| Author | |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 9:47am | IP Logged
|
 |
|
From CHC's Behold and See 3
"Man is not an animal because he is created in God's image.Animals are not persons, so we may use them to meet our day-to-day needs for things such as food and clothing."
Man is not an animal? The author's point is that man isn't an animal because man can think and choose, but this is a chapter on classification. Scientifically speaking, man is an animal, right?
I'm feeling challenged by third grade science  ...
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
mary
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 17 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 691
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 9:59am | IP Logged
|
|
|
man is an animal, yes. i understand the point that man can think and choose, but so can many (most?) 'lower' species of animal. i have trouble when science texts try to make religous points rather than just teaching science.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 10:20am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Man is most definitely an animal. Good grief.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MacBeth
Forum All-Star
Probably at the beach...
Joined: Jan 27 2005
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 10:38am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Elizabeth wrote:
I'm feeling challenged by third grade science ... |
|
|
Put the book away... 
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 10:46am | IP Logged
|
|
|
MacBeth wrote:
Elizabeth wrote:
I'm feeling challenged by third grade science ... |
|
|
Put the book away... |
|
|
That would require me to make an effort  
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MaryM
Board Moderator
Joined: Feb 11 2005
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13104
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 12:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Elizabeth wrote:
Man is not an animal? The author's point is that man isn't an animal because man can think and choose, but this is a chapter on classification. Scientifically speaking, man is an animal, right?
|
|
|
It sounds like the CHC science book is really addressing the nature of the soul and making it confusing since it is technically a chapter about scientific classification. I do think it is helpful to point out this distinction.
Plants have a vegetative soul (they are alive and grow).
Animals have a sensitive soul (in addition to living and growing they feel and react to stimuli).
Humans have a rational soul (we can reason and have free will) and by nature of our rational soul we also have the elements of the other two souls (we live and grow, and feel and react in addition to reasoning and making choices). So while I think the book is confusing I also think it is an excellent way to bring our Catholic faith into the discussion of science - too bad it wasn't done in a clear way that still made it possible to explain biological classification/taxonomy. In that context (scientific classification) humans are members of the Animal Kingdom.
mary wrote:
| i have trouble when science texts try to make religous points rather than just teaching science. |
|
|
It would be wonderful if a text or resource could clearly give the scientific so that application is understood, but then also address as an important spiritual tangent how this is understood within our faith. It would better prepare our children to have rational answers/explanations to times people use science to attack the faith.
It might help to simply explain that biological classification/taxonomy is based on shared characteristics of living things and complexity of the being. Humans are at the top of the "chart" so to speak. Then including info about the classification of the soul and how that further differentiates us from the other living things since a scientific classification would only deal with physical/biological characteristics and not the spiritual elements. Does that help at all?
__________________
Mary M. in Denver
Our Domestic Church
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Angie Mc
Board Moderator
Joined: Jan 31 2005
Location: Arizona
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 11400
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 1:50pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Helped me, Mary! Thanks so much for this succinct explanation.
Love,
__________________
Angie Mc
Maimeo to Henry! Dave's wife, mom to Mrs. Devin+Michael Pope, Aiden 20,Ian 17,John Paul 11,Catherine (heaven 6/07)
About Me
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 3:08pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yes Mary. It was very helpful. I didn't have to think too hard; I didn't have to come up with the words to articulate it! And it's all on a printed page in front of me. Funny, I thought that was the "beauty" of textbooks . Highly overrated, that textbooks thing  .
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Genevieve
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 02 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 529
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 3:13pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Other than that confusing statement, is the text a good one? I had thought to get it as a reference.
__________________
Genevieve
The Good Within
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Rebecca
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 30 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1898
|
| Posted: March 27 2006 at 1:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Genevieve wrote:
| Other than that confusing statement, is the text a good one? I had thought to get it as a reference. |
|
|
OK...I'm wondering the same thing. Otherwise, how do you like the book?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ALmom
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 18 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3299
|
| Posted: March 30 2006 at 3:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Elizabeth,
I remember reading in the intro somewhere about the authors point in the whole thing which was helpful (yes, I do almost always read introductions - it tells you a lot about an authors point of view). Mary M stuff was so helpful. I still think it is a valid question (just too bad it got a bit didactic there which is very uncharacteristic of the whole book). When we hit that part we didn't really have a problem with it - we talked about creation like Mary M but we also talked about how the classification system changes over time - based on new information, etc. There are certain things that didn't quite fit into Plant or Animal Kingdoms - now there are more. Scientists don't have to be locked into what other scientists have done if truth contradicts it. It is worth pondering whether or not the differences between man and mammals are more significant than the similiarities - is it helpful to group them together or not? That is a valid scientific question. Because science as seen now, restricts itself solely to the study of the material world supposedly (but that isn't quite true when you look at the social sciences), there is an arguement for leaving man in the grouping of mammals with regard to the material body - and that is what seems useful for the hard sciences. However, we came to the conclusion that it depends on what you are doing and what assumptions you carry with you. Faith and Reason go hand in hand and science and faith should inform each other - not be diametrically opposed as they both are searching for truth.
The reason I think this whole discussion is important has to do with the assumptions implied in grouping man and animals together. I have seen social scientists use the arguement that chimps (or whatever animal it was) have multiple partners: it is natural and therefore man, being in the same classification of animals is mislead to think we should be monogamous. These are all unnatural social strictures. Also what about abortion, euthenasia, etc. - part of the reasoning underneath some of this is that "we put our dog out of its suffering by euthanizing it - why can't we be as sympathetic to people who are after all just another animal of the same level." This assumption is there. What about the animal rights crowd - part of the reason they find the use of animals for people so abhorant is that they don't see any significant difference between man and a baboon. If I am studying man as a social being, is it more useful to recognize the differences between man and animal. Our faith certainly informs us that man is at a different level - the stewards of creation.
However, if we are studying ways to treat a disease found in man and in animals, then it might be more useful to recognize that there are quite a few similiarities in the body structure, etc. The classification system is all about usefulness so that we come to valid conclusions and we can organize all the data.
I really like the Behold and See text because it is all about thinking about things which is the underlying necessity of a scientist. Yes, a scientist(in the hard science fields) does not generally deal with other than the material side of creation. However, man is a created being composed of body and soul. Man is a composite - and that is important to keep in mind.
We now have 5 Kingdoms instead of 3 because eventually scientists decided that what was once considered insignificant differences are now significant and you just couldn't really classify them together. These sometimes are more readily compared to one thing or another. The more accurately a creature is classified, the more helpful it would be to science. Classifying man as a seperate being because he is composed of body and soul would be wedding science and faith - the only way to really get at the full truth.
Anyways, that was the gist of our discussion. Science is about keeping our mind searching for real truth. We observe and study and draw conclusions. If we know something, in fact as truth, then that should not be irrelevant. Classifying man as seperate from animals does not prevent us from making comparisons between man and the chimp, it simply reminds us that there is an important difference between the two - a difference that makes them quite different beings.
Science is my weak area - so this is certainly all my humble bumbling. I do get annoyed at a text that tries to push an agenda based on 7 days of creation, etc. I'm not sure why that bothers me and Behold and See really did not. Perhaps it is the tone of the two - Behold and See has a great respect for science, it is all about looking and thinking and not about using science to push an agenda. It is the only science text we really, really like.
I think Behold and See does a marvelous job of what the Pontifical Academy of Science has been saying. Our faith should inform our study of science and our science should help us understand the creator through studying His creation. We in the modern western world have so enthroned science as a god that we almost assume that there is nothing that either has to say to the other. This is a huge error.
Philosophy and science were natural fields united in the great discoveries of the ancients and medieval period. Perhaps we need to get back to that.
Janet
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: March 30 2006 at 9:32pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Janet,
That was so well said. Science may be your weak area, but you ceratainly have my respect!
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Helen
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 03 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2826
|
| Posted: March 30 2006 at 9:43pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Dear Elizabeth,
I remember being taught by a person who had an extremely ... what's the right word? classical Catholic education, that man was not an animal.
Mary and Janet gave very good answers. It is more philosophical and emphasizing the body/soul aspect of human nature, an aspect which cannot be divided.
I think the point may transcend philosophy. The philosophical expression "man is not an animal" does enter biology and the medical arenas especially when considering end of life issues. A horse may be put away if it is injured grievously, but a human being may never be. There is a world of difference here. Perhaps CHC is really on to an important distinction. Fr. William Smith, the noted moral theologian, always says "Social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering". For Catholics to say "Man is not an animal", is this the beginning? The way to reclaim ethical medical practices?
__________________
Ave Maria!
Mom to 5 girls and 3 boys
Mary Vitamin & Castle of the Immaculate
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: March 30 2006 at 10:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Funny -- I remember writing down "man" under the animal category on a third grade worksheet and getting it marked wrong -- and this was in a public school!
I wonder about the implications of mixing -- or over-separating -- philosophy and science. They used to go hand in hand; or rather, science was a subset of philosophy. I certainly was an example of someone affected by the materialistic focus of modern-day science, I guess  and it did affect how I thought about myself and a lot of issues particularly in my teenage years.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: March 31 2006 at 8:23am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I personally think it is good thing for scientists to stick to science and let the theologeans ponder God and the soul. It is a good system of checks and balances. One informs the other. When you start mixing the two you can run into some real problems. Remember that we are not the only religion out there.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Helen
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 03 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2826
|
| Posted: March 31 2006 at 11:21am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Dear Theresa,
You express a valid opinion. It is important to recognize other viewpoints in the world, to be able to recognize, well, I hate to use this word because it has been corrupted, but, diversity. Afterall, who is more diversified than God? He is one God yet three persons. His Creative Expressions are richly varied and diversified, one only has to begin, only begin, to look at the insect world and you are "clobbered" by God's diversity. But, being able to recognize 'diversity' doesn't mean we become 'compartamentalized." Perhaps it is more complicated to express this idea in the world of science because the substance of scienctific study is the study of the material world.
Maybe, if we just look to the world of history for a moment. The most significant historical event, in the entire study of history, is the fact that God, a pure, unlimited Spirit with no beginning and no end, actually BECAME a Human person. The Incarnation is the center of all historical study - how can it not be if the preceding statement is true? If one has never thought in this light, it takes a moment to really let this historical reality set in. (I am not speaking theologically. The theology is Incarnation, however, this took place on earth, in a certtain time and place -history.)
If we can let our minds think in this manner, as St. Paul counsels in the letter to the Romans "let your minds be renewed, and not conformed to this world" a whole different understanding opens up.
Once comfortable here, one can move to science. Scientific truth will never contradict the truth of religion, because Truth is Truth. The two should work hand in hand.
__________________
Ave Maria!
Mom to 5 girls and 3 boys
Mary Vitamin & Castle of the Immaculate
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: March 31 2006 at 11:46am | IP Logged
|
|
|
HelenDilworth wrote:
| Scientific truth will never contradict the truth of religion, because Truth is Truth. The two should work hand in hand. |
|
|
Oh, I agree 100%. That's why I love the Catholic Church. She recognizes this fact.
What I meant by saying we are not the only religion out there wasn't about recognizing diversity. Unfortunately my motives are a bit more selfish. I actually meant we should be wary of letting religion influence science too much because I don't want someone else's religion to influence it. For instance, what if pork were taken off the food pyramid due to religious concerns. What if doctors were required to use crystals as part of their "best practice" (after all, we can't descriminate, right?). What if vaccinations were banned due to religious convictions? What if we had to go back to teaching in science classes that the earth is the center of the universe (as some still believe) or that we never landed on the moon?
I want to be able to apply my own religious beliefs to science, and not the religions of others. For these very selfish reasons I believe in keeping the two seperate. That way I can infuse my science with my beliefs while others can do the same with theirs. I certainly don't want someone else's religious agenda pushed at my child in the guise of science.This is why I refuse to use Protestant science texts that push the young earth agenda that I can't stomach. Selfish, sure, but how I feel all the same.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
4Real Forums : Exploring God's Creation in Nature and Science
Topic: Huh?
