Can you convert to the Catholic faith and still believe in creationism?

[ready]

I would like to point out that even though I can accept the possibility of natural selection as a real phenomenon in nature, I believe strongly that God created each animal of the earth as a whole and complete creature fully equipped. With natural selection, plants and animals may change and even die off, but I believe they were first put into existence as a fully formed creature, like Adam and Eve were - as I understand things.

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m a convert from Protestantism of about 12 years standing. When I first became a Christian as a Protestant, Creationism was just getting going. I became a bit of a fanatic for a while. In fact, Ken Ham, the bloke behind the Creationist museum in Kentucky originally came from Brisbane in Australia where I lived at the time and still live nearby. Until recently several of his family went to my wife’s Baptist Church.

Do you accept Ken Ham’s view that Adam and Eve saddled and rode dinosaurs, and that their grandchildren played with baby Tyrranosauri rex?

 

[StAnastasia]

If they accept natural selection I can agree with them - that part of evolutionary theory I have no probelm with (plants and animals do seem to undergo this process over time, as I read in all of Darwin’s books; but if they accept Darwin’s idea of man descending from apes, I’d have to disagree with their views. Besides, even if they are a priest doesn’t guarantee their opinion is correct or they are faithful to Church teaching. A priest can be a liberal in his views. And a priest can be less intelligent than I.

Humans did not evolve from apes. Evidence from genetics and paleontology show that *Homo sapiens *and modern apes share a common ancestor.

 

[StAnastasia]

The presupposition that belief in evolution must stipulate pure chance and the absence of a Creator is simply false. God created everything. This is the starting point. The evidence points to an old Earth. After all, He did say “Come, let us reason together.” (Isaiah 1:18)

To employ an analogy from game theory, in 1904 Lizzie Phillips created the game “Monopoly” for the purpose of teaching economics. Her invention has all the marks of intentionality, finality, purpose, and creativity. People who engage in the game accept that chance will play a crucial role in determining the outcome, but not a role so determinative that it rules out skill. The fact that chance is involved in no way impeaches the historical fact that Lizzie Phillips created the game.

StAnastasia

 

[ready]

Humans did not evolve from apes. Evidence from genetics and paleontology show that *Homo sapiens *and modern apes share a common ancestor.

I know that we did not “evolve” from apes, but evolution does declare that we descended from apes with us sharing common ancestry with them. My professor says that that means somewhere there is supposed to be a missing-link between apes and human’s, a creature that is part and ape and part human like “Lucy” the australopithecus aferensis (sp?) was purported to be. Lucy was supposed to be the “mother” of mankind and I found no evidence for this in my study of evolution.

Fractal geometry shows us that there is order in what appears to be chaos, so I am open to looking into the study of evolution with an open mind, but I still don’t see how common ancestry can be proved. Fossils and comparison can only say so much.

 

[buffalo]

I know that we did not “evolve” from apes, but evolution does declare that we descended from apes with us sharing common ancestry with them. My professor says that that means somewhere there is supposed to be a missing-link between apes and human’s, a creature that is part and ape and part human like “Lucy” the australopithecus aferensis (sp?) was purported to be. Lucy was supposed to be the “mother” of mankind and I found no evidence for this in my study of evolution.

Fractal geometry shows us that there is order in what appears to be chaos, so I am open to looking into the study of evolution with an open mind, but I still don’t see how common ancestry can be proved. Fossils and comparison can only say so much.

We have .001% of fossils of what actually lived. It is like putting together a 1 million piece puzzle while only having 100 pieces and then thinking you know what the picture is.

 

[ricmat]

We have .001% of fossils of what actually lived. It is like putting together a 1 million piece puzzle while only having 100 pieces and then thinking you know what the picture is.

Hey, it’s even worse than that. Without actual DNA to look at from the fossils that do exist, we don’t even know if the 100 pieces are from the same puzzle.

 

[StAnastasia]

I know that we did not “evolve” from apes, but evolution does declare that we descended from apes with us sharing common ancestry with them. My professor says that that means somewhere there is supposed to be a missing-link between apes and human’s, a creature that is part and ape and part human like “Lucy” the australopithecus aferensis (sp?) was purported to be. Lucy was supposed to be the “mother” of mankind and I found no evidence for this in my study of evolution.

There is not just one missing link, but numerous ones. When they are found they become “found links” instead of missing ones. We actually have quite a rich array of fossils in the hominid sequence (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/)

 

[ready]

We have .001% of fossils of what actually lived. It is like putting together a 1 million piece puzzle while only having 100 pieces and then thinking you know what the picture is.

Exactly!

 

[ready]

Hey, it’s even worse than that. Without actual DNA to look at from the fossils that do exist, we don’t even know if the 100 pieces are from the same puzzle.

Right!

 

[ready]

There is not just one missing link, but numerous ones. When they are found they become “found links” instead of missing ones. We actually have quite a rich array of fossils in the hominid sequence (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/)

I studied Lucy twenty years go. She was supposed to be our “mother.”

 

[brotherhrolf]

I studied Lucy twenty years go. She was supposed to be our “mother.”

You must have been reading different books than I did. “Lucy” is simply a female specimen of a single type of hominid. Identifying these remains as “mother” is about as fanciful as claiming a dinosaur fossil represented a fire-breathing dragon.

Faunal remains (i.e. bones) are quite fascinating and one can tell a great deal about bones without resorting to costly dna studies. I wrote my thesis on zooarchaeolgical remains. Thirty years ago I was quite proficient in identifying genus, species, sex, and age from just bones. Dr. William Bass taught a three day seminar in which he quite rapidly showed us not only how he was able to indentify sex in human remaiins but also indentify individuals who had been chopped apart. Of course, he was a forensic anthropologist and I suppose he could have used those old dna tests which were just coming into vogue then, but he didn’t. He just used his old mark two eyeballs.

Funny too that LSU has its own forensic anthropologist who does pretty good just by “reading the bones”. She’s on TV all the time with skeletons found in the woods. Of course, they do have access to the almighty DNA testing but I wonder if their bretheren paleoanthropologists out there in East Africa just might know what they are doing as well.

But I digress and this thread is woefully off it’s intended topic.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Do you accept Ken Ham’s view that Adam and Eve saddled and rode dinosaurs, and that their grandchildren played with baby Tyrranosauri rex?

Not quite. But then I have a problem with an evolutionary viewpoint for the DNA and protein co-dependence, the machinery in the cell, the seeming decay of the earth’s magnetic field, the lack of transitional fossils for the various phyla, the sudden explosion of life in the Cambrian era, and the fact the whole she-bang adds up to a “sum zero energy” universe, or if you like, “nothing”.

Billions of years seems like a long time to keep “nothing” going.

 

[a_priori]

That was my point! Precisely! Maybe you were agreeing with me…I couldn’t tell, but it felt like you were dis-agreeing. If so, I don’t know how you got what you got. I didn’t say that belief in evolution stipulates pure chance and the absence of a Creator…I was responding to Ready’s post, which clearly indicated that at least some believers in evolution saw it that way (pure chance w/no creator).

I agree it’s ludicrous and a creator, intention and a ‘mind’ behind and throughout creation is the starting point (and bottom line and everything else!). In my post that you quoted, I was only clarifying the idea represented in the sentence (bolded) Ready wrote. I am of the opinion, though, that many, many people who say they believe in evolution or ‘are’ evolutionists, actually DO try to pass off the nonsense that everything we see and experience came from random chaos. That’s THEIR opinion, not mine…and I, just like Ready, don’t have a clue how they can logically even hold that thought in their minds!

hoping you understand my position now…

I think I understand your position.

 

[ready]

You must have been reading different books than I did. “Lucy” is simply a female specimen of a single type of hominid. Identifying these remains as “mother” is about as fanciful as claiming a dinosaur fossil represented a fire-breathing dragon.

Faunal remains (i.e. bones) are quite fascinating and one can tell a great deal about bones without resorting to costly dna studies. I wrote my thesis on zooarchaeolgical remains. Thirty years ago I was quite proficient in identifying genus, species, sex, and age from just bones. Dr. William Bass taught a three day seminar in which he quite rapidly showed us not only how he was able to indentify sex in human remaiins but also indentify individuals who had been chopped apart. Of course, he was a forensic anthropologist and I suppose he could have used those old dna tests which were just coming into vogue then, but he didn’t. He just used his old mark two eyeballs.

Funny too that LSU has its own forensic anthropologist who does pretty good just by “reading the bones”. She’s on TV all the time with skeletons found in the woods. Of course, they do have access to the almighty DNA testing but I wonder if their bretheren paleoanthropologists out there in East Africa just might know what they are doing as well.

But I digress and this thread is woefully off it’s intended topic.

I read paleontologist Johannsen’s book about his archeological finding australopithecus aferensis (sp?) whom he called Lucy (after the Beatle’s song). I read his book about her and he and others claimed this “Lucy” was the mother of mankind. That was roughly 20 years ago. Since then I’ve seen fossils on PBS. Fossils of creatures that are human-like. But what can these fossils say other than creatures existed that resembled humans but were animals? Or they where human’s in some strange form? What else am I supposed to gather? If they were animals with somewhat human characteristics or human’s in less developed form that doesn’t require that I believe that apes and man had shared a common parent, like Lucy was supposed to be.

 

[StAnastasia]

Not quite. But then I have a problem with an evolutionary viewpoint for the DNA and protein co-dependence, the machinery in the cell, the seeming decay of the earth’s magnetic field, the lack of transitional fossils for the various phyla, the sudden explosion of life in the Cambrian era, and the fact the whole she-bang adds up to a “sum zero energy” universe, or if you like, “nothing”. Billions of years seems like a long time to keep “nothing” going.

That puts you in bed with the Dawkinsians – you both agree that evolution = atheism. Those tens of millions of us in the Theistic Evolution camp couldn’t disagree more with both YECs and atheists.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I read paleontologist Johannsen’s book about his archeological finding australopithecus aferensis (sp?) whom he called Lucy (after the Beatle’s song). I read his book about her and he and others claimed this “Lucy” was the mother of mankind. That was roughly 20 years ago. Since then I’ve seen fossils on PBS. Fossils of creatures that are human-like. But what can these fossils say other than creatures existed that resembled humans but were animals? Or they where human’s in some strange form? What else am I supposed to gather? If they were animals with somewhat human characteristics or human’s in less developed form that doesn’t require that I believe that apes and man had shared a common parent, like Lucy was supposed to be.

I once again suggest to you that you read Malinowski’s Magic, Science, and Religion.

I state again…Credo. (Latin). I believe. I believe that God created this magnificent universe. I believe that God gave us brains to use. I believe that humankind is a unique creation (note the word). How this happened is a matter of faith and will never be proven by science which is not about faith (see Malinowski).

My anthropologist self is well aware that the physical world - the world of fossils (did you see the new one on the news tonight? Absolutely fascinating.) is out there. Yep. And what does it have to do with my faith? Is the Eucharist any less the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Oh, my! We discovered a new fossil. It’s not even a hominid. Can I suggest to you in all charity that the “hype” I heard on ABC News tonight was just that - hype?

The point that goes missing through all of this is that an evolutionist believes that creation is random. I watched Carl Sagan’s Cosmos on PBS. “Billions and billions of stars” and I am just suppossed to accept that they were “created” (note the word) randomly. Yep, we just had this thing called the “Big Bang” and everything just “happened”.

That God created us goes without challenge. That He imbued us with an immortal soul goes without challenge.

Something happened around 50,000 BC. I can never prove it to my peers nor can I prove it to you. Can I identify Adam and Eve? No. Can I prove the existence of a soul? No. Does religion arise after 50,000 BC? Yes. It does not exist before.

I cannot prove it to the satisfaction of my fellow anthropologists. It is me merely reflecting that hey, there were no burials (I’m finally convinced that the Neandertal Shanidar “burials” in Iraq were not burials).

I see God’s handiwork within His Creation. I see Him moving across the face of Creation. There is no doubt in my mind that God created us and He created this wonderful magnificent universe. How He chose to do it - well, that’s God. Plain and simple. I rejoice that He gave me a brain to use (and oh, oh, oh, we Catholics HAVE followed Him). I can only answer for myself.

Here I stand. I am the very first person in my family to obtain a degree. My father worked two jobs to put my brother, sister, and I through Catholic school. My aunts and uncles worked for their kids. I do not hold my Catholic education cheaply. My Catholic education was largely before Vatican II.

I do not need my faith questioned. None of you know my soul. I went to school with a whole bunch of Catholic anthropologists who grew up before Vatican II. Look to your own consciences before you hammer us.

 

[Aramis]

Dawkins’ views on the mechanics of selection are exquisite.

On the other hand, he crosses from science into religion by claiming it proves there is no god. His most recent book, The God Delusion is itself deluded; he ceased doing science and started preaching atheism. Also why I’ve not bothered with more than a cursory skim of it, I found enough to tell me it wasn’t worth the read.

The Selfish Gene, however, is an excellent refinement of Darwinian evolution, Fr. Mendel’s genetics, and modern genetics. When he sticks to science, he’s an excellent author.

God Created the universe; the big bang seems to be the method. At some point along the way God added a soul to at least one member of what may have been becoming, or already was, human, and sin entered the world some point after. And some 2000 years ago, God incarnated into the cells of a young jewish woman, and became man. Accepting Dawkins’ explanation for the mode of natural selection, and unit upon which natural selection acts does not damage **MY **faith. In fact, reading The Selfish Gene reinforced my faith in a God of all creation.

 

[ready]

I once again suggest to you that you read Malinowski’s Magic, Science, and Religion.

That is incorrect. I read the book called Lucy written by the paleontologist Johannsen who discoverd the fossil of “Lucy” with his friend.

 

[ready]

I read paleontologist Johannsen’s book about his archeological finding australopithecus aferensis (sp?) whom he called Lucy (after the Beatle’s song). I read his book about her and he and others claimed this “Lucy” was the mother of mankind. That was roughly 20 years ago. Since then I’ve seen fossils on PBS. Fossils of creatures that are human-like. But what can these fossils say other than creatures existed that resembled humans but were animals? Or they where human’s in some strange form? What else am I supposed to gather? If they were animals with somewhat human characteristics or human’s in less developed form that doesn’t require that I believe that apes and man had shared a common parent, like Lucy was supposed to be.

The book I read, called Lucy by Johannsen was studied carefully in the university class I took. The professor is very smart and told me that he was asked to be on panels with Harvard professors to debate the topic of evolution. He gave me an A when I wrote in my paper that I found natural selection operating in nature but found no proof that Lucy was a common ancestor of man or that common ancestry even existed. In my final paper I called common ancestry a profligate proposal of Darwin’s, when I actually meant to call it his most “prodigious” proposal - an excellent and fortuitous AND QUITE PERFECT error. I’m really proud of myself for having made the error with the word.:thumbsup: