How do we respond to someone who bashes creationism?

[Acapiteadcalcem]

Well, let me “leap in”…

The “literality” of the first two chapters of Genesis (in other words, “was it really a literal six-day Creation”) is still an area of legitimate speculation, as long as nothing goes against Church doctrine or the rest of the Bible. My own post merely reflects my own opinions.

The nature of the Flood, too, has been debated by some, but there is substantial direct and indirect evidence to suggest that something much like the Biblical flood took place.

The life-spans of the generations before Noah are also considered “symbolic” by some, though their gradual decline can also be taken as evidence of a “natural” process - or, better, of the gradual corruption and death that entered the world because of Adam’s sin. Heck, we even have scientists today (such as Ray Kurzweil - though he is by no means an “authoritative” source) who tell us that long lifespans are a distinct possibility in theory. “For nothing is impossible with God”.

But apart from this, the majority of Genesis deals with historical events and real people. Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Methuselah, Noah are all real people and not just “metaphors” or “literary devices”. Similarly, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Esau and Jacob’s twelve sons are all historical figures. So, while some small portions of the book of Genesis are open to “scientific speculation” (within the limits of what the Church prescribes), the vast majority of it is historical details and narratives from the antiquity of human history. Surely this counts as a “literal” sense. It is difficult to divorce the “literal” from the “theological” sense, when the latter flows from the former.

I’m certainly not disputing that there may be things in Genesis that actually happened; Catholics are free to believe in the historicity of certain events described in Genesis, but this is not the intent of the Book of Genesis, which is ultimately about the incarnation of Christ (see Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal, Foundations and Approaches of Biblical Exegesis and Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church).

As for distinctions, there clearly is a distinction to be made between ‘literal’ and ‘theological’. There two entirely different categories of meaning; one referring to interpretation, the latter referring to a Divine Science.

“The “literalism” championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures… It [literalism] fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods.” (Pope Benedict, Verbum Domini).

As for leaping in, please do…that’s what the forum is for. However, my reply to the original post was offered in response to a question about Creationism, and so I would have expected my reference to Genesis to be understood in that light.

Pax.

 

[grannymh]

Excellent point, which is why - somewhere along the way - I had to divest myself of “functionalism”, “biological naturalism” and other purely material theories of human nature and behaviour, and became a dualist.

Science, if handled properly, can only increase our awe at God’s creative genius. My own “debate” has not been so much about medical science, but about the six days of creation… hence the long post, where I was basically thinking aloud

Please don’t become a Catesian (extreme) dualist.

 

[guestseeking]

As a Catholic who’s done his share of science, including publishing in medical journals, this debate is one I’ve been holding with myself for ages.

…and all info inbetween was only edited to fit in my pray request to you.

Of course, all these are the speculations of a medical man whose knowledge of physics is very much at the basic level. But I do believe that - when we have a more complete understanding of science - we may be able to reconcile the contradictions. And if we cannot achieve this, we must at least make every honest attempt - using the principles of our faith, as well as those of human reason - to do so.

its very very cool how you have not wasted the God given talents of learning and intellect, that you have observed your gathered information from different sources and yet you testify of the Faith in all that you learned, that you can take or leave, that you took it to us with Faith and not ashamed to go where Jesus can go in you that some of us cant go there unless we hear your testimony!! i am grateful for your reply or quote what ever way you posted this awesome inspiring response. i am grateful to be alive in a time where the scietific can be addressed with Faith. Please pray for my family my papa is in the hospital and his daughters very much want to hear and speak to him and not lose the oppurtunity to share as much moments as they can, before if the time is apon us, before God calls my Papa home to heaven, whether he will go to his home here on earth first or not, please pray for his son as well and lend your faith our way, we need comfort and we need strength, please also pray that my cousin Heather if even in vision from lousianna hears papa’s coming into the glory of God and His heaven that she no matter what will have strength to stay with us and not desire strongly to go sooner to heaven than is God’s will, because she will be healed, but there are those in the family who need to know her healing on earth before they can overcome this world by abiding in Jesus. please take your amazing fresh and clean way of seeing things, your talents and your faith to present my causes to Jesus and the Father for consideration. Our Mother Mary protects us, but i know her heart desires us to know that we are in Christ saved, not just by her heart, but by His heart that she holds so preciously for all of time within her own, Pray for us, the Lord hear our Prayer!!! Mercy and compassion for the weakest sinners in my family and for my renued hope, for this reason i ask you to pray, and any saints you wish to ask them to go before the Lord and help with us all in my family please do so, and all else with an appreciation for this prayer request and all who know a more wise thing to pray for also i ask you, please.

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

For example, please examine Genesis 1;1. God really does exist. This is a theological truth (faith and morals) which is proclaimed in the Nicene Creed professed during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

With all due respect, I think you’re being pedantic. Of course there are literal things in Genesis. It mentions trees, and they are ltierrally true. It mentions people, and they are literally true, and mountains, and so on. And yes, theology is literally true.

Clearly (or maybe not so clearly afterall) I am referring to the literal interpretation of events in Genesis as though this sacred text is a scientific or historical document (and for that matter, even the description of God in Genesis–“walking in the Garden”, which is painted in anthropomorphic terms, is not a literal description of God). My original post (which I am fast regretting) was given in the context of the original question relating to Creationism.

For the record, I believe that Genesis is the Word of God. I do not, however, belive that it is a history or science text of the Creation of the world. And on that score, I’m in good theological company.

 

[RPRPsych]

Please don’t become a Catesian (extreme) dualist.

Thanks for your concern!

While the basic idea behind dualism is sound, Cartesian dualism is, for various reasons, an incomplete theory. Being an armchair philosopher rather than an established one, I will refrain from saying that it is erroneous.

However, there are non-Cartesian versions of dualism, too, such as David Chalmers’ “naturalistic dualism”. Chalmers is not writing from a Catholic perspective, but many of his points (or my interpretations of them) are fascinating, including:

1. a proof (albeit a difficult one to follow) that consciousness does not “supervene” on physical facts
2. the speculation that God, when creating the universe, did not “just” create matter; He also did “something else” that gave rise to consciousness.

Both of these can be harmonized with Catholic teaching, particularly the statements on Humani Generis about the human soul

“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”

Of course, Chalmers also endorses some viewpoints that I do not subscribe to, such as “strong artificial intelligence” (the belief that artificial intelligence can lead to true consciousness) and panpsychism (the belief that everything, including non-living matter, is “conscious”). But he certainly has done much to revive interest in dualism, and make sure that “philosophers of mind” take it seriously again.

 

[RPRPsych]

Please pray for my family my papa is in the hospital and his daughters very much want to hear and speak to him and not lose the oppurtunity to share as much moments as they can, before if the time is apon us, before God calls my Papa home to heaven, whether he will go to his home here on earth first or not, please pray for his son as well and lend your faith our way, we need comfort and we need strength, please also pray that my cousin Heather if even in vision from lousianna hears papa’s coming into the glory of God and His heaven that she no matter what will have strength to stay with us and not desire strongly to go sooner to heaven than is God’s will, because she will be healed, but there are those in the family who need to know her healing on earth before they can overcome this world by abiding in Jesus.

You’re too kind, my friend. I’ve certainly done my share of talent-wasting…

But you and your family are certainly in my prayers. Take care.

 

[grannymh]

I’m certainly not disputing that there may be things in Genesis that actually happened; Catholics are free to believe in the historicity of certain events described in Genesis, but this is not the intent of the Book of Genesis, which is ultimately about the incarnation of Christ (see Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal, Foundations and Approaches of Biblical Exegesis and Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church).

As for distinctions, there clearly is a distinction to be made between ‘literal’ and ‘theological’. There two entirely different categories of meaning; one referring to interpretation, the latter referring to a Divine Science.

“The “literalism” championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures… It [literalism] fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods.” (Pope Benedict, Verbum Domini).

As for leaping in, please do…that’s what the forum is for. However, my reply to the original post was offered in response to a question about Creationism, and so I would have expected my reference to Genesis to be understood in that light.

Pax.

I do not intend to go off topic. However, I have seen out-of-context quotations from the then Cardinal Ratzinger used to support both sides and any side of the creation issue of human nature. If you have any citations for any of Pope "Benedict’s references to the two, sole parents of humanity as described in the creation accounts
in Genesis and Scripture as a whole body of work, it would be most appreciated if you would either post them or send them to me via the Private Message system.

For your information, I am neither a fundamentalist nor creationist nor an advocate of Intelligent Design. Off line, I am an independent researcher currently working in the area of monogenism.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of its journey.

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

How can Genesis not be literally true? why would any book in the Bible be false seeing it is the Word of God?

Saying something is not literally true is not to say that something is false. There are different senses in Scripture–not all of them literal. That doesn’t mean they’re not true. All of Scripture is true, just not all of it literally true in the sense that it happened exactly as described. For example, in the Book of Judges, we read about talking trees.

Scripture has different senses, some based in the literal, some transcending it. Here’s St Thomas on the matter:

“The first signification [of Scripture] whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it… Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division…therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense.” (ST 1.1.10)

 

[JDaniel]

I’m not a creationist (Like the world being a few thousand years old), however I have a lot of atheist friends who quite bitterly bash creationism. Should I be saying something, or should I just let them exercise free speech?

PT:

It is interesting that they “bitterly bash” creationism. One would think that if they were confident in their certainty, an askance raising of an eyebrow would be more than enough! Perhaps there is something that can be read into such bitterness. Perhaps a certain uncertainty?

Anyway, I have been witness to the same sort of loss of self-control, by others, when conversing with some friends (and relatives) on religious subjects. I try to always answer with the truth: “I don’t know and, perhaps I will not know while I’m alive, but, I’ll leave it for further information gathering, which is the process of education, isn’t it? In the mean time, the early Genesis chapters are not contradictory. Wouldn’t it be astounding if it turned out that they were correct!?”

God bless
jd

 

[Iron_Donkey]

How can Genesis not be literally true? why would any book in the Bible be false seeing it is the Word of God? His word is not a lie, Dont you think that His first book would be literally true even if we cannot look at it without accepting the mystery of it, that we cannot comprehend hardly what God’s time is compared to ours, but it is still his first book that he represented himself in, so why would we want to bash it? i dont understand where your coming from to get to this statement, i am not saying that i dont know who you are coming from at all, but could you reply and help me see why you cant take the first of His words Literal? and please tell me why you came to that conclusion, cause i’m not understanding why you said that. seeing im not a prophetess and i’m just an ordinary person who loves Jesus, could you please elaborate and give me some way to understand your persceptive and how it could be not a right or wrong thing? earnestly i dont want to mock you, i just want to know why you say that and what person reasons you have that might allow for that opinion. i mean no offense to you, i would like to try to understand why you are so strong in that opinion.

Genesis is true. But it may not be literal. Why would God give a book that wasn’t literal? Because the literal sense has absolutely no effect on what He’s trying to say.

Requiring Genesis to be literal without any reason other than because God said it would be along the lines of replying to Jesus’ “I am the vine” by saying “you don’t look like a plant, but ok.”

see Fr. Barron: youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc

 

[TimothyH]

I’m not a creationist (Like the world being a few thousand years old), however I have a lot of atheist friends who quite bitterly bash creationism. Should I be saying something, or should I just let them exercise free speech?

Just my thoughts…

If they are engaging in nasty remarks about someone who believes in creationism, then go ahead and defend. I wouldn’t defend creationism but it is not free speech to call someone who believes in it a stupid idiot or to treat someone like a piece of garbage because they believe in it.

A friend of mine knows someone at work who is a literal six day creationist. Some of their coworkers who call themselves Christians, and others who couldn’t care less about God, treat the guy like dirt. They put plastic dinosours on his desk, call him an idiot and stupid and such things. My friend came to his defense, not because of creationism, but because it is wrong to treat people like they are pieces of garbage.

And there they are…Two electrical engineers who work on the F-22 fighter jet production line, having lunch and haning out. One is an literal six day creationist Evangelical and the other is a rosary praying Roman Catholic.

I’ll betcha some of your atheists friends blieve in Area 51 aliens, ghosts, 9-11 conspiracies, that their kids are going to grow up to be professional sports stars and such nonsense. The sword cuts both ways.

-Tim-

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

Great video…thanks Iron Donkey.

Here’s another one in the series by Fr Barron on Genesis:

youtube.com/watch?v=iXQnrgv27V8&feature=related

 

[karebear92]

How can Genesis not be literally true? why would any book in the Bible be false seeing it is the Word of God? His word is not a lie, Dont you think that His first book would be literally true even if we cannot look at it without accepting the mystery of it, that we cannot comprehend hardly what God’s time is compared to ours, but it is still his first book that he represented himself in, so why would we want to bash it? i dont understand where your coming from to get to this statement, i am not saying that i dont know who you are coming from at all, but could you reply and help me see why you cant take the first of His words Literal? and please tell me why you came to that conclusion, cause i’m not understanding why you said that. seeing im not a prophetess and i’m just an ordinary person who loves Jesus, could you please elaborate and give me some way to understand your persceptive and how it could be not a right or wrong thing? earnestly i dont want to mock you, i just want to know why you say that and what person reasons you have that might allow for that opinion. i mean no offense to you, i would like to try to understand why you are so strong in that opinion.

Genesis is generally not taken literally, and by literally I mean scientifically. It’s just not. The theology and spirituality of it is infallible, but the Bible is a collection of spiritual and theological teachings; it is not a book of science. They are traditions and stories that are used to explain theological and spiritual truth.

For example, it said that the universe was good and created out of goodness (that was not a common view among other ancient (eastern) teachings. God created us from nothingness, but He did not necessarily speak.

If you view it literally you will run into many problems; such as: how did He walk in the Garden of Eden (in one place)? Could he really not find Adam and Eve? Why did he ask where they were? If you believe that he truly walked with them then you also must believe that God is not Omnipresent. How could he be walking in the garden and be omnipresent at the same time? Jesus had not taken human form yet, and the Father and Holy Spirit are spirit. So at this point God was three persons in spirit, so could he really have walked in the garden?

God created by word but that does not mean He created by speaking. He is the word, and He created us from nothing out of love and goodness. God created us in his likeness, but he is spirit and we are not. So rather than being physically like Him, we know that there is dignity in every human life. We have a spirit.

The story of Noah, for example, has a great flood and so does the Epic of Gilgamesh. Coincidental? Possibly, but it is more probable that the story was borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh (the Epic of Gilgamesh is older; it is the oldest known work of literature) and retold to fit their beliefs. This does not mean that it was not inspired by God, however.

Similarly, fundamentalism was not common until recently. Origen, Augustine, Ambrose, and others all wrote about things figuratively. Origen even wrote why it should not be taken literally, or discussed it, I believe. It was one of the reasons Augustine struggled with the Bible before accepting Christianity. He heard Saint Ambrose use it figuratively and that played a role in his conversion. Also, not everything is figurative, as some things may be taken literally, but that does not mean that everything must be taken literally. God would make absolutely no sense if He gave a literal account. We can not fully conceptualize Him.

Also, as I said, it was told orally for generations, and it was modified over time as well. We had the first story from the 10th Century BCE by the Yahwists in Judea, in the 9th century we have the second story by the Elohists in Isreal, the Deuteronomists then reshaped it in the 7th Century BCE in Jerusalem, and we finally received the version we have today in the 6th Century BCE.

Understand that I am not saying that this is not divinely inspired; it is. But it is theological and spiritual, not scientific.

 

[grannymh]

With all due respect, I think you’re being pedantic.

For you:flowers:
Of course I am pedantic. I was a behind-the-scenes writer in public relations and development long before Google and fax machines. Speaking of emphasizing minutiae (from my dictionary definition), if I wrote that the grass was green in the university quadrangle, I had to produce my record of the date and time I last checked it. O.K. That last bit of info is a tad exaggerated. However, when the stakes are high as in millions of dollars in foundation money or knowing which way the political wind will blow in a major city, one can understand the advantage of an analytical approach to the “nitty-gritty”.

Currently, the stakes are even higher within the Catholic Church in regard to theological doctrines found in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Correctly, this forum and some others have banned discussions of evolution and atheism. Please see the first sticky note at the top of the forum. forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=118

Because of my interest is both in science and in Catholic theology, I have a general thread in the Back Fence forum where evolution can be brought into the discussion.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=605810

Due to my off-line commitments, I will have to leave without replying to other posts.

Blessings,
granny

The human person, as created by God, is worthy of profound respect.

 

[edwest2]

I guess my first response is: Why the Fuss? I think the fuss has to do with a statement made by a woman who was standing in protest outside of a Creation museum: “If this gets into the schools, I’ll sue.”

I have never received an adequate response to the question: What happens on a practical level if people believe God created everything in six literal days? Honestly, does all research in biology stop? Some are quick to point out the debt we owe to science for inventing computers such as we have them. I’m grateful.

It appears the only legitimate problem comes from those who say that God was not a direct causal agent. He was, literally.

For those with a more scientific bent, I suggest a review of this man’s work:

haltonarp.com/bio

Peace,
Ed

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

It appears the only legitimate problem comes from those who say that God was not a direct causal agent. He was, literally.

Hi Ed;

I do agree with you on a certain level, in wondering what all the fuss is about. People also hold wacky scientific views, but technology and the natural sciences power on…

On the other hand, our understanding of and interaction with reality is the substance, so to speak, of our relationship with God.

I find what you have said here about God being ‘literally’ the cause of the universe problematic and a good example of the way in which our views of things like causality shape our views of God. What does this mean? For example, do you mean to suggest that God is literally an efficient cause in the sense of the wind is an efficient cause of the windmill turning round? Such a view leads to a deistic view of God…that God is some sort of being among beings at the beginning of a temporal causal chain. God could not possibly be a ‘literal’ cause in this sense.

Many of our ideas about causation and God-as-cause have been inherited from Enlightenment, post-Scholastic, thinking (and is now particularly adopted by Protestant thinkers). I would vigorously oppose the notion that God is a cause in this sense. But If you have a moment, I’d love to hear a clarification before I do!

Cheers!

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Thanks for your concern!

While the basic idea behind dualism is sound, Cartesian dualism is, for various reasons, an incomplete theory. Being an armchair philosopher rather than an established one, I will refrain from saying that it is erroneous.

However, there are non-Cartesian versions of dualism, too, such as David Chalmers’ “naturalistic dualism”. Chalmers is not writing from a Catholic perspective, but many of his points (or my interpretations of them) are fascinating, including:

1. a proof (albeit a difficult one to follow) that consciousness does not “supervene” on physical facts
2. the speculation that God, when creating the universe, did not “just” create matter; He also did “something else” that gave rise to consciousness.

Both of these can be harmonized with Catholic teaching, particularly the statements on Humani Generis about the human soul

“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”

Of course, Chalmers also endorses some viewpoints that I do not subscribe to, such as “strong artificial intelligence” (the belief that artificial intelligence can lead to true consciousness) and panpsychism (the belief that everything, including non-living matter, is “conscious”). But he certainly has done much to revive interest in dualism, and make sure that “philosophers of mind” take it seriously again.

You want a great read concerning dualism of the person? Try Dr. Edward Feser’s “Philosophy of the Mind.” Perfect premises and defenses of hylemorphic dualism (Thomistic dualism) and soundly defeats Cartesian and Property dualism. David S. Oderberg wrote a great piece on this dualism as well in “Personal Idenity.”

 

[edwest2]

Hi Ed;

I do agree with you on a certain level, in wondering what all the fuss is about. People also hold wacky scientific views, but technology and the natural sciences power on…

On the other hand, our understanding of and interaction with reality is the substance, so to speak, of our relationship with God.

I find what you have said here about God being ‘literally’ the cause of the universe problematic and a good example of the way in which our views of things like causality shape our views of God. What does this mean? For example, do you mean to suggest that God is literally an efficient cause in the sense of the wind is an efficient cause of the windmill turning round? Such a view leads to a deistic view of God…that God is some sort of being among beings at the beginning of a temporal causal chain. God could not possibly be a ‘literal’ cause in this sense.

Many of our ideas about causation and God-as-cause have been inherited from Enlightenment, post-Scholastic, thinking (and is now particularly adopted by Protestant thinkers). I would vigorously oppose the notion that God is a cause in this sense. But If you have a moment, I’d love to hear a clarification before I do!

Cheers!

If you look at what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has taught, God literally created everything from nothing. That is not open to debate.

In the document, Comunion and Stewardship, St. Thomas Aquinas is quoted: “According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).”

The key word is infallibly.

I have never read of God being referred to as a being among other beings. Didn’t Jesus raise the dead, cleanse the lepers and give sight to the blind without technology? Too often, the case is: “It’s not in my science text, therefore, creation must have occurred by means other than some supernatural agent acting within it.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

If you look at what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has taught, God literally created everything from nothing. That is not open to debate.

I’m afraid this is not quite correct. In fact, it is very much open to debate, and there is absolutely NO Church teaching, not in St Thomas or anywhere, which describes God as a “literal” cause.

Understand, I am not denying that God is the Supreme cause, that he is “Ipsum Esse Subsistens” or that God created the world from nothing. What I am taking issue with is the expression ‘literal’ to describe him as a cause, because (a) it doesn’t seem to mean anything or else (b) if it does, it means ‘univocal’ which equates God as a cause like other causes, which he is not. I always get very wary when the word ‘literal’ or ‘univocal’ is used to describe God because it often tends towards anthropomorphising him and ultimately deism. And that, I can assure you, is opposed to Church teaching.

St Thomas in fact uses the expression ‘analogical agent’ to describe God as a cause (ST I.13.5.ad1). God is an agent or cause only analogically speaking–in other words, not literally or ‘univocally’. St Thomas arrives at this awareness through a logical sequence: every species (call it a set) has a cause; the set of all horses for example is caused by the genus animal. If God is in the set of all causes, then that set seems to be without a cause itself, which is impossible. God is not in the set of all causes; God is outside this set, and so is not a cause like other causes. God is a cause, but not literally or humanly speaking.

This is not opposed to Church teaching. This in fact is the constant teaching of the Church, and can be found reiterated in St Paul, St Augustine, Boethius, St Thomas, Bonaventure…to name just a few. Nor does the passage you cite have any bearing on this fact, or lend support to your use of the expression ‘literal cause’.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I guess my first response is: Why the Fuss? I think the fuss has to do with a statement made by a woman who was standing in protest outside of a Creation museum: “If this gets into the schools, I’ll sue.”

I have never received an adequate response to the question: What happens on a practical level if people believe God created everything in six literal days?

Really? How about this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7836737&postcount=7