Evolution In The Classroom

[carinapir]

See Part 5 of this letter:

damienhighschool.org/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html

I encourage you not to rush headlong in believing something that even Pope Benedict said cannot be proven. The atheist form of evolution taught in all public schools is a deception and you should realize that. You should also realize that science cannot study God or the supernatural. By giving to mindless nature the power to create, it removes that power from the Creator God.

Peace,
Ed

I read Part 5 at this link, however it changes nothing. If you want to believe that this means that Catholics must literally believe that Eve came from Adam’s rib then go right ahead, but I don’t believe that that is the official Catholic teaching. I will have to do some research.

I don’t think that you fully understood the quotation that I provided. Pope Pius XII said that it may be the case that the human body did evolve from living matter. Polygenism is really just the scientist saying that the body may have evolved out of various races or species. This is all that evolution deals with with regards to humans, the creation of the physical body. Again, the Church agrees that the physical body may have evolved under the direction of God. The Church also says that at some point God imbued one human with a soul (Adam) and this is monogenism. It is from this one true human that we are all descended from.

You see polygenism and monogenism are talking about two separate things: the body and the soul. Science will never be able to prove which bodies had souls and which did not. Science will never be able to prove whether all of a sudden hundreds of humans had souls all at once or if one only soul was given. I think that even an atheist would agree with that!

I also think that a reasonable atheist would agree that evolution by it self does not disprove the existence of God. It disproves some people’s beliefs about exactly how God created the world but it does not disprove his mere existence.

It does bother some religious people to think that God is more hands off then they would like to believe with regards to the changes in nature, but that is your own failing. God never said that he would continuously direct every aspect of the world and our lives, like a great puppet master. Do you seriously believe that God is not capable of creating such a dynamic world as the one that we live in?

Quotes like the below only refer to a plan, purpose, or goals within our frame of reference. No one, even scientists, know God’s overall plan, so they cannot know whether the seeming randomness is part of God’s plan or not.

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

 

[gearhead]

I guess I need help. Please share with me the definition of science as well as the definition of empirical science. And for all the other folks list the steps of the scientific method.

Courtesy of Wikipedia:

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

The phrase “empirical science” is redundant.

 

[hatsoff]

Yes Hatsoff, Strobel is a journalist and was an aetheist. In his book that’s all he does, ask scientists.

Oh, I find that very hard to believe. But let’s say for the moment that you’re right. Why allow a creationist apologist filter all the scientific information? Why not just go straight to the scientists?

Strobel presents arguments that aetheists make and puts the onus on the scientist to disprove it.

Evolution has nothing directly to do with atheism or theism. Evolution is about the physical change of life on earth over time. It does not prove or disprove the existence of God. That’s a matter for philosophers to tackle, not natural scientists.

Hatsoff, I’ve been a Christian for about seven years and I’m 45. Prior to that I was agnostic, very indifferent towards God. The event that changed me was being in my grandmothers room as she passed away. All I can say Hatsoff is that I sensed my grandmothers soul leaving her body. When I looked down at her I knew she had passed, and I was looking at a shell. It was at that point that I thought religion wasn’t “hokie” after all.

I joined RCIA at my church and was on my way to learning about God and the Christian faith. I also needed more then what I was getting out of mass. That’s why I like apologetics because it answers a lot of questions I have. I thank guys, like Strobel, that uses science to answer my questions. It helps my faith when I read scientists are discovering God’s fingerprints in areas they’re doing research.

That’s nice, but the problem is Strobel isn’t qualified to tell you about evolutionary biology. The fact that he’s a creationist all but ensures that he should not be trusted to report on science, much less sell his own independent conclusions thereupon.

If you’re interested in the scientific question of whether or not all biological life shares a common ancestor, then the scientific community is hands down the best place to look for an answer.

I don’t see it as a problem to state in a class that we’re here because of either a random or directed process. Now if a teacher is making a case for the directed process and therefore we should follow Islam, then I would have a problem. As long as you’re not pushing a specific faith I don’t see why it’s a problem. FWIW.

Calling evolution a directed process is a mischaracterization. In evolutionary theory, speciation is entirely undirected. What you suggest amounts to teachers presenting knowingly false information in the classroom.

 

[edwest2]

I read Part 5 at this link, however it changes nothing. If you want to believe that this means that Catholics must literally believe that Eve came from Adam’s rib then go right ahead, but I don’t believe that that is the official Catholic teaching. I will have to do some research.

I don’t think that you fully understood the quotation that I provided. Pope Pius XII said that it may be the case that the human body did evolve from living matter. Polygenism is really just the scientist saying that the body may have evolved out of various races or species. This is all that evolution deals with with regards to humans, the creation of the physical body. Again, the Church agrees that the physical body may have evolved under the direction of God. The Church also says that at some point God imbued one human with a soul (Adam) and this is monogenism. It is from this one true human that we are all descended from.

You see polygenism and monogenism are talking about two separate things: the body and the soul. Science will never be able to prove which bodies had souls and which did not. Science will never be able to prove whether all of a sudden hundreds of humans had souls all at once or if one only soul was given. I think that even an atheist would agree with that!

I also think that a reasonable atheist would agree that evolution by it self does not disprove the existence of God. It disproves some people’s beliefs about exactly how God created the world but it does not disprove his mere existence.

It does bother some religious people to think that God is more hands off then they would like to believe with regards to the changes in nature, but that is your own failing. God never said that he would continuously direct every aspect of the world and our lives, like a great puppet master. Do you seriously believe that God is not capable of creating such a dynamic world as the one that we live in?

Quotes like the below only refer to a plan, purpose, or goals within our frame of reference. No one, even scientists, know God’s overall plan, so they cannot know whether the seeming randomness is part of God’s plan or not.

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Changes nothing? Really?

Evolution is the Atheist Apologetic. Period.

Atheist: I believe in evolution. I am an accidental product that got spit out. It is irrational to attribute anything to God or some supernatural force. I came from nothing and I’m going to die to nothing.

Catholic: Evolution may have happened but it cannot be scientifically proven.

Catholics cannot believe that the biology textbook got it right because it explicitly excludes the role of divine providence in the development of life. It is coated in materialist poison. It cannot be “reality” since it does not recognize a greater reality that is our mission to preach to the world.

Peace,
Ed

 

[carinapir]

Changes nothing? Really?

Evolution is the Atheist Apologetic. Period.

Atheist: I believe in evolution. I am an accidental product that got spit out. It is irrational to attribute anything to God or some supernatural force. I came from nothing and I’m going to die to nothing.

Catholic: Evolution may have happened but it cannot be scientifically proven.

Catholics cannot believe that the biology textbook got it right because it explicitly excludes the role of divine providence in the development of life. It is coated in materialist poison. It cannot be “reality” since it does not recognize a greater reality that is our mission to preach to the world.

Peace,
Ed

You need to think this through. Evolution could be proven and it would not take away from God at all. The only reason why atheists believe that evolution points to no God is because they already don’t believe in God. A Catholic should look at evolution and immediately say “well, an all-powerful God could have created us using this process.” Then athiests would have to shut up.

Evolution does not prove or disprove God in any way. It is only an theory based on observation of the natural world. It does not attempt to take God into account as it is only a natural observation. We, as individuals, must take in the information and add God or not according to our beliefs.

 

[liquidpele]

Changes nothing? Really?

Evolution is the Atheist Apologetic. Period.

Atheist: I believe in evolution. I am an accidental product that got spit out. It is irrational to attribute anything to God or some supernatural force. I came from nothing and I’m going to die to nothing.

Catholic: Evolution may have happened but it cannot be scientifically proven.

Catholics cannot believe that the biology textbook got it right because it explicitly excludes the role of divine providence in the development of life. It is coated in materialist poison. It cannot be “reality” since it does not recognize a greater reality that is our mission to preach to the world.

Peace,
Ed

Why is evolution atheistic? The catholic church CLEARLY says that evolution is not denied or approved, thus even with evolution God could have still played a role even if it wasn’t directly adjusting our genetics thus not making it atheistic. Do you think God has to literally adjust and control every thing in this world or something?

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

I really fail to see how you think you have a leg to stand on here.

You STILL have not answered my question about why you have a vendetta against evolution and not other sciences that go against the literal version of genesis such as cosmology and geology. Why do you focus on evolution?

 

[liquidpele]

Are any scientists studying the supernatural?

Sure, if I only pick the marbles that say evolution from the box of marbles I will assemble quite a case that the box only contains evolution. Why can’t you see that the a priori exclusion of other marbles contaminates the interpretations? It makes the pronouncements untrustworthy.

Science is a study of the natural world, of course they don’t study the supernatural.

Your problem is that you’re holding a box full of marbles that say evolution, and you’re picking them up and saying “see, evolution is wrong!”… it’s beyond ridiculous. You have no concept of what science is and your crusade against evolution is extreme to the point of you being deluded and blinded by your own hubris. You continuously claim that evolution is atheistic even though the majority of Catholics accept it , and continuously claim that no evidence exists when the mountains of evidence are everywhere if you simply google for it. In short as a metaphor you’re a person claiming a UFO abducted them trying to convince the world that a dream you had means aliens exist and blaming the government for the fact that everyone calls you nuts.

 

[edwest2]

You need to think this through. Evolution could be proven and it would not take away from God at all. The only reason why atheists believe that evolution points to no God is because they already don’t believe in God. A Catholic should look at evolution and immediately say “well, an all-powerful God could have created us using this process.” Then athiests would have to shut up.

Evolution does not prove or disprove God in any way. It is only an theory based on observation of the natural world. It does not attempt to take God into account as it is only a natural observation. We, as individuals, must take in the information and add God or not according to our beliefs.

No, an all-powerful God is, by definition, God. Eve was made by God from Adam’s side. Period. This is not supported by science but it is an essential truth. A fact.

The serious problem today is the current atheist marketing campaign. Atheist clubs are starting up in schools. And the atheist apologetic already appears on billboards: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief. That is as clear as it gets. Along with: Man Created God, and Imagine There’s No Religion. This is not opinion but based on the book that tells them: you are nothing, a cosmic accident, accountable to nothing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

you need to think this through. Evolution could be proven and it would not take away from god at all. The only reason why atheists believe that evolution points to no god is because they already don’t believe in god. A catholic should look at evolution and immediately say “well, an all-powerful god could have created us using this process.” then athiests would have to shut up.

Evolution does not prove or disprove god in any way. It is only an theory based on observation of the natural world. It does not attempt to take god into account as it is only a natural observation. We, as individuals, must take in the information and add god or not according to our beliefs.

thank you.

 

[liquidpele]

No, an all-powerful God is, by definition, God. Eve was made by God from Adam’s side. Period. This is not supported by science but it is an essential truth. A fact.

The serious problem today is the current atheist marketing campaign. Atheist clubs are starting up in schools. And the atheist apologetic already appears on billboards: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief. That is as clear as it gets. Along with: Man Created God, and Imagine There’s No Religion. This is not opinion but based on the book that tells them: you are nothing, a cosmic accident, accountable to nothing.

Peace,
Ed

Fact. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

The issue here is that you think evolution is a plot by atheists. Evolution has been a well known and documented idea of hundreds of years… supported by theists throughout that time and now atheists like that theory too and all of a sudden you’re trying to make this an “us vs them” debate over evolution instead of what the topic is really about - the existence of God. You think by disproving evolution you can defend God, but you’re really only crippling your own arguments by defending an indefensible position.

 

[gearhead]

The serious problem today is the current atheist marketing campaign. Atheist clubs are starting up in schools. And the atheist apologetic already appears on billboards: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief. That is as clear as it gets.

I personally think that was a bad slogan, but I’ve heard the FFRF’s rationale for it: that Darwin’s work was important and worthy of praise. In that respect I agree, but the slogan makes it sound like atheists worship Charles Darwin. I think it did more harm than good.

Along with: Man Created God, and Imagine There’s No Religion. This is not opinion but based on the book that tells them: you are nothing, a cosmic accident, accountable to nothing.

We’re definitely accountable to ourselves, and I won’t speak for you but I certainly don’t consider myself to be “nothing”.

Anyhow, if any public school teacher were to spout these slogans to their science class, I’d condemn that behaviour as strongly as you would.

 

[carinapir]

No, an all-powerful God is, by definition, God. Eve was made by God from Adam’s side. Period. This is not supported by science but it is an essential truth. A fact.

The serious problem today is the current atheist marketing campaign. Atheist clubs are starting up in schools. And the atheist apologetic already appears on billboards: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief. That is as clear as it gets. Along with: Man Created God, and Imagine There’s No Religion. This is not opinion but based on the book that tells them: you are nothing, a cosmic accident, accountable to nothing.

Peace,
Ed

Dude, seriously, even if believing that Eve was created from Adam’s rib is a required belief, science will never be able to disprove that God did just that. Just like no one can prove whether Jesus really did turn water into wine or walk on water. It would simply be a miracle outside of science.

 

[buffalo]

Courtesy of Wikipedia:

The phrase “empirical science” is redundant.

Don’t bother me with Wikepedia.

I guess I will have to do this for you:

sci⋅ence

–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

em⋅pir⋅i⋅cal

–adjective 1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment. 2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine. 3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

Now care to list the scientific method or will you shirk from this too?

 

[gearhead]

Now care to list the scientific method or will you shirk from this too?

Why should I? I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your question came out of simple ignorance. Apparently you know perfectly well what science is and how it works, so I can only conclude that the misleading nature of your question was deliberate.

 

[carinapir]

Why should I? I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your question came out of simple ignorance. Apparently you know perfectly well what science is and how it works, so I can only conclude that the misleading nature of your question was deliberate.

Buffalo is clearly missing the point. It does not matter if evolution is still a theory that is not thoroughly proven in the details. The fact remains that the Catholic Church has said that the human body could indeed have evolved from living material. It is the addition of the soul that created Adam. Evolution could be proven and it would still only refer to the physical body. The soul is the sphere of religion and science will never be able to touch on that. Even athiest scientist should agree on that point.

 

[buffalo]

The catholic church CLEARLY says that evolution is not denied or approved, thus even with evolution God could have still played a role even if it wasn’t directly adjusting our genetics thus not making it atheistic.

Magisterial Source please?

 

[buffalo]

The fact remains that the Catholic Church has said that the human body could indeed have evolved from living material.

What about Eve?

 

[edwest2]

Fact. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

The issue here is that you think evolution is a plot by atheists. Evolution has been a well known and documented idea of hundreds of years… supported by theists throughout that time and now atheists like that theory too and all of a sudden you’re trying to make this an “us vs them” debate over evolution instead of what the topic is really about - the existence of God. You think by disproving evolution you can defend God, but you’re really only crippling your own arguments by defending an indefensible position.

When did Darwin’s book come out? It wasn’t hundreds of years ago. The Church has always spoken cautiously about it and the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial in the 1920s showed that other Christian groups didn’t like the idea either. So please don’t come off like this is some simple problem.

It is precisely an us vs them issue. Just read the previous posts. The rabid, keep your religion out of the classroom posts. Of course, you are going to defend that on scientific grounds but what you don’t get is this: Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution, which just happens to be the form currently being taught. It is complete and totally functional and God is a useless addition. So useless that atheists love it. That is and will be the problem.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

When did Darwin’s book come out? It wasn’t hundreds of years ago. The Church has always spoken cautiously about it and the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial in the 1920s showed that other Christian groups didn’t like the idea either. So please don’t come off like this is some simple problem.

It is precisely an us vs them issue. Just read the previous posts. The rabid, keep your religion out of the classroom posts. Of course, you are going to defend that on scientific grounds but what you don’t get is this: Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution, which just happens to be the form currently being taught. It is complete and totally functional and God is a useless addition. So useless that atheists love it. That is and will be the problem.

Peace,
Ed

Oh look, you’ve once again shown you know nothing about the subject.

The Monkey trials was about human evolution, not evolution in general. Also, evolution was known before Darwin. Darwin simply came up with the theory of natural selection - about how evolution happened - and suggested that this applied to humans as well.

I don’t care about religion in the classroom, I care about religion in a science classroom, so stop it with the strawman arguments.

Catholics don’t have to believe in atheistic evolution… evolution doesn’t say anything about the origins of anything… you’re once again making up your own definitions and demonizing what is legitimate science. You’re trying to attack what you see as a threat, not realizing that IT IS NOT A THREAT because you’re so ignorant on the subject and apparently really fragile in your faith that you see evolution as a threat and atheist agenda. It’s like me declaring that cheese is a theist conspiracy because a lot of Catholics like cheese.

And for the THIRD TIME you STILL have not answered my question about why you have a vendetta against evolution and not other sciences that go against the literal version of genesis such as cosmology and geology. Why do you focus on evolution?

 

[liquidpele]

Magisterial Source please?

I’ve given you the links many times before… but here you go AGAIN:

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
biblelight.net/darwin.htm

The Cahtolic.com site and Popes have declared that evolution of the body is not a threat to the church, so I fail to see how you think you somehow know better. Stop being so arrogant.