Any young earth creationists out there?

[bobperk]

If we’re attempting a harmony between revelation and science, then this time of “using reason and intellect to improve society” happens after the fall. That means that there’s no conflict here, as you suggest there is.

But positing a pre-human Adam and Eve suggests a grunting almost-man and almost-woman already living in a fallen world; when they were then just infused with souls, were they immediately surrounded by Paradise?

How could it be anything other than good from the beginning? You’re not making sense, here…

The creation of Adam and Eve “good” implies that their bodily health would have from the instant of their coming into existence been free of illness, defect, and pain. But if they were soulless pre-humans for many years they this was probably not the case.

You’ll need to explain this a bit better; it’s not clear where you see the problem. If it’s propagation of human nature , then it’s only propagated after the fall !

This point is dealing with monogenism vs. polygenism. The entire population of the world today, and throughout history, is descended from Adam and Eve both biologically and spiritually.

How so?

I will expand on this point in this manner. All of visible creation and salvation history exists for the relationship between human beings and God. God did not make plants, or animals, or anything else within visible creation - besides man - in His image. At the risk of using a “why didn’t” question, I will anyway - if God wanted a relationship with other created beings, why didn’t He just end with the angels? My point is, in visible creation, man is God’s crowning achievement. Scripture and centuries of Church teaching taught the direct and creation of Adam and Eve, body and soul. The concept of infusing souls into pre-humans divorces God from His special creation of man. Obviously, many are comfortable with this view. But it conforms more to science, not to Scripture or centuries of Church teaching.

Doesn’t cause a problem. Either way you take it – as “in the beginning” of their bodies, or “in the beginning” as humans – they were created male and female. No problem there.

Mark 10:6, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’” Jesus does not say from the instant of the first “ensouled” humans, but from the beginning of creation.

Thank you for replying, you make many good points.

 

[Aloysium]

their bodily health would have from the instant of their coming into existence been free of illness, defect, and pain. But if they were soulless pre-humans for many

One of the arguments for common ancestry has to do with the presence of the same viral DNA inclusions in the genome of some monkeys and human beings. While this can be explained from a creationist perspective by pointing to the similarities in our present genetic make-up, that leave us prone to the same maladies, in terms of evolutionary theories, we see here a clear discrepancy between that view and that of the faith, which understands us as having been created immortal.

A way to reconcile the two discordant beliefs is to reinterpret the scirptural passages and traditions forcing them to fit the secular view. Through this sort of revisionist thinking, absorbing the simplistic absurdities that underlie Darwinism, we drift further away from the faith.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not clear as to what is referred to here as “spiritual death”. It could be a metaphor for a rupture in one’s relationship with God

No, it’s not a metaphor. Let’s look at what Paul wrote:

just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned … But death reigned from Adam to Moses

In Romans 5:12-14, Paul is explicitly talking about death and sin in the context of Adam. He’s not analogizing death – it’s real! But, what’s the ‘death’ he’s talking about? Well, it’s the death that “came to all”. Does that mean physical death, though? I’m not so sure – after all, animals share in physical death, right? But, that’s not what Paul is talking about, since this death comes to all “inasmuch as all sinned.” Do animals sin? No, of course not! So, this is a death that (1) enters the world through sin and (2) is a death relevant to sinners – that is, humans !

So, I think, we must conclude that we’re talking about the spiritual death due to sin, not the physical death which is part of every animal’s nature.

While seemingly a valid interpretation, it isn’t actually what we believe as Catholics when we claim that it is a consequence of our original sin that death entered the world.

I would suggest that you read this paragraph with “preternatural gifts” in mind. The Church teaches that only Adam and Eve had the preternatural gifts; and, one of these was ‘immortality’. Adam and Eve lost these gifts when they sinned, and therefore, we can say that physical death – for humans! – entered the world because of sin.

However, is ‘physical death’ the main evil here? No, of course not! After all, Jesus didn’t enter the world to prevent physical death – He became man in order to save us from spiritual death !

So, I get what you’re saying – but my interpretation isn’t at odds with the Church’s.

 

[Gorgias]

Neither of these passages inserts a “then” between the formation of Adam and God breathing a soul into him. The creation of Adam is literally accomplished in this one verse. Where is the vast amount of time between his body and soul? Not in Gen 2:7.

There’s no “then”, but there are two distinct actions, aren’t there?

• formed from the dust of the ground
• breath of life blown into his nostrils

Are you claiming these acts are simultaneous? That’s not what the narrative states. Moreover, asserting them as such doesn’t make sense – after all, there have to be ‘nostrils’ in order for breath to be breathed into them!

We must assert distinct acts, if we read the narrative carefully. Can we assert that they must have happened strictly consecutively? Only if we force a literalistic interpretation on the text.

bobperk:

All of these quotes imply Adam as our first father. Nothing other than monogenism is ever implied. Where only Adam’s name is mentioned, the point is that there are none before him.

There are no humans before him. I agree with that. This doesn’t mean that there weren’t non-human animals before him. An unensouled hominin would be a pre-Adam non-human.

bobperk:

Tobit and 2 Macc imply a simultaneous body and soul formation.

Seriously? Let’s take a look:
Tobit 8:6:

You made Adam, and you made his wife Eve to be his helper and support; and from these two the human race has come.

Where do you read “simultaneous body and soul formation” out of that?!?
2 Macc 7:28:

look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things. In the same way humankind came into existence.

You could attempt to impose an interpretation on this verse, but clearly, what’s going on here is an affirmation of creation ex nihilo – God didn’t take pre-existing matter in order to make the universe, but created them from nothing. Humans share in this relationship to God – He is our creator.

Now, what’s the context here? The mother of the man being tortured is reminding him that he owes his life solely to God, and not to the cruel tyrant who is threatening him with death. Therefore, she’s reminding her son to obey God and not man. If you want to take that context and stuff it into the context of a literal six-day creationism… you’re really doing damage to the text.

bobperk:

But would a man-beast offspring have a rational soul?

So, let’s ask the question this way: would a child conceived of two hominins have a rational soul? There’s nothing in this concept that would lead us to believe that God wouldn’t give a soul to such a child!

bobperk:

In Romans, St. Paul explains that death spread to men with no mention of animals.

Also, Jesus suffered and died a physical death for us… So the physical obviously is important.

Physical death is important – but did Jesus come to save us from physical death? No – Jesus came to save us for eternal life!

 

[Gorgias]

But positing a pre-human Adam and Eve suggests a grunting almost-man and almost-woman already living in a fallen world; when they were then just infused with souls, were they immediately surrounded by Paradise?

Why would we have to assume an “already-fallen world”? This is the part I’m not getting…

bobperk:

The creation of Adam and Eve “good” implies that their bodily health would have from the instant of their coming into existence been free of illness, defect, and pain. But if they were soulless pre-humans for many years they this was probably not the case.

On the other hand, we could assert they received preternatural gifts when they became fully human.

bobperk:

This point is dealing with monogenism vs. polygenism. The entire population of the world today, and throughout history, is descended from Adam and Eve both biologically and spiritually.

The proposition of a non-ensouled population of hominins, from which two receive souls and become our first human parents, is not a theory of polygenism. The claim is literally that all humans descend from them. Therefore, it meets the requirements of monogenism, which you describe here!

My point is, in visible creation, man is God’s crowning achievement. Scripture and centuries of Church teaching taught the direct and creation of Adam and Eve, body and soul. The concept of infusing souls into pre-humans divorces God from His special creation of man. Obviously, many are comfortable with this view. But it conforms more to science, not to Scripture or centuries of Church teaching.

For centuries, the Church taught that the earth was the center of the universe. When it became obvious that this was not a tenable point to hold, the Church began to realize that it teaches theology, not science. The fact that the Church had taught six-day creation for centuries does not make it true, since it is a teaching of science and not of faith and morals.

You keep making the claim that “infusing souls into pre-humans divorces God from His special creation of man,” but you don’t substantiate or explain that claim. I hold that it doesn’t divorce God from humanity – after all, He immediately creates souls, and what makes us human is precisely that we’re a body/soul composite in the image and likeness of God! So, again, I have to ask: in what way do you see this as a ‘divorce’?

bobperk:

Mark 10:6, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’” Jesus does not say from the instant of the first “ensouled” humans, but from the beginning of creation.

Yes, there existed both male and female at the time humans were created. In the context of Genesis 1, we see that God has already created animals, and only then does He create humans – in His image, and as male and female. So, once He creates humans, they’re male and female, from “the beginning” of their human existence!

bobperk:

Thank you for replying, you make many good points.

Thanks! “Iron sharpens iron”, right?

 

[Aloysium]

Does that mean physical death, though? I’m not so sure – after all, animals share in physical death, right?

It’s clear that you are not sure. The Pope’s quote and the Catechism refer to physical death. Spiritual death is metaphorical since our spirit is eternal.

Jesus didn’t enter the world to prevent physical death

He came to overcome it that we may be resurrected, at that point having a glorious body to live forever. That’s what the church states but there are plenty of other religions that believe otherwise.

my interpretation isn’t at odds with the Church’s

Such claims are made by those convinced of evolution. The revisionism at work trying to jam scripture into the secular mould is not lost to those who value the truth as it has been revealed.

 

[edwest211]

And that is the stumbling block that cannot be resolved.

 

[edwest211]

Trying to shoehorn secular ideas/concepts into the faith is not working in this case.

 

[Gorgias]

Spiritual death is metaphorical since our spirit is eternal.

With all due respect, @Aloysium, you have an odd approach to Scriptural exegesis. You demand that we interpret the beginning chapters of Genesis in a strictly literal fashion – even though the Catechism tells us that there’s figurative language present there – and then you turn around and assert that the very words that Christ speaks in the Gospels are metaphorical. Really? Seriously?
Mt 10:28:

do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna

So… I’m sorry, Aloysium, but it sure seems to me that you’re arguing both against what the Church teaches and against the very words of Jesus himself.

Gorgias:

my interpretation isn’t at odds with the Church’s

Such claims are made by those convinced of evolution. The revisionism at work trying to jam scripture into the secular mould is not lost to those who value the truth as it has been revealed.

Sadly, apparently, some who claim to “value revealed truth” actually try to jam Scripture into a mold of their own making, as well.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t demand anything. I am voicing an opinion that has been thoughtfully formulated over too many decades.

The one who destroys the soul does not annihilate it but corrupts it. And, the best way to do that is slowly and imperceptibly.

The argument that the death of the soul is a literal possiblity requires more than just a misunderstood quote and condescension.

We die physically as a result of original sin. That’s what the church teaches regardless of your desire that it be otherwise.

 

[Gorgias]

The argument that the death of the soul is a literal possiblity requires more than just a misunderstood quote and condescension.

Then why is that what you went with, here?

We die physically as a result of original sin. That’s what the church teaches regardless of your desire that it be otherwise.

Let me be clear: I’m not saying that sin didn’t bring physical death – that much is clear from the teaching of the Church. However, Paul’s description of this dynamic in Scripture is clearly talking about human death. And, after all, the spiritual impact of the Fall of Man is of greater import than the physical impact!

 

[bobperk]

There’s no “then”, but there are two distinct actions, aren’t there?

It is still much more of a stretch to claim that Gen 2:7 implies vast amounts of time between the creation of a pre-human Adam and the infusion of his soul. Obviously, pre-Darwin, nobody would have thought, logically, that there were thousands of years between the two events. If I said, “I was driving my car and saw a billboard advertising hamburgers” would you assume that I had stopped driving my car, parked, got out, and then saw a billboard?

This doesn’t mean that there weren’t non-human animals before him.

So do you believe there were beings who looked pretty much like modern man today, walking around at some point on earth, but they just did not have a soul, reason, intellect, and will? But then “poof” a male one and a female one were instantaneously infused with souls by God at the right time?

Seriously? Let’s take a look:

The D-R states Tobit better, “Thou madest Adam of the slime of the earth, and gavest him Eve for a helper.” This implies Adam created directly from the earth as a complete human being. For centuries, anyone reading this would be under the impression that making a man from the slime of the earth meant that a human being as we know it was directly made by God.

There’s nothing in this concept that would lead us to believe that God wouldn’t give a soul to such a child!

Aside from the fact that this was never imagined before Darwinian theories!

Physical death is important – but did Jesus come to save us from physical death? No – Jesus came to save us for eternal life!

Both are important as our departed soul will be reunited with our physical bodies at the end of time!

I’ll have to reply to the second half of the post later. 3200 characters fills up fast. Thanks for your replies.

 

[Gorgias]

It is still much more of a stretch to claim that Gen 2:7 implies vast amounts of time between the creation of a pre-human Adam and the infusion of his soul.

Only if you presume that the narrative is literal, right? If it’s figurative, then we simply do not make presumptions about what literal truth it’s describing!

Obviously, pre-Darwin, nobody would have thought, logically, that there were thousands of years between the two events.

Right. And, pre-Copernicus, nobody reading the Bible would have thought that the earth revolves around the sun. What does that prove, then?

If I said, “I was driving my car and saw a billboard advertising hamburgers” would you assume that I had stopped driving my car, parked, got out, and then saw a billboard?

Those are things you can do simultaneously.

So do you believe there were beings who looked pretty much like modern man today, walking around at some point on earth, but they just did not have a soul, reason, intellect, and will? But then “poof” a male one and a female one were instantaneously infused with souls by God at the right time?

I’m saying that it’s a possibility that both fits with Catholic theology and scientific evidence.

The D-R states Tobit better, “Thou madest Adam of the slime of the earth, and gavest him Eve for a helper.” This implies Adam created directly from the earth as a complete human being.

Hmm… if I said “I made the sandwich you’re eating from peanuts, fruit, and sugar”, would you presume that this meant that I made your PB&J “directly” and “complete”? Or, wouldn’t it be more likely – given the physical evidence at hand – that the peanut butter and the jelly had to be made first, and later became a sandwich?

I’ll have to reply to the second half of the post later. 3200 characters fills up fast. Thanks for your replies.

Sounds good! Thanks!

 

[bobperk]

would you presume that this meant that I made your PB&J “directly” and “complete”?

On this point, I’d just think that you have a very odd way of saying you made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, to be quite honest!

 

[Gorgias]

On this point, I’d just think that you have a very odd way of saying you made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, to be quite honest!

LOL! Well, then… any description of ingredients is “a very odd way” of describing things? After all, man is not “slime”!

 

[bobperk]

There is no escaping the fact that for centuries, the direct creation of Adam and Eve from his side was assumed. There are plenty of other miracles we believe in that defy science, yet we believe them. Well, hopefully we do. I have heard people take such figurative interpretations of the Gospels that Jesus did not multiply loaves and fishes, but just “encouraged everyone to share.”

Our use of “ingredients” requires intermediate steps to make them work. God can take whatever He wants and can change it into whatever He wants.

In John 2, we do not get a description of Jesus growing, picking, and mashing grapes. He instantly turned water into wine. He didn’t add ingredients; He just did it.

 

[Gorgias]

There is no escaping the fact that for centuries, the direct creation of Adam and Eve from his side was assumed.

Fair enough. But, you can’t hide behind the “centuries” argument and not address the fact that there are other assumptions of a scientific nature that Christians held to, and which they abandoned when the science of the day demonstrated they were no longer tenable.

In John 2, we do not get a description of Jesus growing, picking, and mashing grapes. He instantly turned water into wine. He didn’t add ingredients; He just did it.

That Jesus could (and did!) do it in John 2 does not demonstrate that God acted similarly in Genesis 1.

 

[edwest211]

The creation of Eve was not just assumed but taught as fact. God can do this.

 

[buffalo]

Another issue for evolution

And now we see the god of BUC (blind unguided chance) creating encryption codes so the target is the only one to be able to read it. Fantastic stuff this evolution!

Encrypted messages in biological processes

In recent years, research has shown an unprecedented impact of RNA modifications at all steps of the maturation process. More than a hundred RNA modifications have been identified with roles in both inhibiting and facilitating binding to proteins, DNA and other RNA molecules. This encryption by RNA modification is a way to prevent the message of the RNA in being read by the wrong recipients.

http://mbg.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-item/artikel/encrypted-messages-in-biological-processes/

 

[buffalo]

Fair enough. But, you can’t hide behind the “centuries” argument and not address the fact that there are other assumptions of a scientific nature that Christians held to, and which they abandoned when the science of the day demonstrated they were no longer tenable.

Science has not disproved a real Adam and Eve.