You are ignoring Job, which definitely mentions brass. Are you one of those people who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible you want to believe? Don’t you believe that the Book of Job is correct when it refers to “brass”, and to a metal mirror? A metal mirror is solid, not an “atmospheric expanse”.

How can an “atmospheric expanse” have windows in it? See Genesis 7:11.

The literal interpretation of the Bible is fraught with problems. I strongly suggest that you abandon it for something more sensible.

rossum
I strongly suggest the opposite.

"Literal Sense

"The first sense then for understanding the Bible is the literal sense.

"Definition: the literal sense of Scripture is the meaning which the human author directly intended and the author’s words convey.

"Criteria to understand the literal sense:

"The literary form that the author used is the first aid in determining what the author meant. If the author wrote poetry instead of history, then the literary form of poetry assists in determining the meaning intended by the author. Some other literary forms of the Bible include history, law, songs, love stories, stories (parables), etc.

"The literary history of the biblical book or of the section of the Bible that contains the book also aids in determining the meaning intended by the author. Literary history of a book includes what is known about the author, his background, his historical period of Israel’s history, etc.

"An example of the Church using the literal sense of a scripture passage in order to understand what meaning we should get from it is the 6th chapter of the Gospel according to John.

"Literary Form of John 6:25-69:

"Most scripture scholars today affirm that John’s gospel is historical in nature. Hence we believe that John strove to preserve both the words and actions of Jesus. Unlike the Synoptics, John wrote through the eyes of the faith of the late Apostolic Church in light of the way that faith translated into practice and worship.

“Where John is clearly biographical, the literal meaning is emphasized by linguistic psychology: multiple repetition of the message in different words. Where literalness is intended, intended meaning is reinforced by recording the reaction to literal meaning by the hearers without the speaker’s correction.”

Peace,
Ed
 
Your making the mistake of interpreting the bible literally at all times. Listen, feel free to debate me on the issues, but I don’t need the continual condescending words. As a matter of fact your “disgrace to your religion” comment was way out of control several posts back.
He wasn’t being in the least bit rude or condescending. You’re just looking for a way to divert things because you have no response.
 
I strongly suggest the opposite.

"Literal Sense

"The first sense then for understanding the Bible is the literal sense.

"Definition: the literal sense of Scripture is the meaning which the human author directly intended and the author’s words convey.

"Criteria to understand the literal sense:

"The literary form that the author used is the first aid in determining what the author meant. If the author wrote poetry instead of history, then the literary form of poetry assists in determining the meaning intended by the author. Some other literary forms of the Bible include history, law, songs, love stories, stories (parables), etc.

"The literary history of the biblical book or of the section of the Bible that contains the book also aids in determining the meaning intended by the author. Literary history of a book includes what is known about the author, his background, his historical period of Israel’s history, etc.

"An example of the Church using the literal sense of a scripture passage in order to understand what meaning we should get from it is the 6th chapter of the Gospel according to John.

"Literary Form of John 6:25-69:

"Most scripture scholars today affirm that John’s gospel is historical in nature. Hence we believe that John strove to preserve both the words and actions of Jesus. Unlike the Synoptics, John wrote through the eyes of the faith of the late Apostolic Church in light of the way that faith translated into practice and worship.

“Where John is clearly biographical, the literal meaning is emphasized by linguistic psychology: multiple repetition of the message in different words. Where literalness is intended, intended meaning is reinforced by recording the reaction to literal meaning by the hearers without the speaker’s correction.”

Peace,
Ed
The problem here is that that’s not what the word literal means, Ed. Literal means entirely as is, without metaphor, symbolism, or any other poetic literary technique. If the bible says “Jesus is the vine”, any interpretation other than concluding that Jesus was an actual chlorophyll-utilizing, CO2 producing, plant is a NON-literal interpretation.
 
I strongly suggest the opposite.

"Literal Sense

"The first sense then for understanding the Bible is the literal sense.

"Definition: the literal sense of Scripture is the meaning which the human author directly intended and the author’s words convey.

"Criteria to understand the literal sense:

"The literary form that the author used is the first aid in determining what the author meant. If the author wrote poetry instead of history, then the literary form of poetry assists in determining the meaning intended by the author. Some other literary forms of the Bible include history, law, songs, love stories, stories (parables), etc.

"The literary history of the biblical book or of the section of the Bible that contains the book also aids in determining the meaning intended by the author. Literary history of a book includes what is known about the author, his background, his historical period of Israel’s history, etc.

"An example of the Church using the literal sense of a scripture passage in order to understand what meaning we should get from it is the 6th chapter of the Gospel according to John.

"Literary Form of John 6:25-69:

"Most scripture scholars today affirm that John’s gospel is historical in nature. Hence we believe that John strove to preserve both the words and actions of Jesus. Unlike the Synoptics, John wrote through the eyes of the faith of the late Apostolic Church in light of the way that faith translated into practice and worship.

“Where John is clearly biographical, the literal meaning is emphasized by linguistic psychology: multiple repetition of the message in different words. Where literalness is intended, intended meaning is reinforced by recording the reaction to literal meaning by the hearers without the speaker’s correction.”

Peace,
Ed
The only thing that has changed between the people we are now and those of biblical eras is technology. People used analogys as we do, they had figures of speech as we do, past experiences with metephors etc… Point being, you have to break it down. Sometimes you can clearly tell when the language gets poetic or drifts into terminology we are unfamiliar with.

That is not a reason to abandon the meaning behind what is written or what is "poured into " a word.
 
Evolution exists: populations’ genomes change over time. Since evolution exists, and God created everything that exists you have your proof. Science tells us that evolution exists. The Catholic Church tells us the God made everything.

rossum
Then you missed my post regarding what the Church is telling everyone, Catholic or not. Please keep in mind that if a certain Pope said something positive about this theory then that is all anybody needs to refer to to say the Church accepts the theory, and Catholics should too. I need to preface the following by stating this: The Holy Father is selected by the college of Cardinals but it is understood that this selection process involves the real, literal (name removed by moderator)ut of the Holy Spirit of God. Pope Benedict was a university professor and is fully cognizant of the reaction to anything he might say about this topic. For example, the reaction to the comments made by Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy and that are widely quoted as an affirmation and/or acceptance of this theory (and I am not diminishing it by calling it a theory). I seem to recall reading in the past, on this forum, that there is no “proof” in science, more than once. But I accept your use of the term and the Church does as well.

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

“Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.”

Peace,
Ed
 
The only thing that has changed between the people we are now and those of biblical eras is technology. People used analogys as we do, they had figures of speech as we do, past experiences with metephors etc… Point being, you have to break it down. Sometimes you can clearly tell when the language gets poetic or drifts into terminology we are unfamiliar with.

That is not a reason to abandon the meaning behind what is written or what is "poured into " a word.
And you’ve got the direct line to God to tell you exactly what’s being literal and what’s poetic, do you?
 
He wasn’t being in the least bit rude or condescending. You’re just looking for a way to divert things because you have no response.
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.
 
Then you missed my post regarding what the Church is telling everyone, Catholic or not. Please keep in mind that if a certain Pope said something positive about this theory then that is all anybody needs to refer to to say the Church accepts the theory, and Catholics should too. I need to preface the following by stating this: The Holy Father is selected by the college of Cardinals but it is understood that this selection process involves the real, literal (name removed by moderator)ut of the Holy Spirit of God. Pope Benedict was a university professor and is fully cognizant of the reaction to anything he might say about this topic. For example, the reaction to the comments made by Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy and that are widely quoted as an affirmation and/or acceptance of this theory (and I am not diminishing it by calling it a theory). I seem to recall reading in the past, on this forum, that there is no “proof” in science, more than once. But I accept your use of the term and the Church does as well.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top