Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Richca said:
40.png
catholic1seeks:
In Catholicism, literal has never meant literalistic.
Click to expand...
I disagree here. If literal doesn’t mean literalistic than what does it mean?
Click to expand...
It means “literal sense of Scripture”. That’s distinct from “literalistic”, which means “interpret it as if every word means exactly what it says – if it says ‘raining cats and dogs’, then it means ‘puppies and kitties falling from the sky’.”

The problem here is that folks are reading “literal sense of Scripture” and presuming that it means “literalistic” – and it doesn’t. Google “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” and give it a good read. (It’s a little dense, but it’s good.) There, they not only discuss what “literal sense of Scripture” means, but they explain the distinction between it and “literalistic” readings.
Human beings generally communicate to others in speech or writing their thoughts in the literal sense of the words. Otherwise, human communication between humans would be impossible if they only spoke in metaphors.
Click to expand...
“Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra”? “Temba, his arms wide”? “Picard and Dathon at El-Adrel”? 😉

But, I get what you’re saying. Here’s the thing, though: you’ve just moved the goalposts. No one is claiming that the Bible “only spoke in metaphors.” Rather, we’re pointing out that the Bible does use figurative narratives! Not everywhere, and not always… but it does – and the Catechism affirms that claim!
 
Was Galileo Wrong? Was Einstein Wrong? Axis of evil puts end to big bang cosmology. 3 satellites confirm axis of evil. And the special direction points back to our ecliptic and earht.

 
Last edited:
Macroevolutionary theory is not a finding of science or science properly so called.
Click to expand...
Yet it is. LOL.

It also amazes me why people are stuck on the micro vs macro evolution, as if the former is A-OK with a literal Genesis, and the latter is not. As if these two things are somehow drastically different. But they are not: They are essentially the same process, but on different times scales.

But my aim here is not to convert anyone to the findings of science.
Rather, I want the broader audience — those who may merely be observing the thread — to know that the Catholic Church is not anti-science, and you can be a faithful, orthodox Catholic and accept the findings of science with regards to evolution, even the evolution of the human body.
 
Last edited:
Okay? You can say that. But the Popes are with me on this one, as is the magisterium, as is Humani Generis, which clealy allows the possiblity for the evolution of the human body.
 
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. -Chapter 36 of HG
Click to expand...
 
I’ve already talked about in a previous post. Francis, Benedict, and JPII clearly saw the compatibility of evolution and Faith, even if there are hesitations about certain (materialistic) perspectives. No one is saying that ANY and EVERY aspect of different evolutionary theories are compatible with the Faith. There are basic essentials that must be maintained (that we’re not ultimately the products of chance, that God has willed us, that the soul is not material, and that [probably] Adam and Eve were two literal persons).

Besides, more official than the opinions of Popes – though significant – is the encyclical Humani Generis, which allows for the evolution of the human body.
 
Last edited:
Quite a stretch. “Living matter” means God did bring the slime (or dust) of the earth to a state where Adam could be formed.

Humani Generis

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”
 
catholic1seeks said:
[probably] Adam and Eve were two literal persons).
Click to expand...
Probably?

The universe was created out of love for man, yet God used a blind unguided chance process full of death and destruction to arrive at Adam and then He infused a soul? (this also presents issues with dualism)

Genetic entropy shows that Adam was created with much better genetics than we currently have. Creation of “good” forms that are following the 2nd law is a much better explanation.

Theistic evolution has ruined many Catholics. It should be rebuked.
 
Last edited:
Pope St. John Paul II and the other post Vatican II Popes only gave an opinion on the possibility of Darwin’s theory being even remotely true.

That does not under any circumstances justify evolution as fact or theological binding on the Faithful
 
Probably?

The universe was created out of love for man, yet God used a blind unguided chance process full of death and destruction to arrive at Adam and then He infused a soul? (this also presents issues with dualism)

Genetic entropy shows that Adam was created with much better genetics than we currently have. Creation of “good” forms that are following the 2nd law is a much better explanation.

Theistic evolution has ruined many Catholics. It should be rebuked.
Click to expand...
Probably as in, it seems that it’s probably required to hold to a literal Adam and Eve, but I didn’t want to be overly confident in that assertion, because I’ve heard other theologians cite Humani Generis saying that polygenism may one day be reconciled with Original Sin. I am NOT promoting this. Rather, I wanted to be as honest as possible to how I understood what is unchanging Catholic doctrine.

Also, with regards to “unguided process full of death and destruction,” I’d only have issue with “unguided.” I don’t think I’ve ever suggested that evolution means God does not guide his creation. But as for death and destruction, yes, it seems to be the case that natural evils were there from the beginning (think of dinosaur extinction and animal and plant death in general.)
 
Who said evolution was theologically binding?

Rather, it seems that many creationists on here are suggesting that only Creationism is the only compatible view with the Faith.
 
Quite a stretch. “Living matter” means God did bring the slime (or dust) of the earth to a state where Adam could be formed.
Click to expand...
Not a stretch at all. Most faithful commentaries on the Pope’s words clearly see that evolution of the body as compatible. He bluntly said “pre-existent and living matter,” i.e., biological precursors to the soul-infused human body.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You did.

By stating that Catholics who don’t agree with Evolution are violating Church Teaching
 
Please show me where I said that Catholics must accept evolution.

The only place I can find where you may be referring to is:
Catholic magisterial documents plainly teach:

Genesis uses figurative language and is not a scientific account
Evolution is allowable and does NOT dispense with God
Click to expand...
How is that me saying that a Catholic must accept evolution?
 
Last edited:
“Why are several Catholic creationists on here persistently rejecting Catholic teaching?”

You made this quote a few posts back
 
You didn’t quote all of it. I go on:
Catholic magisterial documents plainly teach:

Genesis uses figurative language and is not a scientific account
Evolution is allowable and does NOT dispense with God
Click to expand...
Do you disagree that the Church teaches either or both of those?

Those two points are not equivalent to me saying the Church requires Catholics to accept evolution. Rather, those points are emphasizing that many on here are objecting to evolution by saying the exact opposite of what the Church does teach (Creation in Genesis is not necessarily scientific – it uses figurative language; and the church indeed allows for evolution)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top