Should Evolution Be Taught In Public Schools?

[Fidei Defensor]

[url="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/edwards.html"]http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...aw/edwards.html[/url]

A law that required Louisiana teachers to teach creationism along with evolution was stricken down as unconstitutional. "The Creationism Act forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools unless accompanied by instruction in 'creation science.'"

[Fidei Defensor]

Anyone wishing to become educated about what evolution actually is can direct themselves here:

[url="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/"]http://evolution.berkeley.edu/[/url]

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b]First Vatican Council
Session 3: Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith | Chapter 4[/b]
5. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.

6. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

10. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.

11. Hence, so far is the Church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace.

12. Nor does the Church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method: but while she admits this just freedom, she takes particular care that they do not become infected with errors by conflicting with divine teaching, or, by going beyond their proper limits, intrude upon what belongs to faith and engender confusion.
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM[/url][/quote][quote][b]Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church[/b]
"On God the Creator, the Vatican Council was very clear. The definitions preceding the "anathema" (as a technical term of Catholic theology, let him be "cut off" or excommunicated, cf. Gal 1:6-9; Titus 3:10-11; Matt 18:15-17) signify an infallible dogma of Catholic faith (De Fide):

On God the creator of all things
1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
2, If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.
4. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.
5. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

According to Catholic theologian Dr. Ludwig Ott in his 1952 treatise Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, it is to be understood that these condemnations are of the errors of modern materialism (that matter is all there is), pantheism (that God is all there is), and ancient pagan and gnostic-manichean dualism (where God is not responsible for the entire created world, since mere "matter" is evil not good, see Ott, page 79)."

"Concerning the doctrine on creation, Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (originally published in 1952 in German) identifies the following points as essential beliefs of the Catholic faith ("De Fide"):

All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De Fide)
1. God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
2. The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
3. The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
4. God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
5. God has created a good world. (De Fide)
6. The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
7. God alone created the world. (De Fide)
8. God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
9. God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)"
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and...Catholic_Church[/url][/quote]“[i]Creationism[/i]” or “[i]intelligent design[/i]” should be taught in the social studies rather than the physical sciences. Students may also benefit from learning of different "myths" concerning “creation”, possibly even seeing similarities in such. Seemingly the Church’s current opinion concerning the matter could be described as a “[i]theistic evolution[/i]”, with some reservations such as the first two parents of humanity. Likewise the Church’s definitions on the subject seem to address the doctrinal and moral implications involved, rather than scientific findings.

“[i]Facts are empirical data, objective verifiable observations.[/i]” “[i]A scientific theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions.[/i]” Evolution could thus be described as “[i]fact[/i]” and “[i]theory[/i]”. Students should be offered a comprehensive and extensive education/study in the matter of evolution, since in the scientific community there is little or no dispute.

In the family and in religious education/formation the importance/role of God in creation should be upheld. Likewise, those relevant definitions of the Church should be presented to those students able to understand. We ought to impart the ability for the student to use “reason” in the light of faith. Since as Catholics we believe that faith and reason cannot contradict for they are from the same God, the same reality, and the same truth.

In regards to reading the Scriptures keeping in mind that it is firstly a Religious Text and not a scientific, historical, or catechetical text, though it may contain attributes of such, but rather in its authority serves to reaffirm the “[i]Deposit of Faith[/i]”. The Scriptures were indeed written by man, but it was specially inspired by God and had the special protection of God sometimes referred is “Biblical Inherency”. An explanation of this I have heard of a writer, the pen used, and the paper. Indeed God is the inspirer and writer of the Scriptures but He did so through man using his perceptions and abilities.

Pope Leo the Thirteenth quoting and commenting on the approach of Saint Augustine to the Sacred Scriptures wrote, “[i]'not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires'; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.[/i]” (Providentissimus Deus | [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii...us-deus_en.html[/url] )

Edited August 31, 2008 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Selah]

Yes, I believe it should be taught in school.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='princessgianna' post='1643118' date='Aug 31 2008, 01:02 AM']the only problem i have with evolution being taught is it is being taught as if it were a law and it is a THEORY![/quote]

As a science educator, one of the major problems that I have with the effectiveness of science education is that people do not know the proper definition of "theory" as employed by scientists:

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1643163' date='Aug 31 2008, 03:26 AM'][i]Facts are empirical data, objective verifiable observations.[/i][i]A scientific theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions.[/i] Evolution could thus be described as [i]fact[/i] and [i]theory[/i]. Students should be offered a comprehensive and extensive education/study in the matter of evolution, since in the scientific community there is little or no dispute.[/quote]

A scientific theory is not a guess or hunch, the way that the term "theory" is used colloquially in daily conversation. It is a "well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions", as Mr.CatholicCat pointed out above.

[quote name='princessgianna' post='1643118' date='Aug 31 2008, 01:02 AM']There are several holes still like if we were at one point little dust particles flying in space where did those dust particules come from???[/quote]

Another misconception is that evolution describes how life came from non-life. This is abiogenesis. Evolution describes how species came from other already-living species.

What you quote above, "where did those dust particules [sic] come from", is actually a question of cosmogenesis -- how the universe began. The present theory is, of course, The Big Bang, which states that all matter currently in the universe was contained in a sphere the size of a basketball. This, of course, begs the question where this basketball came from, and it is where scientists are currently working to understand. Ultimately, according to St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments, there must have been some Prime Mover to have placed this basketball in existence in the first place. [b]But, the point is, the question that you raised has nothing to do with evolution.[/b]

[quote name='princessgianna' post='1643118' date='Aug 31 2008, 01:02 AM']And If we did evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys???[/quote]

We did not evolve from monkeys, but rather apes. More specifically, we didn't evolve from apes as present today, but rather a common ancestor. This ancestor died out, but its descendants are both apes and humans. The ancestor is dead. Apes are the product of evolution themselves, but a separate track of evolution that did not lead to them becoming human.

Hope that this helps!

Blessings,
Kris

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1643946' date='Sep 1 2008, 01:38 AM']What you quote above, "where did those dust particules [sic] come from", is actually a question of cosmogenesis -- how the universe began. The present theory is, of course, The Big Bang, which states that all matter currently in the universe was contained in a sphere the size of a basketball. This, of course, begs the question where this basketball came from, and it is where scientists are currently working to understand. Ultimately, according to St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments, there must have been some Prime Mover to have placed this basketball in existence in the first place. [b]But, the point is, the question that you raised has nothing to do with evolution.[/b][/quote]

They've answered that for the past 30 years, but most Atheistic Scientists will not agree to it.

You see, Mathematically, Stephen Hawking has proven that the Big Bang was caused by a cosmic singularity that exists outside of time and space, but for all the dimensions to exist, there has to be. . . three cosmic singularities that exists outside time and space. Because these singularities are one singularity, the three singularities are one.

Christianity also proposes that the universe and creation and all that we see and don't see was created by. . . The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the three who are one. . .

As a result, most Atheists scientists, which make a great number of them, will not accept this theory of the beginning of the universe or the theory of everything they want to find because they don't like Christianity and God. Their own bias prevents us from enjoying the fact that three cosmic three singularities - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, created everything from the moment creation was created.

And, the media will not play it either, well, because this might upset their readership/viewers, because Christians will around the world say, look, Science has proven us right. . . They can't have that, because it will cost them money.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1643143' date='Aug 31 2008, 02:26 AM'][url="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/edwards.html"]http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...aw/edwards.html[/url]

A law that required Louisiana teachers to teach creationism along with evolution was stricken down as unconstitutional. "The Creationism Act forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools unless accompanied by instruction in 'creation science.'"[/quote]

A pertinent quote from the article I posted: (you all should read it; it's very interesting.)
[quote]Whether the state’s board of education would adopt them, however, was unclear. There were heated objections from some religious organizations and local school boards. In a stormy public comment session, Mr. Campbell defended his fellow writers against complaints that they had not included alternative explanations for life’s diversity, like intelligent design.

His attempt at humor came with an edge:

“We also failed to include astrology, alchemy and the concept of the moon being made of green coagulated milk,” he said. “Because those aren’t science, either.”[/quote]

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1644144' date='Sep 1 2008, 10:54 AM']They've answered that for the past 30 years, but most Atheistic Scientists will not agree to it.

You see, Mathematically, Stephen Hawking has proven that the Big Bang was caused by a cosmic singularity that exists outside of time and space, but for all the dimensions to exist, there has to be. . . three cosmic singularities that exists outside time and space. Because these singularities are one singularity, the three singularities are one.

Christianity also proposes that the universe and creation and all that we see and don't see was created by. . . The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the three who are one. . .

As a result, most Atheists scientists, which make a great number of them, will not accept this theory of the beginning of the universe or the theory of everything they want to find because they don't like Christianity and God. Their own bias prevents us from enjoying the fact that three cosmic three singularities - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, created everything from the moment creation was created.

And, the media will not play it either, well, because this might upset their readership/viewers, because Christians will around the world say, look, Science has proven us right. . . They can't have that, because it will cost them money.[/quote]

Erm ... you have not shown that this three-fold singularity that exists outside of time and space is in fact God. You have only shown (or claim to have shown) that it shares traits in common with God: three-fold "singularity" (possible heresy, here, unsure), and that it is outside of time and space.

You know what they say about ducks, right? "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." Well, that's not always right. Just because some [b]thing[/b] looks like God doesn't make it God.

Furthermore, these singularities are no longer in existence, which would contradict God's eternal nature.

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1644299' date='Sep 1 2008, 01:01 PM']Erm ... you have not shown that this three-fold singularity that exists outside of time and space is in fact God. You have only shown (or claim to have shown) that it shares traits in common with God: three-fold "singularity" (possible heresy, here, unsure), and that it is outside of time and space.

You know what they say about ducks, right? "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." Well, that's not always right. Just because some [b]thing[/b] looks like God doesn't make it God.

Furthermore, these singularities are no longer in existence, which would contradict God's eternal nature.[/quote]

Again, we only mathematically proved that the three singularities existed during the creation of the universe.

I haven't gone too much into the science to know they are no longer in existence. How do you prove something outside time and space still exists or not, except mathematically?

I only know that they were needed to create the universe. It is the theory of everything that every atheistic scientist will not accept (hmmm, maybe there's a bias there) and still trying to come up with a different theory of everything because they rejected that one.

You can consider it heresy though. That's your option, and by doing so, you help the atheist scientists who will not accept this theory either.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1644333' date='Sep 1 2008, 01:28 PM']Again, we only mathematically proved that the three singularities existed during the creation of the universe.

I haven't gone too much into the science to know they are no longer in existence. How do you prove something outside time and space still exists or not, except mathematically?[/quote]

The definition of the singularity[ies] that created the universe involves their destruction. Basically, it's a bomb. It blew up, destroying the bomb itself. All of the shrapnel went on to become the universe. The bomb contained all of the pieces that are now the universe, and thus had to blow up (destroy itself) in order to spread those pieces across the universe. Thus, the singularities no longer exist.

Further, because the universe is made of pieces of this original explosion, to state that God was the singularity is to say that the universe is made up of tiny pieces of God, and that everything is God. This is pantheism.

[quote]You can consider it heresy though. That's your option, and by doing so, you help the atheist scientists who will not accept this theory either.[/quote]

The only part that I questioned was heresy was modelling the three singularities as a triune God. The dogma of the Trinity states that God is three persons who are one in being and essence. Stating that God is three different singularities that are separate and distinct from one another is heresy.

I do not care about "helping atheist scientists" to further their agenda. As a scientist myself, the only thing that I care about is Truth, in the absolute sense. I am only slightly familiar with the theory of three singularities, and can't comment on the theory's scientific validity. What concerns me, though, is attributing these three singularities to God, simply because there happen to be three of them and also three persons to the Trinity. It sounds like too much of a big deal made over a coincidence to me.

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1644361' date='Sep 1 2008, 01:44 PM']The definition of the singularity[ies] that created the universe involves their destruction. Basically, it's a bomb. It blew up, destroying the bomb itself. All of the shrapnel went on to become the universe. The bomb contained all of the pieces that are now the universe, and thus had to blow up (destroy itself) in order to spread those pieces across the universe. Thus, the singularities no longer exist.[/quote]

Okay, I didn't know that. But it is pretty cool that God would create the universe in a way that would declare who he is.

[quote][b]For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:[/b][/quote]

Wouldn't you agree, then, God using three singularities because God is three persons, declares his own nature? How about the components of atoms are Protons, Electrons and Neutrons. Or that length, width, and height make space, or that the Earth is 93,000,000 miles away - divisible by three, and if you did that three and one are left remaining, and a large amounts of other things that point out that God is three and one. But that must be heresy, because I said it.

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1644361' date='Sep 1 2008, 01:44 PM']Further, because the universe is made of pieces of this original explosion, to state that God was the singularity is to say that the universe is made up of tiny pieces of God, and that everything is God. This is pantheism.

The only part that I questioned was heresy was modelling the three singularities as a triune God. The dogma of the Trinity states that God is three persons who are one in being and essence. Stating that God is three different singularities that are separate and distinct from one another is heresy.[/quote]

Relax, now that you have explained it to me, I can see you are right.

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1644361' date='Sep 1 2008, 01:44 PM']I do not care about "helping atheist scientists" to further their agenda. As a scientist myself, the only thing that I care about is Truth, in the absolute sense. I am only slightly familiar with the theory of three singularities, and can't comment on the theory's scientific validity. What concerns me, though, is attributing these three singularities to God, simply because there happen to be three of them and also three persons to the Trinity. It sounds like too much of a big deal made over a coincidence to me.[/quote]

Or divine providence? Doesn't anybody read and meditate on the Bible here? The nature of the creation declares his power and the Godhead!

[add]

Why baptize newborns, were it not for original sin of Adam and Eve.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='apparently' post='1644910' date='Sep 1 2008, 08:33 PM']Why baptize newborns, were it not for original sin of Adam and Eve.[/quote]
Come again?

[Selah]

lol

[add]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1644919' date='Sep 1 2008, 08:45 PM']Come again?[/quote]
If mankind evolved from apes, not created then how could there be original sin.