Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
he 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!”…?!? :roll_eyes:
Hmmmm. - Yes, He probably would say, study away.
 
Hmmmm. - Yes, He probably would say, study away.
Yep. If your perspective is that the pope would allow Catholics to study theories at odds with settled doctrine, then that is what your response should be.

Hey – BTW… when JPII was asked about the settled doctrine of a male-only priesthood, did he say “study away!”…? 🤔 😉
 
Hey – BTW… when JPII was asked about the settled doctrine of a male-only priesthood, did he say “study away!”…? 🤔 😉
They already were studying it and clamoring for change. JPII straightened them out. 😀

What I meant is he would say to you - C’mon now Gorgias, you know my answer, study up on it.
 
What I meant is he would say to you - C’mon now Gorgias, you know my answer, study up on it.
And yet, that’s not what we see in the document we’re talking about. So, your assertion just doesn’t hold up – especially given the comments of recent popes.
 
40.png
Gorgias:
And yet, that’s not what we see in the document we’re talking about. So, your assertion just doesn’t hold up – especially given the comments of recent popes.
I lost track - what document?
See @catholic1seeks’ quotations, at around post 269 of this thread.
 
See @catholic1seeks’ quotations, at around post 269 of this thread.
Man, there is no easy way to search…

Post 268

Humani Generis Have you ever read the entire document? If not, everyone should. The entire document.
 
That’s right. Pope Pius XII was certainly right. I think this part is especially relevant.

"5. 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.

"6. 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.

"7. 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.

"8. In all this confusion of opinion it is some consolation to Us to see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly they accept the word of God, so much the more do they diminish the value of human reason, and the more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.

"9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.
 
“10. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.”
 
and then

However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

So I wonder how many here would submit to the Church?

Still, I hope that everyone actually reads the entire document.
 
Last edited:
withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.”
We’ve already been around this one (either in this thread or in the “Natural-Evolution of the species” thread): the error that Pius is railing against is existentialism. He bemoans the fact that folks are grabbing ahold of the theories of evolution in order to hold to this philosophy.
 
No, the rest makes it very clear. Evolution = a support of atheism. That is the stumbling block that cannot be overcome. Cal it symbolic, call it poetry – anything but God actually did something. Something that science cannot understand or explain. I know the word games will continue as they have for years. But that’s the whole point.
 
Cal it symbolic, call it poetry – anything but God actually did something.
Huh? What we’re theorizing here is that God did do something – just not in six days and in the way that a literalistic interpretation forces us to assent to.

A theory of “theistic evolution” says that God did create – and that His method fits the data that scientists have discovered. (Now… there are proponents of evolution who have taken science out of context and attempted to turn it into a philosophical pseudo-religious system. These are the ones that Pius was warning about. This approach is not what a ‘theistic evolutionist’ advocates.)
 
Nice try, but the fact remains that a professor of botany said, “… but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation.” Don’t blame me for his honesty.
 
Last edited:
No, the rest makes it very clear. Evolution = a support of atheism. That is the stumbling block that cannot be overcome. Cal it symbolic, call it poetry – anything but God actually did something. Something that science cannot understand or explain. I know the word games will continue as they have for years. But that’s the whole point.
Theistic evolution has the danger of approaching deism. It can be stretched to divorce God from creation (most especially and importantly from the direct and immediate creation of our first parents, as adults; they had no parents other than God). God just set it in motion and let it go, to the point that man - the crowning achievement of His visible creation, made in His image - sprung up from a shrewdness of apes. Apparently God felt it necessary for His image to first pass through microbes all the way up to primates before enough time and mutations created us. Of course there is the rebuttal that “His image” means our soul, intellect, will, and reason. But the reason why God had to wait for Adam and Eve to come forth from primates before being infused with souls is left unexplained. Jesus turned water into the finest aged wine in an instant, He did not store it in oak barrels for several years. St. Paul writes that at the last judgment, the faithful will be raised imperishable in an instant - not over millions of years, but in an instant, the twinkling of an eye.
 
And so, yet again, I’m demonstrating to you that Augustine is treating the whole of the creation story, which, of course, includes vv14-18.
Augustine wouldn’t have read Genesis 1:14-18 literally? Nonsense. No one in history has ever read Genesis 1:14-18 as anything but literal - except you.
But, I think I recognize the difficulty that you’re struggling with: since vv14-18 talk about the sun and the moon and the stars – and these are actual, real, physical objects – then you’re concluding that the account of their creation must likewise be real and literal and historical.
No, that is not my conclusion. Genesis 14-18 is obviously literal, but this doesn’t mean the rest of the account is literal. The creation account could be a mixture of literal and symbolic language.

Your fear is, if Genesis 1:14-18 is literal, then your “all-literal or all-figurative” exegesis fails. It also means other parts of the Genesis may be literal.
 
Last edited:
The fact that He could have is not refuted in any way by the evidence He has provided.
God has provided more than evidence - He recorded his creation activity in a book that He has preserved intact for thousands of years.
 
Augustine wouldn’t have read Genesis 1:14-18 literally? Nonsense.
I’ve shown you that he asserts this exact thing – that the days aren’t really ‘days’, but instantaneous. I’ve quoted and re-quoted them to you. It feels like you’re plugging your ears and shouting “la la la la la!” as your interlocutors make their points, and then you claim there’s no other opinion that’s been expressed. Good luck with that. 👍
No one in history has ever read Genesis 1:14-18 as anything but literal - except you.
🤣

Again… good luck with that. 👍
Your fear is, if Genesis 1:14-18 is literal, then your “all-literal or all-figurative” exegesis fails.
Nah. I’m not afraid. You, on the other hand, seem quite worked up. 🤷‍♂️
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top