Any young earth creationists out there?

[Dan123]

When science comes up with its next new finding will we have to reinterpret again?

Only if the new discovery makes it clear some understanding of scripture doesn’t adhere to what we observe in the world around us. But of course why would it disagree?

I’ve heard people argue there can’t be aliens on other planets because there’s no mention of them. I’m not saying that’s Catholic teaching I’m just saying it’s a religious claim made by some who seem to want to read things that aren’t there. If we one day discover life on other planets I don’t expect those people will abandon their faith, but to simply stop espousing that there can’t possibly be life on other planets. They may in fact find scripture to support the existence of life on other planets and show that scripture was correct all along.

To be fair the structure of Catholic teachings specifically I would say is less susceptible to such things, but in part because it allows investigation and understanding of the world through scripture and of scripture through the world.

 

[bobperk]

“Icons of Evolution”

 

[buffalo]

To be fair the structure of Catholic teachings specifically I would say is less susceptible to such things, but in part because it allows investigation and understanding of the world through scripture and of scripture through the world.

Revelation is rock solid and the Holy Spirit has not been sleeping all this time.

Embarrassment is used as a tool to use against the Church. You do not believe that childish nonsense. Science is the new god. You have seen it here on this thread and in this forum often.

I for one will defend the constant teaching and understanding of Scripture protected by the Holy Spirit.

If important Scriptural and Sacred Tradition dissolves in the face of the scientism push, what is left? The Church cannot embrace theistic evolution for it undermines the entire thing.

 

[buffalo]

“Icons of Evolution”

Good book.

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong

https://www.amazon.com/Icons-Evolution-Science-Teach-About/dp/0895262002

 

[Dan123]

Then you should work on better arguments and stop using ones based on misunderstandings of Evolution, stop using arguments debunked decades ago, stop quote mining and cherry picking sources that agree with you, stop claiming you know people are lying because they get a paycheck for their work, stop misrepresenting the goals and methodologies of science and scientists, stop dismissing that the vast majority of Christians who have no trouble accepting both theories and find better reasons they shouldn’t, and come up with your own models on why life has sorted itself in the ground the way it did, why so much evidence shows an old Earth, why embryology, anatomy and analogous structure, biochemistry, paleontology, dna analysis, and other completely unrelated fields all point to these conclusions.

If you’re really that concerned that science will replace theology, why aren’t you stepping up your game?

 

[buffalo]

Then you should work on better arguments and stop using ones based on misunderstandings of Evolution, stop using arguments debunked decades ago, stop quote mining and cherry picking sources that agree with you, stop claiming you know people are lying because they get a paycheck for their work, stop misrepresenting the goals and methodologies of science and scientists,

Really. You need to show specifics. Arguments debunked decades ago? I think it is you who have not kept up.

Cherry picking - yup - sometimes one has to read into the finding of these journals and put it out there. I aggregate materials that show the flaws. The folks appreciate it. It is the other side that tries to suppress or sweeo challenging findings under the rug.

Methodological naturalism is not deniable. It is proudly touted…

Follow the money.

 

[bobperk]

It’s pervasive in popular “science” journalism…any time a newly discovered ancient fossil is identified, the headlines inevitably read along the lines of “Has our oldest ancestor just been discovered?” It is such a cliche by now as to be comical. But by now, my typical reaction is just

 

[buffalo]

Look what this guy just posted above. facepalm…

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

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)

Why, it refers to precisely what it says it’s talking about: scientific studies. Not ‘theories’ which arise from the studies, but the studies themselves.

Glark:

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”.

Please note that the outcomes of ‘studies’ are ‘knowledge’ and ‘discovery’.

 

[Kei]

If it is true that “most modern Catholic theologians” reject Catholic teaching, then I think that explains quite a lot.

In the east, being a theologian doesn’t just mean you have some schooling and go on to interpret Scripture, but a prerequisite is to be Divinized. I think that is a good practice. In the West, it would appear that even the devil could be a theologian, after all, angelic intellects are greater than our own.

Scripture tends to have multiple meanings. Something being symbolic or allegorical does not preclude its being literal. Being literal does not preclude something being symbolic or allegorical.
I don’t mean to argue, but I think it best for a Catholic to accept the truth in whole and not in part.

 

[Richca]

Why did he come to earth by being born to a human mother instead of just creating a full grown body as he did for Adam?

From: Richca
There are many mysteries involved here but I will present a few from the Fathers of the Church, doctors, saints, magisterial teachings, and the CCC.

I’d like to add a couple more points to the seven points I made in posts #1466-1467 in response to Dan123 question.

(8) Humility. God, the Creator and King of the universe chose to come into the world as a helpless and unassuming infant or baby and who does not love babies. This is a great point for many meditations. Humility is an essential christian virtue for ‘God resisteth the proud but giveth his grace to the humble.’ Jesus displayed this virtue throughout his whole life and ultimately being put to death on a cross by creatures he himself created for their salvation.

(9) Poverty. Jesus was born in a stable among the animals and layed in a manger because ‘there was no room for them at the inn.’ Poverty and poverty of spirit are also essential christian virtues as displayed by the whole life and teaching of Jesus himself as well as of so many saints and the nature of the religious vocation itself.

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and worm consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor worm consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6: 19-21).

 

[twf]

No, presumably within a few generations all living members would be able to trace their ancestry back to Adam and Eve - on one side or another… and gradually the entire community, through that connection to Adam, would be ensouled.

That’s the speculation I’ve seen at any rate and a priest on this very forum has confirmed that it’s acceptable Catholic speculation.

 

[twf]

I don’t think so. All living humans would still trace their ancestry to Adam and Eve… but also to other ancestors.

All of my cousins are descendants of Great-Grandpa Jacob, but they’re also descended from Great-Grandpa Henry…

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Science is the new god. You have seen it here on this thread and in this forum often.

This is bombastic nonsense, isn’t it? You cannot give one single instance of this on this thread or in this forum, let alone “often”. Almost everybody posting as long as I’ve been here has been consistent and insistent on their faith in God as Catholics, or at least Christians, understand him, and the few Buddhists and atheists who have bothered to drop in have certainly not said anything that could be interpreted as ‘Science is the new god’.

So why do people like Buffalo post such nonsense? Who are they trying to affect? Are they hoping that waverers in their faith will somehow be strengthened by reading things they can see are patently untrue? Frankly, I don’t know, but wish I did. Perhaps Buffalo will enlighten us, but I very much doubt it.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I don’t mean to argue, but I think it best for a Catholic to accept the truth in whole and not in part.

I agree with you. However, formal promulgations of “what Catholicism is” are few and far between, and both science and theology move on at ever increasing speed. While it is true that to an extent people like me are tiptoeing in where angels fear to tread, I think we do so very cautiously, exploring ways in which Catholic teaching may continue to be upheld in the light of reason

 

[buffalo]

Checklists work to improve science
Nature authors say a reproducibility checklist is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done.

Respondents overwhelmingly thought that poor reproducibility is a problem: 86% acknowledged it as a crisis in their field, a rate similar to that found in an earlier survey (Nature 533, 452–454; 2016). Two-thirds of respondents cited selective reporting of results as a contributing factor.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04590-7

 

[buffalo]

I have been posting much longer than you have. Since the beginning of these forums some 14 years ago. I have dealt with it all.

 

[Richca]

Dan123:

mVitus didn’t say they didn’t have souls but that it wasn’t a scientific question. Unless science finds a way to detect and study a soul there’s really nothing more to be said.

You think I would trust science to talk about souls?

True, the existence of souls does not fall within the competence of the natural sciences or as an object of their study. One must step up to another level of reality and body of ‘scientific’ knowledge, namely, philosophy for knowledge concerning the existence of souls.

The knowledge derived from the natural sciences alone may be compared to a person who puts on a pair of red tinted glasses and seeing that everything is tinted red believes that’s what reality is like.

 

[buffalo]

Is Theistic Evolution Truly Plausible?

The footnote that Pope Pius XII includes here is significant. It is from an address that he himself gave to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1941. Citing this footnote made it part of the official text of Humani Generis. [25] In this address, Pope Pius XII said: “Only from man could there come another man who would then call him father and ancestor; and the helpmate given by God to the first man came from man himself and is flesh from his flesh, made into a woman and called such because she came from man (Gen 2:23)” (emphasis mine). [26]

Consequently, when Pope Pius XII used the words “pre-existent living matter,” he was carefully distinguishing between natural and special transformation—leaving the door open to the latter (with a firm exhortation to exercise the utmost caution), but not to the former. [27] Likewise, Pope John Paul II, in his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences cited these very same words, “pre-existent living matter,” from Pope Pius XII, and thus did not open the already closed door to natural transformism. [28]

http://www.staycatholic.com/is_theistic_evolution_truly_plausible.htm

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I have been posting much longer than you have. Since the beginning of these forums some 14 years ago. I have dealt with it all.

Then you’ll have no difficulty in providing examples then, will you?
But you can’t, can you?