Any young earth creationists out there?

[buffalo]

One last thought: I was listening to Called to Communion this afternoon on EWTN. Someone called in with precisely the question on theistic evolution that we’ve been discussing here. (Maybe someone posting or lurking in this thread decided to call in and ask an expert? ) Know what Dr Anders said? Theistic evolution is a theory that the Church allows us to hold as valid.

Yes, I heard that and he is not the only one. Perhaps we should invite a few of them here to back it up. I am sure we can help show them the problem with theistic evolution.

Yes, view the creation of Adam and Eve in entire context. It is backed and expanded upon in other areas of the OT and the NT as well. On top of that it has been constant and firm teaching.

Now because provisional science has made some claims we have to water down the clear teaching? I think not.

Scripture trumps provisional science claims.

 

[Gorgias]

I appreciate the clarification. What does the priest say on Ash Wednesday?

“Repent and believe in the Gospel”…

 

[buffalo]

I appreciate the clarification. What does the priest say on Ash Wednesday?

Its just words and probably will go away soon. I also see a reluctance lately in teaching about original sin in Baptism. It is now a welcoming rite. More watering down.

 

[Gorgias]

Perhaps we should invite a few of them here to back it up. I am sure we can help show them the problem with theistic evolution.

@Buffalo, ya’ll can’t manage that with us duffers… do you really think you can convince theologians with PhDs???

Now because provisional science has made some claims we have to water down the clear teaching?

Ask Venerable Pope Pius XII. Ask St Pope John Paul II. They would tell you, “yes, it’s a possibility that a Catholic can reasonably give assent to.” But, if you’ve got authority greater than popes and saints, well…

Scripture trumps provisional science claims.

In the realm of theology? Absolutely! In the realm of the physical sciences? No. After all, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible isn’t a science textbook.

 

[twf]

YECers believe that God formed man from a pile of mud, yet find the idea of God forming man from pre-existing animal creatures appalling. I got one would much rather have a primitive hominid for a dad than a pile of mud.

 

[buffalo]

@Buffalo, ya’ll can’t manage that with us duffers… do you really think you can convince theologians with PhDs???

Yes, I do. Let’s try it.

 

[buffalo]

Ask Venerable Pope Pius XII. Ask St Pope John Paul II. They would tell you, “yes, it’s a possibility that a Catholic can reasonably give assent to.” But, if you’ve got authority greater than popes and saints, well…

I consistently show the longstanding teaching of the Church.

I continuously ask for a magisterial document that overturns it. I get nothing.

 

[buffalo]

In the realm of theology? Absolutely! In the realm of the physical sciences? No. After all, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible isn’t a science textbook.

Are there any areas at all where a Scriptural truth and science agree?

 

[buffalo]

YECers believe that God formed man from a pile of mud, yet find the idea of God forming man from pre-existing animal creatures appalling. I got one would much rather have a primitive hominid for a dad than a pile of mud.

Interestingly enough Jesus used mud and spit to give sight to a blind man.

Clay is a pretty good material to start with. It has some pretty interesting properties.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Don’t you think it’s foolish to believe that Eve came from the rib of Adam?

The term ‘rib’ is clearly a synecdoche and the entire concept a metaphor illustrating the essential unity of an adult couple. Understood in that sense those verses are interesting theology. For those who lack such understanding, belief in the literal sense is a “next best thing”, a sign of incomprehension, not foolishness.

Yes, there’s no way the ‘dust of the ground’ can be interpreted as an animate creature of sorts.

I agree with that. It is the foundation of abiogenesis. Although Adam was not directly formed from mud, he was descended from living stuff that was. And of course, if you care to track the source of any particular atom of your body, you find that it comes from abiotic material.

Let’s have a friendly bet. I will send you some American beer of your choice. What will you put up?

Where I live, cider is the local speciality. That’s my stake.

Now because provisional science has made some claims we have to water down the clear teaching? I think not.
Scripture trumps provisional science claims.

Remarkably, perhaps, I agree with some of this. “The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church” is desperately difficult to pin down. In this thread alone we have discussed the bible (in several languages and interpretations), church fathers, encyclicals, the Catechism, and any number of other publications and pronouncements all which have some claim to be Catholic. On the other hand there is nowhere you can find a list of “Scientific Consensus” either. Catholic theistic evolutionists should make a serious effort to work out exactly where their faith fits within the galaxy that enfolds “Official Teaching”, just as fringe scientists should make a serious effort to work out exactly where their science fits within the galaxy that enfolds “Consensus”. For what it’s worth I think that Theistic Evolution lies much closer to the centre of “Official Teaching” than Creation Science is to the centre of “Consensus”.

 

[MonteRCMS]

It was a Catholic priest that came up with that idea.

It gets really complicated … very quickly.

 

[Gorgias]

I consistently show the longstanding teaching of the Church.

I continuously ask for a magisterial document that overturns it. I get nothing.

Keep telling yourself that.

Here’s the thing: there’s no document that says “Catholics must believe in theistic evolution” just as there’s no document that says “Catholics must believe in young earth creationism.” If you’re hanging your hat on that distinction, then your case looks more like obstinacy than reasonableness.

On the other hand, you’ve been quoted magisterial documents throughout this thread that demonstrate that the Church allows Catholics to hold to evolution, given a set of constraints (of assertions that cannot be held).

So “I get nothing” seems more facetious that accurate. Sorry.

Are there any areas at all where a Scriptural truth and science agree?

Sure! Relatively recent archeological discoveries appear to confirm the historicity of a number of Old Testament narratives!

 

[buffalo]

On the other hand, you’ve been quoted magisterial documents throughout this thread that demonstrate that the Church allows Catholics to hold to evolution, given a set of constraints (of assertions that cannot be held).

Hmmmmmm! Yes, they do allow micro-evolution to be held by Catholics. One says - study away - which we are, and finding design is a better explanation.

 

[buffalo]

Sure! Relatively recent archeological discoveries appear to confirm the historicity of a number of Old Testament narratives!

Yes, archaeology is confirming the historicity of the Bible. We agree there.

Science - how about the very first verse of Genesis?
In the beginning (time)
God created the heavens (space)
and the earth (matter)

Which science has just recently confirmed and we Catholics have known since the beginning.

The resting place of the bones of Adam?

 

[Techno2000]

The resting place of the bones of Adam?

Yes… supposedly, “The place of the skull”( golgotha)… is Adam’s skull.

 

[buffalo]

Yes… supposedly, “The place of the skull”( golgotha)… is Adam’s skull.

and why Crucifixes have them at the bottom.

 

[buffalo]

http://www.sepulchre.custodia.org/default.asp?id=4106

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Directly beneath Calvary, the Chapel of Adam is one of the oldest in the church.
In the apse can be seen the crack in the rock caused, according to the earliest Christian tradition, by the earthquake which occurred at the moment of Jesus’ death. The crack was said to have allowed Christ’s blood to fall upon, and thereby redeem, Adam who was thought to have been buried here.
For the first Christians this was also the origin of the name Golgotha: the place of the skull. This tradition has inspired the iconography of the Cross, which places a skull and rivulets of blood at the foot of the Cross, and frequently a small cave.

 

[Gorgias]

Hmmmmmm! Yes, they do allow micro-evolution to be held by Catholics.

Citation, please.

The resting place of the bones of Adam?

The ground.

 

[buffalo]

Citation, please.

I gave it several posts back, By Pope Benedict XVI

 

[Richca]

For what it’s worth I think that Theistic Evolution lies much closer to the centre of “Official Teaching” than Creation Science is to the centre of “Consensus”.

Well, Hugh, I’m going to have to disagree with you on this and also isn’t theistic evolution a creation science in an absolute sense so to speak, a creation scientism?

As far as theistic evolution being much closer to the center of official Church teaching, it is not even mentioned in the CCC and that catechism’s catechesis on creation nor should it be. The catholic faith is not founded on scientism nor purely conjectural so-called scientific theories based on man’s imagination. On the contrary, the faith is founded on the Word of God. Accordingly, the CCC says:

Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place…Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation (#289).

The catechism continues:

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”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day (#337).

From the first sentence of this fragment, it appears to me the CCC is reiterating the traditional understanding of the Church’s teaching and theology of creation or what we call presently ‘creationism.’ The fragment can certainly be at least interpreted this way and probably ought to be so interpreted since there is no mention of theistic evolution.

In my opinion then, progressive creationism is the best ‘model’ that is in conformity with the CCC, official magisterial teaching, the teaching of all the Fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church, the entire Tradition of the Church, and of course Holy Scripture and the Genesis 1-2 creation narratives, as well as incorporating those modern scientific discoveries that are the most reasonable or more certain that are not in conflict with Holy Scripture and Genesis 1-2 and creationism.

How this all fits in with the creation narrative of Genesis 1-2:3 depends on distinguishing between the substance or essentials of the sacred writer’s narrative and the accidentals or non-essentials. St Thomas Aquinas in commenting on the various interpretations of Genesis 1-2 from the Fathers of the Church explains that the substance of the catholic faith concerning creation and in which all the Fathers were in agreement on is that the universe of creatures began to be, had a beginning, by creation out of nothing from God. Then, he says that the mode and order of creation are as it were accidental to the faith in that the Fathers had various interpretations of Genesis according to the mode and order of creation.