Just in case you forgot: the term Catholic fundamentalism is sometimes used to describe conservative Catholicism, but most scholars reject this term because Christian fundamentalism traditionally involved strict conformity to the “inerrant text” of the Bible.
So you think it’s ok to refer to us Conservative Catholics as Fundamentalists, but don’t want me to use the word ‘masses’? Then what do you want me to call the majority of people? ‘Those-who-never-questioned-the-theory-they-were-told-or-looked-for-alternatives’? If people were taught the actual reasons for their beliefs, things would be considerably different. A child who’s given evidence why the Earth is round (because they probably won’t research it at home) will know how to counter a flat Earther and that movement would have died. A Catholic who understands even basic Catholic theology will not be swayed by all the claims against the Church. So if evolution is true, then it’s being taught in such a way that opposition has a very easy time growing against it.
Why are you doubting the books of the Bible? There’s no point in coming up with ‘what ifs’ concerning the canon, because they are empty accusations. We have Genesis, which has been proven to be written in the historical narrative of the time, meaning it was written with historical intent. What else should we remove because you and modern ‘science’ disagree with? Was the canon not confirmed twice?
Are you forgetting there are four means of interpreting the Bible? I just don’t limit myself to three means and read what’s written as history as history, what’s written as literature as literature.
Darwin’s daughter died on April 23, 1851, he published his work on 24 November 1859. You’re telling me he didn’t go through his book once in almost eight years? No final checks? No emotional wreck of a father as he realised that by his own conclusions, his own daughter was too weak to survive? We know he wrote in it after she died, since he mentions her in the end.
It’s a bit hard to take your criticism of me being led by my religious beliefs seriously, considering you’re letting yours lead you (except you think yours superior to mine because yours is supported by the majority of people) to the point of insults and personal attacks. Is this not a forum to discuss? Or have I walked onto a flyting site? You’re not a robot, so please don’t act like you are perfectly neutral in this.
It’s amazing how you know more about what investigative path I took over the course of four months than I do. Were you over my shoulder that whole time? Then you would’ve seen me cross-checking this new ‘YEC’ evidence with ‘neutral’ evidence and information which had no religious influence over them. I was sceptical about Earth being 6000 years old, because the evidence I found said it was older. It was only after further research that I found that estimate to be wrong (it definitely wasn’t related to the ‘fundamentalists’, because this completely undermined their ‘fundamentalism’ and supported Catholicism). If you look at the YEC dates, you’ll see they are usually at least 6000 years, which supports us more than it does them.
