Fact or Fiction !>

[twinc]

should Catholic scientists and teachers in Catholic schools and Churches accept and teach Noah’s global flood as fact or fiction - twinc

 

[bpbasilphx]

Why would there be a need for a scientist to teach ANYTHING about Noah’s Flood?

 

[Corki]

should Catholic scientists and teachers in Catholic schools and Churches accept and teach Noah’s global flood as fact or fiction - twinc

They are not allowed to teach the story of Noah as fiction. Catholics are permitted to believe the story of Noah as a factual recounting or as an allegorical teaching but not fiction or a myth. Teachers must especially be careful not to give their students the idea that one point of view or the other is excluded.

 

[Spencerian]

should Catholic scientists and teachers in Catholic schools and Churches accept and teach Noah’s global flood as fact or fiction - twinc

twinc,

The flood, as described in Genesis (as with all stories in the Bible) should always be treated with canonical respect as to its authority. In simpler language, Sacred Scripture tells us important information not necessarily fixed on history or science, but morality. That is why we will never see the Pope speak “infallibly” on matters that do not correspond with faith and morals as it pertains to Catholic doctrine or dogma.

Not that Wikipedia is the best source for anything, their article on the “Deluge myth” and its many sources illustrates something important: If there was any event that caused great destruction, fear and change in ancient society (and even today), it was a flood. Floods literally wiped away civilizations, and it was a matter feared by all. As a result, flood stories were the ancient’s version of today’s “apocalypse” stories.

Needless to say, the story of Noah is more a tale of *morality *than survival. But by using the unquestioned destructive power of a flood, the story of Noah gets it point across–without us Catholics having to worry whether a specific flood happened here or there or then.

And to answer your question from official teachings, the Catechism teaches the story of Noah as accurate in that it maintains an important covenant with God. So, yes, Catholic teachers should be teaching Noah’s story as biblical and historical for purposes of our faith. Science and history, as with the initial start of the Story of Genesis, are not relevant here.

 

[edwest2]

twinc,

The flood, as described in Genesis (as with all stories in the Bible) should always be treated with canonical respect as to its authority. In simpler language, Sacred Scripture tells us important information not necessarily fixed on history or science, but morality. That is why we will never see the Pope speak “infallibly” on matters that do not correspond with faith and morals as it pertains to Catholic doctrine or dogma.

Not that Wikipedia is the best source for anything, their article on the “Deluge myth” and its many sources illustrates something important: If there was any event that caused great destruction, fear and change in ancient society (and even today), it was a flood. Floods literally wiped away civilizations, and it was a matter feared by all. As a result, flood stories were the ancient’s version of today’s “apocalypse” stories.

Needless to say, the story of Noah is more a tale of *morality *than survival. But by using the unquestioned destructive power of a flood, the story of Noah gets it point across–without us Catholics having to worry whether a specific flood happened here or there or then.

And to answer your question from official teachings, the Catechism teaches the story of Noah as accurate in that it maintains an important covenant with God. So, yes, Catholic teachers should be teaching Noah’s story as biblical and historical for purposes of our faith. Science and history, as with the initial start of the Story of Genesis, are not relevant here.

It is interesting to see some post here to say that a certain passage’s symbolic meaning outweighs the actual event. No, there are no scientific formulas in the Bible but it does record things God actually did. Some want to reduce the actual work of God to something they can always explain. Today, miracles related to the intercession of Pope John Paul II are being waited on. By definition, science will not have a natural explanation for them. Instead of writing that Bronze age sheep herders were too stupid to understand certain things, what explanation could anyone offer here if they were standing next to Jesus and He raised Lazarus from the dead? Or brought back to life a boy being carried in his own funeral procession?

It matters very much that Catholics understand events in the Bible as they are written unless the Magisterium of the Church tells us otherwise. Science cannot study supernatural events and the constant attempts to find scientific explanations by knowledgeable people are likely to fail since they sometimes compete with Divine Revelation. And some critics have little to no grasp of what the Church teaches or selectively quote only certain things without considering the full picture. Jesus Christ could manipulate the world around Him because He is God. He did not use science of any kind.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Spencerian]

It is interesting to see some post here to say that a certain passage’s symbolic meaning outweighs the actual event. No, there are no scientific formulas in the Bible but it does record things God actually did. Some want to reduce the actual work of God to something they can always explain. Today, miracles related to the intercession of Pope John Paul II are being waited on. By definition, science will not have a natural explanation for them. Instead of writing that Bronze age sheep herders were too stupid to understand certain things, what explanation could anyone offer here if they were standing next to Jesus and He raised Lazarus from the dead? Or brought back to life a boy being carried in his own funeral procession?

It matters very much that Catholics understand events in the Bible as they are written unless the Magisterium of the Church tells us otherwise. Science cannot study supernatural events and the constant attempts to find scientific explanations by knowledgeable people are likely to fail since they sometimes compete with Divine Revelation. And some critics have little to no grasp of what the Church teaches or selectively quote only certain things without considering the full picture. Jesus Christ could manipulate the world around Him because He is God. He did not use science of any kind.

Peace,
Ed

Ed,

I don’t think I said that symbology outweighs the event or its history, but thank you for your opinion.

It’s not the intention of my post to say “symbology over historical” or “morality over science.” What I was trying to infer (as you did, I think) is that the nit-picking of the science or the history, while important (even critical in some interpretations of Scripture as provided to us by the Magistarium–it’s why Pontus Pilate is mentioned in our Creed) is less than important than the *singular understanding of the messages and significances of what Scripture tells us.
*
In short, while the history of Christ and his disciples is important, we don’t go to Mass or study the Bible for vivisection of the Word. We study the Word to understand our God and ourselves and each other. There IS an overemphasis somewhere when we worry too much about the history or the science of the Bible at times.

 

[PeterK]

… as fact or fiction?

As parable. Parable based on a historical reality but upon which it is not slavishly dependent for its details.

Teaching in the manner of The Teacher.

PeterK

 

[edwest2]

Ed,

I don’t think I said that symbology outweighs the event or its history, but thank you for your opinion.

It’s not the intention of my post to say “symbology over historical” or “morality over science.” What I was trying to infer (as you did, I think) is that the nit-picking of the science or the history, while important (even critical in some interpretations of Scripture as provided to us by the Magistarium–it’s why Pontus Pilate is mentioned in our Creed) is less than important than the *singular understanding of the messages and significances of what Scripture tells us.
*
In short, while the history of Christ and his disciples is important, we don’t go to Mass or study the Bible for vivisection of the Word. We study the Word to understand our God and ourselves and each other. There IS an overemphasis somewhere when we worry too much about the history or the science of the Bible at times.

Thank you for your reply. There are too many threads here that carefully give primacy to symbolism over certain parts of the Bible by explicitly citing science. Essentially, science says there’s no evidence for this or that, therefore it did not happen as an actual event as described in the Bible. Others, speaking generally, assign the Church the role of keeper of faith and morals and the meanings of things written about in the Bible but not the interpretation of actual events in history.

It disturbs me that people have placed the Church in this position, especially when the same people use the words of the Pope, for example, to confirm something scientific; i.e. “Your Pope agrees with this or that, why can’t you?” So which is it? The Church cannot assign actual historical reality to parts of the Bible or can it? And why would the scientific community be the least bit concerned about what the Church may agree or disagree with at any particular point in time?

As Paul tells the people: If Christ is not risen then your faith is in vain. Or - If Christ did not actually rise from the dead then you’ve got nothing. The Gospel is a fact in history and as faith. It is not separated from history or time. It appeared in the form of Jesus Christ who actually lived here as a man and God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[twinc]

As parable. Parable based on a historical reality but upon which it is not slavishly dependent for its details.

Teaching in the manner of The Teacher.

PeterK

Teaching in the manner of The Master - “unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God : but to others in parables: that seeing they might not see,and hearing they might not understand” - twinc

 

[Triumpha]

should Catholic scientists and teachers in Catholic schools and Churches accept and teach Noah’s global flood as fact or fiction - twinc

The New Testament takes the Flood’s historicity for granted.

 

[diggerdomer]

should Catholic scientists and teachers in Catholic schools and Churches accept and teach Noah’s global flood as fact or fiction - twinc

they should teach science.

 

[twinc]

they should teach science.

do you mean “true” science or “pseudo/phony” science - twinc

 

[Ruthie_again]

There is a lot of ground between fact and fiction. I don’t think it has to be either-or. Peter K put it really well:

As parable. Parable based on a historical reality but upon which it is not slavishly dependent for its details.

I would have taken 3 paragraphs to get there.

Spencerian said,

We study the Word to understand our God and ourselves and each other. There IS an overemphasis somewhere when we worry too much about the history or the science of the Bible at times.

I agree. Divisions result when we try to nitpick every verse. That’s one reason why we have so many non-Catholic Christian denominations today.

Ed West 2 said,

Essentially, science says there’s no evidence for this or that, therefore it did not happen as an actual event as described in the Bible.

Bad science says that. Real science doesn’t. Lack of evidence proves exactly nothing. The problem is discerning good science from bad. The proper use of logic helps. But if the data used to prove the theory is deliberately hidden from other scientists, I strongly suspect bad science is at work.

Bad science looks at some facts, develops an idea, forms a theory, finds evidence that supports the theory, and stops. Both 6-day Creationsits and Darwinists are guilty of this.

Good science looks at some facts, develops an idea, forms a theory, finds evidence that supports the theory, and then looks diligently for evidence of the theory being wrong. That is how scientific proof is developed.

I do not need scientific evidence to believe in the Word of God. I have faith - another thing real science can’t explain.

Ruthie

For an excellent article about critical thinking, go here.

 

[twinc]

There is a lot of ground between fact and fiction. I don’t think it has to be either-or. Peter K put it really well:
I would have taken 3 paragraphs to get there.

Spencerian said,

I agree. Divisions result when we try to nitpick every verse. That’s one reason why we have so many non-Catholic Christian denominations today.

Ed West 2 said,

Bad science says that. Real science doesn’t. Lack of evidence proves exactly nothing. The problem is discerning good science from bad. The proper use of logic helps. But if the data used to prove the theory is deliberately hidden from other scientists, I strongly suspect bad science is at work.

Bad science looks at some facts, develops an idea, forms a theory, finds evidence that supports the theory, and stops. Both 6-day Creationsits and Darwinists are guilty of this.

Good science looks at some facts, develops an idea, forms a theory, finds evidence that supports the theory, and then looks diligently for evidence of the theory being wrong. That is how scientific proof is developed.

I do not need scientific evidence to believe in the Word of God. I have faith - another thing real science can’t explain.

Ruthie

For an excellent article about critical thinking, go here.

been to the website suggested and as elsewhere just words and more words…Flawed at the very start for imho we do not in fact think but only think we think for in fact thoughts occur - twinc

 

[edwest2]

There is a lot of ground between fact and fiction.

Spencerian said,

I agree. Divisions result when we try to nitpick every verse. That’s one reason why we have so many non-Catholic Christian denominations today.

Ed West 2 said,

Bad science says that. Real science doesn’t. Lack of evidence proves exactly nothing. The problem is discerning good science from bad. The proper use of logic helps. But if the data used to prove the theory is deliberately hidden from other scientists, I strongly suspect bad science is at work.

Bad science looks at some facts, develops an idea, forms a theory, finds evidence that supports the theory, and stops. Both 6-day Creationsits and Darwinists are guilty of this.

Good science looks at some facts, develops an idea, forms a theory, finds evidence that supports the theory, and then looks diligently for evidence of the theory being wrong. That is how scientific proof is developed.

I do not need scientific evidence to believe in the Word of God. I have faith - another thing real science can’t explain.

Ruthie

For an excellent article about critical thinking, go here.

---

Critical thinking? No critical thinking is allowed when all thinking must support an anti-God ideology. Look at the textbooks, science has thrown its lot in with ideologues and is making claims and presenting conclusions it cannot demonstrate as true:

We can see this in current biology textbooks:

“[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.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“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.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

Peace,
Ed

 

[diggerdomer]

The New Testament takes the Flood’s historicity for granted.

Maybe, maybe not, but the Church doesn’t require Catholics to. And I don’t see the connection as to why science teachers would be relying on the New Testament.

 

[diggerdomer]

do you mean “true” science or “pseudo/phony” science - twinc

I mean science.

Any “thing” that is pseudo or phony is not that “thing.”

 

[twinc]

Maybe, maybe not, but the Church doesn’t require Catholics to. And I don’t see the connection as to why science teachers would be relying on the New Testament.

it seems you have missed the entire thrust of the question which was referring,in particular,to Catholic and other Christian science teachers and other Church teachers - twinc

 

[diggerdomer]

it seems you have missed the entire thrust of the question which was referring,in particular,to Catholic and other Christian science teachers and other Church teachers - twinc

I don’t think I did. My point is that I don’t think science teachers should plan their curriculum and teaching based on the Bible.

 

[twinc]

I don’t think I did. My point is that I don’t think science teachers should plan their curriculum and teaching based on the Bible.

what is in debate is the already planned curriculum,textbooks etc - btw there are alternatives now available - see [www.TruthinScience.org - twinc](www.TruthinScience.org - twinc)