Les relations de pouvoir entre hommes et femmes dans Monsieur ...

Publié par

  • cours - matière potentielle : cuisine et de broderie
  • mémoire
Les relations de pouvoir entre hommes et femmes dans Monsieur Vénus, La Marquise de Sade et La Jongleuse de Rachilde FRA-3910 Adeline Broust Mastergradsoppgave i fransk litteratur Fakultet for humaniora, samfunnsvitenskap og lærerutdanning Universitetet i Tromsø Våren 2010
  • éducation des jeunes filles de l'aristocratie
  • cause de l'idéal de l'épouse pure
  • vague de répression et de lutte anti
  • rachilde
  • eros décadent
  • lutte pour les droits de la femme
  • femme
  • femmes
  • hommes
  • homme
Publié le : mercredi 28 mars 2012
Lecture(s) : 40
Source : munin.uit.no
Nombre de pages : 268
Voir plus Voir moins

Approval Page
J Donnelly iA CRITIQUE OF EVOLUTION WITHIN CATHOLICISM AND ITS
SUBSEQUENT LINKS WITH FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIANITY
JOHN DONNELLY DIP.PHIL., B.D., H.DIP.ED., DIP. MISSION STUDIES,
M.ED.,
FREEDOM BIBLE COLLEGE AND SEMINARY
THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DOCTORAL DISSERTATION COMMITTEE IN
PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOCTOR OF
THEOLOGY DEGREE
J Donnelly iiCONTENTS

Page
Acknowledgements iv
Thesis Statement v
Introduction 1
PART ONE: EVOLUTION AND CATHOLICISM
Chapter 1: A Short History of Evolution Theory 3
Chapter 2: Evolution and Catholicism – The Current Position 34
Chapter 3: Can Evolution Blend with Catholicism? 54
Chapter 4: Why Evolution Can Never Become Part of Catholic Doctrine 66
Chapter 5: Why Catholics Should Reject Evolution 91
PART TWO: SOME PHILOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND EFFECTS
OF EVOLUTION WITHIN CATHOLICISM
Chapter 6: Why Evolution is Pseudoscience – Some Philosophical Considerations 105
Chapter 7: Dangerous Effects of Evolution 130
Chapter 8: A Lesson from History 140
PART THREE: CATHOLICISM AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM –
A NEED TO RETURN TO THE SCRIPTURES
Chapter 9: Moses and the reliability of the Pentateuch 167
Chapter 10: Two Different Accounts in Genesis? 175
PART FOUR: CONCLUSION
Chapter 11: Evolution, Catholicism and Fundamentalism 184
Bibliography 212
J Donnelly iiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe a huge debt of gratitude to the following people: Amy Joy Reilly who helped
me with advice on editing; Vidis my wife who kept encouraging me when things
were going slowly, enabling me to recommence; my parents John and Alice who also
were a source of encouragement and who goaded me on; my pupils who were so
interested in this theme and created even more enthusiasm in me; my daughter
Clodagh who has never ceased to ask questions about evolution and kept me on my
toes.
J Donnelly iv
THESIS STATEMENT
Evolution is a defunct belief system, which has adversely affected Catholicism, but
the key to eradicate this is a return to the fundamental doctrine of Special Creation
found in the Scriptures.
J Donnelly vJ Donnelly viA CRITIQUE OF EVOLUTION WITHIN CATHOLICISM AND ITS SUBSEQUENT LINKS
WITH FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIANITY
Introduction
Evolution is a defunct belief system, which has adversely affected Catholicism, but the key to eradicate this
is a return to the fundamental Doctrine of Special Creation found in the Scriptures. Many Catholics assert
that the Catholic Church regards evolution as a fact thinking, “evolution is acceptable as long as God was
involved”. On the contrary, I submit that evolution, when correctly defined, cannot be casually regarded as
scientific fact. The objective truth, known from scientific evidence and theological arguments, contradicts
evolution. I also submit that Catholic doctrine has always favoured ex nihilo creation (not Darwinian
Evolution) as found in the book of Genesis and that this demonstrates a fundamentally Christian approach.
This thesis will provide evidence that in general Catholic doctrine goes against evolution even though some
Church theologians seem to state otherwise. Relevant documents will be examined to show the anti-
evolution (Creation) theme. The aim of this thesis is not to critique all of the evolution bias within
Catholicism but to point out the weakness of the evolution position and by doing so, evolution argument
and bias will be exposed. It will also be shown that Catholicism has always had links with fundamental
Christianity, demonstrating that Catholicism needs to go back to its origins and follow a more focused or
fundamental teaching from the Bible against evolution dogma. Because Catholicism has not primarily
focused on the Bible it finds that it has a lot of problems as a church today. This thesis is not an argument
for Catholic doctrine in general but rather it is a critique of the philosophy/theology surrounding the topic
of evolution, demonstrating the orthodox position which the Catholic Church has always had in relation to
evolution, while pointing out the various errors that have crept into Catholicism. It is hoped that the
conclusions to this thesis may open the debate, particularly in the Republic of Ireland which is a
predominantly Catholic country.
The thesis consists of three parts. Part 1 deals with the critique of evolution. Part 2 has some philosophical
considerations arising out of the critique and the dangers of evolution theory. Part 3 demonstrates that the
J Donnelly 1Pentateuch was indeed edited or written by Moses and that the Genesis account of creation is one unit.
Part 1 Chapter 1 exposes the false science of the evolution theory. Some scientific and technical language is
used. The next four chapters are somewhat more theological in that they treat of the position of the Catholic
Church. There is much historical information interspersed with scientific fact debunking modern evolution
theory. This leads naturally into Part 2 in that having critiqued evolution for the first five chapters the next
three deal with the exposition of the nature of evolution from a philosophical standpoint and the consequent
dangers of supporting such a widespread belief system. Part 3 turns to Scripture because the modern day
attack on the Bible in general and the book of Genesis in particular has caused a lot of people to doubt the
word of God. The two chapters in this section try to restore confidence in Genesis and the author/editor as
Moses.
Having defended the credibility of Scripture I then conclude in the final section by stating that the Catholic
Church, in relation to the whole area of evolution, must indeed return to the fundamentals of The Christian
faith. This is because the onslaught of evolution must be met head on. If evolution is no longer a fact of
science then more authority is put on Scripture/Genesis as representative of simple but factual evidence. I
argue that this can aid the Catholic Church in giving answers to her flock in the domain of faith, morality
and direction in life. I try to show that the general Fundamental Christian position in the creation/evolution
debate can be a sure way of bringing in the new evangelisation the Catholic Church has been looking for.
Various bible translations are used throughout this paper
J Donnelly 2PART 1
EVOLUTION AND CATHOLICISM
Chapter 1: A Short History of Evolution Theory
Despite having its heritage in ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was first brought to the
consideration of the scientific world in the nineteenth century. The most carefully considered view of
evolution was expressed by the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, in his Zoological Philosophy
(1809). Lamarck thought that all living things were endowed with a vital force that steered them to
evolve toward greater complexity. He also thought that organisms could impart to their offspring traits
acquired during their lifetimes. As an example of this way of thinking, Lamarck suggested that the long
neck of the giraffe evolved when a short-necked ancestor took to browsing on the leaves of trees instead
of on grass.
This evolutionary model of Lamarck's was invalidated by the discovery of the laws of genetic
inheritance. In the middle of the twentieth century, the discovery of the structure of DNA revealed that
the nuclei of the cells of living organisms possess very special genetic information, and that this could
not be altered by ‘acquired traits’. In other words, during its lifetime, even though a giraffe managed to
make its neck a few centimetres longer by extending it to upper branches, this trait would not pass to its
offspring. In short, the Lamarckian view was simply refuted by scientific findings and went down in
history as a faulty assumption.
However, the evolutionary theory formulated by another natural scientist, who lived a couple of
generations after Lamarck, proved to be more influential. This natural scientist was Charles Robert
Darwin, and the theory he formulated is known as “Darwinism”.
The Birth of Darwinism
Charles Darwin based his theory on various observations he made as a young naturalist on board the
HMS Beagle, which sailed in late 1831 on a five-year official voyage around the world. Young Darwin
J Donnelly 3was heavily influenced by the variety of species he observed, especially of the different Galapagos Island
finches. The differences in the beaks of these birds, Darwin thought, were a result of their adaptation to
their different environments.
After this voyage, Darwin started to visit animal markets in England. He observed that breeders produced
new breeds of cow by mating animals with different characteristics. This experience, together with the
different finch species he observed in the Galapagos Islands, contributed to the formulation of his theory.
In 1859 he published his views in his book The Origin of Species, postulating that all species had
descended from a single ancestor, evolving from one another over time by slight variations.
What made Darwin's theory different from Lamarck's was his emphasis on ‘natural selection’. Darwin
theorised that there is a struggle for survival in nature, and that natural selection is the survival of strong
species, which can adapt to their environment. Darwin adopted the following line of reasoning:
Within a particular species there are natural and coincidental variations. For instance, some cows are
bigger than others, while some have darker colours. Natural selection selects the favourable traits. The
process of natural selection thus causes an increase of favourable genes within a population, which
results in the features of that population becoming better adapted to local conditions. Over time these
changes may be significant enough to cause a new species to arise.
However, this ‘theory of evolution by natural selection’ gave rise to doubts from the start:
1. What were the natural and coincidental variations referred to by Darwin? It was true that some
cows were bigger than others, while some had darker colours, yet how could these variations
provide an explanation for the diversity in animal and plant species?
2. Darwin asserted that living beings evolved gradually. In this case, formerly there should have
lived millions of “transitional forms”. Yet there was no trace of these theoretical creatures in the
fossil record. Darwin gave considerable thought to this problem, and eventually arrived at the
conclusion that further research would provide these fossils.
3. How could natural selection explain complex organs, such as eyes, ears or wings? How can it be
defended that these organs evolved gradually, bearing in mind that they would fail to function if
they had even a single part missing?
J Donnelly 4

Soyez le premier à déposer un commentaire !

17/1000 caractères maximum.