BT, 

Nothing wrong with actually trying to figure out the answers of, "Where did the universe come from?" or "where did I come from?"  for yourself.

All that is good. Students ask these questions every day. 

The trouble began when Darwinian and Cosmic Evolution were accepted and taught as scientific fact when they are no such thing.

And now Evolution has gone from an unproven theory to becoming an ideology, a philosophy that allows only nature and natural cause to explain these questions.   

However teaching such a way in U.S. public schools is clearly unconstitutional.

No theory can be proven 100% correct , that’s just the nature of the beast … but they can be falsified … and since creationism and evolution are diametrically exclusive and since the overwhelming (real) evidence for evolution destroyed creationism over 150 years ago … you are pleading a ‘dead horse’ of a case that has been already decided. Just because you think you know or understand something, you look no further than your self-affirming religious sources. When I see a reference I almost always go and at least check it out … I don’t think you do. If you did, you could answer some of your own questions readily enough … you might actually believe yourself as opposed to not believing me. You either don’t have any use for facts, don’t care for facts or you are just afraid of facts … so you simply ignore them. Evolution has nothing at all to do with god … but that is all you want to discuss anyway. All evolution does is falsify a literal interpretation of the bible and makes no judgment on god either way … but I can see why that in itself just rubs you raw. This is not an option … there is no choice … believe what you want and continue teaching it to your children … but the truth is supposed to account for something … at least to atheists it does.

Yep ... clearly unconstitutional.

Evolution vs. Creationism: "Teach the Controversy"

Xenophobia

What exactly is this overwhelming real evidence for evolution?

I am not offended by someone who tells me they believe in god but I am offended by someone  who feels they are empowered to instruct me on the why’s, for’s and how to’s and to the exclusion of the real world and science without batting an eye.

Let's look at the first exhibit you quote which is only a part of Humani Generis # 36. 

In Humani Generis, the part about evolution begins with paragraph 35-38. To get the full context, these must be taken into consideration. 

35. It remains for us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are more or less connected with the truths of the Christian Faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather a question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences, and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as afar as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter, ---for the Catholic Faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation, and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Paragraph 37 forbids Catholics to believe in polygenism and obliges Catholics to believe that Adam and Eve were the first parents of the whole human race and that they committed Original Sin and which through generation is passed down to all of us. 

When weighing and judging Evolution Theory, Pope Pius told us THAT: we may consider Evolution as praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts, and we certainly do that in the case of microevolution (small changes over time within the species). THAT we must consider that the human body evolved from lower beings not as something proved. THAT any part of Evolution theory that directly or indirectly opposes Scripture or Tradition (does not take the soul into account, that all human beings are biologically descended from Adam and Eve, first parents of the entire human race, Original Sin, etc.) can in no way be recognized or admitted.  

[quote who="BoobzTwo" reply="340" id="3072318"]

Yes my view is in complete accordance with the Church and so is Catholic education in complete accord with Humani Generis. 

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

I remember this. The world's secular media had a field day claiming Bl. PJP II endorsed Darwinian evolution. His remark, taken out of context, established in some minds that the CC was ready to abandon her adherance to belief in God who created life, the universe and everything. 

Ya, so what? They were weighing and judging ET. 

Just before this Cardinal Schonborn, helped clarify the Church's understanding of human origins. He uniquivically established that the Church does not endorse Darwinian Evolution. He said, "Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of chance are not science at all, but as Pope John Paul II put it, "an abdication of human intelligence."

Enter Father George V. Coyne.  

Father Coyne was weighing and judging ID theory. I happen to disagree with him because his position is one of wanting to have it both ways. 

It has nothing to do with abandoning the belief in God. It has to do with accepting that certain parts of mythology that is presented in the bible should not be taken literally. The problem is you divide everything into two-sides. Did it ever occur to you that the "Secular Media" is actually composed of mostly people who believe in God. Many are not only Christian but some are also Catholic.

Truth Cannot Contradict Truth. Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)    http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

I am trying to stay away from clips and such, but this one amply demonstrates why I don’t want to discuss things with people like Lula who deny everything simply because they feel they were instructed to do so … at least in their own minds.

Yes, thus the difference between Catholic and public schools and vive la difference!  

But the teaching debate concerns teaching both Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design which is not religion but science whose  proponents argue that because of their scientifically proven complexity, all plant, animal and human life was designed. That's it...ID gives no religious explanation whatsoever how or by whom. 

Darwinian Evolution proponents argue the materialist philosophy that at all plant, animal and human life was the product of purely undirected natural forces, namely, by random chance over eons of time and by what Darwin called natural selection and survival of the fittest. 

The problem with Evolution is the chaos theory.  When left to its own design, life itself falls further into chaos, disorder and will eventually cease.  So how could it have "evolved" into what it is now?

If there were Proof of evolution (not just natural selection) then Evolution would be upgraded from it's current theory status.  And it has not, because there is no direct evidence.  There are NO partial species, there are NO advances within species, and there are fewer species now, then even 10 years ago. 

I'm sorry, I have studied this crap down to the microbe, and it just cannot be proven true.  Nature contradicts it.

Moved to the "Science and God" thread.

I do not think you understand what scientists and natural philosophers mean by chaos. It is merely a name given to the trillions on trillions on trillions of interactions that go on in the universe every moment. Individually the vast majority of these things can be understood, but no human can possible comprehend their combined influence; even if we could collect all of it as data, its simply too much to go through to see the big picture.

Chaos will at various times create both order or disorder (which are really just arbitrarily defined concepts with no basis in reality). While time does eventually randomly break down everything, chaos also contains processes to create new things. A mountain eroded to sand will eventually be part of a beach, then eventually pressed into sand stone, further pressed and transformed until it melts into the earths core, perhaps to one day be ejected out of a volcano to form a mountain again.

Once life enters the picture however, organisms that can survive will tilt the odds of chaos in its favor. Sure an asteroid could hit the Earth tomorrow and kill all life as we know it, that is part of the infinite amount of variables of which we are ignorant of. But life is very good at taking advantage of chaos. The best way to ensure your species survives is to have diversity, give the best odds that a given disaster won't eliminated the entire population. Not all species succeed, but those that do will have the traits they need to survive in that environment. And so on until the next disaster.

1. Modern Atomic Theory, 2. Kinetic Molecular Theory, 3. Germ Theory of Disease, 4. Big Bang Theory, 5. Theory of Evolution, 6. Theory of Gravity, 7. Cell Theory, 8. Theories of Relativity, 9. Plate Tectonic Theory, 10. Quantum Mechanical Theory, 11. String Theory or 12. Unified Field Theory.

What would you call the process of “natural selection” constantly being applied to a species over a million years??? Do you think that, with the constantly changing environment would leave us discussing the same exact creature that started this million year advance, I think not … I would call that evolution … but that’s just me. It seems to me that evolution has nothing to do with the death of over 99% of the creatures that have gone extinct ... that was just the result of failed evolution ... the dead ends. Evolution is only forward looking because the complete past is accurately represented in the cells of the entire genus spectrum. If you have not seen found any evidence of transitions … then you haven’t been looking in the right places is all.

Experts are not always what they claim to be. Kurt Wise has a PhD in geology from Harvard no less and made this statement; "If all the evidence in the universe pointed to an old earth, I would be the first to admit it but I would still be a young earth creationist … because that is what holy scripture teaches me.” At what point does this “Lula” attitude allow for any reasonable or useful discourse at all? And based on what I have seen here, theology supporters always insist that god has been proven to exist and rules over everything and just piss on the rest of us. This is an unacceptable starting point for any discussion outside the confines of ‘just religion’ period ... as proof belief of gods’ existence has nothing to do with evolution, science or me. At what point (if any) does a thinking man have to get to in order to begin to think of questioning the veracity of his own beliefs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

The clamor for teaching both sides of the origins debate wasn't to teach what Catholic schools teach, namely, Special Creation or Creationism.  

Creationism shouldn't be confused with Intelligent Design, a scientific theory. 

In the name of academic freedom and wanting to help students to understand the full range of scientific views, ID theory should be taught as well.

In 2008, Louisiana's Gov. Bobby Jindal signed a bill into law that would have the schools teach both sides. I haven't followed up on that.    

I've been "Jafo-d" from that thread. Check out #843 and 846 comments. Seems as though "condemning another's beliefs, be they religion or Atheism" is prohibited by JAFO. 

It's appears though that it is quite permissible for others to condemn Catholicism and belief in God. 

Yeah, if all things where equal, Boobz and smooth would both be locked out of these threads.....

But whatev.  What I mean as to theroies, btw, is this....

At one time it was a theory that the world was round.  But science had no way to prove it conclusively.  Now it is a FACT that the world is round.... cause it can be proven completely. That is my meaning.  And evolution (most notably, origin of the species) will never be proven, CONCLUSIVELY. 

I would just like equal say on possible theories to where life came from... and you "enlightened" folks don't seem to be too into equality....

Hard to be impartial when you have skin in the game.

The law doesn't allow teaching both sides. It allows for teaching opposing scientific theory. The federal courts have so far ruled ID as being creationism and not scientific theory.

Having opposing views is not condemning something.

There is nothing equal about locking out opposing views. That is called censorship not equality. Amazing how some who claim they simply want equal treatment advocate the exact opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

“ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science. It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer. The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism, and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.” ... “Although arguments for intelligent design are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer, the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that in their view the designer proposed in intelligent design is the Christian conception of God.”

"word of mouth" . Guess it doesn't take much faith for some to believe almost everything they hear.

Smoothseas; from what I read, there are over ten thousand clergy from different Christian denominations who have spoken out against ID because it undermines gods presumed role … and equates him to little more than a cosmic architect. There is no logic and very little common sense in what is going on here, but there sure is a lot of bellyaching for sure. It just seems typical that when most of the arguments for creationism fall apart as they must, the ‘believers’ always revert to 'religious intolerance' … all the while lacking any tolerance for anything unbiblical themselves, this is simply amazing to watch unfold.

It's all about the politics and money hiding under the covers. Another example of how politicians buy votes, and how "groups" manipulate an issue to get government grants and/or public donations.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute

As to the proper terminology, let's turn to thedefinition of evolution.....

From the World Book Dictionary, A-K, Vol 23 page 737, the definition of "Evolution"...(aka "macro-Evolution" or "Darwinian Evolution").

n. 1. any process of formation or growth; gradual development. 2 something evolved; product of development; not a sudden discovery or creation. 3 the theory that all living things developed from a few simple forms of life through a series of physical changes. According to evolution, the first mammal developed from a type of reptile, and ultimately all forms are traced back to a simple single-celled organism. ........9 Philosophy....the theory that a process or progressive change, with the development of more complex entities, characterizes all force and matter in the universe. Evolution is advance from the simple to the complex.

From a 10th grade biology book, by Miller/Levine, in the chapter on evolution, page 269,  the definition of "Evolution" is "process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient organisms."   

on pg. 271, "In the Origin of Species, Darwin maintained that modern organisms were produced by a process called evolution. Evolution is a process of change over time. Darwin argued that just as each new organism comes from pre-existing organisms, each species has descended from other species over time. If you look back far enough in time, you will see that all species have shared, or common ancestors."

Page 272, "Darwin and other scientists have accumulated a vast amount of evidence that proves that evolution has occurred."   

(My emphasis....and this is a lie as no such evidence that proves evolution according to this definition has ever been provided.)

And from a book entitled, "Understanding Science and Nature, Evolution of Life" which is found in just about every public school library or science class...is this

Pages 4-5,7 ..."The oldest known living creature, a bacterium, took form in the earth's oceans some 3.5 billion years ago. In the eons since life has become tremendously diverse. Living organisms now include as many as 30 million species...yet every species----the worms that endure precariously at the bottom of the ocean, the insects that live in the treetops of the tropical rain forest, the tiniest bacterium, the largest redwood tree, the hemlock, and the human being----can trace its origin back to a common, single-celled ancestor. The process by which this transformation occurred is known as evolution.

A new species evolves as it responds to changing conditions on Earth. The pattern of evolution resembles a tree, with the end of each branch representing a species. When a branch splits, life becomes more diverse. One of the first splits in evolutionary history occurred when the eukaryotes--organisms with complex cells---evolved from the prokaryotes, simple single-celled organisms. Other major branches appeared when multicelled eukaryotes evolved from the single celled eukaryotes, and when the plant and animal kingdoms separated. At each split, some trait appeared that distinguished one group of organisms from another."

Page 13, "Naturalists beginning with Aristotle have known that organisms fall into groups that progress from simple to complex. It wasn't until the 19th century that Charles Darwin developed the modern theory of evolution, successfullly explaining how more complex species arose over time from simpler ones."

Another science book entitled, "The Human Race" starts out on page 4, "the earliest human ancestors were ape-like animals, and the only remains they left behind were their teeth and bones which sometimes turned to fossils. The study of fossils human or animal is known as paleontology."

(Truth is, those fossils of teeth and bones are proven to be either fully human or fully ape, there hasn't been any found that were in-between, so this is a lie that is being told to children in public schools.)

To say that Evolution falsifies the literal interpretation is nothing but wishful imagination on your part.  

Evolution as described above is impossible. Check this out. It is as you say .... the truth accounts for something,