Creation or Evolution

[ricmat]

Just look here at this survey of the US National Academy of Sciences that found in 1998 that only 7% of US scientists believed in a personal God. We don’t know how many of that 7% was Roman Catholic and how many were of other Christian or non-Christian faiths. Now extend that to the whole world.

Well, Alec, in that case it’s a good thing Wildleafblower is around to remind you about God now and then

The survey above actually brings to the forefront an issue that concerns me, and some others here.

Truly, whether we believe in young earth creationism, ID, or full blown “totally random mutations” it has no direct effect on our salvation. Our future is in heaven or hell, and there will be people who believe all the above in both of those places. So the “facts” of evolution vs. creationism vs. ID, etc. really are meaningless in the long run. It makes for interesting discussions here at CAF, and perhaps puts bread and butter on the table for some.

But how each of us views science is tremendously important in the long run. The worst sin is that of pride, denying our need for God (either as creator, or in a more “personal God” way). If we see science as the beginning and end of all things, we have denied God, and replaced him with us. And “us” are now the ones who define good and evil, and who condescendingly look down on others from the thrones we construct from conceit.

I don’t know who here agrees with Dawkins, Dennett, etc (and admittedly they are at the extreme) but that only 7% of scientists believe in God (or a personal God) is quite disheartening. (I’m an engineer, and I don’t think it’s quite that bad amongst us). This survey leads me to believe that perhaps science is being used as the ultimate temptation, covering all 3 sin categories simultaneously (inordinate desire for pleasure/material wealth, inordinate desire for fame, and inordinate desire for power.) A threesome that’s hard to resist, and goes hand in hand with pride.

The reason I mention all this is not to judge anyone, but so that those that are close to science can be on guard. If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. I’m not saying throw science out the window. Not even close. But I’m merely suggesting that we all ask what effect it has on how we view God and humanity, and cut off those things which may be leading us astray.

.

 

[ricmat]

The fact that the U.S. Bill of Rights was created in part through Enlightenment principles does not necessarily mean that it is incompatible with traditional Catholic theology to some extent. I was referring only to the text that refers to the origin of man’s rights as coming from the Creator.

Minor correction Reggie - I think you’re referring to the Declaration of Independence, not the bill of rights.

Happy (almost) 4th of July!

.

 

[ricmat]

I obviously am imperfect like everyone else, I might indeed be wrong and there are scientists who disagree with some of my views.

Please accept my apology for the hyperbole I employed in my comment.

Certainly, you are much more knowledgeable about evolution than I am. And I’m impressed that unlike some, you accept that you might be wrong in some instances.

.

 

[reggieM]

Minor correction Reggie - I think you’re referring to the Declaration of Independence, not the bill of rights.

Happy (almost) 4th of July!

.

Right, ricmat – I should have gotten that correct especially so close to Independence Day.

The passage I was referring to was:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

 

[NoelFitz]

This thread seems to be a general discussion about anything and everything.

What did Glileo say about Creation or Evolution?

I am more concerned about torture in Iraq, and various other parts of the world, by the US than I am about the torture of Gaileo.

Nothing can be done now about Galileo, but people of good will can protest about Ameican torture and maybe moral values can prevail.

The implicartion that scientists, non-believers and evolutionists are all in one box, while believers, creationists and theologians are in another is an over-simpolification.

I would go further than Alec. Not only should scientists be allowed consider the moral impolications of their work, they are obliged to do so.

 

[reggieM]

I would go further than Alec. Not only should scientists be allowed consider the moral impolications of their work, they are obliged to do so.

They are obligated to respond to the Gospel of Christ and to live by the moral laws as revealed by God.

Catholics are obligated to refute errors and teach unbelievers (i.e. atheistic scientists) the truth.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t know who here agrees with Dawkins, Dennett, etc (and admittedly they are at the extreme) but that only 7% of scientists believe in God (or a personal God) is quite disheartening. (I’m an engineer, and I don’t think it’s quite that bad amongst us). This survey leads me to believe that perhaps science is being used as the ultimate temptation, covering all 3 sin categories simultaneously (inordinate desire for pleasure/material wealth, inordinate desire for fame, and inordinate desire for power.) A threesome that’s hard to resist, and goes hand in hand with pride.

This was a great summary – thank you.

The fact that 93% of scientists do not believe in God (if that statistic is correct) is a remarkable thing to consider.

The number is so radically skewed in comparison to the general population that some explantion is needed.

I think science is a tempation. Evolution provides a world-view that many perceive as a complete answer (complete enough to exclude the need for God).

 

[edwest2]

I agree.

A brief satirical play:

“What is rock that fall from sky?”

“Must be from god.”

Fast forward to 2008, and a random scientist:

We have conclusively proved enough to explain most everything in the Bible, so we will now disgard it. Man was a cosmic accident in a pitiless, uncaring universe. Religion was simply his crutch, that is, until we arrived. The future belongs to science (and those who fund us). We have no one to rely on but ourselves (and those who fund us).

Richard Dawkins: “We no longer believe in the Greek or Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[anthony022071]

1. Surely you’re not suggesting that the same writer(s) wrote both. The EDITORS of Genesis, to their everlasting credit, considering both to be important artifacts of Jewish tradition, simply included both in their traditional form, rather than attempting to edit them into a single, non-contradictory story.

 

[Deconi]

1. No, that is a CONCLUSION, arrived at by comparing the pagan sources given with the Biblical version. That is the concensus of modern - and even semi-modern - Bible scholarship, Jewish, Catholic and Protestant. But even if one argues that the evidence for copying is not 100% conclusive, compare the 99+% evidence of copying with the 0% evidence of them being original and take your choice.
2. Here I’m not sure what you mean. That the sources are genuine is well-documented. That the stories themselves are legendary is obvious.
3. Uh, no, that would be the rest - well, actually ALL, of YOUR argument.
4. That order is also well established, with no substantial scholarly opposition.

Faith that is based on anti-intellectualism is not capable of producing scholarship. Fundamentalists can make all of the claims that they want, when asked for evidence they always either back down or lie.

For examples of outright lies, go to ANY ‘creationist’ textbook.

For examples of the backing down, review this very thread. You will not find a single example of substantial support for the literalist view. Only the litany, ‘All the biologists are wrong, all of the encyclopedias are wrong, all of the painstaking research is wrong, all of the scholarly books are wrong, only we cranks have the truth’.

The choice between scholarship and crankmanship is not a difficult one.

Hmm. I like the rude shove to ‘creationist’ and the invocation of ‘fundamentalism’ as a label but I’ll thank you to leave my views to me.

The ECFs have made address of the Genesis issues and I’m happy to cite them as support. For the order of the Books, see the list as passed down from them to each other with the undertone of ‘arguing the point’ against what must have been similar views to your in their day!

TO DATE, however plausible, NONE have produced factual evidence to overcome their listed reception of those books and their contents. What we have are THEORIES based on more theories derived from various discoveries and the interpretations of those discoveries.

Something happens when intelligence overtakes faith. Cranks appear; but they do not know they’re cranks. I’ve spent enough time with scholarly cranks that I think I might be one…

Maybe.

 

[Deconi]

beeliner;3867079:

It doesn’t even matter if the same writer wrote both narratives or if they redacted the stories. The question is whether they are are true and in what ways. The narratives are a product of the Hebrew culture,and the Jews and the Catholic Church have always believed them to be divinely inspired. The Jews and the Church never casted doubt upon the veracity of the narratives for what appear to be contradictions.

Anthropology is naturalistic,and pre-historic human history is obscure,vague,undefined,and unintelligible. So I can’t believe everything that anthropologists have to say about the history of mankind,especially in regard to questions of origins.

Anglicanism is protestant,even though it retained many elements of Catholicism. One can’t be Catholic if one rejects the authority of Rome,which is the center of catholic communion and doctrine. To reject the authority of Rome is reject to Roman doctrines.
The Anglicans also reject salvation by faith and works.

Protestantism does not necessarily mean fundamentalism.
The rise of modern science took place mainly in predominantly protestant countries. Catholic schools have come heavily under the influence of modern scientific thinking,the “modern worldview”,and secular society.

The Catholic Church believes that Genesis records historical events. Historical events are facts.

True biblical scholars? What are they true to? the historical-critcal method? source-criticism? Much of modern biblical scholarship treats the scriptures in the manner of methodological naturalism,having been influenced by the natural sciences.

I like it.

 

[beeliner]

Deconi:

Originally Posted by beeliner

It doesn’t even matter if the same writer wrote both narratives or if they redacted the stories. The question is whether they are are true and in what ways…

Whoa! You have taken someone else’s words and ascribed them to me! I’m assuming it was an accident or typing error.

Please post a correction.

P.S. I cannot discuss the ‘ECFs’ with you as I haven’t the slightest idea what they are. How about expanding the acronym? Right now I gotta go to the WC&P, but I’ll be back PDQ. OK?

 

[beeliner]

1. It doesn’t even matter if the same writer wrote both narratives or if they redacted the stories. The question is whether they are are true and in what ways.
2. The narratives are a product of the Hebrew culture,and the Jews and the Catholic Church have always believed them to be divinely inspired.
3. The Jews and the Church never casted doubt upon the veracity of the narratives for what appear to be contradictions.
4. Anthropology is naturalistic,and pre-historic human history is obscure,vague,undefined,and unintelligible. So I can’t believe everything that anthropologists have to say about the history of mankind,especially in regard to questions of origins.
5. One can’t be Catholic if one rejects the authority of Rome,which is the center of catholic communion and doctrine. To reject the authority of Rome is reject to Roman doctrines.
6. The Anglicans also reject salvation by faith and works.

7a. Protestantism does not necessarily mean fundamentalism.
The rise of modern science took place mainly in predominantly protestant countries.

7b. Catholic schools have come heavily under the influence of modern scientific thinking,the “modern worldview”,and secular society.

1. The Catholic Church believes that Genesis records historical events. Historical events are facts.
2. True biblical scholars? What are they true to? the historical-critcal method? source-criticism? Much of modern biblical scholarship treats the scriptures in the manner of methodological naturalism,having been influenced by the natural sciences.

1. We’re just going around in circles here. You continue to make empty claims with no substantiation whatever. Of course it matters. Are you suggesting that Biblical research should be forbidden?
2. Again, round and round. The ADAPTATIONS are Hebrew, the source material pagan. “Divinely inspired” does not imply ‘literally true’.

Please do yourself a BIG favor - go to your library, check out the Genesis volume of the Anchor Bible and read it from cover to cover, the introduction and the foootnotes on the individual verses.

For the real history of the entire BIble in a nutshell (if one can call 100 pages in small type a nutshell), I suggest the ‘Biblical Literature’ entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropedia section.

Ya know what? I have researched the list of contributors to both of these publications and I don’t see a single atheist among 'em - Only the best scholars in the field, having in most cases devoted their entire lives to Biblical research.

1. You are hiding behind the phrase ‘casted [sic] doubt’. Nor has either body, at least in modern times, claimed that they were literally true. Many of the aforementioned scholars are devout Jews and equally devout Catholics.
2. Anthropology is science, and much, much more is known about human origins than about the events in the Bible, many of which are quite obscure, with no extra-Biblical support whatever.
3. One can’t be ROMAN Catholic if one rejects the authority of Rome, by definition. Anglicans do not claim to be ROMAN Catholic.
4. That is incorrect. Please support that from an Anglican source. Methinks you have Anglicanism confused with Lutheranism.

7a. I have always tried to distinguish between ‘mainline’ Protestantism and Fundamentalism, as anyone reading my posts knows. But you are attempting to link a country’s religious orientation with the advance of science in that venue, and that link is, I think, tenuous at best. A good example is the Dutch Reformed Church in Holland, strictly Calvinist, and wielding virtually no secular influence whatever; in fact, seen as something of an anachronism.

7b. Thankfully! God forbid that Catholic schools, among the best in the world, should sink to the bottom of the barrel by teaching nonsensical crapola as the Fundamentalist ‘Christian’ schools do.

1. Already been there. That’s nonsense. The Catholic Church leaves such matters in the hands of its scholars. The origins of Genesis are well known. Your version is unsupportable - if you dispute that, where is your support? I keep asking, you never provide a shred of evidence, only claims that the Chruch supports you when in fact it does not.

You seem to be trying to imply that the Bible is somehow less important or unique in the eyes of those who understand its history. Actually, the very opposite is true.

 

[beeliner]

However, the Church is right when it tells Catholics that woman was fashioned by God from Adam’s rib. This is just as much a fact as any scientific fact.

But you still continue to ignore the FACT that Genesis 1 states clearly that on the SIXTH and last day of creation both animals and humans were created male and female together.

In any case, the ‘rib’ story is part of a plagiarism of a Sumerian legend (which predates Genesis by more than a thousand years), though there are admittedly differences:

According to Sumerian myth the only thing Dilmun [Eden] lacked was fresh water; the god Enki (or Ea) ordered Utu, the sun-god, to bring up fresh water from the earth to water the garden.
…
In the myth of Enki and Ninhursag it is related that the mother-goddess **Ninhursag caused eight plants to grow in the garden of the gods. Enki desired to eat these plants **and sent his messenger Isimud to fetch them. Enki ate them one by one, and Ninhursag in her rage pronounced the curse of death upon Enki. As the result of the curse eight of Enki’s bodily organs were attacked by disease and he was at the pain of death. The great gods were in dismay and Enlil [the chief god] was powerless to help. Ninhursag was induced to return and deal with the situation. She created eight goddesses of healing who proceeded to heal each of the diseased parts of Enki’s body. One of these parts was the god’s rib, and the goddess who was created to deal with the rib was named Ninti, which means “lady of the rib”.

The source here is Samuel H. Hooke (1874-1968), former professor of OT studies at the University of London, and an acknowleded expert on both the Bible and middle-Eastern mythology.

 

[bnapgh]

However, the Church is right when it tells Catholics that woman was fashioned by God from Adam’s rib. This is just as much a fact as any scientific fact. Miracles happened and continue to happen. Science is not the whole answer, and what is left out of science is very important for Catholics to know.

Ed,

I have a hypothetical for you. Please humor me to probe the semantical limits.

Based on the above, if it were proven to your satisfaction that Eve was not fashioned from Adam’s rib but in some more traditional way, but all in the New Testament were proven to your equal satisfaction, would you lose Faith in Christ as Redeemer?

Please do not say it ‘‘cannot’’ be so proven or that the converse has already been proven to you. Please play along with me.

Thanks,

 

[edwest2]

But you still continue to ignore the FACT that Genesis 1 states clearly that on the SIXTH and last day of creation both animals and humans were created male and female together.

In any case, the ‘rib’ story is part of a plagiarism of a Sumerian legend (which predates Genesis by more than a thousand years), though there are admittedly differences:The source here is Samuel H. Hooke (1874-1968), former professor of OT studies at the University of London, and an acknowleded expert on both the Bible and middle-Eastern mythology.

The Catholic Church does not agree with this fact as you call it. I am aware of all the Sumerian and other references but the Bible writers were inspired by God and the Church tells me the writings are infallible.

In recent years, a Bible Explanation Industry has arisen that takes Biblical miracles and offers mundane explanations for them. I’m sure this is a great comfort for modern atheists and helpful for those trying to spread the atheist belief system (usually in the form of manifestos and similar), but it denies to God one of His abilies, that is, to perform miracles. Miracles which still occur today. I heard a priest on Catholic Radio refer to Jesus’ multiplication of the loaves and fishes explanation as the miracle of sharing - he laughed. I don’t think sharing my candy bar with the person next to me is any sort of miracle. But that is a good example of the deceptive work being done.

As written in Humani Generis, the Church warns against those who seek novelty or those who attempt new interpretations outside the realm of established divine revelation. It also gave strict instruction about the work of the theologian which must be done in a spiritual as well as intellectual manner.

God bless,
Ed

 

[NoelFitz]

Beeliner
as I have written before this thread has wandered far from Creation or Evolution. It now considers many disparate topics, including exegesis.

You note as a problem two versions of the creation of woman.

I consider I replied to this type of concern some time ago when I wrote:

The preface to the New American Bible has:

The Yahwist is concrete, imaginative, using many anthropomorphisms in its theological approach, as seen, e.g., in the narrative of creation in Genesis 2, compared with the Priestly version in Genesis 1. The Elohist is more sober, moralistic. The Priestly strand, which emphasizes genealogies, is more severely theological in tone. nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/prefaceold.htm

The OT/Hebrew Bible utilizes more than one strand.

 

[edwest2]

Ed,

I have a hypothetical for you. Please humor me to probe the semantical limits.

Based on the above, if it were proven to your satisfaction that Eve was not fashioned from Adam’s rib but in some more traditional way, but all in the New Testament were proven to your equal satisfaction, would you lose Faith in Christ as Redeemer?

Please do not say it ‘‘cannot’’ be so proven or that the converse has already been proven to you. Please play along with me.

Thanks,

If it can be proven to my satisfaction that no atomic bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945? A little bit of film fakery. The victims shown had suffered injuries from incendiaries as opposed to an atomic blast and the rest of the evidence was similarly manipulated.

I’ve seen this type of question before and it is part of those involved in the Bible Explanation Industry.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rudy2295]

I keep running into threads where they clearly all end up with creation verses evolution. It always ends up in an ugly debate between both sides and much of the time, tends to become quite off topic.

I opted to create this thread to discuss the matter, we should do so in a cival manner, not putting down either side and make our points of view clear. This is also meant to broaden our horizons as to what we understand about each, perhaps we might even come to a final conclusion here, thus ending the debate forever. I feel we as christians, especially Catholics should never be divided over anything, afterall, that goes against the very nature of the word Catholic which means unity.

Athiests, agnostics, etc. should not be involved with this thread in my opinion, that would throw off the unity, but if you insist, be very clear about that matter from the get go, just so we have a better understanding and point of reference from the poster.

My hopes for this thread are to help get discussion on this matter to be civilized, informative and most of all, we show respect to each other…

people shouldn’t be so sincetific. i am a creationist not an evolutionist because i have seen Gods powers over good and i have seen what the devil can do like possession and manipulation and im guessing the answers to those questions like what happened to the dinosaurs ? my theory is that they were probably here before but maybe not a million years or 60 million years before. they probably never mention it in the bible but did they ever mention the pig? or a type of bird?

 

[beeliner]

Beeliner
as I have written before this thread has wandered far from Creation or Evolution. It now considers many disparate topics, including exegesis.

You note as a problem two versions of the creation of woman.

I consider I replied to this type of concern some time ago when I wrote:

The OT/Hebrew Bible utilizes more than one strand.

And I have suggested at several points along the line that new, more specific threads should be originated, but so far no one has done so.

It is now universally accepted within SERIOUS Bible scholarship that Genesis was painstakingly woven together during the Exile by the best Hebrew scholars from four major and several minor sources. The Genesis volume of the Anchor Bible provides a verse-by-verse source identification, even in some cases within a verse, as Genesis 2:4.

That does not stop the literalists from claiming that Moses wrote every word of it, including the description of his own death and burial at the end of Deuteronomy, and all of the scholarship simply has to be wrong.

While you are correct that the thread has gone off topic, in another sense it’s all part of the same phenomenon: enlightened reason versus blind superstition.