Any young earth creationists out there?

[Hugh_Farey]

Hi Kei, the short answer is no. Humani Generis was remarkably open-minded for its time, but the science of anthropoid evolution has moved on so far that few Catholic theologians now can defend the origin of humans in a single exclusive couple. A quick trawl through the internet leads me to some Dominican priests at Thomisticevolution.org, who reconcile polygenistic evolution with Catholic faith, and James P. O’Sullivan, who discusses the whole issue in “Catholics Re‐examining Original Sin in light of Evolutionary Science: The State of the Question”. The only dissenting voices I can find are at Kolbecentre.org, whose science is wholly unacceptable. The principle theological difficulty, I think, is how to reconcile polygenism with original sin, but I don’t think this is insuperable.

 

[Kei]

But to deny humanity’s descent from two humans is to deny Catholic teaching, an unthinkable thing. There are various theories that allow for many hominids yet only two humans, as Church teaching would allow.

 

[Glark]

In other words, your accusation is based on nothing but prejudice.

But here’s something interesting I noticed: There are 2865 paragraphs in the Catechism and I have issues with 4 of them. Yet you have come to the illogical conclusion that “Glark considers the CCC a tissue of nonsense from end to end.”

To equate 4 with 2865 could be rightly described as an unreasonable extrapolation (to put it mildly). Such unreasonable extrapolations are what I encounter in evolution science by the thousands. So it is no wonder you accept this so-called science - your powers of “logic” are well suited to it.

 

[Glark]

As far as I know, the Catechism insists that only two aspects of the Church’s traditional understanding of the creation account are now “symbolic” and not literal (as they had been understood to be for thousands of years) - (1) the “six days” and (2) the creation of Adam (see 337 and 362 below). I suspect these radical changes are no coincidence, for it is the understanding of precisely these two aspects that had to be altered (from literal to symbolic) in order to accommodate the shiny, new, scientifically-correct, evolution creation story … while at the same time conveniently excluding the old, out-dated, scientifcally-incorrect literal creation story.

The remainder of the Church’s traditional teaching creation remains unchanged - so far. I expect there will be attempts to further smooth the way for evolution - such as changing the account of Eve being created from Adam’s rib from literal to symbolic/figurative. Belief in Adam and Eve as real, literal people is already on the “endangered” list. More early chapters of Genesis will understood as “symbolic” - indeed, there already exist many very influential Catholics (evolutionists, of course), who don’t consider the first ELEVEN chapters of Genesis to be literal! And no doubt evolutionists have the prohibition on polygenesis in their sights as well. Whether or not any such evo-enabling, “symbolic” upgrades will be enshrined in the Catechism (along with the two below), only time will tell.

337 - “God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator SYMBOLICALLY as a succession of six days of divine ‘work’ …” (emphasis mine).

362 - "The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once both corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE when it affirms that “then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being” (emphasis mine).

 

[Glark]

First of all, it doesn’t reference “Darwinian evolution.”

What do you think the following sentence refers to?

“The question about the ORIGINS … OF MAN has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of … the DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE-FORMS AND THE APPEARANCE OF MAN.” (emphasis mine)

Second, it’s only referencing the studies themselves.

Please note that 283 concerns itself with not just “scientific studies”, but also scientific “knowledge” and scientific “discoveries”.

Nah. I’m guessing you took a whole 1/10 of a second after reading it to come to your conclusion

Well that’s an improvement on your “predetermined conclusion” hypothesis, at least.

 

[Glark]

Then you’re not at a Catholic Church

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sounding doctrine, but having itching ears they accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” - 2Tim 4:2-4

“And it was given unto him (the Beast) to make war with the saints, and to overcome them” - Revelation 13:7

 

[Glark]

And yet you deny the truth of the Church’s catechism

It’s not my fault if the Catechism contains errors in four paragraphs. After all, I didn’t write it - all I did was read it.

But here’s how you can help - explain to me how the word “symbolic” can also mean “literal”. If you can, I will happily recant my position. But if you can’t, then I will continue to believe that the following two paragraphs preclude belief in a literal “six days” interpretation of the Genesis creation account:

337 - “God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator SYMBOLICALLY as a succession of six days of divine ‘work’ …” (emphasis mine).

362 - "The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once both corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE when it affirms that “then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being” (emphasis mine).

 

[Glark]

Am I, and the Pope, obliged to conform to yours?

Not yet. But sometime in the future, maybe.

 

[Glark]

God must have needed to rely on trial-and-error. So much for an omnipotent God!

 

[Glark]

Whenever I feel a bit down, I think of how humans evolved from a bug, and suddenly I feel happy again.

 

[Glark]

He can make bread, wine and fish… pop into existence, but everything else took billions of years

The " miracles" in the Bible were written in symbolic language. When Jesus turned water into wine, for example, it actually took billions of years. Yes, evolution science teaches us that billions of years can perform “miracles”.

 

[Glark]

So, according to you, those hyper-evolved humanoid beings seen on Star Trek and Dr. are all fictitious. It’s difficult to reason with someone who blantantly denies empirical evidence of evolution.

 

[Glark]

Now, now … be nice to our guests.

 

[Glark]

Yeah! And how come God hasn’t given me a Porsche 911 (a white one)?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

But to deny humanity’s descent from two humans is to deny Catholic teaching, an unthinkable thing. There are various theories that allow for many hominids yet only two humans, as Church teaching would allow.

There are a few, true, but I don’t think they will maintain credibility for much longer. As for Catholic theology, I don’t think it is seriously endangered at all. You might, for example, consider the plural word for humans contained in Genesis 1:26, or 5:1 which is now never translated “Man”, but “humans” or “mankind”. Until the Jahwist mythology of Chapter 2 there is no suggestion in any modern translations that man originated from only two people. I think this will become the dominant image before long. The doctrine of original sin entirely as an hereditary trait derive from a single act of disobedience by two people has already been modified beyond any necessity for literality.

 

[Glark]

No. A Catholic cannot be faithful to the Magesterium and willingly deny the literal history of Genesis.

This is why the Catechism came up with …

337 - “God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator SYMBOLICALLY as a succession of six days of divine ‘work’ …” (emphasis mine).

362 - "The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once both corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE when it affirms that “then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being” (emphasis mine).

… to deny the literal history of Genesis … to accomodate evolution and exclude the literal interpretation of history. In other words, the denial is official.

 

[Glark]

The constant teaching and history of the Church disagrees. I have yet to see someone quote an authoritative document allowing belief in those things and I will never see it because the Church cannot contradict herself.

See the CCC, paragraphs 283, 284, 337, 362. All imply official endorsement of evolution.

 

[Glark]

All hail Scientism, our Lord and Saviour!

 

[Hugh_Farey]

In other words, your accusation is based on nothing but prejudice.

But here’s something interesting I noticed: There are 2865 paragraphs in the Catechism and I have issues with 4 of them. Yet you have come to the illogical conclusion that “Glark considers the CCC a tissue of nonsense from end to end.”

To equate 4 with 2865 could be rightly described as an unreasonable extrapolation (to put it mildly). Such unreasonable extrapolations are what I encounter in evolution science by the thousands. So it is no wonder you accept this so-called science - your powers of “logic” are well suited to it.

Wa-hey! They can dish it out, but they can’t take it. Please don’t try to educate me about logic; as I said, I wasn’t using my logic, but yours. You introduced me to the sweeping generalisation based on a single specific instance, and I was simply applying it. Mostly for fun, but also as an education for you! Now you’ve spotted it, I’m sure you won’t be doing it again, will you?

As for extrapolation, there’s nothing wrong with that. But whether it is reasonable or not; well there’s a sensible question. I agree that your disagreeing with 0.14% of the Catechism is not necessarily evidence of complete denial of the Catechism, just as I’m sure you don’t think that my disagreeing with 0.14% of the bible is a complete denial of that. The extrapolation of the evidence which leads to a belief in evolution, however, is entirely reasonable.

 

[Glark]

In Exodus 20.8-11, God directly compares six literal days of human labour to the six days of creation. This is a mighty strange and misleading thing to say if the “six days” are actually billiions years.