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

[tqualey]

Hi Vz71,

That is the degree of tolerance and charity that does seem to be lacking - and I think you identifed it exactly.

God bless

True. But I am not going to roll my eyes and scoff at those that believe otherwise.

 

[vz71]

Seeing as how we’re the dominant species of this planet and aren’t constantly in fear of each other more than wild animals, I’d say the idea of an apex predator that surpasses our ingenuity with modern firearms and what have you would fit Leviathan perfectly.

Now… why is the world still full of urban jungles and not little fishing villages constantly in fear of the next sea monster attack? You’d think all the armies in the world would be up in arms hunting monsters like that down (and failing miserably of course).

All nice, but offers nothing in reference to the story of Job.

You find it easy to roll your eyes and scoff those that do not believe as you.
It’s not so easy when your asked to prove your own view.

Prove it did not happen.

 

[buffalo]

Why not? Moses was only human. Much of the OT could still be riddled with metaphors and the errors of human exaggeration.

The Pontifical Commissions answer to this inquiry -

• Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])

 

[tqualey]

Hi Robertanthony,

I think you are making a dangerous assumption - the writers of ancient history were objective, accurate and almost as important - had their works found by modern scholars to find out what was going on at the time Let me share a pesonal story on this …

In 1990 my wife and I visited Egypt and one of the places we went to was Karnac. The place is collection of monuments from various dynasties, unfinished works and ruins… but with easily read writings. The presumed Pharaoh at the time of Moses was Amenhotep II… and just like all of his brother Pharaohs - if there was nothing great to say about the king - you either embellished what was there or made some stuff up (after all, he was paying to have these stones, cut, dressed and decoraed with his achievements.) Bad news never saw the light of day. Ancient Egypt neve had ‘investagative journalism’!

Our guide told us about Amenhotep II and how there is not one word or drawing about the `10 Palgues, Exodus or parting of the Red Sea with the resulting disaster to the Egyptian chariots. All of these would, at the very least, be a cause for embarrassment to Pharaoh. But, what was found is a sudden reduction in building, stone cutting, and farming. And Egypt had to go out on the market for workers. This represents a change - and from a country that was so prolific in its buildings and statues - and so dependent on slaves - it is noteworthy.

It would be a while before men like Herodotus started to provide some objectivity … but even he was not immune for error. After all, much of history is written from the perspective of the victor. But this seems to be a universal failing … to this day, Indian victories are called massacres!

Just because something is missing from ancient writings does not necessarily mean it never happened. The real history detective must look for what is there and then for what is missing.

God bless

Nothing is impossible to God, he could have made the whole universe in 6 literal days, he could have made the first man out of dirt, but given that much of the Bible is not a historical account, we’ll never know for sure what is literal and what is not. So Lost Wanderer could say that Moses did not really part the Red Sea, you could say he did, neither of you can prove it one way or the other, unless you find reliable writings from an Egyptian historian who lived in those days and interviewed direct witnesses.

 

[Robertanthony]

Hi Robertanthony,

I think you are making a dangerous assumption - the writers of ancient history were objective, accurate and almost as important - had their works found by modern scholars to find out what was going on at the time Let me share a pesonal story on this …

In 1990 my wife and I visited Egypt and one of the places we went to was Karnac. The place is collection of monuments from various dynasties, unfinished works and ruins… but with easily read writings. The presumed Pharaoh at the time of Moses was Amenhotep II… and just like all of his brother Pharaohs - if there was nothing great to say about the king - you either embellished what was there or made some stuff up (after all, he was paying to have these stones, cut, dressed and decoraed with his achievements.) Bad news never saw the light of day. Ancient Egypt neve had ‘investagative journalism’!

Our guide told us about Amenhotep II and how there is not one word or drawing about the `10 Palgues, Exodus or parting of the Red Sea with the resulting disaster to the Egyptian chariots. All of these would, at the very least, be a cause for embarrassment to Pharaoh. But, what was found is a sudden reduction in building, stone cutting, and farming. And Egypt had to go out on the market for workers. This represents a change - and from a country that was so prolific in its buildings and statues - and so dependent on slaves - it is noteworthy.

It would be a while before men like Herodotus started to provide some objectivity … but even he was not immune for error. After all, much of history is written from the perspective of the victor. But this seems to be a universal failing … to this day, Indian victories are called massacres!

Just because something is missing from ancient writings does not necessarily mean it never happened. The real history detective must look for what is there and then for what is missing.

God bless

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. It’s true that in certain regimes, it’s probably best to not write too extensively about the ruler’s crushing defeats, humiliation and strategic misjudgments.

 

[Robertanthony]

Come on people, I’m sure we can squeeze that lemon some more. We can make it to 1000 posts! Let’s start with “purified myths”, anybody want to comment on those? I’ve often heard from non-believers that many elements of Christianity (Christmas, sabbath on Sunday, the virgin birth of Christ etc,) were borrowed from other cultures’s myths and religions. Lost Wanderer has alluded to it. Thoughts?

 

[grannymh]

I already did. I have cited time and again how it is impossible for reality to bend to the whims of religious myth. I have shown my right to scoff. You cannot produce blood from water, no matter how hard you pray. Water is H2O. Blood is a mixture of even more chemical compounds.

My evidence is the very force that keeps you rooted to the ground, binds the molecules of your little PC, and governs the flow of your blood.

It’s called science.

It’s called reality.

I suggest you wake up to it.

If you’re so desperate for proof, open any high school physics/chemistry/biology book instead of the Bible.

I added the emphasis in bold.

***Just for general information. ***

If evidence is really science as presented in any high school science book, then it is important to demonstrate how the particular, individual “science” evidence (presented by Lost Wonderer in post 817) follows at least one of the accepted scientific methods. Hint: professional journals look for the nitty-gritty of materials and methods when considering a scientific research paper for publication.

Lost Wanderer,
Readers, in general, would like to see your demonstration per science textbooks.

 

[grannymh]

Come on people, I’m sure we can squeeze that lemon some more. We can make it to 1000 posts! Let’s start with “purified myths”, anybody want to comment on those? I’ve often heard from non-believers that many elements of Christianity (Christmas, sabbath on Sunday, the virgin birth of Christ etc,) were borrowed from other cultures’s myths and religions. Lost Wanderer has alluded to it. Thoughts?

Would it be out of order
to ask that we start with the OP News Article
on the Creationist view of human origins ? ? ? ?

Christmas would not be needed if Adam wasn’t real.

Why do people scoff at “Creationism”? Isn’t there a Catholic belief that God is the Creator?

If two, sole founders of the human species are deemed impossible by evolution claims – How is it that Catholicism can claim the possibility of Adam and Eve as a foundational doctrine?

Is Catholicism really represented in the 46%?

Is it really possible for Catholics to be represented in the 46% considering one of the criteria in the Poll?

Should this 46% percent figure give Catholics an opportunity to slack off in defending their belief in monogenism?

 

[vz71]

I’ve often heard from non-believers that many elements of Christianity (Christmas, sabbath on Sunday, the virgin birth of Christ etc,) were borrowed from other cultures’s myths and religions. Lost Wanderer has alluded to it. Thoughts?

Not too long ago, my parish priest celebrated his anniversery to the priesthood.
The Bishop came down and celbrated with the parish.

There was a write up in the papers.

Now let us suppose a similar event occurred in my parish 80 years ago. And like now, the local media of the time wrote about it.

If someone were to read both events, would it be reasonable to conclude that it is really the same event and that the one paper simply borrowed the story from the other?

I say no. It is not reasonable to conclude that one borrowed from the other just because there are similar events.

 

[vz71]

Why do people scoff at “Creationism”? Isn’t there a Catholic belief that God is the Creator?

It has been my experience that people generally scoff out of ignorance.
They believe you are wrong in your belief but really have no evidence to support claiming it wrong. The best they can really do is claim it a philosophy since science does not (cannot) cover it.
Of course, your mileage may vary. I have yet to hear a true, all encompassing definition of creationism. Is it a belief in a 166 hour creation? Is it a belief that God set it in motion and left it? Is it a belief that God directly intervenes for his purposes?

If two, sole founders of the human species are deemed impossible by evolution claims – How is it that Catholicism can claim the possibility of Adam and Eve as a foundational doctrine?

Because there is a hole in evolution theory.

Is Catholicism really represented in the 46%?

No.

Is it really possible for Catholics to be represented in the 46% considering one of the criteria in the Poll?

Depends. I know Catholics that claim to be pro-choice and Catholic at the same time.
Perhaps the question should be changed.

Should this 46% percent figure give Catholics an opportunity to slack off in defending their belief in monogenism?

Why? Science and logic will ultimately prove out.

 

[Robertanthony]

It has been my experience that people generally scoff out of ignorance.
They believe you are wrong in your belief but really have no evidence to support claiming it wrong. The best they can really do is claim it a philosophy since science does not (cannot) cover it.
Of course, your mileage may vary. I have yet to hear a true, all encompassing definition of creationism. Is it a belief in a 166 hour creation? Is it a belief that God set it in motion and left it? Is it a belief that God directly intervenes for his purposes?

Because there is a hole in evolution theory.

No.

Depends. I know Catholics that claim to be pro-choice and Catholic at the same time.
Perhaps the question should be changed.

Why? Science and logic will ultimately prove out.

If creationism is defined by: monogenism (A&E are our sole common human ancestors) *, the fact that A&E truly existed, were not born but directly created by God (I’m in), God being the sole creator of the universe+time, the Big Bang seems to be the most plausible theory, then God created it and set it in motion (I’m in), a literal 6-day creation (I’m out), a literal reading of both the ages of patriarchs or the genealogy which lead to concluding that the Earth is 6000-10000 (I’m out). Evolution suffers from the same flaw. A hundred people you poll on the street will have a 100 different definitions of it. I for one thought up unti recently that evolution=autogenic Big Bang, atheistic world-view, man descends from apes, A&E were fairy tales etc. Needless to say I was puzzled when I found out the Catholic Church says it’s more than a simple conjecture, it’s very plausible.

Grannymh, I just thought it was funny how you misspelled Lost Wanderer once(you wrote Lost Wonderer), was that a freudian slip? No offense meant.*

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You really cannot say that unless facts have been brought to the table.

I just presented to you the properties of blood and the properties of water. Unless you’re suggesting that water turning to blood is scientifically possible, then it’s never going to happen. Therefore, the first plague is a myth. The laws of chemistry have always been in place and the fact that they were always in place means certain things have ALWAYS been impossible and could NEVER happen.

You might as well say people used to magically fly in the past but when someone presents to you the law of gravity, you bury your head in the sand chanting “Prove it didn’t happen-prove it didn’t happen-prove it didn’t happen”. The fact that the law of gravity has existed since the dawn of creation is proof it could never happen.

Prove it did not happen.

Firstly, the very presence of even a single apex predator can have a significant impact on the surrounding environment. A male tiger alone has a territory spanning about 100 square kilometers.

Secondly, how much more impact do you think a giant sea monster that breathes fire and is immune to human weaponry (let alone primitive ones) would have on coastal populations around the world? The answer would be significant. We already have similar circumstances of what happens when humans build settlements close to a predator’s territory. (Ever watched animal attack videos?)

A hundred people you poll on the street will have a 100 different definitions of it.

See this is what I’ve been saying in my very first post. It’s either you’re a loony literalist or you’re on the slope of science. The idea of a spectrum of definitions in between is only an illusion.

Granny, you yourself made many statements saying that monogenism doesn’t require belief in a magical boat of full of animal pairs, ten disasters ripped off by The Mummy, and two monsters that you could add to Godzilla’s list of kaiju contenders.

Unfortunately, literalists would have you believe otherwise. They’re not satisified with monogenism (as I and Robertanthony here are).

 

[grannymh]

It has been my experience that people generally scoff out of ignorance.
They believe you are wrong in your belief but really have no evidence to support claiming it wrong. The best they can really do is claim it a philosophy since science does not (cannot) cover it.
Of course, your mileage may vary. I have yet to hear a true, all encompassing definition of creationism. Is it a belief in a 166 hour creation? Is it a belief that God set it in motion and left it? Is it a belief that God directly intervenes for his purposes?

Because there is a hole in evolution theory.

No.

Depends. I know Catholics that claim to be pro-choice and Catholic at the same time.
Perhaps the question should be changed.

Why? Science and logic will ultimately prove out.

I just lost a detailed response to you. Basically, I was trying to get you to be more specific.

In fairness to the poll, I propose to use its description of creationism. Does that sound reasonable? And which criteria in the Poll were you looking at when I asked-- Is it really possible for Catholics to be represented in the 46% considering one of the criteria in the Poll?

Could you expand on your answer to “Should this 46% percent figure give Catholics an opportunity to slack off in defending their belief in monogenism?” Your answer is “Why? Science and logic will ultimately prove out.” That almost sounds like changing the Catholic doctrine of monogenism to fit some research paper claims. Am I wrong?

link to news article in Post 1. gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

 

[grannymh]

If creationism is defined by: monogenism (A&E are our sole common human ancestors) *, the fact that A&E truly existed, were not born but directly created by God (I’m in), God being the sole creator of the universe+time, the Big Bang seems to be the most plausible theory, then God created it and set it in motion (I’m in), a literal 6-day creation (I’m out), a literal reading of both the ages of patriarchs or the genealogy which lead to concluding that the Earth is 6000-10000 (I’m out). Evolution suffers from the same flaw. *

Please, what flaw?

A hundred people you poll on the street will have a 100 different definitions of it. I for one thought up unti recently that evolution=autogenic Big Bang, atheistic world-view, man descends from apes, A&E were fairy tales etc.

 

[samiam1611]

Why do people scoff at “Creationism”? Isn’t there a Catholic belief that God is the Creator?

The word Creationism usually refers to the belief that creation story in the bible is how it actually happened. It does not refer to the belief that the God created the universe and man in the way science says it happened.
People scoff at it bc its proponents cling to a mythical story they probably learned when they were children in the face of VAST amounts of evidence to the contrary.

If two, sole founders of the human species are deemed impossible by evolution claims – How is it that Catholicism can claim the possibility of Adam and Eve as a foundational doctrine?

Because admitting they were wrong is something the Catholic Church doesn’t like doing. The Catholic Church has made falsifiable claims regarding mankind but calls them doctrine so will not change them.

 

[vz71]

I just lost a detailed response to you. Basically, I was trying to get you to be more specific.

Could you expand on your answer to “Should this 46% percent figure give Catholics an opportunity to slack off in defending their belief in monogenism?” Your answer is “Why? Science and logic will ultimately prove out.” That almost sounds like changing the Catholic doctrine of monogenism to fit some research paper claims. Am I wrong?

link to news article in Post 1. gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

I have found as time goes by and our science advances, what we know to be true through our religion holds out and to one degree or another is shown to be.
Where science appears to be in conflict, it is more often that we simply do not have all the facts.

Our friend Lost Wanderer seems to have fallen for this.
There is an insistance that things never occurred because they haven’t an understanding of the event, what is written, or how it could happen. But our science is rather limited. Our lack of understanding of how something could happen does not mean it could not happen or that we even understand fully what is being said in the first place.

So why should we abandon Adam and Eve?
Or even the plagues?
Eventually our sciences will agree.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, you yourself made many statements saying that monogenism doesn’t require belief in a magical boat of full of animal pairs, ten disasters ripped off by The Mummy, and two monsters that you could add to Godzilla’s list of kaiju contenders.

I wish I could claim those great statements; but unfortunately I can’t. This is my week to be honest since we celebrated Washington cutting down the Garden of Eden’s organic apple tree today.

Seriously,

if you wish to talk scientific methods as found in high school textbooks, I would be happy to listen. I will listen because there are some creationist views of human origins which do not take in account some of the possibilities found in our great intelligible universe. However, this kind of discussion goes beyond the either this or that approach.

 

[vz71]

Because admitting they were wrong is something the Catholic Church doesn’t like doing. The Catholic Church has made falsifiable claims regarding mankind but calls them doctrine so will not change them.

The Catholic church, guided by the Holy Spirit, will not be in error.

Our understanding however is prone to error.

Time will tell.

 

[grannymh]

The word Creationism usually refers to the belief that creation story in the bible is how it actually happened. It does not refer to the belief that the God created the universe and man in the way science says it happened.
People scoff at it bc its proponents cling to a mythical story they probably learned when they were children in the face of VAST amounts of evidence to the contrary.

The VAST amounts of evidence regarding human origin are based on a select number of quality research papers that deal with specialized issues. Please note that I sincerely respect the scientists who have done the research. However, the evidence for these issues does not warrant an universal exclusion of the possibility of Adam and Eve as sole founders of the human species.

One has to keep in mind that science research deals with both possibilities and probabilities.

For example. Before European explorers reached Australia, one could conclude that probably all swans are white. Yet, we know that black swans are possible. link: svswans.com/black.html

If you have some favorite research, out of the vast amount of evidence which you are referring to, I would like to review it. However, upfront I will say that even with today’s technology and amazing computer programming, there is still the fact that one is dealing with the same limitations as before. These limitations are basically those of the pre-history material/physical domain which is proper to the natural sciences. Human nature is more than a rotting anatomy.

Because admitting they were wrong is something the Catholic Church doesn’t like doing. The Catholic Church has made falsifiable claims regarding mankind but calls them doctrine so will not change them.

Please, what are the specific falsifiable claims which you are alluding to?

 

[grannymh]

There is an insistance that things never occurred because they haven’t an understanding of the event, what is written, or how it could happen. But our science is rather limited. Our lack of understanding of how something could happen does not mean it could not happen or that we even understand fully what is being said in the first place.

That is the perfect approach to Adam and Eve.

So why should we abandon Adam and Eve?

Catholicism will not abandon Adam and Eve because Divine Revelation trumps.

Or even the plagues?

Personally, I only deal with the first three chapters of Genesis because our foundation doctrines are there.

Eventually our sciences will agree.

Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I see the benefits of the evolution model in the medical arena. But the evolution model cannot fully agree with Catholic teaching because God directly creates the spiritual soul. The spiritual principle in human nature does not evolve from the material anatomy.