How many Catholics are YEC

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bradskii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
40.png
edwest211:
Define creationist.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that “creationist” means somebody who believes that an intelligent Someone caused the universe to be.
That’s most people.

YEC is a person who believes that Earth was created by God about 6000 years ago.
They exist, but firmly in the minority.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Theistic Evolutionists would approve of being called “Creationists”. At least in the usage most commonly used these days; Creationist refers to someone who believes in Special Creation; whether that is limited just to humans, or more expansively to all species (or “kinds”, when the species concept becomes too much for special creation arguments to hold water).
 
Among the magisterium and bishops, probably near 0.

Among those not familiar with science or the church’s teaching, maybe a bit higher.
 
Last edited:
There is this great fear that young people will hear a connection between God and Creation. As far as ID as science, the fact is, right now, scientists are reverse-engineering the genome. They have no choice. Evolution won’t help them. Bioinformatics will.
 
Read Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Christof Shoenborn. An Op-Ed piece he wrote for the New York Times.
 
I know about all this stuff—as I said, I was very into it for several years (HS and college days).

But my response is entirely on point. If there is no lengthy historical precedent for interpreting (say) Genesis as oracularist literalism, then it’s a modernist outworking attempting to “keep pace” with science and modern philosophy. Reading Genesis as creationism is adventures in missing the point.

But by all means, indulge to your hearts content.
 
edwest211 said:
There is this great fear that young people will hear a connection between God and Creation. As far as ID as science, the fact is, right now, scientists are reverse-engineering the genome. They have no choice. Evolution won’t help them. Bioinformatics will.
Click to expand...
You keep making statements like this, and I simply cannot see any support for them among biologists. This you asserting your own personal interpretations of research through the lens of your own personal extremely narrow interpretation of Church statements.

At any rate, when you have a scientific theory that involves God, you let me know. Until then, scientists dealing in methodological naturalism, and it’s not their business to deal with the existence or non-existence of God. Whatever science’s limits are in this regard, they are limits, because beyond them you cease to have even vaguely useful theories.
 
edwest211 said:
Where exactly does the theistic part in theistic evolutionist occur?
Click to expand...
Theistic evolutionists don’t propose to identify what God did, where He did it, and how He did it. If they are a scientist, they work through the lens of methodological naturalism. They don’t write scientific papers that invoke God, because that’s not science, pure and simple.
 
That is why I only believe the Catholic Church. The Church that accepts design. The Church that can integrate science and theology. I know science has limits. Some of its conclusions, due to relying on methodological naturalism, are incompatible with the faith.
 
niceatheist said:
At any rate, when you have a scientific theory that involves God, you let me know. Until then, scientists dealing in methodological naturalism, and it’s not their business to deal with the existence or non-existence of God. Whatever science’s limits are in this regard, they are limits, because beyond them you cease to have even vaguely useful theories.
Click to expand...
Yep. Stephen Jay Gould was largely right with NOMA. The sciences and religion simply do not have overlapping subject-matter (99% non-overlapping, say). It is such a shame that this point has to be emphasized ad nauseum.
 
edwest211 said:
That is why I only believe the Catholic Church. The Church that accepts design. The Church that can integrate science and theology. I know science has limits. Some of its conclusions, due to relying on methodological naturalism, are incompatible with the faith.
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t presume to state what exactly is designed, nor how it was designed. Essentially, the Church takes a Theistic Evolutionist position.
 
She plainly tells us that faith and morals are Her domains, no? (I would throw in wisdom too, but that’s just me.)

Since when did locomotion, mathematics, elements, biochemistry become her domains?
 
edwest211 said:
The Catholic Church has no limitations.
Click to expand...
I think history demonstrates that it has all sorts of limitations; at least on the temporal level. But since the Church does not demand that every scientific paper published add God as one of the variables, it recognizes its domain well, and, in mind of the warnings of Augustine, does not presume that it is ever in contradiction with science.
 
Not valid. I suggest Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Christof Schoenborn.
 
Magnanimity said:
She plainly tells us that faith and morals are Her domains, no? (I would throw in wisdom too, but that’s just me.)

Since when did locomotion, mathematics, elements, biochemistry become her domains?
Click to expand...
And where did the Church begin demanding that scientists insert God into papers and research? It’s statements are pretty clear, it does not view the creation of the Universe or mankind as random, but it makes absolutely no statement on how God made the Universe or its contents.

Ed’s posts are a combination of narrow interpretation of Church doctrine and God-of-the-gaps arguments. Neither set of statements represent either the Church’s view, or science’s, so far as I can tell.
 
edwest211 said:
Not valid. I suggest Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Christof Schoenborn.
Click to expand...
Does the good Cardinal provide information on exactly what in nature is designed? I want specifics here. At what level is it designed? Is every single atom organized by design? Just some? Are some things accomplished without direct intervention, and what are they? How do we measure God’s intervention versus natural processes? What’s the metric? How does one propose to test which aspects of the natural world are the product of direct intervention? How does one falsify those specific claims?
 
Forget about science for a moment. The Church has published documents about Creation that science cannot. Those documents hold critical information. Science can do whatever it wants. It can’t change Church teaching, and please, I’ve seen all of the other replies.
 
edwest211 said:
Forget about science for a moment. The Church has published documents about Creation that science cannot. Those documents hold critical information. Science can do whatever it wants. It can’t change Church teaching, and please, I’ve seen all of the other replies.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to forget about science, because you make specific claims that the science is faulty because it doesn’t abide by your interpretation of Church doctrine. So, unless you are prepared to give me some exact examples of what you or the Cardinal imagine are examples of actual direct intervention by God in the natural world, and how you propose to test whether they were natural or direct intervention, I’m going to keep pressing the point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top