Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SACC-L] Comments from Anthros?

Expand Messages
  • anthropmor@AOL.COM
    Anj- part of the problem with this approach is The Church ...as if there were not different groups w/in the Catholic Church.? ? Going to church teachings, of
    Message 1 of 16 , Sep 18, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Anj- part of the problem with this approach is 'The Church"...as if there were not different groups w/in the Catholic Church.?
      ? Going to church teachings, of course, (as you know,)? the Church decided to get?behind Darwin long ago, with? the reservation of matters of faith to the Church.? ? ?
      ? Whay always bothers me is that the Church is officially against artificial insemination and most assisted prenancies...but that angle is rarely brought up.?
      ?I'm sorry, I'm running tired and will have to cut this short...I will check out things further & try to get back to you this weekend.
      Mike Pavlik

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Andrew J Petto <ajpetto@...>
      To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 7:58 am
      Subject: Re: [SACC-L] Comments from Anthros?






      We have an article in development for our journal (Reports of the Center for Science Education: www.ncseweb.org/newsletter.asp) showing that Roman Catholics in Texas hold opinions on creationism that are more akin to those of biblical literalists than to the theology of their Mother Church. This goes along with the fact that the Church has had nothing particularly forceful to say about the faith-science interface AND the fact that the Church generally does not consider meddling in science relevant (except, of course, in stem cell research!).

      Anj

      ------------
      Andrew J Petto, PhD
      Senior Lecturer
      Department of Biological Sciences
      University of Wisconsin -- Milwaukee
      PO Box 413
      Milwaukee WI 53201-0413
      414-229-6784
      FAX: 414-229-3926
      http://www.uwm.edu/~ajpetto

      *************
      Now Available!!! Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism.
      http://www.uwm.edu/~ajpetto/scc2.htm
      *************

      "There is no word in the language that I revere more than teacher. None. My heart sings when a kid refers to me as his teacher and it always has."

      -- Pat Conroy
      The Prince of Tides

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Brian M Lynch" <blynch@...>
      To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 5:54:40 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
      Subject: [SACC-L] Comments from Anthros?

      Available in today's (9/17/08) Chronicle of Higher Ed online, a brief news note with space to comment, about 'faith and science' and an upcoming event by the Roman Catholic church on a Darwinian anniversary. (While Anglican Catholics have heard the call to apologize to Darwin, the Roman Catholics seem to be saying "We're off the hook on this one! We've always had room for Charles.")

      < http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=126016/grpspId=1705079605/msgId=4667/stime=1221604553/nc1=3848578/nc2=5191955/nc3=5349286 > http://chronicle.com/news/article/5162/vatican-sets-conference-on-evolution?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en&commented=1#c025024

      Brian

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Tbbyrnehom@aol.com
      I do not have the document before me but can find it. Pope John Paul had a recent encyclical re Faith and Reason that addresses this issue. No Roman
      Message 2 of 16 , Sep 18, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        I do not have the document before me but can find it. Pope John Paul had a
        recent encyclical re Faith and Reason that addresses this issue. No Roman
        Catholic has grounds to reject evolution on matters of Faith. But of course
        the Pope was not speaking EX CATHEDRA, Which is the standard for Catholic
        Doctrine of Faith.. Anthropologist should be expected to research their subjects
        before they publish their findings.
        Bill Byrne, Past President and founding member of SACC.






















        .
        Bill Byrne. Former President of SACC



        **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
        challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
        calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Andrew J Petto
        This might be what you are looking for. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3992_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp#rom2 Unfortunately, under
        Message 3 of 16 , Sep 18, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          This might be what you are looking for.

          http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3992_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp#rom2

          Unfortunately, under Ratzinger et al, the Church has started to veer rightward a bit. The real issue will be the upcoming conference on science (and evolution).

          Anj

          ------------
          Andrew J Petto, PhD
          Senior Lecturer
          Department of Biological Sciences
          University of Wisconsin -- Milwaukee
          PO Box 413
          Milwaukee WI 53201-0413
          414-229-6784
          FAX: 414-229-3926
          http://www.uwm.edu/~ajpetto

          *************
          Now Available!!! Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism.
          http://www.uwm.edu/~ajpetto/scc2.htm
          *************

          "There is no word in the language that I revere more than teacher. None. My heart sings when a kid refers to me as his teacher and it always has."

          -- Pat Conroy
          The Prince of Tides

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Tbbyrnehom@...
          To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:00:17 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
          Subject: Re: [SACC-L] Comments from Anthros?






          I do not have the document before me but can find it. Pope John Paul had a
          recent encyclical re Faith and Reason that addresses this issue. No Roman
          Catholic has grounds to reject evolution on matters of Faith. But of course
          the Pope was not speaking EX CATHEDRA, Which is the standard for Catholic
          Doctrine of Faith.. Anthropologist should be expected to research their subjects
          before they publish their findings.
          Bill Byrne, Past President and founding member of SACC.






















          .
          Bill Byrne. Former President of SACC

          **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
          challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
          calculators. ( http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001 )

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Lynch, Brian M
          Thanks Bill for your note about the Pope s encyclical. Though in the RC tradition these don t have the weight of infallibility, they do represent
          Message 4 of 16 , Sep 18, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks Bill for your note about the Pope's encyclical. Though in the RC tradition these don't have the weight of 'infallibility,' they do represent statements considered to have significant weight as "official teaching."



            .

            Here is the "Encyclical" (letter) from Pope John Paul II from 1998. Again, this was from a longer line of statements that emphasized (back to some of the early theologians of the church) the compatibility of "faith and reason." <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=126016/grpspId=1705079605/msgId=4680/stime=1221793231/nc1=3848586/nc2=4990219/nc3=5349282>

            http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html








            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • anthropmor@AOL.COM
            In a message dated 9/18/2008 10:00:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Tbbyrnehom@aol.com writes: No Roman Catholic has grounds to reject evolution on matters of
            Message 5 of 16 , Sep 19, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 9/18/2008 10:00:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
              Tbbyrnehom@... writes:

              No Roman
              Catholic has grounds to reject evolution on matters of Faith. But of course
              the Pope was not speaking EX CATHEDRA, Which is the standard for Catholic
              Doctrine of Faith.. Anthropologist should be expected to research their
              subjects
              before they publish their findings.
              Bill Byrne, Past President and founding member of SACC.



              agreed - were this publication rather than a discussion list, I would
              certainly have done so. However, I would add that long before JP2, the vatican had
              okayed evolution.
              Mike Pavlik



              **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
              challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
              calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • anthropmor@AOL.COM
              In a message dated 9/18/2008 10:08:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time, ajpetto@uwm.edu writes: Unfortunately, under Ratzinger et al, the Church has started to veer
              Message 6 of 16 , Sep 19, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 9/18/2008 10:08:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
                ajpetto@... writes:

                Unfortunately, under Ratzinger et al, the Church has started to veer
                rightward a bit. The real issue will be the upcoming conference on science (and
                evolution).




                The Church has been clear on this for quite a while...church members should
                be sure to remind them.
                Mike Pavlik



                **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
                challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
                calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • anthropmor@AOL.COM
                and by the way, I did not send it with all those question marks. Mike Pavlik **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges?
                Message 7 of 16 , Sep 19, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  and by the way, I did not send it with all those question marks.
                  Mike Pavlik



                  **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
                  challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
                  calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Tbbyrnehom@aol.com
                  Listers of SACC, I regret my hasty remarks. Of course of Discussion list is not a publication but the stereotypes of of the RC are so rampant that we as
                  Message 8 of 16 , Sep 19, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Listers of SACC, I regret my hasty remarks. Of course of Discussion list
                    is not a publication but the stereotypes of of the RC are so rampant that we
                    as professional researchers should be very careful to get the full story.
                    Yes, in the 1950's Pius XII made a very clear statement that evolution was
                    not contrary to RC teachings. Bill Byrne



                    **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
                    challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
                    calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Lynch, Brian M
                    In the article from the Chronicle, the professor from Notre Dame has noted the lack of a strong Catholic theological presence in the contemporary discussions
                    Message 9 of 16 , Sep 20, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In the article from the Chronicle, the professor from Notre Dame has noted the lack of a "strong Catholic theological presence" in the contemporary discussions in the US around evolution (he calls it a debate, but that makes me nervous about giving any sense of legitimacy to those who want to 'debate' about the theory of evolution, from a creationist perspective). The lack of "Catholic theological presence" is not for lack of deep and significant theological investigation/examination of the relationship between faith and science, all the way back to Augustine and Aquinas, up to the present. It has been this tradition, and the strong voice of science advisors within the Church, that has continued to ground the Church's formal understanding of evolution as a scientific theory.

                      During the Cold War, the official voices of the Church seemed to hedge on its position toward evolution at times, with often heavily nuanced statements; but the primary point of this was to be clear that in accepting the empirical, materialist understanding of science in relation to evolution, the Church was not at the same time accepting the ultimate materialism of atheistic Communism; the nuancing was to be clear about accepting materialism--to a point (only to the point where then the Church understood that science could not ultimately make any claims beyond the physical realm, into the metaphysical).

                      But the "lack of a strong Catholic theological presence" in the contemporary discussions about evolution in our society may be due more to a peculiar institutional character of "teaching" in the Church. While the theologians and Catholic Scientists can discuss things among themselves, and test the limits of formal Church understanding, the official Church "Teachers" (the "Magisterium") are the Pope and Bishops, and to them, the theologians and scientists are officially advisory. While this layer of teachers and advisors figures things out officially, things get filtered down to the ordinary people ever so gradually. Often it is filtered in small doses, out of effort to protect the 'faithful' from becoming confused!

                      This hierarchical, often patriarchal ordering has a long history of twists and turns, but in part is a legacy of past social relations in which the bishops and priests were those who were educated, and the 'faithful' generally were not. A continued result of this is that many ordinary Roman Catholics have been raised with a less than adult understanding--of Church, of religious texts, of 'moral reasoning,' ...of "official teaching on evolution." (Hence my comment before "Keep out of reach of children.... with a childproof cap.") On a similar note for example, the Church has some radical critiques of capitalism, war, and social injustice, yet theologians have often in frustration dubbed these among the "best kept secrets of the Church." ...and if you asked many Catholics about "the Church's ethical/moral teachings" these would not be among their responses, but instead the focus would be on "pelvic morality" (another term some theologians have at times used in frustration).

                      The Roman Catholic church will have to do more for its contribution to the current discussions about evolution than to send in more official theologians. With a significant chasm between the deep and rich understanding of science reflected in formal Catholic theology, and the everyday understanding of ordinary church members (many who number among the significant percentage of U.S. citizens who believe in some form of creationism, and who reject scientific evolution http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties), this chasm itself needs bridging---and the reasons for its existence understood.

                      Brian




                      ________________________________

                      From: Lynch, Brian M
                      Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 6:54 AM
                      To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Comments from Anthros?



                      Available in today's (9/17/08) Chronicle of Higher Ed online, a brief news note with space to comment, about 'faith and science' and an upcoming event by the Roman Catholic church on a Darwinian anniversary. (While Anglican Catholics have heard the call to apologize to Darwin, the Roman Catholics seem to be saying "We're off the hook on this one! We've always had room for Charles.")

                      <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=126016/grpspId=1705079605/msgId=4667/stime=1221604553/nc1=3848578/nc2=5191955/nc3=5349286> http://chronicle.com/news/article/5162/vatican-sets-conference-on-evolution?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en&commented=1#c025024


                      Brian



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Tbbyrnehom@aol.com
                      Thank you Brian for your statement. Maybe we can even return more science into Anthropology. Bill Byrne **************Looking for simple solutions to your
                      Message 10 of 16 , Sep 20, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thank you Brian for your statement. Maybe we can even return more science
                        into Anthropology. Bill Byrne



                        **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
                        challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
                        calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Lynch, Brian M
                        . Thank you Brian for
                        Message 11 of 16 , Sep 21, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          .

                          <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=126016/grpspId=1705079605/msgId=4694/stime=1221964574/nc1=3848581/nc2=4990219/nc3=4836036> "Thank you Brian for your statement. Maybe we can even return more science
                          into Anthropology. Bill Byrne"


                          Certainly, Bill! Agreed.

                          Since my undergrad days back in the early 70's, I have been engaged by two key things (at least!) in the overall discipline: its scientific potential---I happen to be identified with cultural anthro, which I suspect is one of the more challenged subfields in terms of science--and its relationship with people and their "faith" (not just U.S. Christians/Roman Catholics). In the former area of the science of anthropology, at the same time, I have been surprised at times how easy it is for many a scientific anthropologist to carry and operate out of misconceptions and uncritical preconceptions about things religious closer to home, against which they then define themselves and their science. Evolutionary theory is one of these key matters where this happens to emerge quite often. As a result, we can end up looking no better in our possibly less-informed comments and criticisms about "faith" and religion than those who offer ill-informed, "faith based" criticism of the science we aim to teach (including evolution).

                          Brian



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Lynch, Brian M
                          Not sure what the yahoo system does with these messages in terms of how it processes code, but a number of past emails from the discussion list have come
                          Message 12 of 16 , Sep 21, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Not sure what the yahoo system does with these messages in terms of how it processes code, but a number of past emails from the discussion list have come through garbled recently. I just noticed this again with my last post, which I am repeating below to see if it comes through correctly.

                            Brian

                            (********Original Message Below**********)

                            "Thank you Brian for your statement. Maybe we can even return more science
                            into Anthropology. Bill Byrne"


                            Certainly, Bill! Agreed.

                            Since my undergrad days back in the early 70's, I have been engaged by two key things (at least!) in the overall discipline: its scientific potential---I happen to be identified with cultural anthro, which I suspect is one of the more challenged subfields in terms of science--and its relationship with people and their "faith" (not just U.S. Christians/Roman Catholics). In the former area of the science of anthropology, at the same time, I have been surprised at times how easy it is for many a scientific anthropologist to carry and operate out of misconceptions and uncritical preconceptions about things religious closer to home, against which they then define themselves and their science. Evolutionary theory is one of these key matters where this happens to emerge quite often. As a result, we can end up looking no better in our possibly less-informed comments and criticisms about "faith" and religion than those who offer ill-informed, "faith based" criticism of the science we aim to teach (including evolution).

                            Brian



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.