In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

[exnihilo]

No. Real life is what the laws of physics say it is. If they say what comes up must come down, incanting Wingardium Leviosa isn’t going to change that.

Real life is certainly more than the laws of physics. There is the immaterial world which is plainly seen by every man. Love is certainly not part of physics.

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Slow down there! Are you serious? There’s a HUGE difference between modern storytellers and those in ancient times. Ancient storytellers actually believed in their tales.

We don’t. J.K. Rowling certainly didn’t believe Hogwarts was real.

How do you know that ancient storytellers believed their tales? Quite frankly that seems like an assumption and one rooted in pride. Modern man always thinks he is smarter than the ancients. But we certainly do know, from Sacred Scripture, that there is nothing new under the sun. So there were those who didn’t believe in the ancient stories just as there are those who do not believe in the modern stories.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here is a statement from Hugh Owen at the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. "In the final analysis, the primary purpose of our apostolate is the salvation and sanctification of souls, and the protection of souls from evolutionary errors that weaken and often extinguish the Faith. On my recent trip to Estonia on the western border of Russia, one of my hosts told me of a young Catholic boy at a local school who had just announced to his mother that he was not going to go to church any longer—he had studied enough evolutionary “science” to know that the Christian account of creation and the Fall was a “fairy tale”! How sad it is that all over the world, millions of young people renounce the “sacred history” of Genesis, for what the great philosopher and critic of evolution Larry Azar rightly called “a fairy tale for adults.” I absolutely believe speciation evolution is a salvation issue. As you will read speciation is an error. That is a nice word used by the Catholic Church for an outright lie in this case. You can see in my case evolutionary science affected my belief. By the way Kolbe Center is Catholic.

Too bad no one was there to tell him the Catholic Church accepts evolution and JPII has even said about it “Truth cannot deny truth.” And that evolution in no way contradicts anything in the Gospels.

Sheesh, it’s like when they found out the earth revolves around the sun – people started thinking, ergo, there is no God. R/T what they should have been thinking – wow, God is much greater than we could imagine. Too bad there is no one to let them know that just because the earth goes around the sun or people and other life forms evolved, does not in any way whatsoever disprove God, or diminish Him, but instead lets us understand how much greater He is than we could have come up with on our own.

Denying science will only alienate more people from the Church. I just wish people could get to the top of the hierarchy to see what they are saying, rather than being blocked by intermediaries who tell things differently from what the top is saying…both in re to evolution and global warming. These kinds of erroneous ideas (that there was no evolution and global warming is a hoax) do much much damage to the Church. When people learn the truth, then they throw the Baby Jesus out with the bathwater of these wrong ideas.

 

[lynnvinc]

Now, if only the literalists would stop insulting my fantasy by patronizing me with their delusions. It’s bad enough I know the world I dream of can never be realized without them trying to fill my head with poisonous false hopes. -.-

Maybe there’s something even better and more awesome than your fantasies. Perhaps try meditation…

Or, get into some screenwriting, like I did

 

[epan]

The fossil record consistently shows:

1. Abrupt appearance
2. Stasis
3. Variation within

You are obviously NOT a paleontologist. You might rephrase to state that your personal opinion is that… rather than engage in unintentional misrepresentation.

 

[vz71]

You are obviously NOT a paleontologist. You might rephrase to state that your personal opinion is that… rather than engage in unintentional misrepresentation.

Can you show that abrupt appearence, stasis, and variation within the species are not shown?

I would like to read this through myself.

 

[St_Francis]

For what it’s worth…
Just from CAF in the past couple of days:
“Science Must Destroy Religion”
“Big Bang Didn’t Need God…”
“First Gay Marriage Suit Hits Catholic Church”

The Catholic Church teaches that truth is truth. Some truths are in the realm of science, others in the realm of theology, and still others in other fields of study. But the Church, philosophy, and logic all teach that truths from different fields cannot contradict each other, because then one or both would be untrue.

After the wars caused by the Protestant Revolt, Europeans were tired and sad. What they wanted was peace, and the way they sought peace was not to seek truth peacefully, but to avoid any issues about which people dissented. This was carried over in the lands which became the US, and here we have freedom or religion, as long as our religion does not interfere with the workings of society or cause any disagreements.

Avoidance again. No one is willing to seek the truth, we are only willing to seek out those areas where dissent doesn’t happen. This narrows our world and widens the acceptance of sin, shaping how we view the world. By eliminating the supernatural in our social lives, we create an atmosphere of aimless undirection which undermines the wholeness of our humanity, rendering us mere material robots in a random universe.

What is needed is not more avoidance but more *involvement. *Scientists need to be more fully educated in metaphysics and other fields; and there needs to be more integrated explanations of science for those who are being educated. And quite frankly, I think we need to move away from a PhD system in which someone must seek out some new and startling idea to play with in order to get ahead.

 

[buffalo]

You are obviously NOT a paleontologist. You might rephrase to state that your personal opinion is that… rather than engage in unintentional misrepresentation.

Nope - that is exactly what it shows. In addition, large gaps.

 

[grannymh]

Too bad no one was there to tell him the Catholic Church accepts evolution and JPII has even said about it “Truth cannot deny truth.” And that evolution in no way contradicts anything in the Gospels.

In my humble opinion, this is a serious exaggeration & misinterpretation which has been floating around CAF for years. It is getting to be an urban myth.

For one thing, those who actually understand the contemporary evolution model, popes (plural) included, know that one section of evolution theories contradicts the teachings of St. Paul found in the New Testament. As to how truth cannot contradict truth, one could start with St. Thomas Aquinas and explain how this happens. Or skip Aquinas and use common sense.

 

[yankeeredneck]

Just because something can be explained by natural laws, it does not follow there is no God. There is absolutely no way science can disprove (or prove) God, since science is extremely limited to the finite, material, empirical world – that which is known or knowable thru the senses. Religion takes us to the “seen and unseen,” the “known and unknown.”

God and the spiritual are well beyond science. As John of the Cross said, our faith comes only thru one sense – our hearing of the Gospels. It is a matter of accepting thru faith, not scientific proofs. If we have some mystical experience that “spill all the beans” about God and the spiritual realm, then we don’t need faith. If we have whatever we want, then we don’t need hope. In Heaven we do not need faith and hope; in this mortal life we do, if we are to believe in God and His heavenly provisions.

Having said that, science is very good (but not perfect and definitive for all times) for what it can do – tell us about the material, empirical world.

My education started out in the “pre-big-bang” times and I learned something different about the universe…something that actually fit better with Hindu theology/myth. Of course, science cannot do experiments on the creation of the universe to tell us whether it was the big bang or something else. It is just a hypothesis, but I think based on some good (tho not perfect) science.

Our religious beliefs ultimately require pure faith. I’m thinking it actually takes much more grace and faith to believe not only the seen and known, but also the unseen and unknown. We tell ourselves in the Creed that we believe, but do we believe, and do we always believe at the same level – I’m thinking it actually fluctuates a bit, and we often tend to operate in the empirical, material world, without much thought to Divine Economy or God continuous working in our lives. For me God not only created the natural laws through with evolution and other natural phenomena happened, but was intimately IN EVOLUTION as it unfolded. For me, there is no concrete separation of God and evolution (or anything else), tho analytically we can “keep God constant and substract Him from the equation” to understand things from a scientific (material/empirial) view. (Science does that all the time – selecting only several factors to study, and ignoring all others.) But that does not in any way mean God does not exist, or is not intimately in and involved in ALL.

See, we have 2 eyes – one we can see things scientifically, one we can see God in all.

I suppose we should feel sorry for the agnostics and atheists, who just are unable (or unwilling) to take that “leap of faith,” but are stuck in the material universe. They are really missing out.

St. Therese of the Child Jesus spent her last year in complete dryness, with only the experience of how atheists would experience the world. She lived in pure faith, without spiritual consolations or inner spiritual solace, I think as a God-given penance/grace for the sake of those who do not have faith. Only in her last moment did she seem (from her radiant face and speaking directly to God) to experience the bliss and glory of God.

Dear Lynnvinc,
In your first paragraph, you state that, “Just because something can be explained by natural laws, it does not follow there is no God”. This is true. The proposition I put forth is quite the opposite. I didn’t say that you didn’t believe in God because of the naturalist explanation, what I said was that those who do not believe in God hypothesized a means of creation without Him, to wit, the Big Bang. Supposedly, there was an infinitessimal particle, which one day exploded, creating the universe. This begs the question, “From where did this particle originate?”. No matter what proposition is named, it all comes down to two choices: eternal mass/energy or eternal Creator. One of them must be true and the other, by necessity, false. Until someone can answer that question, there is no reason to accept any proposition built upon it, such as the formation of stars and planets and the origin of life. Note: postulating a previous universe simply creates an infinite regression scenario and is a logical fallacy.

Atheism is truly a requirement, in fact, the High Sacrament of the evolutionary religion, for as evolutionist Richard Lewontin stated, “…materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”.

 

[St_Francis]

Dear Lynnvinc,
In your first paragraph, you state that, “Just because something can be explained by natural laws, it does not follow there is no God”. This is true. The proposition I put forth is quite the opposite. I didn’t say that you didn’t believe in God because of the naturalist explanation, what I said was that those who do not believe in God hypothesized a means of creation without Him, to wit, the Big Bang. Supposedly, there was an infinitessimal particle, which one day exploded, creating the universe. This begs the question, “From where did this particle originate?”. No matter what proposition is named, it all comes down to two choices: eternal mass/energy or eternal Creator. One of them must be true and the other, by necessity, false. Until someone can answer that question, there is no reason to accept any proposition built upon it, such as the formation of stars and planets and the origin of life. Note: postulating a previous universe simply creates an infinite regression scenario and is a logical fallacy.

Actually, the Big Bang Theory was developed by a Catholic priest.

Atheism is truly a requirement, in fact, the High Sacrament of the evolutionary religion, for as evolutionist Richard Lewontin stated, “…materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Real life is certainly more than the laws of physics. There is the immaterial world which is plainly seen by every man. Love is certainly not part of physics.

Spiritual reality =/= Material reality.

When I speak of the real life, I speak of the drab, material reality only. Furthermore, we all know about the gap between the two. As with your example with ‘love’, the effect is ridiculously minimal. I can do a lot of crazy and stupid things in the name of love but none of that certainly result in me becoming some sort of a magical super hero.

How do you know that ancient storytellers believed their tales? Quite frankly that seems like an assumption and one rooted in pride. Modern man always thinks he is smarter than the ancients. But we certainly do know, from Sacred Scripture, that there is nothing new under the sun. So there were those who didn’t believe in the ancient stories just as there are those who do not believe in the modern stories.

Seeing as how they believed that Mt. Olympus was literally the home of the gods, thunder was the wrath of Zeus, and that earthquakes had something to do with the underworld… you’re giving the ancients far too much credit.

I am also amused at how you continue to avoid my point about Greek thinkers who also doubted the fantastical elements of their religion. (Just like, oh I don’t know, me?)

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Maybe there’s something even better and more awesome than your fantasies. Perhaps try meditation…

Doing that actually compelled me to fantasize more.

Or, get into some screenwriting, like I did

I’m actually planning to publish something for real this time. I’m working on the premise as we speak.

Sadly, that’s the closest thing I can get to what I really want. -.-

 

[tomarin]

In my humble opinion, this is a serious exaggeration & misinterpretation which has been floating around CAF for years. It is getting to be an urban myth.

For one thing, those who actually understand the contemporary evolution model, popes (plural) included, know that one section of evolution theories contradicts the teachings of St. Paul found in the New Testament. As to how truth cannot contradict truth, one could start with St. Thomas Aquinas and explain how this happens. Or skip Aquinas and use common sense.

Did you go into these contradictions in an earlier post that I could read? I’m not aware of what they are.

 

[samiam1611]

Regarding the 46% who hold creationist view of human origins.

Coincidentally, I am in London studying the display “Our Place in Evolution” in the Natural History Museum. Thus, your individual link which includes “Common Structures” is very interesting because I am part way through the Museum’s display section on homologies in regard to the origin of human nature which is the topic of this thread.

Wow, that is quite a coincidence! I am glad you found my link interesting, and tied in to what you are seeing IRL.

Since I am using a hotel computer with a different browser, etc., than mine, I am not sure what I am doing so reading the pages 9-22 will have to wait.

It is very awkwardly formatted so you may not find it much easier to read on your usual computer and browser. You may find the search function helpful which is at the bottom left.

Nonetheless, in general, the issues regarding bats, mice, (see illustration on link) dogs, wolves, whales, dinosaur birds, etc., do not really address the issue of human origin. In the final analysis the human body’s relationship to a bat wing is minor compared with the relationship of humans to their nearest living relatives chimps and gorilla’s depending on which scientist and which recent common ancestor one follows.

That’s true. A skeptic of evolution in general may be able to look at [non-human] animal evolution more objectively (with an open mind I mean) than looking at human evolution bc it is not tangled up with all that theology.

This brought to my mind an interesting question: I wonder how the poll results would differ if it wasn’t specifically about human origins but just evolution as a whole. I seriously doubt 46% of people believe all animals were created in their current form. But I could be wrong, considering I don’t even know a single person who denies human evolution (that I know of).

The end of the line (humans and their non-human relatives) in the basic cladistic system will continue to be debated because of current genetic technology. Please note that I used living relatives. Fossils show that humans also share some homologies with extinct human-like archaic beings. These extinct beings are also classified into different species depending on their homologies.

Indeed.

It is obvious that humans did not directly descend from apes. The link’s reference to common descent actually refers to a common ancestor of primates which may or may not be the most recent one regarding the human species. When one looks at human origin solely from a natural science viewpoint, there are a lot more questions than answers. For example, one should consider the purpose of the human person. Where is the human being going? Is there more to life than natural science?

Thought-proving questions! IMHO, there is no particular purpose of the human person. I mean we each have our purposes in life but I don’t think there is some grand purpose for us. if that is what you meant.
I do not believe there is more to life than the natural world, though I definitely do not think science can explain it all. So yes there is more to life than natural science.

 

[grannymh]

Did you go into these contradictions in an earlier post that I could read? I’m not aware of what they are.

I do not believe I have posted St. Paul because I usually post the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*. Its footnotes give citations.

May I ask your patience as I am headed to the airport and will not actually be at my home until this weekend.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

Wow, that is quite a coincidence! I am glad you found my link interesting, and tied in to what you are seeing IRL.

It is very awkwardly formatted so you may not find it much easier to read on your usual computer and browser. You may find the search function helpful which is at the bottom left.

That’s true. A skeptic of evolution in general may be able to look at [non-human] animal evolution more objectively (with an open mind I mean) than looking at human evolution bc it is not tangled up with all that theology.

This brought to my mind an interesting question: I wonder how the poll results would differ if it wasn’t specifically about human origins but just evolution as a whole. I seriously doubt 46% of people believe all animals were created in their current form. But I could be wrong, considering I don’t even know a single person who denies human evolution (that I know of).

Indeed.

Thought-proving questions! IMHO, there is no particular purpose of the human person. I mean we each have our purposes in life but I don’t think there is some grand purpose for us. if that is what you meant.
I do not believe there is more to life than the natural world, though I definitely do not think science can explain it all. So yes there is more to life than natural science.

May I ask your patience because I am on my way to the airport and will not actually reach home until the weekend.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[lynnvinc]

Doing that actually compelled me to fantasize more.

I’m actually planning to publish something for real this time. I’m working on the premise as we speak.

Sadly, that’s the closest thing I can get to what I really want. -.-

I’m thinking your man is St. Augustine – basically a hippy of his day & into all sorts of things. Eventually converted to Christianity. Like you he was very much a seeker and I think dissatisfied with the way things were. He eventually wrote that our hearts are made for Thee, God, and they are restless until they rest in Thee.

I’ve done a few sci fi futuristic screenplays. It’s work, but also fun.

 

[lynnvinc]

Dear Lynnvinc,
In your first paragraph, you state that, “Just because something can be explained by natural laws, it does not follow there is no God”. This is true. The proposition I put forth is quite the opposite. I didn’t say that you didn’t believe in God because of the naturalist explanation, what I said was that those who do not believe in God hypothesized a means of creation without Him, to wit, the Big Bang. Supposedly, there was an infinitessimal particle, which one day exploded, creating the universe. This begs the question, “From where did this particle originate?”. No matter what proposition is named, it all comes down to two choices: eternal mass/energy or eternal Creator. One of them must be true and the other, by necessity, false. Until someone can answer that question, there is no reason to accept any proposition built upon it, such as the formation of stars and planets and the origin of life. Note: postulating a previous universe simply creates an infinite regression scenario and is a logical fallacy.

Atheism is truly a requirement, in fact, the High Sacrament of the evolutionary religion, for as evolutionist Richard Lewontin stated, “…materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”.

Again, I’m saying that is an extremely limited view. If science tells us something it is telling us something about creation which God created, and perhaps also telling us something about God (though our fininte minds are incapable of grasping the Infinite, so it can only give us glimpses or guesses about God). Just bec atheists have problems with the spiritual dimension (the seen & unseen, the infinite, the beyond, the I & Thou), it doesn’t follow that I should have trouble with science or what they are speculating.

Everything in science wows me only more about God and strengthens my belief - big bang, evolution, whatever they find, hypothesize, theorize. I’m afraid the creationists pretty much weaken my and others’ beliefs, so I just have to ignore them before they can do harm to my faith in God (and I think they do much much harm to others’ faith as well, not to mention draw them into sin). Sorry, but that’s how I perceive and experience it. Others may differ in their personal experiences and understandings. I’m just happy Catholics like JPII and BXVI also believe in evolution, and many Christians actually find the big bang much more in keeping with Christianity than the previous ideas (which as I mentioned are a bit more like Hindu ideas of a constantly cyclical regenerative universe).

 

[St_Francis]

Again, I’m saying that is an extremely limited view. If science tells us something it is telling us something about creation which God created, and perhaps also telling us something about God (though our fininte minds are incapable of grasping the Infinite, so it can only give us glimpses or guesses about God).

Your sense of wonder at perceiving more deeply God’s creation is a great attitude and one which every scientist, amateur or professional, should have.

Just bec atheists have problems with the spiritual dimension (the seen & unseen, the infinite, the beyond, the I & Thou), it doesn’t follow that I should have trouble with science or what they are speculating.

As I mentioned before, I think part of my problem is that evolution is continually being touted as a random series of events that obliviates the need for God, destroying the Argument from Design. I’m *not *saying that you are doing that, simply that *others *do it. Moreover, the way it is talked about contributes to that ethos. As a result, I *literally *have seen people *lose *their faith through the theory of evolution and all its permutations–the simple assumptions made in everyday discourse as well as the way biology is taught.

Everything in science wows me only more about God and strengthens my belief - big bang, evolution, whatever they find, hypothesize, theorize. I’m afraid the creationists pretty much weaken my and others’ beliefs, so I just have to ignore them before they can do harm to my faith in God (and I think they do much much harm to others’ faith as well, not to mention draw them into sin). Sorry, but that’s how I perceive and experience it.

This is where I have a problem with your statements. You have a certain experience, I’m happy for you. *However, *when you start overgeneralizing from your own personal experience, and calling things *sin *which are in no way sin, then I have a problem with what you are saying!

My own experience is the opposite, and yet I do not deny that you have the experience you do and I do not criticize it: I can understand it. However, your denial of other people’s experience and your calling some things sin, I think that is wrong.

Others may differ in their personal experiences and understandings. I’m just happy Catholics like JPII and BXVI also believe in evolution, and many Christians actually find the big bang much more in keeping with Christianity than the previous ideas (which as I mentioned are a bit more like Hindu ideas of a constantly cyclical regenerative universe).

I do not think evolution, if it occurred, is any better than anything else. I think that whatever God Himself chose to do is the best and redounds the most glory to Him. My faith would not be affected in the least if I were to find out for sure that evolution was the way God chose to manage creation, but it sounds to me like yours would be if you were to find out that the Genisis account were literally accurate.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

My faith would not be affected in the least if I were to find out for sure that evolution was the way God chose to manage creation, but it sounds to me like yours would be if you were to find out that the Genisis account were literally accurate.

What you obviously fail and continue failing to comprehend are the macro-level effects of the latter happening. What you’re missing in lynn’s post is that much of the OT, Genesis in particular, is so heavily steeped in the tropes of creation myth.

Secondly, I can only imagine more people will be angry at God than pleased because they’ve lived their whole lives being literally bound by laws of science.

Now all of a sudden you’re actually proposing that there was a time in Earth’s history when worshiping demons and false gods actually granted power that broke those laws. You say God ‘had His reasons’? I say such a God is nothing more than a selfish, slave driver forcing people to live in a dull reality just so He can keep them from going to other ‘gods’ for power. Again, you’ve reduced Him to just another participant in the Pantheon Games.

If you review your theology, that in fact borders on blasphemy/heresy (if it isn’t one and/or the other already).