| Author | |
Teachin'Mine2
Forum Pro
Joined: Jan 22 2010
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: June 24 2010 at 2:21pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
Thank you Theresa. It's hard not to get carried away with things we feel passionately about. BTDT
Sarah, a couple of resources are given in a previous post.
__________________
mom of one 13yo dd
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: June 24 2010 at 2:30pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Sarah M wrote:
Is there a resource that explains what parts of Genesis the Catholic Church embraces literally and which parts we do not?
I would be very interested in such a resource... |
|
|
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has several places where it lays it all out. 283, 284, 390
The encyclical Humani Generis in 1950 by Pius XII covered some areas
Pope Paul II, in Mulieris Dignitatem also covers this area.
A good resource I use frequently is Scott Hahn's Understanding the Scriptures. It's a high school textbook, but a great reference, too.
He has this list of what the Church requires us to accept, which is similar to the list above:
Quote:
::That matter was created out of nothing by God at the beginning of time.
::That the creation of human beings--however humans arose in history--was an act of special creation by God. God breathed a human soul into Adam.
::That woman is formed from the body of man, from his very self.
::That all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve.
::That Adam and Eve were created without sin.
::That Adam and Eve were commanded to be obedient to God.
::That Adam and Eve sinned against this command.
::That, as a result of that sin, our ancestros fell from their state of sinless innocence.
::That, even at the time of the Fall, God made clear the promise of a future redeemer. |
|
|
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to  & ds1  '03 & ds2  '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
CrunchyMom
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 03 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6385
|
| Posted: June 24 2010 at 3:42pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
AtHomeScience wrote:
Perhaps we have a different notion of what Intelligent Design is, and if we start out with different ideas then it would be hard for us to have a good discussion.
Intelligent Design as proposed first (I think) by Behe, who, by the way, fully embraces Evolution through natural selection, yet states that some structures are just too complex to have come about through Evolution. These complex structures proves God exists and had a direct hand (primary cause) in Creation. We can get into a whole discussion about primary and secondary causes, which relates, but maybe for another discussion.
Anyway, one structure he suggests falls into this is the flagellum. Shortly after the publication of his book, scientists proved--as in demonstrated--that microorganism, when placed in a stressful environment, will re-assemble proteins it already makes for other things into a new structure that will help it survive the new environment, including a flagellum.
This amounts to a God-of-the-Gaps philosophy. ID proponents will say that something is too complex and must have been a direct result of God, and then science will advance and show that to be incorrect, so then they will pick something else, and so on.
I believe God created everything ex nihilo and so I am a Creationist--of a certain stripe. I also fuly believe and affirm everything Teachin'Mine2 listed, none of which is excluded by Evolution. I have to get back to you (don't have the source on hand) to list the "shades" of Creationists out there and maybe this can bring some more understanding to this important discussion. |
|
|
That helps me understand your position. Thanks 
__________________
Lindsay
Five Boys(6/04) (6/06) (9/08)(3/11),(7/13), and 1 girl (5/16)
My Symphony
[URL=http://mysymphonygarden.blogspot.com/]Lost in the Cosmos[/UR
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Sarah M
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 06 2008
Location: Washington
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
|
| Posted: June 24 2010 at 4:04pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Very helpful Jenn- thanks.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Karen T
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 16 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 927
|
| Posted: June 24 2010 at 5:09pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
AtHomeScience wrote:
Protestant science books, Apologia in particular and many others, are presented from a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis--young earth, 6 days, Evolution as utterly false, perspective. This flies in the face of what has been Catholic teaching for centuries and still is today.
|
|
|
I have used a couple of Apologia's books and probably won't use them again for several reasons, but I do want to clear up something that this quote reminded me of. I was leery of their stance on evolution so I read the entire chapter before deciding to use the biology book. In it, the author goes into detail explaining the difference between "microevolution" which is gradual changes in a species over time, and "macroevolution" which is the idea that all species have one common ancestor and that basically bacteria in the water evolved over time into every species. He has no problem with micro-evolution. I did extensive reading on the subject last year in preparation for a talk I gave to our parish's Theology on Tap young adult group and I did look up a lot of Church teaching on the subject. As Catholics we are free to believe in evolution or not, as long as we believe that God is the absolute Creator and nothing was created without His hand. So, microevolution is pretty accepted by most people but Darwin did make some astonishing conclusions from that - just because species can change over time does not mean that all species came from the same ancestor by any means. A lot of Darwin's other work was also discredited within just a few years of his publishing.
Now, the Apologia books do push the young earth idea a good bit, which I do think is contradictory to most accepted scientific thought. I have no problem believing that the 7 days of the Genesis account are not 24 hour days, but each one could be millions or billions of years in God's time. But since most protestants believe in a literal 7 days, they have to have something to back that up. I would never use Apologia for something like earth science where it would be a major part of everything. But for biology, we were able to read and discuss the author's viewpoints, compare it with Church teaching and read both Darwin and critics of Darwin, and that was good.
I probably will not use it again with my younger ones only b/c I don't think it covers enough material. As for the younger Apologia books, written by Jeanne Fulbright, we've used Astronomy and Swimming Creatures and I liked both for their organization and layout, and love the notebooking ideas, but my kids need way more hands-on stuff to get them interested in science so we are looking elsewhere now. But, I think Fulbright actually pushes the YE veiwpoint more than Wile does IME.
Karen
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Belle
Forum Rookie
Joined: June 20 2010
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 53
|
| Posted: June 24 2010 at 5:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think it always helps to keep an open mind. (Not so open your brain falls out, but open enough  )
I think it was Einstein that said Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Love him or hate him he has a point. I think that's why finding a science curriculum can be so hard. At least for us Catholics. Unless we want a decidedly Protestant view of science. Or a completely secular view.
I've been so stuck with this topic that I use the Science text book they use in the Catholic high school my Dd used to attend. Which isn't very practical for the home schooler. But I just adjust and adapt as much as I can. Which is why I have always toyed with the idea of Apologia......
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Natalia
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Louisiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1343
|
| Posted: June 25 2010 at 9:00pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Completely off topic but, I didn't realized Dr.Wiley (of Apologia fame) is so young. I picture him as an old man for some reason
Dr. Wiley I stumbled upon his blog by chance today.
__________________
Natalia
http://pannuestrodecadadia.blogspot.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Teachin'Mine2
Forum Pro
Joined: Jan 22 2010
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: June 26 2010 at 7:30am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I clicked on your link Natalia, and my eye was drawn first to the photo of Sir Karl Popper, and I thought for a brief second that you had a unique concept of young! 
He's younger than I had pictured him too. 
__________________
mom of one 13yo dd
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Natalia
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Louisiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1343
|
| Posted: June 26 2010 at 8:30pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Teachin'Mine2 wrote:
| I clicked on your link Natalia, and my eye was drawn first to the photo of Sir Karl Popper, and I thought for a brief second that you had a unique concept of young! |
|
|
__________________
Natalia
http://pannuestrodecadadia.blogspot.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
dolorsofmary
Forum Pro
Joined: Jan 17 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 210
|
| Posted: March 29 2011 at 11:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
so I am slightly confused though. I read much on this thread, my son is 5 and really really into dinosaurs, etc. I read many links on this thread even to another thread. I even tried my best to plough through Humanis Generis or however you spell that. So here is my question, all opinions aside, please. Are we permitted as catholics to believe that Adam and Eve had ape-like parents?
I mean that could have happened right? My understanding is that the church does not make up our minds for us except that we must believe that we all came for 1 set of parents - Adam and Eve and God could have created them 'poof' in an instant from the dust of the earth and infused a soul. Or God could have created them through evolution which means that they would have had ape or ape-like parents, but Adam and Eve were the first to have a soul infused. And of course either way Adam and Eve are the first parents of the entire human race. Am I missing something? This is correct right? Thank you! I tried to glean this myself and well its past midnight now and I just cannot do it any longer. Anyone please give me the short answer. Thank you!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
dolorsofmary
Forum Pro
Joined: Jan 17 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 210
|
| Posted: March 29 2011 at 11:42pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
never mind I found my answer, thank you!
LINK
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
atara
Forum Rookie
Joined: March 25 2011
Location: Louisiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 53
|
| Posted: March 30 2011 at 5:47am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Father Barron on Genesis
Father Barron does a wonderful job explaining the Church view vs. Protestant view on Genesis. Once I heard this, it made total sense! He is a great speaker and I recommend any of his videos.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
mommy4ever
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 08 2011
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 596
|
| Posted: April 08 2011 at 9:18am | IP Logged
|
|
|
atara wrote:
Father Barron on Genesis
Father Barron does a wonderful job explaining the Church view vs. Protestant view on Genesis. Once I heard this, it made total sense! He is a great speaker and I recommend any of his videos. |
|
|
I love Father Barron! He is a huge part of why I came back to Catholicism.
I do like the Apologia books. It has offered up opportunity to discuss different points of view. Growing up, I had a cultural Catholic upbringing, occasional Sunday at church, Easter and Christmas(sometimes). I did go to Catholic School, but it was pretty much cultural too. When I first encountered discussions about Genesis, it was really confusing to me. In fact, the last few years I was floundering with what was right! I was never educated on those different beliefs, so I was made to feel awkward and really uneducated since I didn't have an opinion of old or new earth theory. I didn't know those things existed.
Talk about confusing to sift through all that and really have no idea about right or wrong.
Dr Wile does state his bias in his books. He says he does try to be unbiased but there is no true way to do so, and encourages the read to seek books written by other biases so that the reader has a rounded education on the topic.  I've never seen that in any texts.
I do read ahead of my daughter to see what is going on in the text so I know if we need to have any discussions, just like I do in history when it discusses corruption of the Catholic church in the middle ages, we talk about the failings that occured, that it is the failings of the peoples, not the Faith.
We are using the Jr high level General Science at the moment. It is very hands on, lots of information, information that isn't that different from dd14 grade 8 science(provided by a Catholic School Board). Some of the same experiments, some identical information. So it hasn't been a problem.
Ultimately, it is tolerance level, I am ok with having these discussions, another parent may not :) But that is up to the individual.
I think the exposure is fine, that way when they are asked what their view is on creation, they will have an idea of what is really being asked, and be able to explain their POV.
My POV? I have no idea when, or how long it took to create the Earth, I do not pretend to understand all the intricacies of the Bible, but I do know God created all, be it in 7 days or 700 billion years, that we are created with His purpose and His plan. And I'm so glad that He did.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Exploring God's Creation in Nature and Science
Topic: No Flames - Young Earth/Creationist
