Darwinism in schools?

[edwest2]

Indeed it does.

No He did not, and Genesis is explicit on this. I am surprised that so many Biblical literalists make this error.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Plants were not created ex nihilo, but were created indirectly from the earth.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Fish and birds were not created ex nihilo, but were created indirectly from the waters.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Animals were not created ex nihilo, but were created indirectly from the earth.

God did not create directly, but indirectly. Evolution can be seen as an indirect method of creation.

rossum

Why are you quoting the Bible? And how do you know that God created indirectly based on Bible passages? Either the Bible is a science book or it is not. God is not God if he can’t do things that are beyond nature - supernatural - beyond human understanding and without the use of science.

We have one miracle - a supernatural healing by God - attributed to the intercession of Pope John Paul II. We are waiting on the second confirmed miracle and we will have a new saint in our lifetime.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

There is nothing wrong with that. First, the writers of the OT did not meet Adam and Eve in person, which means that the level at which they can be said to be historical is debatable (i.e. are the names just placeholders for the prototypical humans, etc.?). Second, we have real people in symbolic settings all the time. Take George Washington and the cherry tree, or any other legend about anyone ever. Or the Trojan War heroes, for that matter.

There is no debate at all.

"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).”

And if you think Genesis uses a place holder, read this:

bible.cc/romans/5-12.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Quite frankly I’m surprised Evolution is such a controversy here.

When I was in RCIA I was told evolution and Catholicism were compatible.

What’s changed?

"Pope says evolution can’t be proven

“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

 

[edwest2]

But not always followed. We have briefly discussed the example of the Church’s attitude to slavery, which has changed since Roman times. The text has not changed, but the interpretation of the text has changed.

We now know a ot more about the universe than the Biblical authors – Genesis 1 does not mention any of the other planets for instance. It is not a science textbook, and does not have a place in modern science lessons.

rossum

Then why bother with it here?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

You are taking me far too literally. It is more than just the people that I was talking about. Why do you think that we cannot find a waterproof firmament, with windows? That too is not to be taken literally.

Because Jesus was wise, and taught the people around Him in terms they cound understand. How many would have followed Him if he had talked about quarks and Deoxyribonucleic acid? He talked in terms that the people then could understand. You are trying to limit science to what those people understood.

rossum

The Bible never tells us: “In ancient times, men were more like animals and lived as animals do. Then, over great ages, man gradually changed and became men as you are today.”

No need to explain DNA, physics, chemistry, etc.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Where is this stated in the Bible, or is it just some fallible human academic’s opinion? You will also note that the two genealogies of Joseph do not match.

My point is that Jesus is not accepted as the Messiah be many people who accept the Old Testament/Tanakh as scripture.

rossum

What does that have to do with Catholic teaching? Muslims don’t think Jesus was the Son of God either.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Why are you quoting the Bible?

Because the Bible is meant to contain Christian scripture, or was I misinformed?

And how do you know that God created indirectly based on Bible passages?

Did you notice the passages I highlighted? “Let the earth bring forth…” That is different from “God said ‘Let there be light’ …”

Either the Bible is a science book or it is not.

False dichotomy. It contains a little primitive science, such as an estimate of pi. It contains other things, such as theology, which are not science. The Bible is both.

God is not God if he can’t do things that are beyond nature - supernatural - beyond human understanding and without the use of science.

Precisely. which is why the descriptions given in the Bible are fitted to human understanding. The Bible does not say, “And God created Deoxyribonucleic acid…” because ancient Hebrew did not have words for Deoxyribonucleic acid. God pitched scripture at the level of understanding of those who wrote it down.

We now do have words for Deoxyribonucleic acid, so our understanding of the science involved has advanced beyond that of the Biblical authors.

rossum

 

[rossum]

"Pope says evolution can’t be proven

“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.”

The Pope’s understanding of science is correct. No scientific theory is ever proven. To state that a scientific theory is not proven is a tautology. Newton’s theory of gravity was never proven. Which is just as well, because it failed in certain extreme conditions and was replaced by Einstein’s theory. Einstein’s theory also fails in even more extreme conditions, and will in due course be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity. That theory will in its turn never be proven.

Scientific theories are “the best we have so far”. Because we are always discovering more about the world, and we do not know what we will discover in future, then we cannot be sure that we will never find a disproof of any theory in the future.

All swans were white, until the discovery of black swans in Australia. Scientific theories are the same. All of them are provisional, including the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution.

The Pope understands science correctly. You appear to have read too much into the Pope’s words.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Because the Bible is meant to contain Christian scripture, or was I misinformed?

Did you notice the passages I highlighted? “Let the earth bring forth…” That is different from “God said ‘Let there be light’ …”

False dichotomy. It contains a little primitive science, such as an estimate of pi. It contains other things, such as theology, which are not science. The Bible is both.

Precisely. which is why the descriptions given in the Bible are fitted to human understanding. The Bible does not say, “And God created Deoxyribonucleic acid…” because ancient Hebrew did not have words for Deoxyribonucleic acid. God pitched scripture at the level of understanding of those who wrote it down.

We now do have words for Deoxyribonucleic acid, so our understanding of the science involved has advanced beyond that of the Biblical authors.

rossum

The Bible is both? News to me. “Science is silent about God, the supernatural, and most certainly, the Bible.” I’m not quoting you but others who have commented on the ‘non-overlapping magisteria.’

There are no scientific, peer-reviewed papers analyzing the claims made in Genesis. Your interpretation of parts of Genesis are only your interpretation. Which requires me to go to the present, since primitive people keep getting brought up.

Jesus said, do this in remembrance of me. The Eucharist contains the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. And where does science stand on that?

Or to paraphrase a famous atheist: “If we knew then what we now know, would we ever have become religious?” Note, I am not accusing you of anything but that same argument is one of the persuasions out there.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

The Pope’s understanding of science is correct. No scientific theory is ever proven. To state that a scientific theory is not proven is a tautology. Newton’s theory of gravity was never proven. Which is just as well, because it failed in certain extreme conditions and was replaced by Einstein’s theory. Einstein’s theory also fails in even more extreme conditions, and will in due course be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity. That theory will in its turn never be proven.

Scientific theories are “the best we have so far”. Because we are always discovering more about the world, and we do not know what we will discover in future, then we cannot be sure that we will never find a disproof of any theory in the future.

All swans were white, until the discovery of black swans in Australia. Scientific theories are the same. All of them are provisional, including the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution.

The Pope understands science correctly. You appear to have read too much into the Pope’s words.

rossum

On the contrary, the Pope is exactly correct. Therefore, calling such a theory a fact here is not accurate. It is impossible to verify or disprove.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ion]

Indeed “Let the earth bring forth…” sounds like evolution but it is not because there was no death ; for the time before Aadams’s sin you need a theory without death; Darwin’s one hapened after the sin, and produced only adaptation in my opinion…

 

[Farsight001]

Indeed “Let the earth bring forth…” sounds like evolution but it is not because there was no death ; for the time before Aadams’s sin you need a theory without death; Darwin’s one hapened after the sin, and produced only adaptation in my opinion…

Spiritual death. For by sin, death entered the world. What kind of death has sin ALWAYS caused? Spiritual death. There is nothing in there about there not being physical death before the fall.

 

[edwest2]

To rossum,

What is your stake in this? Your repeated comment that religion must be kept out of science class? Is there a petition circulating among Catholics to get religion into science class? An order from Church authority? Has anyone here even suggested this should be done? Just because some Catholics do not believe the it’s a ‘fact’ idea will lead to… what? Letters to Catholic schools from those here to oppose teaching science in science class or to add God to science class?

I’ve seen no great groundswell of activity. Not here. Not by anyone here.

At least one person here believes the Church is against ‘fundamentalism.’ The problem is, the Church is undecided about the time question regarding the earth itself:

"The Time Question

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago."

Peace,
Ed

 

[Baelor]

It is clearly not permissable. Quotes on request.

I do not want quotes. I want you to reconcile the two different creation accounts while taking both literally. Do not post outside sources beyond quoting them in moderation.

…And if you think Genesis uses a place holder, read this:

bible.cc/romans/5-12.htm

You misunderstood my post. I agree with the content of this post.

 

[Ion]

Spiritual death. For by sin, death entered the world. What kind of death has sin ALWAYS caused? Spiritual death. There is nothing in there about there not being physical death before the fall.

There was no death; after the sin death entered the world; our Lord Jesus Christ won against it for all of us so we can have eternal life

 

[Farsight001]

There was no death; after the sin death entered the world; our Lord Jesus Christ won against it for all of us so we can have eternal life

All you did was repeat yourself. Yes, after sin, death entered the world. But as I already explained, this was clearly spiritual death, NOT physical death as you imply.

 

[Ion]

All you did was repeat yourself. Yes, after sin, death entered the world. But as I already explained, this was clearly spiritual death, NOT physical death as you imply.

As a matter of fact, by contrary, your body dies and your soul doesn’t;
How did you get it the other way ?

 

[Farsight001]

As a matter of fact, by contrary, your body dies and your soul doesn’t;
How did you get it the other way ?

I explained exactly how. Spiritual death is separation from God, which happens due to sin. It was by sin that death (i.e., spiritual death, i.e. separation from God) entered the world. There is nothing physical about this. * I already explained this*. Please try to read more carefully in the future. I’m not a fan of repeating myself.

 

[rossum]

On the contrary, the Pope is exactly correct. Therefore, calling such a theory a fact here is not accurate. It is impossible to verify or disprove.

Gravity is both a theory and a fact. The theory of gravity is impossible to prove, but it is possible to disprove it, as Newton’s theory was disproved by Eddington’s experiment in 1919.

Evolution is also both a theory and a fact.

Evolution is a fact. Bacteria do evolve resistance to antibiotics.

Evolution is a theory. The theory of evolution cannot be proved, but it could in principle be disproved. Darwin gave two possible methods of disproof, and Haldane gave another: “a Cambrian rabbit.” No doubt there are other potential disproofs possible.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Indeed “Let the earth bring forth…” sounds like evolution but it is not because there was no death ; for the time before Aadams’s sin you need a theory without death; Darwin’s one hapened after the sin, and produced only adaptation in my opinion…

Animals cannot form in the womb/egg without death. For example, anything with separate digits is formed by growing a continuous hand, and the cells forming the web between the digits dying, to let the digits separate. Animals with webbed feet, like frogs or ducks, do not have this die-off and so retain the webbing between their digits.

For mammals, the living cells of the placenta form in the womb and then die after the birth. You cannot separate life from some sort of death, at the very least the death of living cells.

Or are you saying that none of the animals created before the Fall were placental mammals?

rossum