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

[samiam1611]

What about the first time you listened to school mates talk about Santa’s gifts under the Christmas tree?

Actually I did believe in Santa for a few years. I seem to remember total acceptance at first, (actually I don’t really remember that, but I have read letters that I wrote to Santa) then skepticism, (I’m sorry but even with magic, it is not possible for one man to go to EVERY house in one night!) and eventually suspected my parents; my sister and I tried to stay up all night to catch them in the act and also set a trap at the bottom of the stairs - set up a bunch of soda cans - that they would trip over and make a racket and wake us up in case we did fall asleep.
However, being part Jewish, I also celebrated Hannukah, yet did not believe magic was involved in that event. I guess my belief in Santa, like many supernatural beliefs, was just wishful thinking.

What about Sponge Bob Square Pants? Think about rituals of Indian tribes-- If you saw a news clip about a rain dance, wouldn’t you recognize the spiritual or supernatural implications

Well I have always recognized that there are people who think the supernatural exists.

I think that is a valid way. Still, I would add that how the intelligence is used is the deal maker.
Going back to the difference between a pre-human and a human.
As we walk in the science domain, there is evidence that archaic beings buried their dead. The supposition is that they believed in an afterlife. This is based on the fact that real humans bury their dead. Therefore those archaic beings can be called human. But are they.
This is my personal reasoning.
Starting with the ability to recognize that something beyond the natural world exists and which resides in the spiritual soul. Is that new twist o.k. with you?

I am going to need some more clarification on “resides in the spiritual soul” before I can agree with that. Say that one day, I change my mind about the existence of the supernatural. Is it not my brain, the mushy thing in my skull, that is recognizing/perceiving it?

Obviously an afterlife is supernatural since it exists beyond the natural life of living beings. We cannot create an afterlife so we grant the existence of a supernatural being Who is God Who, as the Creator, can call human beings to share in His Divine life after death of the mortal body.
Going back to the pre-humans who buried their dead, there is no real hard evidence that they actually believed in a God Who could provide an afterlife. Even the items often buried with these beings cannot prove that an afterlife was being considered. One could say the same thing about human burial except there is at least one written record (hard evidence) that the first human believed in God and in some kind of blessed life of happiness after death.
Taking the first three chapters of Genesis at face value, there is the written record that the first human had the capability to recognize the supernatural. Not only that, Adam could communicate with the supernatural being Who is named God.
If we lay Adam at the side of the pre-human, we see that Adam is the real human and the pre-human is pre-human. Am I even close to being right?

Mmmm I feel like you have skipped over something. Somewhere on the timeline between burying the dead and recognizing a supernatural being named God.

A short video that is slightly relevent to our discussion (just for fun): youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOHUXmEZg&feature=related

 

[gcharles]

Some of you don’t get it. Where did we come from? Try reading Genesis and God told us where we came from. Why should you believe when the first chapter of the bible is wrong? Next you will be like the JW’s and say it was only an image on the cross. Read Moses Maimonides 13 points of Judaism. He knew the Torah better than any of you doubters. Maimonides said if you don’t believe one thing in the Torah you don’t believe anything in the Torah. The Torah, of course, is the first five books in the bible. He also reveals that the Torah was dictated to Moses in front of the Arc of the Covenant. You don’t understand the signs of the times. Jesus said of the last days of the age not ot let any man deceive you. You are letting Satan lead you into deception. Ask the Holy Spirit to be your paraclete and he will reveal the truth to you. E-mail me at gcharles3448@yahoo.com I will send you information that will whock you. Speciation evolution isn’t even a theory and I have a quote by Richard Dawkins proving it. It’s based on a postulate.

 

[grannymh]

Actually I did believe in Santa for a few years. I seem to remember total acceptance at first, (actually I don’t really remember that, but I have read letters that I wrote to Santa) then skepticism, (I’m sorry but even with magic, it is not possible for one man to go to EVERY house in one night!) and eventually suspected my parents; my sister and I tried to stay up all night to catch them in the act and also set a trap at the bottom of the stairs - set up a bunch of soda cans - that they would trip over and make a racket and wake us up in case we did fall asleep.
However, being part Jewish, I also celebrated Hannukah, yet did not believe magic was involved in that event. I guess my belief in Santa, like many supernatural beliefs, was just wishful thinking.

My point is not what was believed. My point is that a person has the capability to recognize the supernatural. My point is not if what was believed or wished for is real or not. My point is that there is a human capability to recognize something beyond the natural environment. My point is that it is not necessary to act on the recognition of the supernatural. My point is that at some point, a tiny voice says --there is something beyond ordinary life.

Well I have always recognized that there are people who think the supernatural exists.

That works.

In ancient times, people would recognize that a shaman had magical powers which, obviously, are not part of natural science. Some humans have the capability to recognize illusions. Some people believe that God is an illusion. An illusion of what?

I am going to need some more clarification on “resides in the spiritual soul” before I can agree with that. Say that one day, I change my mind about the existence of the supernatural. Is it not my brain, the mushy thing in my skull, that is recognizing/perceiving it?

In my humble opinion, it is the entire neural system which works with imput from the environement and from within one’s body. In my mushy brain I consider the subconscious, memory, creative thoughts, free will, etc. as contributing to knowledge both received and given.

If one can change one’s mind about the existence of the supernatural, then there had to be the capability to think about the supernatural in the first place.

From granny’s post 860
Obviously an afterlife is supernatural since it exists beyond the natural life of living beings. We cannot create an afterlife so we grant the existence of a supernatural being Who is God Who, as the Creator, can call human beings to share in His Divine life after death of the mortal body.
Going back to the pre-humans who buried their dead, there is no real hard evidence that they actually believed in a God Who could provide an afterlife. Even the items often buried with these beings cannot prove that an afterlife was being considered. One could say the same thing about human burial except there is at least one written record (hard evidence) that the first human believed in God and in some kind of blessed life of happiness after death.
Taking the first three chapters of Genesis at face value, there is the written record that the first human had the capability to recognize the supernatural. Not only that, Adam could communicate with the supernatural being Who is named God.
If we lay Adam at the side of the pre-human, we see that Adam is the real human and the pre-human is pre-human. Am I even close to being right?

Mmmm I feel like you have skipped over something. Somewhere on the timeline between burying the dead and recognizing a supernatural being named God.

You are right, now that I re-read what I wrote.

The creationist would probably say that I missed the point where God created the human person around 10,000 BC without the aid of evolution.

The scientist would probably give a broad time line where archaic beings slowly figured out that there were good actions which benefited them personally. One could say that here the philosophies of utilitarianism, relativism, materialism, and other ism’s like narcissism had their start. All this type of thing was “emerging” from some point in one’s anatomy. Whether or not there is a God was immaterial to the overall early picture. The key was that societies were being developed.

I would like to think that people would draw from both the above positions and nail down what human nature is even if the only clue to its arrival is the Genesis comment that at the beginning of the species, there were two fully-complete human persons with a nature which has both a material principle and a spiritual principle, both a body and a soul. A fully-complete person is above and beyond the human-like ancestor.

Yes, I know that I am not giving straight answers. We are in an open discussion and my mind works slowly, especially in the heat.
All because this granny thinks that the Gallup Poll, while interesting in itself, does not allow for the whole picture. Maybe people today are not interested in the whole picture of human nature…

 

[grannymh]

A short video that is slightly relevent to our discussion (just for fun): youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOHUXmEZg&feature=related

I do not have sound on my computer, but I did get the picture.
Different natural emotions can be recognized in a number of animals.

 

[grannymh]

Your article seems to be addressing materialism more than naturalism.

When granny talks about how humans are both material and spiritual or

when JPII says:
or the Catechism says stuff like:

I am hearing more than “The human mind must have a component that is not subject to physical determinism, i.e. it must have an immaterial component.”

You are describing immaterialism, not supernaturalism. I think. (Am I using those terms right?)

Plus, I am thinking our ancestors had that too (that=rationality, intellect, free will) just to a lesser degree. In other words…these features gradually developed/increased and were not like, infused into bodies that looked human or pre-human. The things you describe may be immaterial but they are not supernatural.

Tom (tqualey) provided me with a link to a very relevent part of the catechism:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm
What jumped out at me is (snipped):

"1744 Freedom is the power to act or not to act, and so to perform deliberate acts of one’s own.
1745 Freedom characterizes properly human acts. It makes the human being responsible for acts of which he is the voluntary agent. "

So both you and him seem to think free will is essentially what makes us human so I would like to know if you think pre-humans or archaic homo sapiens did not have free will? Free will could only have come about with God instantly infusing free will (a soul) into bodies that look like humans but were not humans? Also do you disagree with the quotes above from the CCC and JPII?
Forgive my clumsy speech, I am trying not to put words in your mouth but trying to understand your beliefs.

Interesting thoughts about free will. What makes us human is our rational intellect, free will, and the fact that we do not have opposable thumbs on our feet. Seriously, if possible, what makes us human is that we are in the image of God. And that covers a lot of things so it is hard for me to single out one essential item.

I know that living animals do not have free will in its fullest sense. I have never thought about free will in the Homo line of archaic beings which can be human-like.
Since I personally place human origin, Adam and Eve, around the time of the last Neandertals, there is the possibility of imitation by human-like beings. One researcher has implied that since Neandertals and humans could have interacted, it is hard to tell who used some of the “tools” which have been found. I do not have a citation because this was a news story and I could not immediately access the original piece. While I thought the researcher’s implication was interesting, I never followed up on it.

I believe that the more recent human-like beings were highly sentient and had many natural abilities similar to humans. They certainly were capable of making choices, but I think there is more to one’s will than deciding between this and that. Humans can choose to act against their deepest natural instincts, for example the strong instincts for survival or to perpetuate the species.

The last sentence of CCC 1744 is: “Freedom attains perfection in its acts when directed toward God, the sovereign Good.” That is a mouthful.

 

[gcharles]

Please read the following quote.When nature, including the human being, is viewed as a result of mere chance or evolutionary determinism, our sense of responsibility wanes. This quote is from Pope Benedict XVI in his social encyclical Caritas in Veritate. Am I still a bad Catholic by thinking like the pope-or are you followers of Darwin?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gcharles,

For a minute there I thought you were on some kind of rant.

I think most of us have read Genesis. The real issue is how is Genesis to be interpreted bsed on the teachings of the Catholic Church

Here is a link that may be prove helpful as to an understanding of Catholic teachings:

philvaz.com/apologetics/p100.htm

americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0507.asp

I think you may find greater insights from these links then anything coming from Dr. Dawkins.

God bless

Some of you don’t get it. Where did we come from? Try reading Genesis and God told us where we came from. Why should you believe when the first chapter of the bible is wrong? Next you will be like the JW’s and say it was only an image on the cross. Read Moses Maimonides 13 points of Judaism. He knew the Torah better than any of you doubters. Maimonides said if you don’t believe one thing in the Torah you don’t believe anything in the Torah. The Torah, of course, is the first five books in the bible. He also reveals that the Torah was dictated to Moses in front of the Arc of the Covenant. You don’t understand the signs of the times. Jesus said of the last days of the age not ot let any man deceive you. You are letting Satan lead you into deception. Ask the Holy Spirit to be your paraclete and he will reveal the truth to you. E-mail me at gcharles3448@yahoo.com I will send you information that will whock you. Speciation evolution isn’t even a theory and I have a quote by Richard Dawkins proving it. It’s based on a postulate.

 

[grannymh]

Hi, Gcharles,

For a minute there I thought you were on some kind of rant.

I think most of us have read Genesis. The real issue is how is Genesis to be interpreted bsed on the teachings of the Catholic Church

Here is a link that may be prove helpful as to an understanding of Catholic teachings:

philvaz.com/apologetics/p100.htm

americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0507.asp

I think you may find greater insights from these links then anything coming from Dr. Dawkins.

God bless

The second link, americancatholic.org looks like it is leaning to the popular idea of “updating” Divine Revelation to fit personal preferences.

Key sign of the anti-Catholic doctrine position is shifting the story of Adam and Eve to rather something like a parable rather than factual history.

From the link. “Applying this principle, Scripture scholars today are taking a new look at this story. We realize more clearly now that the story of Adam and Eve is rather something like a parable. The truth is in the message of sinfulness rather than in factual history.”

Following the teaching of St. Paul, Catholic doctrine is that one, real, first human, committed the one real act of scorning his Creator and shattering the relationship between God and humankind. This real act, not a parable or a message of sinfulness, necessitated Redemption by Jesus Christ.

“We cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.” (Source: paragraphs 388-390 and their cross-references and footnotes, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition)

From the link. “If you ask, Where, then, are Adam and Eve?, the answer is: We find them when we look in the mirror. We are Adam, and we are Eve; we are Cain and Abel; we are the flood generation who spread injustice over the earth; we ignore God and build towers to make great names for ourselves. The man and woman of Genesis 2—3, as well as the other characters of the primal stories, are intended to represent an Everyman and Everywoman. They are paradigms, figurative equivalents, of human conduct in the face of temptation, not lessons in biology or history. The Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history!”

The is wonderful poetry, but it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The last sentence, “The Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history.” is not original to this link. It is one of the “battle cries” of intimidation in the attempt to move Catholics away from the true doctrines of their Church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Grannymh,

Thank you very much for those insights.

When I had read this item, I had not seen it as you have described it - now, I am looking at it differently … and quite honestly, I think this article is in error.

Again, thank you for pointing this out.

God bless

The second link, americancatholic.org looks like it is leaning to the popular idea of “updating” Divine Revelation to fit personal preferences.

Key sign of the anti-Catholic doctrine position is shifting the story of Adam and Eve to rather something like a parable rather than factual history.

From the link. “Applying this principle, Scripture scholars today are taking a new look at this story. We realize more clearly now that the story of Adam and Eve is rather something like a parable. The truth is in the message of sinfulness rather than in factual history.”

Following the teaching of St. Paul, Catholic doctrine is that one, real, first human, committed the one real act of scorning his Creator and shattering the relationship between God and humankind. This real act, not a parable or a message of sinfulness, necessitated Redemption by Jesus Christ.

“We cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.” (Source: paragraphs 388-390 and their cross-references and footnotes, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition)

From the link. “If you ask, Where, then, are Adam and Eve?, the answer is: We find them when we look in the mirror. We are Adam, and we are Eve; we are Cain and Abel; we are the flood generation who spread injustice over the earth; we ignore God and build towers to make great names for ourselves. The man and woman of Genesis 2—3, as well as the other characters of the primal stories, are intended to represent an Everyman and Everywoman. They are paradigms, figurative equivalents, of human conduct in the face of temptation, not lessons in biology or history. The Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history!”

The is wonderful poetry, but it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The last sentence, “The Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history.” is not original to this link. It is one of the “battle cries” of intimidation in the attempt to move Catholics away from the true doctrines of their Church.

 

[grannymh]

Hi, Grannymh,

Thank you very much for those insights.

When I had read this item, I had not seen it as you have described it - now, I am looking at it differently … and quite honestly, I think this article is in error.

Again, thank you for pointing this out.

God bless

If I may offer a word of caution. There were some interesting insights in the article, so I would caution against saying that the article as a whole is in error.

On the other hand, all of us need to be aware of the subtle attacks (by fellow Catholics) against Catholic doctrines on the reality of Original Sin and Adam. Simply put, we need to go beyond the 46% Creationist view which is basically God did it. Catholics need to add the reality that Adam did it.

 

[Hunter24]

I blaim the school system… and the baptists

 

[samiam1611]

I blaim the school system… and the baptists

I blame parents more than schools. By the time they get to school parents have already indoctrinated their kids with this nonsense.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hunter24,

Wow! I’m glad we have finally got that resolved … for a minute there I thought we would not be able to find a culprit!

But with the 30,000+ Protestant groups out there today - why were Baptists selected to share second billing for your post?

God bless

I blaim the school system… and the baptists

 

[Not_Sure_1]

I blame parents more than schools. By the time they get to school parents have already indoctrinated their kids with this nonsense.

what nonsense?

 

[samiam1611]

Interesting thoughts about free will. What makes us human is our rational intellect, free will, and the fact that we do not have opposable thumbs on our feet. Seriously, if possible, what makes us human is that we are in the image of God. And that covers a lot of things so it is hard for me to single out one essential item.

I know that living animals do not have free will in its fullest sense. I have never thought about free will in the Homo line of archaic beings which can be human-like.

I think that would be a very interesting thought exercise.

Since I personally place human origin, Adam and Eve, around the time of the last Neandertals, there is the possibility of imitation by human-like beings.

Full humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) existed before the end of the Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). Any particular reason you think it was after Neanderthals died out? You very well may be right but I am just curious as to your reasoning. How do you explain the humans living in Africa and the human-neandertals in Eurasia? Where were Adam and Eve? We are coming back around to the issue of there being 2 “first” humans

One researcher has implied that since Neandertals and humans could have interacted, it is hard to tell who used some of the “tools” which have been found. I do not have a citation because this was a news story and I could not immediately access the original piece. While I thought the researcher’s implication was interesting, I never followed up on it.

No need to provide a citation every time granny. That makes perfect sense. We even see imitation and learning in living primates today who interact with humans so that is no surprise that ancient humans or pre-humans did the same.
Just for fun: youtube.com/watch?v=4i6Tr2aYO9g

I believe that the more recent human-like beings were highly sentient and had many natural abilities similar to humans. They certainly were capable of making choices, but I think there is more to one’s will than deciding between this and that. Humans can choose to act against their deepest natural instincts, for example the strong instincts for survival or to perpetuate the species.
The last sentence of CCC 1744 is: “Freedom attains perfection in its acts when directed toward God, the sovereign Good.” That is a mouthful.

So what makes you think the capabilities that distinguish us from recent human-like beings had to happen instantly and supernaturally and could not have evolved naturally (or God-guided-but-not-really-supernaturally.) Because the Church tells you so is the only reason I can think of.

what nonsense?

That God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

 

[grannymh]

Full humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) existed before the end of the Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). Any particular reason you think it was after Neanderthals died out?

Given what I said in post 866, “Since I personally place human origin, Adam and Eve, around the time of the last Neandertals, there is the possibility of imitation by human-like beings.” I would say that there were some living Neanderthals or similar while Adam’s family was growing and growing and growing.

How do you explain the humans living in Africa and the human-neandertals in Eurasia? Where were Adam and Eve? We are coming back around to the issue of there being 2 “first” humans

“humans” is that word used by scientists which does not match the specifications of human nature. In other words, the “humans” in scientific research papers are missing the spiritual soul which is what makes a lump of material matter a real human.

As for the real Adam and Eve, they were in some cozy love nest while their children and grandchildren took off to see the world.

No need to provide a citation every time granny. That makes perfect sense. We even see imitation and learning in living primates today who interact with humans so that is no surprise that ancient humans or pre-humans did the same.
Just for fun: youtube.com/watch?v=4i6Tr2aYO9g

When I write off line, citations are required. Koko is interesting even if I don’t have sound on this computer.

So what makes you think the capabilities that distinguish us from recent human-like beings had to happen instantly and supernaturally and could not have evolved naturally (or God-guided-but-not-really-supernaturally.) Because the Church tells you so is the only reason I can think of.

This is my personal opinion. Adam and Eve had the same capabilities that distinguished them from human-like beings. They kept those capabilities after Original Sin with the difference that now their human nature was more susceptible to sin and dumb errors due to the difference between Eden and the rest of the universe. Since the capabilities of rational thought and willful decisions are part of human nature, they would be instant with the creation of Adam and Eve. What would have evolved or developed or whatever, would be knowledge.

Here is a thought I have been thinking. Koko is closely related to humans because theoretically, we both descended from a common ancestor population of random mating beings which at the beginning of the homo/pan divergence were neither human nor animal. With natural selection and the theory of genetics assumed to be operating back then as they do today, there is no reason why eventually some of the chimps, apes, etc., would not carry the material gene for rational thought. After all, part of the free-sex population did turn into humans with rational thought. Why not the other part?

Maybe I am a closet creationist ?

 

[Tenofovir]

gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

The idea that evolution is not theistic is a metaphysical and not a scientific conclusion. If you’re an atheist, or a materialist, that will be your default conclusion. Science cannot inform this view one way or another and frankly even if people believe the world was created by fairies it is irrelevant to they way they will function, as long as they are honest, reliable and hard working. In my view, Christianity is most likely to enforce the latter values.

One can be a “Creationist” and be a Nobel prize winning geneticist. Nuff said.

 

[Hunter24]

I blame parents more than schools. By the time they get to school parents have already indoctrinated their kids with this nonsense.

Very true, and half the time the parents dont even understand evolutionary science or physics. Then the parents scream that evolution is taught in school. I went to a catholic HS and God never came up in science class. The funniest thing though is when fundamentalists push so hard for inteligent design, I don’t think many of them realize inteligent design is still evolution.

As for the Baptist comment, it was sarcasm, I blaim fundimentalist Christians in general for these numbers, not just Baptists.

 

[vz71]

Very true, and half the time the parents dont even understand evolutionary science or physics. Then the parents scream that evolution is taught in school. I went to a catholic HS and God never came up in science class. The funniest thing though is when fundamentalists push so hard for inteligent design, I don’t think many of them realize inteligent design is still evolution.

Evolution is not intelligent design.

And it has been my experience that parents object to evolution theory being taught as scientific fact.

 

[Hunter24]

Evolution is not intelligent design.

And it has been my experience that parents object to evolution theory being taught as scientific fact.

Yes it is, inteligent design is the theorie that the big bang, evolution, ect. are the methods god used to create the universe and life. It does not in any way invoke the bible or genesis.