Biology Teacher Problems

[picchick]

Hey, I didn't know where to put this so if the mods want to move it that's fine.

The problem:
I love Biology. I am taking Principles of Bio this semester. Problem? Everything the teachers mentions leads back to evolution. For example, my class this past Friday was how we need to seperate the supernatural from science which means that we cannot mix science and God together. From that he went to say that we need to start thinking like scientists in every realm of life. If I calculated the time he kept referring to evolution it would probably add up to half of the class time.

My problem with this is the fact that science and religion needs to be together. Religion needs to regulate science. If it didn't like it starting to do today, then there will be some really immoral things going on. For example, studies done on human fetuses. Also, if we are to think like a scientist all the time, does that mean he is slyly telling us to separate religion from our decisions? That is wrong I know. I do not intend to separate my religion from anything I do.

In school I learned that evolution in intself is not bad and the Church did not really condemn it. (is this true or am I thinking of something else.) But we did not descend from monkeys or any other animal. I don't know how God created the world. I know that it didn't happen in a big bang. God created earth in the 7 days. If God chose to create everything by evolution, then we may have evolved from a perhistoric man. Not a monkey. [b]DON'T QUOTE ME ON ANY OF THIS. I FIND THIS STUFF JUST TOTALLY CONFUSING.[/b]

I really have no time to research the examples he uses to prove evolution and research points of refutation so I am in a bind. I do know that if I try to bring religion or God into the picture he'll bring up the fact that religion and science does not mix. Crazy.

Thanks,
meg

[Aloysius]

the big bang theory was come up with by a scientist and a priest working together

there's tons of evidence for the big bang, but that only backs up the fact that God created the universe, it disprooves eastern religions that say the earth goes infinitely backward and was never created.

seven days isnt literal.

we didn't come from monkeys, but adaptation to environment and stuff does happen, i mean there's different races and stuff.

but we all have a common ancestor of adam, there has never been a human being in existence that did not descend from Adam.

[StColette]

Okay first off let's make sure we have Evolution theory clearly stated.

--------------------------------------------------------

Evolution & Concepts involved

evolution does not state that humans came from apes
does not say there isn't a God
does not involve the creation of life

Evolution is the change in DNA over time within a population

Charles Darwin "Origin of the Species by means of natural selection"
- did not use the term evolution

--------------------------------------------------------

Those came straight from my Zoology course notebook. As you can see Evolution does not teach on the creation of life, it does not teach that humans come from monkeys, and it does not say there isn't a God. Many people make misconceptions about the Evolution these misconceptions can even be made by educated teachers who have totally changed the meaning behind the theory.

Evolution is simply the change in DNA, this meaning, for example, when a baby is conceived it receives DNA from both mom and dad, but the structure of the babies DNA will be different from that of it's parents individually.

[quote] I do know that if I try to bring religion or God into the picture he'll bring up the fact that religion and science does not mix. [/quote]

Many people have the notion that Science is out to completely debunk religion completely. This is far from the truth. I'm a Biology Major, myself, and with each Science course I sit in I can see how Science more and more lends support to Religion and especially to the existance of God. There are many great scientific minds that are highly religious who use their knowledge in the scientific field to help uphold teachings of the Church, such as the Church's stance of abortion. Many scientists have dedicated their lives to help prove that life begins at conception in order to help the Church in its stance.

God Bless,
Jennie

[StColette]

The Church and Evolution

The Catholic Church has never had a problem with "evolution" (as opposed to philosophical Darwinism, which sees man solely as the product of materialist forces). Unlike Luther and Calvin and modem fundamentalists, the Church has never taught that the first chapter of Genesis is meant to teach science. F.J. Sheed writes in his classic Theology and Sanity that the creation account in Genesis,

... tells us of the fact but not of the process: there was an assembling of elements of the material universe, but was it instantaneous, or spread over a considerable space of time? Was it complete in one act, or by stages? Were those elements, for instance, formed into an animal body which as one generation followed another gradually evolved-not, of course, by the ordinary laws of matter but under the special guidance of God-to a point where it was capable of union with a spiritual soul, which God then created and infused into it? The statement in Genesis does not seem actually to exclude this, but it certainly does not say it. Nor has the Church formally said that it is not so....
Pius XII correctly pointed out in the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) that the theory of evolution had not been completely proved, but he did not forbid

that the theory of evolution concerning the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter-for Catholic faith obliges us to hold that human souls are immediately created by God-be investigated and discussed by experts as far as the present state of human science and sacred theology allows (no. 36).
In his catechesis on creation given during a series of general audiences in 1986, John Paul 11 provided the following discussion on the first chapter of Genesis:

This text has above all a religious and theological importance. There are not to be sought in it significant elements from the point of view of the natural sciences. Research on the origin and development of individual species in nature does not find in this description any definitive norm.... Indeed, the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis.... It must, however, be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. The doctrine of faith, however, invariably affirms that man's spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings (General Audiences, January 24 and April 16, 1986).

The Church's quarrel with many scientists who call themselves evolutionists is not about evolution itself... but rather about the philosophical materialism that is at the root of so much evolutionary thinking.
The Church's quarrel with many scientists who call themselves evolutionists is not about evolution itself, which may (or may not) have occurred in a non-Darwinian, teleological manner, but rather about the philosophical materialism that is at the root of so much evolutionary thinking. John Paul 11 puts the matter succinctly:

The Church is not afraid of scientific criticism. She distrusts only preconceived opinions that claim to be based on science, but which in reality surreptitiously cause science to depart from its domain.
This remark was aimed at biblical exegetes, but it certainly applies to Darwinian science, which contains hidden philosophical additives.

In the area of theology, the Magisterium has warned against the teachings of the French paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who concocted from evolutionary theory a kind of process theology that, among other things, implicitly denies original sin and the existence of first parents of the human race who differed in kind from whatever may have preceded them. In Humani Generis, Pius XII also condemned polygenism, championed by Teilhard, Rahner and other theologians, which holds that we are descended from multiple ancestors rather than from one historical person named Adam (no. 37).

The Church insists that man is not an accident; that no matter how He went about creating Homo sapiens, God from all eternity intended that man and all creation exist in their present form. Catholics are not obliged to square scientific data with the early verses of Genesis, whose truths-and they are truths, not myths-are expressed in an archaic, pre-scientific Hebrew idiom; and they can look forward with enjoyment and confidence to modem scientific discoveries which, more often than not, raise fundamental questions which science itself cannot answer.

[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Issues/Darwin.html"]http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Issues/Darwin.html[/url]

Catholics and Evolution
One of the most important questions for every educated Catholic of today is: What is to be thought of the theory of evolution? Is it to be rejected as unfounded and inimical to Christianity, or is it to be accepted as an established theory altogether compatible with the principles of a Christian conception of the universe?

We must carefully distinguish between the different meanings of the words theory of evolution in order to give a clear and correct answer to this question. We must distinguish (1) between the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis and as a philosophical speculation; (2) between the theory of evolution as based on theistic principles and as based on a materialistic and atheistic foundation; (3) between the theory of evolution and Darwinism; (4) between the theory of evolution as applied to the vegetable and animal kingdoms and as applied to man.

(1) Scientific Hypothesis vs. Philosophical Speculation

As a scientific hypothesis, the theory of evolution seeks to determine the historical succession of the various species of plants and of animals on our earth, and, with the aid of palæontology and other sciences, such as comparative morphology, embryology, and bionomy, to show how in the course of the different geological epochs they gradually evolve from their beginnings by purely natural causes of specific development. The theory of evolution, then, as a scientific hypothesis, does not consider the present species of plants and of animals as forms directly created by God, but as the final result of an evolution from other species existing in former geological periods. Hence it is called "the theory of evolution", or "the theory of descent", since it implies the descent of the present from extinct species. This theory is opposed to the theory of constancy, which assumes the immutability of organic species. The scientific theory of evolution, therefore, does not concern itself with the origin of life. It merely inquires into the genetic relations of systematic species, genera, and families, and endeavours to arrange them according to natural series of descent (genetic trees).

How far is the theory of evolution based on observed facts? It is understood to be still only an hypothesis. The formation of new species is directly observed in but a few cases, and only with reference to such forms as are closely related to each other; for instance, the systematic species of the plant-genus Œnothera, and of the beetle-genus Dimarda. It is, however, not difficult to furnish an indirect proof of great probability for the genetic relation of many systematic species to each other and to fossil forms, as in the genetic development of the horse (Equidæ), of ammonites, and of many insects, especially of those that dwell as "guests" with ants and termites, and have adapted themselves in many ways to their hosts. Upon comparing the scientific proofs for the probability of the theory of evolution, we find that they grow the more numerous and weighty, the smaller the circle of forms under consideration, but become weaker and weaker, if we include a greater number of forms, such as are comprised in a class or in a sub-kingdom. There is, in fact, no evidence whatever for the common genetic descent of all plants and animals from a single primitive organism. Hence the greater number of botanists and zoologists regard a polygenetic (polyphyletic) evolution as much more acceptable than a monogenetic (monophyletic). At present, however, it is impossible to decide how many independent genetic series must be assumed in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. This is the gist of the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis. It is in perfect agreement with the Christian conception of the universe; for Scripture does not tell us in what form the present species of plants and of animals were originally created by God. As early as 1877 Knabenbauer stated "that there is no objection, so far as faith is concerned, to assuming the descent of all plant and animal species from a few types" (Stimmen aus Maria Laach, XIII, p. 72).

Passing now to the theory of evolution as a philosophical speculation, the history of the plant and animal kingdoms upon our globe is but a small part of the history of the entire earth. Similarly, the geological development of our earth constitutes but a small part of the history of the solar system and of the universe. The theory of evolution as a philosophical conception considers the entire history of the cosmos as an harmonious development, brought about by natural laws. This conception is in agreement with the Christian view of the universe. God is the Creator of heaven and earth. If God produced the universe by a single creative act of His will, then its natural development by laws implanted in it by the Creator is to the greater glory of His Divine power and wisdom. St. Thomas says: "The potency of a cause is the greater, the more remote the effects to which it extends." (Summa c. Gent., III, c. lxxvi); and Suarez: "God does not interfere directly with the natural order, where secondary causes suffice to produce the intended effect" (De opere sex dierum, II, c. x, n. 13). In the light of this principle of the Christian interpretation of nature, the history of the animal and vegetable kingdoms on our planet is, as it were, a versicle in a volume of a million pages in which the natural development of the cosmos is described, and upon whose title-page is written: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."

(2) Theistic vs. Atheistic Theories of Evolution

The theory of evolution just stated rests on a theistic foundation. In contradistinction to this is another theory resting on a materialistic and atheistic basis, the first principle of which is the denial of a personal Creator. This atheistic theory of evolution is ineffectual to account for the first beginning of the cosmos or for the law of its evolution, since it acknowledges neither creator nor lawgiver. Natural science, moreover, has proved that spontaneous generation–i.e. the independent genesis of a living being from non-living matter–contradicts the facts of observation. For this reason the theistic theory of evolution postulates an intervention on the part of the Creator in the production of the first organisms. When and how the first seeds of life were implanted in matter, we, indeed, do not know. The Christian theory of evolution also demands a creative act for the origin of the human soul, since the soul cannot have its origin in matter. The atheistic theory of evolution, on the contrary, rejects the assumption of a soul separate from matter, and thereby sinks into blank materialism.

(3) The Theory of Evolution vs. Darwinism

Darwinism and the theory of evolution are by no means equivalent conceptions. The theory of evolution was propounded before Charles Darwin's time, by Lamarck (1809) and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire. Darwin, in 1859, gave it a new form by endeavouring to explain the origin of species by means of natural selection. According to this theory the breeding of new species depends on the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence. The Darwinian theory of selection is Darwinism–adhering to the narrower, and accurate, sense of the word. As a theory, it is scientifically inadequate, since it does not account for the origin of attributes fitted to the purpose, which must be referred back to the interior, original causes of evolution. Haeckel, with other materialists, has enlarged this selection theory of Darwin's into a philosophical world-idea, by attempting to account for the whole evolution of the cosmos by means of the chance survival of the fittest. This theory is Darwinism in the secondary, and wider, sense of the word. It is that atheistical form of the theory of evolution which was shown above–under (2)–to be untenable. The third signification of the term Darwinism arose from the application of the theory of selection to man, which is likewise impossible of acceptance. In the fourth place, Darwinism frequently stands, in popular usage, for the theory of evolution in general. This use of the word rests on an evident confusion of ideas, and must therefore be set aside.

(4) Human Evolution vs. Plant and Animal Evolution

To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man's body, is per se not improbable, and was propounded by St. Augustine (see AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, SAINT, under V. Augustinism in History). The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. And the human soul could not have been derived through natural evolution from that of the brute, since it is of a spiritual nature; for which reason we must refer its origin to a creative act on the part of God.

www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

[phatcatholic]

[b]Creation and Evolution[/b]
--[url="http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/05654a.htm"]Catholics and Evolution[/url]
--[url="http://cuf.org/nonmemb/evolution.pdf"]God's Big Bang: The Church and Evolution[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp"]Adam, Eve, and Evolution[/url]
--[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm"]Evolution: What the Pope Said[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/FR93204.TXT"]Molecular Biology and Evolution: The Crisis and the Challenge[/url]
--[url="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9712/barr.html"]Untangling Evolution[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXT"]Evolution: A Catholic Perspective[/url]
--[url="http://rtforum.org/lt/lt46.html"]The Literal Sense of Genesis 1:1-5: The First Day of Creation[/url]
--[url="http://rtforum.org/lt/lt48.html"]The Second Day of Creation[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Issues/Darwin.html"]The Death of Darwinism[/url]
--[url="http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story1.html"]"Apes "R" Not Us" Catholics & the Debate Over Evolution[/url]

[picchick]

Thanks guys.
I pretty much am on the same page as ya'll.
I have no problem with evolution as long as we didn't come from apes.

To me that concept just doesn't make sense logically. Just think, all the other species evolved from their own origin. Horses evolved from theirs, reptiles from dinosuars and birds from theirs. Apes had thier own. If this applies to all species than humans had their own too. Humans could have evolved from some prehistoric man but not from apes.

I just have to read more deeply in the info you gave me to help me out.
Thanks again and God Bless!!!
MEg

[StColette]

No Prob. Meg If you have any more Science and Religion questions post 'em I love bringing together my all time fav thing Religion and another fav Science.

[Aloysius]

there are fossils that proove prehistoric man was actual fairly similar to modern man, i think i remember seeing once. maybe i'll look that up..

[Cure of Ars]

I would read the following articles. They are relevant. I have not had time to put these in the reference section yet.



Playing Games with Good & Evil: The failure of Darwinism to explain morality

Benjamin Wiker

[url="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/WikerDarwinMorals.htm"]http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/WikerDarwinMorals.htm[/url]

Does Science Point to God?:
The Intelligent Design Revolution
By: Benjamin Wiker


[url="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...nd=view&id=1422"]http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...nd=view&id=1422[/url]
Does Science Point to God? Part II:
The Christian Critics
By: Benjamin Wiker

[url="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...nd=view&id=1575"]http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...nd=view&id=1575[/url]

Other

[url="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...&searchType=all"]http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...&searchType=all[/url]

Edited September 5, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I've heard that genetics has shown these "hominids" like Lucy aren't related to us at all.

Can somebody post what the Big Bang theory is? I've heard it before but maybe I misunderstand. I always thought it sounded like bogus.

[picchick]

I think that I learned that the Big Bang theory is the theory that the earth kinda just got together in one big bang. St. Colette would know better I think.

By the way, St. Colette, I agree. I love bringing my faith and science together cause I love them both so much!!! Just sometimes I get tongue twisted and unsure of my self.

meg

[StColette]

According to the big bang theory, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter in all directions. The priest involved in this theory was Georges Lemaître and the other person involved in this theory was Edwin Hubble who helped to gather the scientific evidence to back up Lemaître's theory. Lemaître proposed that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom.

Now since Lemaître proposed that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom this in no way says that it disproves that God created the Universe. Because in reality one would have to ask where that primeval atom came from and the answer would be from God. Now we don't know if this is how God created the universe or not it's just a theory.

God Bless,
Jennie

Edited September 5, 2004 by StColette

[franciscanheart]

just take jennie to class with you

[franciscanheart]

i should make something like that.... pocket jennie, take 'er wherever you go!!

pocket apologist jennie

oh the money i could make!!
not really.... i kid i kid


but seriously i sometimes wish i could just make her appear lol

[StColette]

rofl I would be happy to go lol why not