Any young earth creationists out there?

[edwest211]

There are no peer reviewed papers about the book of Genesis. Science should stick with science and leave Bible interpretation to the Magisterium of the Church. The more I read these posts in general, the lower and lower my confidence goes as far as science contributing anything of value.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Science rules Revelation.

It may be entertaining for you to make up pithy apothegms for me, but they do not reflect my views, or, indeed, any Christian’s. Still, if you enjoy it, feel free. Throw a quotebomb at it if you like; why not?

 

[Gorgias]

Right on! and just why is that? Scientism…

No. We’ve trod this ground already: scientism “is the philosophical notion which refuses to admit the validity of forms of knowledge other than those of the positive sciences; and it relegates religious, theological, ethical and aesthetic knowledge to the realm of mere fantasy”, according to St Pope John Paul II.

So, theistic evolutionists don’t think that religious knowledge is fantasy. Rather, they think that it’s real. However, they don’t think that a literalistic interpretation of Scripture is true. That’s not scientism.

 

[Techno2000]

Evolution of the first animals on Earth caused global warming

An international team of researchers, including experts from the universities of Leeds and Exeter, found the earliest life on Earth triggered global warming.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[edwest211]

So, we can’t blame it on Bush?

 

[buffalo]

Throw a quotebomb at it if you like; why not?

From the Hugh_Farey post list?

Over and over you maintain man’s reasoning of provisional science trumps Revelation (and the Church’s long standing teaching). This is from your own mouth.

If I am incorrect please show me how, in one paragraph or less.

 

[buffalo]

However, they don’t think that a literalistic interpretation of Scripture is true. That’s not scientism.

What word should we use then, for an individual who believes science trumps Revelation?

 

[Techno2000]

So, we can’t blame it on Bush?

If evolution caused global warming,then evolution will evolve everything to survive it…right ?

 

[edwest211]

Obviously.

 

[Gorgias]

There are no peer reviewed papers about the book of Genesis. Science should stick with science and leave Bible interpretation to the Magisterium of the Church.

Wow. How you get that out of this discussion is amazing.

Scientists, as such, don’t attempt to interpret the Bible. Theistic evolutionists, acting as believers, attempt to bring reason and our understanding of the universe to bear. In doing so, they’re not attempting to make science explain theology (or theology explain science). Rather, they’re using the “two wings” that Pope John Paul II described in order to come up with an understanding that fits both our understanding of the universe and the theological doctrines of our faith.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Over and over you maintain man’s reasoning of provisional science trumps Revelation (and the Church’s long standing teaching). This is from your own mouth.

Not once. How can you possibly say that? The trouble is that your personal interpretation of Revelation, as described in the this forum, is very different from mine, and from the current understanding of the Catholic Church. Revelation has revealed Evolution, as you well know, but find hard to accept.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

However, they don’t think that a literalistic interpretation of Scripture is true. That’s not scientism.

What word should we use then, for an individual who believes science trumps Revelation?

Again, theistic evolution does not posit that “science trumps Revelation.” Rather, it attempts to posit that one particular Scriptural hermeneutic is not the best way to honor the gift of reason that God’s given us.

“Revelation” is part of the deposit of the faith. A belief in a young earth and in a literal six-day creation is not ‘Revelation’; it’s one particular interpretative stance. And, it’s a stance that the Church does not demand that we hold to. So, rail against the straw man you’ve built and named ‘scientism’; your argument does not hold water.

 

[bobperk]

You seem to be suggesting that I am unable to grasp the possibility of direct divine intervention.

Hugh,
My post by no means was meant to question your faith. I did not intend that, but based on your response that is how it came across. So my wording was not the best, admittedly.

What I was trying to get at was that we are required by certain teachings to elevate faith over science. We are open to do so in regards to the creation of our first parents. So, I was looking for (and just used your name as an example of someone knowledgeable in the subject, not as an accusation of any sort) Catholics familiar with the science, like you, but despite their acceptance of what evolution puts forth, make an exception for Adam and Eve as direct creation as adults.

 

[buffalo]

The trouble is that your personal interpretation of Revelation, as described in the this forum, is very different from mine, and from the current understanding of the Catholic Church. Revelation has revealed Evolution, as you well know, but find hard to accept.

I see the key word - current.

It is not my personal interpretation. It is the long standing position of the Church until someone started to retreat by scientific pressure and then trying to make the text say something it doesn’t. Once again, produce the magisterial document that tells Catholics, forget what you learned, it was wrong for 2000 years and now we know Genesis was wrong all this time and the Holy Spirit was sleeping. The Holy Spirit led so many people over the centuries into error.

 

[buffalo]

Again, theistic evolution does not posit that “science trumps Revelation.” Rather, it attempts to posit that one particular Scriptural hermeneutic is not the best way to honor the gift of reason that God’s given us.

“Revelation” is part of the deposit of the faith. A belief in a young earth and in a literal six-day creation is not ‘Revelation’; it’s one particular interpretative stance . And, it’s a stance that the Church does not demand that we hold to. So, rail against the straw man you’ve built and named ‘scientism’; your argument does not hold water.

Pretty slick attempt to get out from under…

Revelation was wrong all these centuries?

 

[Gorgias]

Revelation was wrong all these centuries?

Nope. Just the theory of interpretation that says that we must take the creation account as literal historical truth.

It keeps coming back to this, but … it seems to me that creationists are completely tone deaf to this nuance!

 

[buffalo]

Nope. Just the theory of interpretation that says that we must take the creation account as literal historical truth.

It keeps coming back to this, but … it seems to me that creationists are completely tone deaf to this nuance!

OK - so we are in agreement that Revelation is solid.

Once again, produce the magisterial document that shows we got it all wrong for so long and that we now finally got it right. Also, an explanation from the Holy Spirit is in order.

 

[Gorgias]

Once again, produce the magisterial document that shows we got it all wrong for so long

We’ve already covered that ground. We’ve seen the papal pronouncements that it’s valid to research and think about theories of evolution. Now, just think about that for a second: if the only possible interpretative stance is “literalistic six-day creation”, then it wouldn’t even be possible to permit research into evolution. In a very real and explicit way, creation literalism must exclude evolution. So, if the Church allows us to consider evolution, then that very permission means that literal six-day creationism isn’t the doctrine of the Church.

Also, an explanation from the Holy Spirit is in order.

If you want to call the Holy Spirit to task for the sake of your misunderstandings, then that’s on you.

 

[buffalo]

We’ve already covered that ground. We’ve seen the papal pronouncements that it’s valid to research and think about theories of evolution. Now, just think about that for a second: if the only possible interpretative stance is “literalistic six-day creation”, then it wouldn’t even be possible to permit research into evolution . In a very real and explicit way, creation literalism must exclude evolution. So, if the Church allows us to consider evolution, then that very permission means that literal six-day creationism isn’t the doctrine of the Church.

The Pope said study away. That is no endorsement of macro-evolution. Maybe the Pope knew something about what would eventually be found and like a good father permits the investigation knowing what the outcome will be.

It has been fruitful in showing micro-evolution (adaptation) but not so for macro. Research away said the Pope.

I disagree. That is quite a stretch.

Micro evolution can and should be studied. There is no empirical proof that science will be ever to produce, on this one time historical event. The conclusions of the limited evidence cross over into philosophy anyway.

Revelation enlightens us to what happened, because the creator (author) Himself told us.

 

[Gorgias]

The Pope said study away. That is no endorsement of macro-evolution.

The approval was in the context of the study of the origins of life, was it not?

And, by your argument, if I went to the Pope and said, “I think Jesus never truly died”, you’re saying he would respond “study away!”…?!?