Evolution and Creation: What to Teach Students?

[abu_kamoon]

Abu, such black and white thinking is not helpful and is embraced only by the likes of simplistic Corapians, who believe “the devil’s favorite color is gray.”

All creation is in God’s image, in the degree appropriate, in that all creation mirrors the goodness of the creator articulated in Genesis 1. The more neurologically a creature is endowed and therefore able to respond to God’s love, both morally and spiritually, the more one mirrors that imago Dei. Early hominids adumbrated – in their primitive way – the perfect image of God found in the man Jesus. Chuck has already noted the evidence from paleontological and anthropological studies that early hominids were developing psychologically and spiritually toward that image of God.

Petrus

But the Bible says that God created man in His image. It doesn’t say he created flies, rats, and monkeys in His image.

When we revert to grays when something is in black and white, we can pretty much interpret it any way we wish. As I’ve said before, people see what they want to see.

Does this include me? Well, I try to see things the way they are without reading my own thoughts into them. Could God have used a process like Evolution to bring man into existence? Of course he could have. But that would make God a liar, since Genesis is quite clear on a lot of details that say it didn’t happen that way.

 

[reggieM]

What is the unanswered question is why man would see it as his duty to preserve an animal that views him a food? Could it be that both have the earth as their mother who gave birth to them as species and a mother that was given her right to create by God?

I will accept that as your “scientific” attempt to answer the question. You don’t seem to give any importance to the Catholic dogma that God directly created each human soul.

 

[Camron]

I guess that I will just say that there appears to be some minority of “scientific” Catholics that appear to be schismatic in favor or theistic evolution, just like the YEC movement.

I’m simply not interested in attempting to demonize the YEC movement. YEC is wrong. And science, which God has allowed us as to use as tool to unravel how He allowed evolution to create humanity, is sufficient, insofar as it agrees with revelation, to use as a tool for figuring out this simple and plainly evident truth that God allowed life to evolve on Earth.

If you believe that theistic evolution is the truth (like I do) then state this plainly without falling into the erroneous and stupid polemics of the creation science movement.

Doing so will, in my opinion, make us no better than those who falsely claim that science “proves” something which it does not.

In answer to the question “Evolution and Creation: What to Teach Students?” teach nothing found within this thread. It’s actually one of the stupidest threads I’ve ever read, specifically because the emotions are running so high that there is no agreement on anything at all.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Colossians 2:8​

Anyway, I have another thread that I’m currently involved in. Ignore or accept this advice at your own peril.

 

[Sideline]

I disagree. The scientists who believe in Evolution (which is most of them) are unable to recognize that science cannot answer some question - for example, our origins. They weren’t there to observe it. They can only speculate.

I know that you might find this hard to believe, but it is possible to know things that you can’t observe. For instance, my parents had sex. So did my grandparents, great grandparents, and great, great grandparents. I know that none of my direct ancestors died in infancy.

I know it snowed between 12:15 and 12:45 yesterday afternoon even though I didn’t observe it happen. Because it wasn’t snowing when I walked home, but there was snow on the ground when I left for work again.

I don’t have to observe something to know it happened.

If the evidence were as plain as Evolutionists claim, Evolution would have been recognized hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.

By that logic, genetics must be wrong, because no one discovered heredity until Mendel.

Then how did I get green eyes? I thought I inherited them from my mother.

People, including scientists, see what they want to see. They utilize evidence that tends to verify their belief, and reject any that contradicts is.

Actually, scientists are constantly trying to poke holes in each others theories. If you could prove that evolution was wrong, and come up with a better theory, you would be famous. You’d be up their with Aristotle and Einstein. You don’t think that’s incentive to try and come up with a better theory?

There are a couple of dozen systems to determine how old something is. Most systems give relatively youthful ages for fossils, rocks & c, and so they are rejected. Carbon 14 gives very old dates, and very old dates are required for the Evolutionary theory, so Carbon 14 is used.

Other than there being lots of systems for dating, everything you say in this paragraph is wrong. Carbon 14 isn’t used for very old dating. The dating systems agreee on the age of the earth, and the idea that the earth was very old predated evolution.

That is, except when it gives a date that does not fit in with the evolutionary theory.

Which would be anytime you tried to use it on anything which is too old. That would be like trying to measure the speed of light with a flashlight and a stop-watch.

Since Evolutionists seem to think that the sickle cell is proof of Evolutionary progress, maybe an Evolutionist can tell us who cancer, or diabetes have contributed to our survivability? I am not a biologist, but I am able to see how the human body is more prone to disease than our forebearers.

How could you know that we are more prone to disease unless you observed our forebears? You aren’t very consistent in your reasoning.

Cancer and diabetes don’t increase survivability, and no one said they did.

Did you forget why we were talking about sickle cell anemia? Let me remind you. You said every change to our genetic code is harmful, and used sickle cell as an example. I pointed out that your example was incorrect. I never said every mutation was advantageous. People who accept evolution don’t believe that. We believe that they can be good, bad, or neutral for the species. If I show that one is advantageous, your contention that they are all harmful disappears. It doesn’t mean that I have to propose that they are all advantageous.

 

[drpmjhess]

All biological references aside, humans could have been from any branch of the tree of life and still have received the gift of the soul. ( Oh am I going to be lambasted for this statement). Recognizing this is humbling because it puts the gift of the soul purely in the hands of God and takes away any natural hubris of homo sapiens that we just had to get the soul since we are the best species./

Chuck, you are quite right. There is nothing necessary about our being anthropoid, and were the clock of evolution rewound, and had the asteroid at the K-T boundary not put paid to the dinosaurs and opened the way for the proliferation of mammalian evolution, it seems quite possible that the dominant and eventually rational species would have been dinosaurian.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Is it not odd that when the Pope himself says that evolution is “virtually certain”, some Catholics doubt him, but when an amateur theologian writes some ignorant foolishness about science, they treat it as scripture?

 

[Chuck_H]

As I’ve said many times, belief in Evolution brings up more questions than it answers. Aside from the fact that virtually everything that Genesis tells us would be a lie, in this hypothetical scenario, this first “homo sapien” would have been born from non-human parents. How would he relate to his parents? Would they have been able to communicate by speech?

If God suddenly “breathed a soul” into this first homo sapien and he became “enhanced”, does that mean he magically changed into in different creature (rational, capable of abstract thought, esthetic appreciation & c)? If that is the case, would he have any memory of his previous “unenhanced” condition?

I realize that you are not claiming this as a dogmatic belief, but I am posing some interesting question that would arise if we were to accept this idea. To me, it’s much simpler to just believe what God said in Genesis. I’m sure that you have heard of Occam’s Razor - the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

Belief in Evolution not only presents technical question such as these, it also makes one wonder why God wouldn’t have just told us about Evoultion in the first place.

Why do you assume that evolution says or proves that everything in Genesis is a lie? Taking the purest of lessons from Genesis we have God is responsible for creation and finds His creation as good. We find that God is responsible for all the creatures that are now or have ever risen from the earth and finds them good. We find Him fashioning man from the very soils of the earth and finds him good. Lastly we find that God breathes His life into this creature and enters into a relationship with His creation. Scientific evolution finds nothing here that it can disagree with unless it takes pains to purposefully exclude God from the discussion. The scientist only excludes God as a continuous miraculous force for each tiny change or statistical trend in the physical phenomena of the genetic process. I have no problem with the idea of the whole process beginning and proceeding with God’ will. I simply recognize that it is a creative process that can be studied and that biological certainties can be determined on a statistical level that allow us to be confident that what is proven to be true today will also be true tomorrow with direct causation and effect.
As to the soul. The Jews are much more successful with dealing with paradox than us pagans. If one were to ask a Jewish theologian why Cain would be able to run down the road and take a wife from the land of Nod when Genesis asserts that at that moment in time there were supposedly four people (souled persons) in the whole world (Ok there were 4, now 3); He would look up with a smile and suggest that there must have people down the road to run to and go back to looking for the kernels of truth in Genesis.
Previously I used a fairly time honored way of approaching souls and mankind. I pose the hypothesis that since man now has a soul and using the words of Jesus Himself as for criteria that human behavior should be thus (a,b,c,d to be pleasing to God) then I should be able to find signs of that in the historical record. I then present archaeological data of what I term supernatural altruism or the care of individuals who could make no real contribution to the tribe’s natural fitness and were still cared for and buried rather then left as a carcases as would be the case for earlier hominids such as the groups of “Lucy” who simply left her remains to be absorbed by nature. Dawkin’s selfish gene cannot account for these behavioral data, neither can most altruism models since there must be a connection between the behavior and reproductive fitness. While cooperation in hunting and gathering has a direct connection with reproductive fitness, the caring for an unproductive member of such small and vulnerable groups of man actually reduces their reproductive fitness and suggests the conclusion that something other than “genes” was directing those actions. I must be clear though that this is merely a hypothesis and at first glance seems to find some proof in the archaeological record but is by no means a fact or a theory. At best it is an observation that invites further inquiry.
Assuming that there is some factual relationship between change in behavior and the gift of the soul, it is not impossible that the change could be as simple as; Ag dead,throw away Ag to Ag dead, but good, put Ag here in hole with favorite stick and cover up with rocks so bears not eat.
As to your final question, I reiterate what I have said before. No matter what your profession, explain it to a five year old and you will get a sense of how Genesis was the same type of explanation to the early Hebrews. (laughing) I have a masters degree in biology and genetics and when IamEd starts talking physics he better start REAL simple or he is wasting his time because my eyes are going to cross and duh will come out of my mouth.

 

[Chuck_H]

Chuck H;3487044:

However, while there is nothing necessary about “et homo factus est,”

I think arguably there is something necessary about “incarnatus est,” or at least that animate enfleshment was no accident. In order for God to work atonement with a disordered cosmos, and to communicate with it, God would have to become incarnate within the most highly developed species. On earth this happened to be mammalian; elsewhere in the universe it might be on another suitable platform.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

Sorry, I accepted that as implicit and left it unsaid. Whatever we could be physically it would require the same steps of spiritual guidance and redemption seen in sacred literature.

 

[abu_kamoon]

No, it’s contrary to what your interpretation of the Bible says.

I don’t interpret the Bible, I read it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I guess that I will just say that there appears to be some minority of “scientific” Catholics that appear to be schismatic in favor or theistic evolution, just like the YEC movement.

The Pope is schismatic? I don’t think so, nor do I think he represents a minority.

I’m simply not interested in attempting to demonize the YEC movement. YEC is wrong. And science, which God has allowed us as to use as tool to unravel how He allowed evolution to create humanity, is sufficient, insofar as it agrees with revelation, to use as a tool for figuring out this simple and plainly evident truth that God allowed life to evolve on Earth.

My only problem with YEC is that it is an efficient atheist-maker.

It is possible to be YEC and still be a Catholic, although YEC does contradict Genesis 1.

 

[abu_kamoon]

abu kamoon;3480439:

I think that is an incredible statement! For thousands of years, people have believed in Creationism. It’s Modernism which has a corrosive effect on faith. Modernism, which has been condemned by several popes, is the source of many aposticies, including Evolution. /QUOTE]

Abu, you are right that for thousands of years Cathollics have believed in Creationism, as do I and any other Catholic today. Creation is a metaphysical claim about the ontological dependence of the universe on a source outside itself. Creationism as a religious belief makes no claims about how or when the universe came to be. It’s the Young Earthers who have hijacked this beautiful and ancient doctrine of Creation to twist it to suit their own anti-scientific purposes.

I agree with you when you point out that Creation was a metaphysical event. Since this is the case, it is NOT subject to scientific query. Herein lies the problem. Science trying to scientifically analyze a supernatural event.

Creation cannot be scientifically explained. No one was there to witness it. Science can only speculate how it could have occured using known scientific processes. Science is not equiped to study a metaphysical event. Why is it so hard for educated people to accept this fact?

 

[abu_kamoon]

Barbarian observes:
One who claims that evolution is contrary to Catholic faith is dissenting from the teaching of the Church. Such person is free to deny what the Pope says is “virtually certain,” but he is not free to say that evolution is contrary to our faith.

You are adding doctrines to the Bible, if you believe that. Pope Benedict has said that evolution is virtually certain. Do you think the Pope doesn’t understand Scripture?

I certainly can’t speak for the Pope. In this case, I don’t agree with him. The Pope is not impeccable. Everything he says in not infallable. He may well believe that evoution is a “virtual certainty”. That doesn’t affect my belief any more than my statement does him.

What the Pope (and the previous one, and one earlier) has said, is that evolution is consistent with our faith, so long as people don’t try to twist it into an unscientific denial of God.

If the Pope doesn’t speak for you in matters of faith, why even bother being a Catholic?

Because the Catholic Faith is not dependent on belief in Evolution. I am in no position to judge other Catholics who believe in UFOs, or ESP or Evolution. My beliefs are in conformity with those of Catholics throughout history.

Evolution is a product of Modernism. Scientific Rationalism (as opposed to science) came out of the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution. Catholics who believe in Evolution are trying to straddle two opposing world views.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Because the Catholic Faith is not dependent on belief in Evolution. I am in no position to judge other Catholics who believe in UFOs, or ESP or Evolution.

No. Because you have no understanding of science, you are unable to differentiate between things like creationism, UFOs, ESP, and things like evolution. They are equally likely to the uninformed, because they do not know what the evidence is for (or against) them.

My beliefs are in conformity with those of Catholics throughout history.

Hopefully they are with regard to our faith. However your beliefs regarding science are in direct contradiction to those of our Pope.

Evolution is a product of Modernism.

It’s a conclusion based on evidence. If this kind of thing offends you, why are you using a computer? Science is the idea that the universe is orderly and understandable in principle. If you are going to be logically consistent, you should avoid any of the results of science.

Catholics who believe in Evolution are trying to straddle two opposing world views.

No, we’re simply accepting God’s creation on His terms. I hope you will someday be able to do that, too.

 

[masterjedi747]

I don’t interpret the Bible, I read it.

You do both. The two actions occur simultaneously. There’s hardly a difference.

You look at the black lines on the page, and interpret the meaning behind those conventional symbols into your mind. That’s how you understand what I’m communicating to you right now, though a bunch of symbols on your computer screen.

When you read the Bible, you interpret the meaning behind those words. And you’re not guaranteed to interpret the meaning correctly… hence inherent problems with Sola Scriptura.

I agree with you when you point out that Creation was a metaphysical event. Since this is the case, it is NOT subject to scientific query. Herein lies the problem. Science trying to scientifically analyze a supernatural event.

Creation cannot be scientifically explained.

Whoa, whoa, whoa… slow down.

Yes, God’s creation of the universe ex nihilo is never going to be subject to scientific inquiry. But nobody said that it was.

You’re now assuming that all creation must happen ex nihilo, and ignoring the fact that God can also create through instrumental means that we can understand. Such as using physical laws to create our solar system. Or using parents to create a child. …or using evolution to create a species.

If you remember, that’s the point we were trying to make with these passages:

*“Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it.” And so it happened: the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was.” (Genesis 1:11-12)

“Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds.” And so it happened: God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth." (Genesis 1:24-25)*

No one was there to witness it. Science can only speculate how it could have occured using known scientific processes.

I thought we covered this earlier. It doesn’t matter that we didn’t witness it, and yes, we know it’s “only” a theory. But we can, though the use of our reason to eliminate the likelihood of the remaining possibilities, be incredibly certain that our theory is true.

I assume you grew up reading detective/mystery novels occasionally, no?

 

[Camron]

The Pope is schismatic? I don’t think so, nor do I think he represents a minority.

That’s not what I said. :nope:

I said there appears to be some minority of “scientific” Catholics that appear to be schismatic in favor of theistic evolution, just like the YEC movement.

I’m not saying that anyone who upholds a theistic evolutionary model is schismatic against the Catholic Church. Indeed, if I were simply saying that anyone who upheld a theistic evolutionary model was schismatic against the Catholic Church then I would be labeling myself as a schismatic, because I do believe that God allowed evolution to create for Him via natural contingent processes.

What I am saying, however, is that there appears to be “scientifically minded” Catholics here in this forum (who represent a minority within the Catholic Church) who’s passion for theistic evolution is directly promulgating further divisions in the Church in reaction to the YEC movement.

This is schismatic by definition. :yup:

In other words, in their defense of theistic evolution they’re losing sight of the reason that the Catholic Church teaches and seriously going way over board in defending a theistic evolutionary model, greatly exaggerating the dangers of YEC in the process, and causing further divisions in the process (i.e., they appear to be schismatic in favor of theistic evolution, just like the Kolbe center appears to be schismatic in favor of young earth creationism).

This doesn’t represent our Pope. The Pope has not done anything like this. He does not encourage schismatic Catholics on either side of the debate either.

Even though we do have the correct perspective on the creation/evolution debate (with that correct perspective being theistic evolution), some here are still doing almost exactly what the YEC movement is doing—trying to demonize the people they’re debating with. These kind of polemics designed to demonize and humiliate often fail to bring any real resolution and, in my opinion, usually prevent people from accepting theistic evolution in the first place.

My only problem with YEC is that it is an efficient atheist-maker.

I think that arrogance is much more efficient atheist-maker.

It is possible to be YEC and still be a Catholic, although YEC does contradict Genesis 1.

Genesis 1 is not a scientific document. I don’t understand what you mean.

 

[masterjedi747]

…I do believe that God allowed evolution to create for Him via natural contingent processes.

Maybe this isn’t what you meant, but I wouldn’t even back off that far… it seems a bit too much Deistic. I wouldn’t say “God allowed evolution to create for Him” but rather that “God created by means of evolution… using it as an instrument”. The only thing I would say God allows is free will… and since evolution isn’t a thing that has free will, it’s not something that God “allows”. Instead, He guides it, in His Divine Providence, to conform to His will.

I think that arrogance is much more efficient atheist-maker.

I don’t think we’re in disagreement at all…

 

[Camron]

Maybe this isn’t what you meant, but I wouldn’t even back off that far… it seems a bit too much Deistic. I wouldn’t say “God allowed evolution to create for Him” but rather that “God created by means of evolution… using it as an instrument”. The only thing I would say God allows is free will… and since evolution isn’t a thing that has free will, it’s not something that God “allows”. Instead, He guides it, in His Divine Providence, to conform to His will.

Good point. Thank’s for pointing that out.

 

[The_Barbarian]

What I am saying, however, is that there appears to be “scientifically minded” Catholics here in this forum (who represent a minority within the Catholic Church) who’s passion for theistic evolution is directly promulgating further divisions in the Church in reaction to the YEC movement.

It seems odd that those who accept the Church’s teaching on this issue would be considered “schismatic.” YE is, after all, the creation of the Seventh-Day Adventists.

In other words, in their defense of theistic evolution they’re losing sight of the reason that the Catholic Church teaches and seriously going way over board in defending a theistic evolutionary model, greatly exaggerating the dangers of YEC in the process, and causing further divisions in the process (i.e., they appear to be schismatic in favor of theistic evolution, just like the Kolbe center appears to be schismatic in favor of young earth creationism).

If you accept that truth cannot contradict truth, isn’t this backwards? And if you think that I am exaggerating the danger that YEC produces atheists, you have not spent much time on a college campus. I

This doesn’t represent our Pope. The Pope has not done anything like this. He does not encourage schismatic Catholics on either side of the debate either.

So far, all the Catholics here who have accepted the Church’s teachings on evolution, have acknowledged that it is acceptable for Catholics to believe in creationism. What seems to have creationists upset, is that we have also pointed out that any claim that evolution is contrary to Catholic faith is dissent from the teaching of the Church.

Even though we do have the correct perspective on the creation/evolution debate (with that correct perspective being theistic evolution), some here are still doing almost exactly what the YEC movement is doing—trying to demonize the people they’re debating with.

I don’t remember anyone saying that they are evil. Do you?

Barbarian observes:
My only problem with YEC is that it is an efficient atheist-maker.

I think that arrogance is much more efficient atheist-maker.

Two ways of saying the same thing, maybe. But it isn’t arrogance that shakes the faith of students taught that YE is the Christian perspective, when they learn it can’t possibly be true.

Barbarian observes:
It is possible to be YEC and still be a Catholic, although YEC does contradict Genesis 1.

Genesis 1 is not a scientific document.

It’s a religious document. YE is a religious doctrine.

I don’t understand what you mean.

The “life ex nihilo” doctrine of YEC is directly refuted in Genesis 1. The Earth brought forth living things; they were not created from nothing.

 

[Camron]

It seems odd that those who accept the Church’s teaching on this issue would be considered “schismatic.” YE is, after all, the creation of the Seventh-Day Adventists.

I didn’t say that those who accept the Church’s teaching on this issue would be considered “schismatic.” I said that those who cause divisions within the Catholic Church over these scientific issues are “schismatic”.

If you accept that truth cannot contradict truth, isn’t this backwards? And if you think that I am exaggerating the danger that YEC produces atheists, you have not spent much time on a college campus. I

I think abortion clinics, terrorists and pornographers do a lot more damage than anything that a YEC ever did.

So far, all the Catholics here who have accepted the Church’s teachings on evolution, have acknowledged that it is acceptable for Catholics to believe in creationism. What seems to have creationists upset, is that we have also pointed out that any claim that evolution is contrary to Catholic faith is dissent from the teaching of the Church.

Unfortunately, that’s their problem. Not ours.

I don’t remember anyone saying that they are evil. Do you?

I’ve seen quite a few unfair comparisons.

Jimmy observes:
My only problem with YEC is that it is an efficient atheist-maker.

Two ways of saying the same thing, maybe. But it isn’t arrogance that shakes the faith of students taught that YE is the Christian perspective, when they learn it can’t possibly be true.

People who have an open mind to the truth can adapt to incorrect infromation when it is presented to them. People who engage in pornographic acts are spiritually dead. There’s a big difference.

Barbarian observes:
It is possible to be YEC and still be a Catholic, although YEC does contradict Genesis 1.

It’s a religious document. YE is a religious doctrine.

Actually, YEC is plain wrong on the scientific basis alone.

The “life ex nihilo” doctrine of YEC is directly refuted in Genesis 1. The Earth brought forth living things; they were not created from nothing.

That’s not even a standard YEC doctrine that I’m aware of. I thought they thought that life was created from dirt instantaneously.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It seems odd that those who accept the Church’s teaching on this issue would be considered “schismatic.” YE is, after all, the creation of the Seventh-Day Adventists.

I didn’t say that those who accept the Church’s teaching on this issue would be considered “schismatic.” I said that those who cause divisions within the Catholic Church over these scientific issues are “schismatic”.

But it isn’t “schismatic” to accept the Church’s teaching on this. Rather, it is schismatic to deny what the church says. Hence, those who point out that evolution is consistent with our faith are simply accepting the magisterium, and those who deny it are producing a schism.

Barbarian observes:
If you accept that truth cannot contradict truth, isn’t this backwards? And if you think that I am exaggerating the danger that YEC produces atheists, you have not spent much time on a college campus.

I think abortion clinics, terrorists and pornographers do a lot more damage than anything that a YEC ever did.

I would say turning one into an atheist was worse than most things those other people do. But I’d agree that YEC isn’t responsible for all the evil in the world. Producing atheists is bad enough, no?

Barbarian observes:
So far, all the Catholics here who have accepted the Church’s teachings on evolution, have acknowledged that it is acceptable for Catholics to believe in creationism. What seems to have creationists upset, is that we have also pointed out that any claim that evolution is contrary to Catholic faith is dissent from the teaching of the Church.

Unfortunately, that’s their problem. Not ours.

Yes, it’s not schismatic to accept the teaching of the Church.

Barbarian asks:
I don’t remember anyone saying that they are evil. Do you?

I’ve seen quite a few unfair comparisons.

I want to be fair. Correct me here.

Barbarian observes:
My only problem with YEC is that it is an efficient atheist-maker.

Two ways of saying the same thing, maybe. But it isn’t arrogance that shakes the faith of students taught that YE is the Christian perspective, when they learn it can’t possibly be true.

People who have an open mind to the truth can adapt to incorrect infromation when it is presented to them. People who engage in pornographic acts are spiritually dead. There’s a big difference.

I assure you that my “acts” are only in the context of my marriage, and I don’t consider them pornographic, since I don’t record them and show them to others. BTW, I know, from the experience of an acquaintance that one can be addicted to pornography, and still have a conscience, and can be brought back from it. I give thanks for that.

Barbarian observes:
It is possible to be YEC and still be a Catholic, although YEC does contradict Genesis 1.

It’s a religious document. YE is a religious doctrine.

Actually, YEC is plain wrong on the scientific basis alone.

The “life ex nihilo” doctrine of YEC is directly refuted in Genesis 1. The Earth brought forth living things; they were not created from nothing.

That’s not even a standard YEC doctrine that I’m aware of.

Always has been. The ICR used to have a journal called “ex nihilo.” And you may have noticed how vigorously the creationists here have defended the idea of life ex nihilo.

I thought they thought that life was created from dirt instantaneously.

The traditional old earth creationists did, I think. The modern version, invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists is ex nihilo.