Genesis and Dinosaurs

[ericc]

Simply because it makes no sense to me, an intruson into science.

That seems to be on dangerous grounds. At the present , it doesn’t make sense to you. While you are still coming to terms with it, the Church requires her faithful to keep its beliefs. There are many other bits and pieces which I find it difficult to accept but it doesn’t give me the right to discard what I don’t understand or difficult to accept. Some of our Christian brothers/sisters think it acceptable to abort, divorce or engage in homosexual activities because it make sense for them. But that doesn’t make it God-sanctioned.

Science has no monopoly on religion. It merely is a subset of human knowledge. Science doesn’t squat on holy ground, hence I don’t understand the intrusion bit. Science cannot determine whether Adam and Eve existed or whether did they sin. Our religion tell us that they do and and they did. But it doesn’t tell us when that happened or in what physical stage form of development were Adam/Eve in when it happened. We know they were ensouled though, a subject which science can not discover or detect. Hence, if you believe you have a soul, a “thing” which science can not find, touch or detect, I hope you don’t end up saying it doesn’t make sense and therefore I don’t have a soul. Inability to detect something does not equate to non-existence.

Even the Jews do not take it literal.

Luckily for us Christians, we do not need their permission to believe in God in the way that has been revealed to us. Otherwise, there won’t be a religion called Christianity. Trinity would be thrown out of the window and Jesus would be a common criminal.

As I said, it is a struggle for me to accept.

Hang in there. I found out the more I read, the more enlightened I become. 5 years ago, I was so clueless. However, participating in forums like this forced me to update my thinking several times. Forced me to do research and the thing to take away is that there are still things yet to learn.

Probably the toughest part is philosophy because of the language used and requires a sharp mind to distinguish the most minute of differences.

 

[edwest2]

That seems to be on dangerous grounds. At the present , it doesn’t make sense to you. While you are still coming to terms with it, the Church requires her faithful to keep its beliefs. There are many other bits and pieces which I find it difficult to accept but it doesn’t give me the right to discard what I don’t understand or difficult to accept. Some of our Christian brothers/sisters think it acceptable to abort, divorce or engage in homosexual activities because it make sense for them. But that doesn’t make it God-sanctioned.

Science has no monopoly on religion. It merely is a subset of human knowledge. Science doesn’t squat on holy ground, hence I don’t understand the intrusion bit. Science cannot determine whether Adam and Eve existed or whether did they sin. Our religion tell us that they do and and they did. But it doesn’t tell us when that happened or in what physical stage form of development were Adam/Eve in when it happened. We know they were ensouled though, a subject which science can not discover or detect. Hence, if you believe you have a soul, a “thing” which science can not find, touch or detect, I hope you don’t end up saying it doesn’t make sense and therefore I don’t have a soul. Inability to detect something does not equate to non-existence.

Luckily for us Christians, we do not need their permission to believe in God in the way that has been revealed to us. Otherwise, there won’t be a religion called Christianity. Trinity would be thrown out of the window and Jesus would be a common criminal.

Hang in there. I found out the more I read, the more enlightened I become. 5 years ago, I was so clueless. However, participating in forums like this forced me to update my thinking several times. Forced me to do research and the thing to take away is that there are still things yet to learn.

Probably the toughest part is philosophy because of the language used and requires a sharp mind to distinguish the most minute of differences.

You’re right. Well said. One has to take the time to read carefully and avoid accepting opinion that is contrary to Church teaching as true. While we should show respect to all, it is obvious that there are a variety of people posting here.

1. Those who want Church teaching to comply with “science.” There are no peer reviewed papers regarding any book in the Bible.
2. Those who can look at scientific claims and realize that some cannot be reproduced or tested today. The bulk of scientific endeavors, especially in Biology, involve things that are alive today. Other claims about the supernatural can be discarded since science, by definition, cannot study it.
3. Those like yourself who understand science has limits, that Divine Revelation contains mysteries and by allowing our will to follow the will of God that He will guide us. Jesus is alive at this moment.

Some men actively deny God while using “science” as a non-applicable explanation. They rail against a being they claim doesn’t exist. They are not censured by their University or the scientific community, but mention the words Intelligent Design and you will be punished in some way and tainted as someone who should not say those words ever again.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ericc]

1. Other claims about the supernatural can be discarded since science, by definition, cannot study it.

If men of science are persons in pursuit of knowledge, there is no reason to put barriers up where there were no barriers.

I can only assume that they are afraid to find out that behind their science there is actually God lurking there playing peek-a-boo with them. I have yet to read a paper that they have attempted to scientifically detect God or any supernaturals. But they will spent billions in smashing atoms hoping to find stuff hidden somewhere e.g. large Hadron Collider. If they spent that kind of resources searching for God, they will find HIM. Those who seek him, will find him.

If people all think like that, we would never have discovered flight and I guess many many other discoveries which previously were held to be inviolable truths.

 

[Aloysium]

If men of science are persons in pursuit of knowledge, there is no reason to put barriers up where there were no barriers.

I can only assume that they are afraid to find out that behind their science there is actually God lurking there playing peek-a-boo with them. I have yet to read a paper that they have attempted to scientifically detect God or any supernaturals. But they will spent billions in smashing atoms hoping to find stuff hidden somewhere e.g. large Hadron Collider. If they spent that kind of resources searching for God, they will find HIM. Those who seek him, will find him. . .

:twocents:

Science studies what is general and can be measured.
Miracles cannot be studied scientifically because they are one of a kind.
The spirit cannot either for pretty much the same reason.
God is not a blind force or process; you cannot tempt Him by devising some experiment.
The proof of God is actually everywhere in every moment. He is right here.
Science can describe His creation, which in turn reveals the beauty and majesty that is His nature.
Men of science do not put a barrier between their study of the universe and God.
Empiricism has pretty clear limits as far as its being a source of knowledge.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Science doesn’t squat on holy ground, hence I don’t understand the intrusion bit. Science cannot determine whether Adam and Eve existed or whether did they sin. Our religion tell us that they do and and they did. But it doesn’t tell us when that happened or in what physical stage form of development were Adam/Eve in when it happened.

The Catechism speakes of Adam and Eve (Man and Woman) as if they are proper names and though it acknowledges “symbolism” it goes on to speak of the early humans as “man would not have to suffer or die”. Speaking in this **literal **way it makes a statement about human evolution and history going beyond theological symbolism. It seems to speak literally of a first man and forst women who d not have to die and who do a specific act of disobedience that brings death. that, to me, seems more mythical than historical.

375 The Church, interpreting the **symbolism of biblical language **in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

376 By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, . The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman, and finally the harmony between the **first couple **and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event,** a deed **that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

 

[Aloysium]

The truth is that all humanity springs from two first parents.
Science cannot confirm nor deny this miracle.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

The truth is that all humanity springs from two first parents.
Science cannot confirm nor deny this miracle.

And so it is a matter of faith.

 

[Aloysium]

And so it is a matter of faith.

Faith in God and His Church.
But you are free to believe whatever you want.

 

[ericc]

=Michael Mayo;12613067]The Catechism speakes of Adam and Eve (Man and Woman) as if they are proper names and though it acknowledges “symbolism” it goes on to speak of the early humans as “man would not have to suffer or die”.

Yes this is what Catholics believe. It is not theological symbolism. There is a literal pair of Adam/Eve with souls who would not have suffered death if they have not fallen. There is no science that can prove nor disprove this catechism. Hence this is theology that doesn’t intrude into science.

Speaking in this **literal **way it makes a statement about human evolution and history going beyond theological symbolism. It seems to speak literally of a first man and forst women who d not have to die and who do a specific act of disobedience that brings death. that, to me, seems more mythical than historical.

Science holds every living thing dies. Science can not prove existence of souls. Both I do agree. Catholics believe that if A/E didn’t fall they wouldn’t have died. They fell, they died. So where is the intrusion?

The catechism say this is a fact and that we must believe it. It is not symbolism. Language used may be figurative such as the fruit of knowledge that was eaten or talking animals. You say it is mythical. That is alright as no one can compel you to believe what you resist.

Genesis does not teach evolution. It taught God created the world. There is no timeline, no skeletons, no fossils. It teaches God created the first pair of humans. It doesn’t teach we were evolved from apes to human and everything between the 2 species. Scientists/historians can interpolate, extrapolate anything and that can count as science but they can’t trace the fall of man or teach the meaning of the fall of man. In that respect, there is no intrusion. Of course they are at liberty not to accept the theology aspect of it and I accept that. But if we were able to show you the bones of A/E, that would be science and history but we got no bones to show.

So no evolution , no history lessons.

 

[ericc]

:twocents:

Science studies what is general and can be measured.
Miracles cannot be studied scientifically because they are one of a kind.
The spirit cannot either for pretty much the same reason.
God is not a blind force or process; you cannot tempt Him by devising some experiment.
The proof of God is actually everywhere in every moment. He is right here.
Science can describe His creation, which in turn reveals the beauty and majesty that is His nature.
Men of science do not put a barrier between their study of the universe and God.
Empiricism has pretty clear limits as far as its being a source of knowledge.

Errr…actually I wasn’t alluding to miracles. More on spending resources to prove existence of God or any other supernaturals. We already have some glimpses of his existence, his handicraft. DNA comes first to mind that is beyond the capability of probability resources to create from random mutations. A few more of these sort of discoveries that natural processes to evolve life given the time span given are impossible would lead to clear conclusion that God, a Creator, a Designer, a Mind, a divine Database of knowledge must exist. Science is blind, or choose to be blind. But probabilities can work in God’s favor also. Enough evidence of his existence in nature MUST lead to the conclusion that such a THING MUST exist. Of course, one must search for these type of evidence. And that takes resources.

Anthony Flew was forced to believe in the existence of God because of the evidence. A bit more shove, even Dawkins would have no place to hide.