Any young earth creationists out there?

[leonhardprintz]

… except thousands of years of intensive animal and plant breeding by humans, which suggests kinds don’t evolve into other kinds

“Kinds” are a pre-scientific term and does not correspond to the notion of ‘species’, or the more precise definition of ‘clades’.

If you go by the modern definition of species (look up cladistics), then evolutionary biology actually doesn’t claim that species evolve into other species. All the descendants of the early canid that humans tamed, remain of that species. Just as all human descendants remain human. And all the descendants of apes, remain apes, of which we are one.

Humans are a species of Hominid, along with Neanderthal, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Hobbitus… All Hominids are Apes, because they share a close common ancestor with all the other apes. Just as all Apes are Monkeys. Just as all Monkeys are Synapsids and all Synapsids (the common ancestor of all mammals) are Amniotes (common ancestor of all terrestrial animals).

And this goes all the way back to the Eukaryotes.

You are of the species Eukaryote, your cells are yeast-like, with a membrane, a nucleus and an endo-plasmatic reticulum. You are of the species Amniote, you have lunges for instance capable of breathing, and share features in common with an Amniote.

All descendants of each common ancestor share key features in common with them. As evolution progresses it becomes more and more ‘stiff’. Each species only being able to vary within its own clade.

True such variation can be very broad especially if the potency of the earlier species was very great, but the further we go the more narrowly life can diversify. This is why we can recognise legless lizards as not being snakes, even though they have a tail like body.

No matter how many offspring we have, and no matter how much they vary potentially. They’d still be human.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

lots of folks argue that the ‘days’ are figurative

In that case, you won’t have any trouble citing a theologian who does. Thanks.

No problem! And, in fact, I can do so from the very site you cited to me!
ScriptureCatholic.com:

St. Augustine introduced an alternative theory which proposed that God may have created the entire world in an instant

Glad I could help.

The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual” (no. 23).”

• from scripturecatholic.com

Two problems here:

• first, this view misstates what Pius XII was railing against. It wasn’t evolution, per se, it was how evolution was being misused by some. From Humani generis, here’s the context of what your quote was talking about, in terms of "false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine:

Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution… explains the origin of all things. … Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

In other words, the problem is the attempt to use evolution to remove the necessity of a creator God.

Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

The ‘erroneous philosophy’, then – which, by the way, is what Pius perceived as a threat to Catholic doctrine – is existentialism, not ‘evolution’.

One other point: what is the ‘immutable essence’ that Pius mentions here? Is it our physical body? No, of course, not: it’s our soul! So, Pius points out that existentialism and materialism posit that there is no soul, and that is what runs counter to Catholic teaching.

• Second, if you want to quote an opinion on what a particular encyclical means, it would be helpful to quote a magisterial source. Since you’re quoting a source that makes the case for a 6170-year-old universe, it’s wholly unsurprising that their spin on Humani generis is what it is…

 

[Aloysium]

You are of the species Eukaryote, your cells are yeast-like, with a membrane, a nucleus and an endo-plasmatic reticulum.

That would be the storyline that should be taken a step further in that “you” are a collection of molecules, presumably the direct descendent of the original singularity. This isn’t wrong, from my perspective, in the sense that as the crown of creation, we are one with the universe, transforming, as we relate to, the world about us physically and psychologically into ourselves.

The fact is that this is a projection onto life. As an atom in itself is quite a different form of being than some bacterium is in being itself, so too with our capacity to engage in this conversation, we are immeasurably different from a one-celled creature. It is a classification system based on morphological and physiological differences, similarities in how matter is organized.

While the genetic data that is used to construct the picture of a tree of life may have some value, I can’t conceive of any purpose to this taxonomy other than to spread belief in this illusion. Correlations do not imply causality and similarities within different levels of life do not necessitate an ancestral connection.

What is a eukaryote, is very different from what is a lion, and a human being. The process of creation saw the emergence of ever more complex individual beings. Each kind of creature is an expression of a different essence, which is propagated from most probably an original couple. The first of their kind would contain the potential for diversity for its future offspring, thereby forming the new relationships that constitute their environment and expressing the glory, beauty and infinite creativity of God.

 

[leonhardprintz]

That would be the storyline that should be taken a step further in that “you” are a collection of molecules, presumably the direct descendent of the original singularity.

True, we’re made of molecules. I think you could stretch what I said to that, but it would be a stretch. I was explaining how modern biology conceived of us as species, in contrast to the Biblical notion of kinds.

we are immeasurably different from a one-celled creature.

No, we aren’t. At least not in the sense of overlay. We’re more than yeast cells sure. We have brains, we can think. Our composition is multi-cellular, we have bones, and blood vessels. A yeast like cells doesn’t have anything like that.

However, we share in our inheritance all the same cellular mechanics. That was the point I made. In that sense we are an example of a eukaryotic species. Just a very complex multicellular species.

What is a eukaryote, is very different from what is a lion, and a human being.

In what way? We’re multi-cellular, but that just means we’re examples of a multi-cellular eukaryotic species.

Secondly, you’re begging the question with this statement. Litterally in fact, since you presume with the question that we’re not Eukaryotes.

They’re not mere similarities. Leg-less lizards are similar to snakes, but there are very strong reasons to consider them very different species. Just from a stand point of anatomy leg-less lizards, are more similar to their lizard cousins than to snakes proper. They have small earholes, which snakes lack. Their scales are fine-knit, where as scales have scutes and scales that overlap. The shape of their maw is very much that of other lizards. And that’s from the anatomy alone. On a genetic level the overlap is even more stark.

We are Eukaryotes. There’s virtually no difference between your cells, and the cells you add to wheat flour to make it rise, to that of a jellyfish. They’re very similar down to protein pumping structures, how they process and breakdown nutrients, how they excrete and get rid of waste, how they interpret the genetic code and use it produce proteins.

About the biggest difference between your cells and plant cells are in terms of what your cells lack, features they don’t have, you don’t have aloe and you can’t do photosynthesis, and your cell wall isn’t reinforced with another barrier made of starch. But all the other things? There are no significant differences.

Protein for protein, sequence for sequence, regulatory mechanism for regulatory mechanism.

The only two types of life that are truly different from Eukaryotes, are prokaryotes and archaea. Both are single-celled, or amoeba.

At any rate I wasn’t defending that this was the case. My point was an explanation. Going into why we consider this the case is long and interesting.

 

[leonhardprintz]

Correlations do not imply causality and similarities within different levels of life do not necessitate an ancestral connection.

While this is true, causality is demonstrated by proposing a hypothesis of a viable mechanism that has a causal explanation of something, and as time goes on, and this investigation continuously demonstrates the viability of this explanation the causality is demonstrated.

In example: Flour in diets prevents tooth-decay. It follows then that if we study populations where flour is added to their diet, less tooth decay appears, and correspondingly more tooth decay occurs when this isn’t the case. We have a plausible chemical explanation for it. And over time and many studies we find this to be the case.

The theory of evolution does this, and in fact manages to explain this nested pattern of life and the multi-faceted types of evidence we have from morphology, bio-geographical distribution, genetic phylogony, and even fossils.

I have seen no credible alternative that manages to do that all that.

Creationism, I can respect, when it comes from simply, humble, pious respect for the Church Fathers who most certainly were creationists. I respect this. But, at the same time, I think its foolish to look for scientific evidence to support this faith with.

 

[Aloysium]

what Pius XII was railing against. It wasn’t evolution, per se, it was how evolution was being misused by some. From Humani generis , here’s the context

The larger context is:

1. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
2. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
3. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man’s life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.

Pope Pius is addressing the then current trends of thought, not just the philosophy that had “assumed the name of existentialism”. Please also note that “immanentism and pragmatism” is a feature of evolutionary theories that speak of matter configuring itself randomly thereby producing the diversity of creatures in time, under the influence of natural selection.

the ‘immutable essence’ that Pius mentions here?

Consider that immutable essences would include everything that is - atoms, bacteria, plants, animals, persons, each having an essence given to it as it is brought into being. God as Existence itself, is the Source of all that is what it is. We, made in the image of the triune Godhead, exist as a self-other relationship. As we grow in Jesus, that which unites us with what is other is the Spirit of Love, ultimately bringing us, and thereby all creation, into communion with He who is other to all creation, within the Trinity.

The atheistic philosophy of existentialism has described individual existence as preceding one’s essence, asserting that from one’s undefined existence, it is the person who determines him/herself. While we do participate in our creation as an eternal being through our free will, our conditions and the moral environment in which we exist, that of God’s infinite compassion and His will that we become Love, as with our very being, these are not brought into existence by us, but are given as gifts and challenges. From the garden onwards, our attempts to make ourselves gods without God, without Love have been doomed to failure, creating only illusion and chasing after the transient.

 

[Gorgias]

Consider that immutable essences would include everything that is - atoms, bacteria, plants, animals, persons, each having an essence given to it as it is brought into being.

I disagree. “Atoms, bacteria, plants, animals, and persons” are not immutable.

The atheistic philosophy of existentialism has described individual existence as preceding one’s essence, asserting that from one’s undefined existence, it is the person who determines him/herself

Right. And this, primarily, is what Pius was railing against. The misuse of the theories of evolution is merely one of the vectors that these spurious philosophies attempt to use in their defense.

 

[Aloysium]

I think its foolish to look for scientific evidence to support this faith with.

Which implies that modern science for all its benefits In terms of effective public health systems, the gimmicks that entertain us and the various means by which we are able to destroy ourselves, is foolishness when it comes to understanding who and why we are. Intellectually dissecting the person into physical components results in our abolition, a state of mind encouraged by totalitarian nations, communist or fascist, as well as the consumerist society of which most of us here are a part.

 

[edwest211]

Well said but all of us need the necessities. Other aspects of ‘consumerist society’ can and should be avoided or minimized. There’s no real reason to have dozens of pairs of shoes but there are people who do want them anyway. I grew up with ‘doing without,’ especially when I don’t have the money. I’d rather sacrifice this or that than worry about paying bills.

The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis addresses your other concerns. When man is reduced to his “useful service life,” like a machine, he is dehumanized. When he is encouraged to do things that can harm him mentally, physically and spiritually then the common good is replaced by addiction or addictive behavior - all in the form of spreading the ‘harm of society,’ Personal responsibility is certainly not reinforced. Being a cog in the machine that can later be discarded at whim leads to a few bad options. But, as long as money is changing hands…

 

[Aloysium]

I disagree. “Atoms, bacteria, plants, animals, and persons” are not immutable.

There is a fundamental difference in our understanding of the world.

In my universe, all these are as immutable as we are in being what all parts of this “living” universe are in themselves.

We can be physically altered, a part lopped off here and there, psychologically, losing our memories or capacities to direct our attention and hold a thought. We can die, the essence of our being no longer holding our physical form.

The atoms in our body exist as themselves as our physical form decomposes upon death. Here and now except for the small proportion that emerge as a result of physical processes, they are united as the physical substrate of our relationship with the world, including both the conscious experience and the silent processes that keep us in life. They are types of inanimate “soul” which we categorize as matter.

There is no real deliniation in my mind between physics and metaphysics. The two areas of knowledge describe what things are and do. “Things” are ultimately types of relationship, which vary from individuality to merger into a larger system - particle or wave.

Bacteria exist as a form of being, uniting the atoms that constitute their physical structure and physiology into a living organism, which may act and perceive - becoming a vibrating light of one kind emotion to danger, another to food and another to one of its kind. Instinctively it would move towards or away from the stimulus, not much thinking or learning involved.

Plants reach out for the sun, sucking up the water, transforming carbon dioxide into sugars, producing seeds. What is darkness to our consciousness bent on the stimulation of sounds, colours, shapes and emotion, is the quiet world of their existence. Breathe in and breathe out.

Animals with their passions, the excitement, anger, pleasure and fear, physically constructed to seek out satisfactions for their needs in nature are a step up from plants, engaging as well in sophisticated social behaviours, all different kinds of being. Getting specific, we can say that a cat is a kind of creature, an “idea” perhaps or type of soul that is immutable and manifested in the various types of cats we find in the world today. That soul, created by the Divine Imagination, is expressed in the form of each individual organism and had a beginning in time - creation of beings which are a spiritual unity of mind and matter.

When we get to human beings, that soul is God’s Spirit, allowing us the capacity to love - a free will that can give of itself to what is other, and in that love become one with Love itself.

 

[Glark]

Wrong translation. It’s more like “it’s nonsensical to claim that theoretical science must, by definition, have practical application"

You know full well that this is not my claim. In a pathetic attempt to save face (again), you have now resorted to dishonesty? This hole you have dug for yourself just keeps getting deeper!

I asked you for practical examples of how the “information” that life evolved from microbes is useful to science, and all you gave me was more empty rhetoric.

…lots of folks argue that the ‘days’ are figurative!

Er, have you read Genesis 1:14-18?
“Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 1and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness.”

This passage is simply describing natural phenomena we notice every day - the sun rises and illuminates the day; then when the sun goes down, the moon sheds it light during the night. The sun is also responsible for “seasons” and “years”.
What, pray tell, is the “figurative” interpretation of this passage that you allude to? I can’t wait to hear it!

 

[Glark]

The assertion that @Glark made was that “figurative language” in the beginning chapters of Genesis is “insane.”

That is not my assertion. I accept that the first three chapters of Genesis may well feature symbolic language. For example, the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” may not be a literal tree. These three chapters may contain a mixture of literalism and symbolism.
But to claim that the first ELEVEN chapters are symbolic is just Darwinist-inspired nonsense, imo.

On the face of it, a figurative interpretation is much, much more ‘sane’ than are talking snakes and a boat that houses a menagerie

For starters, it wasn’t a “snake”, but a serpent with legs (the legs were later lost due the curse God placed on it). And Satan doesn’t need to use an audible voice to exert his will on humans, so when the serpent “spoke” to Eve it could have been an internal voice. Do you think Satan “spoke” to Judus in an audible voice?

As for Noah’s Ark, it is not surprising to hear another thevo expressing doubts about extraordinary events recording in Scripture.

 

[edwest211]

It’s as if God can’t do things God can actually do.

 

[Glark]

Nah. You know so little about the matter I’m putting you down as a member of the choir. A wannabe preacher

Nothing “wannabe” about - each and every Christians is called to be, in effect, a preacher; and preaching can take many forms. For example, on this thread there are preachers of God’s Word … just as there are preachers of Scientism.

 

[Glark]

It’s as if God can’t do things God can actually do.

Haven’t you heard? God is limited by science.

 

[Glark]

I was always bemused as a kid that the snake’s punishment was to have to crawl on his belly all the days of his life. Not really too much of a hardship I would have thought for a snake. It would be like telling a fish he was being punished by having to swim under water.

Oh come on, do you really think the writer of Genesis was that stupid? It obviously wasn’t a snake that “spoke” to Eve, but some kind of serpent with legs. It ain’t rocket science.

 

[Gorgias]

In my universe, all these are as immutable as we are in being what all parts of this “living” universe are in themselves.

We can be physically altered, a part lopped off here and there, psychologically, losing our memories or capacities to direct our attention and hold a thought. We can die, the essence of our being no longer holding our physical form.

In “your universe”, immutable means something different than its normative definition, then. “Immutable” means unchanging.

So… if not “immutable”, what would you think a better word might be?

 

[edwest211]

Why, it’s so obvious! If a tree falls in a forest and science can’t detect it, it really didn’t fall. Nope… I tried, but God wins. Scientism - zero.

 

[Glark]

Australian Cricket has now been … now what’s the word? Oh yes … whitewashed.

I’m thinking of putting some money on England to win the (One-Day cricket) World Cup. They’re an excellent outfit - and they’ll be even stronger when “Basher” returns.

 

[Glark]

Glad I could help.

Fail. Augustine’s interpretstion has nothing to do with Genesis 1:14-18.