Where you taught macro-evolution was a fact in your Irish Catholic school?

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Or was it not mentioned at all?

Or did any teachers go to the effort of attempting to de-bunk it?

It has come to my attention that at least in some (supposedly) Catholic schools it is taught as a fact and it seems in nearly all no effort is made to debunk it.

What is your experience in this issue?
 


Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
39,552
Or was it not mentioned at all?

Or did any teachers go to the effort of attempting to de-bunk it?

It has come to my attention that at least in some (supposedly) Catholic schools it is taught as a fact and it seems in nearly all no effort is made to debunk it.

What is your experience in this issue?
It was thought because the evidence leads there and it provides the best and most reasonable explanation for the variation we see as between species.

Science provides explanations, by the way. Not facts. To assert so is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding on your part and is therefore a mischaracterisation of science by you. Read some Popper.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,900
It was thought because the evidence leads there and it provides the best and most reasonable explanation for the variation we see as between species.

Science provides explanations, by the way. Not facts. To assert so is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding on your part and is therefore a mischaracterisation of science by you. Read some Popper.


Taught? petunia


A Freudian slip is saying one thing and meaning your mother.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
39,552
Taught? petunia


A Freudian slip is saying one thing and meaning your mother.
Nice catch! I'll leave it in place.

I guess I'm subconsciously channelling the OP; the very first word in the thread title is in error.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
10,901
Why the use of the term 'macro evolution'? Is there any difference in Catholic teaching between Micro and Macro evolution?

Primary catholic NS 1970s, secondary 1980s....my teachers took evolution as a basic principle.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
39,552
Oh blah we are not doing exams now.
The point is that to critique scientific findings it is first important to understand what they are. No simply what the conclusions are, but also the nature of what they purport to be.

They can only be at their fundamental best tentative to a degree.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
We were taught the theory of evolution and did a whole sub-unit on genetics and the human genome. This started in Form One, but prior to that in primary school, we had already done little Tree of Life projects with monkeys and fish and us etc etc all perched on various branches. Darwinism for High Babies - you should give it a go yourself.

That was the Northern Irish Curriculum and all they have done to it since my day is update it. Science marches on.

WTF, else would we be taught?
 

d7bohs

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
1,108
I finished school in 77 and my memory is that it was taught as 'fact'. We didn't go too deeply into popper and kuhn and the like when it came to distinguishing fact fron explanatory strategy.
The RCC, despite its many faults, has generally been far more sophisticated when it comes to science than other christian denominations.
 

FunkyBoogaloo

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
2,869
I was taught* that Irish catholics macro-evolve into protestants or agnostics by the time they hit their teens. :)





*observed
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Why the use of the term 'macro evolution'? Is there any difference in Catholic teaching between Micro and Macro evolution?
Yes micro-evolution is a fact, macro-evolution is a very disputable theory that is repulsive and goes against the Bible. Personally I hold to the "Gap theory" and believe that there was a different world age before the creation of Adam however the idea that Our Lady evolved from an ape is pure disgusting. Also macro-evolution makes God guilty of the origin of evil and the epistemological disconnection between Him and humanity.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
10,901
I think this may more of an issue for some Protestant teachers/schools/parents.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
10,901
Yes micro-evolution is a fact, macro-evolution is a very disputable theory that is repulsive and goes against the Bible. Personally I hold to the "Gap theory" and believe that there was a different world age before the creation of Adam however the idea that Our Lady evolved from an ape is pure disgusting. Also macro-evolution makes God guilty of the origin of evil and the epistemological disconnection between Him and humanity.
Your beliefs do not reflect the established Catholic thought.
 

che schifo

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
5,639
It was thought because the evidence leads there and it provides the best and most reasonable explanation for the variation we see as between species.

Science provides explanations, by the way. Not facts. To assert so is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding on your part and is therefore a mischaracterisation of science by you. Read some Popper.
It's as close to a fact as you're ever going to get in science. It's very unlikely to ever be debunked and the process can be observed in bacteria in the lab. I'm happy to refer to it as a fact.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
39,552
I finished school in 77 and my memory is that it was taught as 'fact'. We didn't go too deeply into popper and kuhn and the like when it came to distinguishing fact fron explanatory strategy.
The RCC, despite its many faults, has generally been far more sophisticated when it comes to science than other christian denominations.
It may be the style of teaching. On one side, one does not contradict a teacher and certainly not the state examiner by denying scientific theory. On the other it always has to be borne in mind that scientific theory (and this is certaibly the case with evolution) undergoes constant refinement and very rarely complete overhaul.

Creationists love using the word "darwinism" to describe evolution, but that is akin to critiquing modern cars by using the very first Benz vehicle as your example. The ToE has been built on incrementally over the decades and has achieved ever greater explanatory weight. In addition, techniques which were simply unthinkable in the time of Darwin have added to that stock and fulfilled an implicit predictive power of his theory.

You're correct about the RCC, which has endorsed evolution, JPII (I think) called it "more than a theory". The RCC is quite pro-science in general, if sometimes in error about the application of its findings.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,160
Yes micro-evolution is a fact, macro-evolution is a very disputable theory that is repulsive and goes against the Bible. Personally I hold to the "Gap theory" and believe that there was a different world age before the creation of Adam however the idea that Our Lady evolved from an ape is pure disgusting. Also macro-evolution makes God guilty of the origin of evil and the epistemological disconnection between Him and humanity.
I prefer Wrangler.
 

PeaceGoalie

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
3,459
Des Quirell;10816682I guess I'm subconsciously channelling the OP; the very first word in the thread title is in error.[/QUOTE said:
Perhaps that is your problem right there.

Oh blah we are not doing exams now.
What one studies is detemriend by the exam boards. Pearse, The Murder Machine etc

Why the use of the term 'macro evolution'? Is there any difference in Catholic teaching between Micro and Macro evolution? Primary catholic NS 1970s, secondary 1980s....my teachers took evolution as a basic principle.
Of course. Some people think school is a fathomless jar that every bit of knowledge and pseudo knowledge can be put into

Northern Irish ?
No such place or people.

I finished school in 77 and my memory is that it was taught as 'fact'. We didn't go too deeply into popper and kuhn and the like when it came to distinguishing fact fron explanatory strategy.
The RCC, despite its many faults, has generally been far more sophisticated when it comes to science than other christian denominations.
The Catholic Church has no major problem with evolution and various Popes have written extensively on it. The Buddha never worried about it at all.
Kuhn incidentally is a fool and has much to answer for. Read this excellent article on that fool. The author is a Nobel Prize winner, an atheist and whatever.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
10,901
I don't see how Macro evolution 'makes God guilty' ....I think the Tree of Knowledge, much like Prometheus' story, is an interesting depiction of the separation and maturation of us from our living non human fellow animals. The eating of the apple was an act of free will by us in defiance of God.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Perhaps that is your problem right there.


What one studies is detemriend by the exam boards. Pearse, The Murder Machine etc



Of course. Some people think school is a fathomless jar that every bit of knowledge and pseudo knowledge can be put into

No such place or people.



The Catholic Church has no major problem with evolution and various Popes have written extensively on it. The Buddha never worried about it at all.
Kuhn incidentally is a fool and has much to answer for. Read this excellent article on that fool. The author is a Nobel Prize winner, an atheist and whatever.

No such curriculum then either? You really are a nitpicking fool. :D
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
39,552
It's as close to a fact as you're ever going to get in science. It's very unlikely to ever be debunked and the process can be observed in bacteria in the lab. I'm happy to refer to it as a fact.
Of course it's as close to fact as can be imagined, and I doubt that it will ever be overturned, although there may come some major refinements at the molecular level.

In the philosophical sense, though, science cannot disprove such assertions one that states that we were all created last Tuesday by my cat - and created with implanted memories.

I'm not in any being sceptical about evolution; aside from its wonderful explanatory (and predictive) powers, it is also in itself a beautiful explanation.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top