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

[Hunter24]

A purely materialistic atheistic worldview can only lead to moral relativism. It’s the only sane conclusion. Hence virtues such as honour and honesty need not be applied the way traditional marriage between men and women need not be upheld. Hence likely we see so much corruption and lack of replication in scientific work. Someone who is a believer and sees honesty as a virtue with real meaning is less likely to cheat in scientific works or less likely to be swayed by pure prestige or money than someone who shops for his morality on a daily basis.

Alot of what you talk about here is not purely religiouse but also cultural. I’ve met plenty of moral athiests. Globilization and the exportation of “american” culture is causing just as much of this as declining religiouse observance. Given both those things are related.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NotSure,

Glad you asked! I was unaware of any vaccination having been made from an abortion - so I looked this item up.

Here is a quote from the operative paragraph (the entire document is no substitute for an after dinner brandy!)

**To summarize, it must be confirmed that:

-there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems;

• as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one’s

own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women;

• the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one’s children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);
• such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible.**

And, here is the link if you want to tackle the entire document from 2005:

cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm

After reading this document and then the summary - there is no quick, “Yes, use it!” or “No, don’t use it!” We can use the vaccinations developed from human fetal cell lines as a matter of public health, and we are to work for pharmaceutical companies to change their product so that no human fetal cell lines are needed.

This answered the question for me, and I hope it answered it for you.

God bless

But then there are those vaccinations made from aborted babies.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NotSure,

This is not exactly what the Vatican document said, here is the link: cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm

Vaccines made from aborted fetal cells is the best course of action - as long as alternative vaccinations are available. And, we are to work for pharmaceutical companies to change their formulas so that human fetal lines are not used in new products.

I honestly think your first sentence is not in keeping with the Vatican’s entire statement.

God bless

avoid all vaccines made from aborted fetal cells.

These include these versions of the Polio vaccine (Poliovax, Pentacel, DT Polio Adsorbed, Quadracel - Sanofi), the MMR vaccine (it is the Rubella component that is tainted, most measles or mumps vaccines are made licitly), the Chicken Pox Vaccine, and the Hepatitis A vaccine

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NotSure,

Your post is 100% accurate!

There is, however, another issue …

In prior posts, the criticism was that the literal interpretation of Genesis was THE ONLY way Genesis was to be read in that the earth was made in the six stated days. This view totally ruled out any legitimate interpretation that God’s direction for His Creation took place over billions of years. And it was this that was causing the problem.

As long as God is placed in the heart of Creation - as He made all from nothing - then there has been no Vatican ruling against any theory of HOW God created the universe.

Where the Vatican has ruled, has been against the Atheistic view that all of creation was an act of random events and that God creates each soul individually, that we have all descended from First Parents who sinned and passed the consequences ofthis sin on to their children. The only exception - Jesus Christ as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and the Virgin Mary through a special grace of God and through no merit on her own. Here is a helpful link: papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

God bless

There’s nothing protestant about reading the Bible literally.
What is Protestant is Sola Scriptura, private interpretation and rejection of the magisterium.

THe Magisterium has not ruled on the literalness of Genesis, and so I can read it literally (just like the men of the past) with no damage to my faith, or status as a Catholic.

It is offensive to call us Creationists protestants.

and just like tqualey said, protestants are only literal when it suits their purpose.
When they read John 6, they suddenly become very figurative.

 

[edwest2]

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

So what if 46% hold a creationist view of human origins? Respectfully, I’d like anyone to provide one real world problem with this.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tqualey]

Hi Edwest,

Great post!

God bless

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Hunter24]

So what if 46% hold a creationist view of human origins? Respectfully, I’d like anyone to provide one real world problem with this.

Peace,
Ed

There’s no problem with it, it’s just suprising.

 

[edwest2]

There’s no problem with it, it’s just suprising.

Why? I mean, if Jesus can feed thousands with a few loaves and fishes, or walk on water or raise the dead instantly, then the same God could create the world on a different time scale than what science is telling us.

Why might the switching data for limbs and digits remain conserved for, supposedly, 400 million years before they were needed? Current theory suggests they all appeared very, very gradually.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711151453.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Hi Edwest,

Great post!

God bless

Thanks. It comes from the Catholic Answers library.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Crescentinus]

So what if 46% hold a creationist view of human origins? Respectfully, I’d like anyone to provide one real world problem with this.

Peace,
Ed

^This.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I am not particularly opposed to a force or essence that just happens to be outside the realm of science/nature. Though if it’s undetectable and immaterial can it really be said that such a thing exists?

This is only a problem for people who have succumbed to scientism, the idea that the only real knowledge can possibly be scientific knowledge (which is necessarily tied to the physical world). I have not succumbed to this idea – and I am a scientist.

The statement not within the dashes is okay. But how do you figure naturalism is abstract? Exceedingly abstract no less! Maybe I am an extra-dumb naturalist but there is nothing abstract about my beliefs. They are very straightforward and based on reality, on my everyday sensory experiences. I see water, and know it can’t turn into wine with a snap of fingers or a blink of an eye. Magical things happening - that’s what supernatural is to me, and that is what I reject. As the usually lame but occasionally apt saying goes, “It is what it is.” That barely even qualifies as a concept, let alone an abstract concept, let alone an exceedingly abstract concept.

Thanks for pointing out the unnecessary use of the term “exceedingly” – I have removed it from the text. Yet as for naturalism not being abstract: that simply cannot be the case if you examine the idea more closely. If you look around you, the most straightforward idea would be that someone has made all the things in nature. The idea that it all could have evolved “on its own” from fundamental particles, the ideas of physical and biological evolution, and the notion of “deep time” associated with this, are indeed very abstract concepts – as is the three-fold fundamental evidence (expanding universe, nucleosynthesis, microwave background radiation) for the Big Bang from which all evolution started.

So yes, naturalism is an enormously abstract concept.

(Obviously, I also accept the evidence that everything evolved “on its own” – but I believe that God made it to be so.)

When I said,
“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?”,

I felt like it could lead to interesting discussion but all you said was yes lol. I disagree with that so strongly. I think free will is semi-quantitative. I have more free will right now then I do when there is a pan of brownies in front of me. I think this orangutan has more free will than severely mentally disabled people.

Aah, but here you have disabled human nature. A Volkswagen Beetle can necessarily drive faster than a Ferrari with a flat tire. But the flat tire does not imply that the Ferrari is intrinsically a slow car.

There is nothing instant about free will. There’s nothing anti-natural about it either.

I see humans as animals whose intelligence just skyrocketed compared to other animals. I see nothing supernatural about that, or any of the attributes and talents that result from our superior intelligence.

Why. Why do you think that humans’ free will is supernatural but animals’ is not, or do you not think animals have free will at all? And why instant, why not believe God added increasing amounts of free will to his favorites, perhaps superceding natural laws, but not breaking them?

Well, my stance has to do with the argument from reason. I suggest you study the article by C.S. Lewis “The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism” that I linked to in my article.

 

[Hunter24]

Why? I mean, if Jesus can feed thousands with a few loaves and fishes, or walk on water or raise the dead instantly, then the same God could create the world on a different time scale than what science is telling us.

Why might the switching data for limbs and digits remain conserved for, supposedly, 400 million years before they were needed? Current theory suggests they all appeared very, very gradually.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711151453.htm

This isn’t an argument of can, it’s an argument of did. If God is real he can make the universe in 7 days or 13 billion years, whichever number pleases him. The evidence points to 13 billion as what he chose. If God made the earth in 7 days why would he leave all this data to the contrary? Is he trying to deceive us? To test our faith? Because dosn’t the bible say god does not deceive? So If god doesnt deceive why would he leave all this evidence that goes against a litteral genesis? Maybe because it’s not supposed to be taken literaly.

I can’t beleave I went through 13 years of catholic education just to use my apologetics lessons on Catholics. It’s stuff like this that made me leave Christianity.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Hunter24]

This is only a problem for people who have succumbed to scientism, the idea that the only real knowledge can possibly be scientific knowledge (which is necessarily tied to the physical world).

Could it just be science we do not yet understand? 1000 years ago so many of our every day conviniences would have been thought magic. Now however, we understand. I’m not saying you can prove or disprove god, just that there may well be scientific data on magic, spirits, divine intetvention, ect.

 

[gcharles]

Concerning the Eucharist 2/3 of Catholics don’t believe in the real presence. You are also getting Protestants confused with Anabaptists. Lutherans believe in the real presence. Remember Luther debating Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy. As far as literal translations the original Catholics believed in the literal translations. I believe anything can not be conflicting with the Sacred Scriptures as Thomas Aquinas described the bible. Is Thomas Aquinas wrong? It seems many of you have a gnostic attitude in that you are correcting what we read in the bible. There is no proof for “speciation” evolution and anyone who says there is let’s see it. Show up or shut up. Five times God tells us in Genesis he created each species in its own kind. Which one of you with this special knowledge that God is wrong will provide your evidence? What else do you want to correct in the bible. Do you agree with Marcion? Please tell me because I haven’t been enlightened like you gnostics.

 

[edwest2]

Hunter24:
So God cannot perform miracles like raising the dead, giving sight to the blind or cleansing the lepers without science?

God can’t do this:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100156.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gcharles,

Please provide some references for your statements. Are you really sure that 2/3’s of all Catholics throughout the world do not believe in the Real Presence? And, if so, how co you know that this statistic is correct?

Aren’t Anabaptists a subset of Protestantism?

Lutherans may claim to believe in the Real Presence - but they have no way to bring about transubstantian because they left the Catholic Church with Apostolic Succession. It must have been very difficult for Luther to claim he believed in something that he was effectively renouncing for all who followed him. Do you see this as a problem in putting a belief into reality?

Let me know what you think of this.

God bless

Concerning the Eucharist 2/3 of Catholics don’t believe in the real presence. You are also getting Protestants confused with Anabaptists. Lutherans believe in the real presence. Remember Luther debating Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy. As far as literal translations the original Catholics believed in the literal translations. I believe anything can not be conflicting with the Sacred Scriptures as Thomas Aquinas described the bible. Is Thomas Aquinas wrong? It seems many of you have a gnostic attitude in that you are correcting what we read in the bible. There is no proof for “speciation” evolution and anyone who says there is let’s see it. Show up or shut up. Five times God tells us in Genesis he created each species in its own kind. Which one of you with this special knowledge that God is wrong will provide your evidence? What else do you want to correct in the bible. Do you agree with Marcion? Please tell me because I haven’t been enlightened like you gnostics.

 

[samiam1611]

This is only a problem for people who have succumbed to scientism, the idea that the only real knowledge can possibly be scientific knowledge (which is necessarily tied to the physical world). I have not succumbed to this idea – and I am a scientist.

Well at the very least it does not “exist” in the usual sense of the word.

Thanks for pointing out the unnecessary use of the term “exceedingly” – I have removed it from the text. Yet as for naturalism not being abstract: that simply cannot be the case if you examine the idea more closely. If you look around you, the most straightforward idea would be that someone has made all the things in nature. The idea that it all could have evolved “on its own” from fundamental particles, the ideas of physical and biological evolution, and the notion of “deep time” associated with this, are indeed very abstract concepts – as is the three-fold fundamental evidence (expanding universe, nucleosynthesis, microwave background radiation) for the Big Bang from which all evolution started.

So yes, naturalism is an enormously abstract concept.

Ok well sure, you could take the basic naturalist position and extend it to a more advanced philosophy.

(Obviously, I also accept the evidence that everything evolved “on its own” – but I believe that God made it to be so.)

A position I respect.

Aah, but here you have disabled human nature. A Volkswagen Beetle can necessarily drive faster than a Ferrari with a flat tire. But the flat tire does not imply that the Ferrari is intrinsically a slow car.

That’s a good analogy; point taken. However, your point doesn’t really refute mine bc there is a spectrum of disability, given that we all have our weaknesses that may interfere with our free will. I stand by my stance that free will is semi-quantitative, varies from person to person as well as varies for each individual at different times in their life.

Well, my stance has to do with the argument from reason. I suggest you study the article by C.S. Lewis “The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism” that I linked to in my article.

Your writing is much easier to understand.

Regarding this statement of yours:

If you look around you, the most straightforward idea would be that someone has made all the things in nature

I disagree of course, but it is not an unreasonable position; some aspects of nature are indeed more easily explained by saying “God did it” than “it just is that way.” However, it really just raises more questions (IOW, is not straightforward) to say an immaterial intelligent mind interacted with material matter to make it the way it is. I find it much more straightforward (and not at all abstract) to say, “that tree just exists” than, “that tree could not exist without an invisible intelligent thinking ‘someone’ to create it.” Furthermore, I think it is totally faith/revelation-based to believe this Someone created humans in a special (supernatural) way distinct from the rest of nature. There is no way to get to that position by reason.

 

[Al_Moritz]

A position I respect.

I respect your respect

That’s a good analogy; point taken. However, your point doesn’t really refute mine bc there is a spectrum of disability, given that we all have our weaknesses that may interfere with our free will. I stand by my stance that free will is semi-quantitative, varies from person to person as well as varies for each individual at different times in their life.

Aah, yes, I do not subscribe to absolute free will for humans, and as far as I know nobody else does. Free will in humans, relative free will, makes choices within given inclinations that are outside of our control. Deep inside, I can’t change the way I am, and you can’t change the way you are, but we both still can make meaningful decisions to propel our life forward in a positive way (and of course, I also hold that for exercising rationality we need free will).

Your writing is much easier to understand.

Thanks for the compliment, but you should not give up on the C.S. Lewis article. Potent stuff, imo.

Furthermore, I think it is totally faith/revelation-based to believe this Someone created humans in a special (supernatural) way distinct from the rest of nature. There is no way to get to that position by reason.

Erm, tell this to Aristotle. His position about the Unmoved Mover was not faith-based in any way (in fact, it went against the polytheistic faith of the Greeks in his day). It was pure reasoning.

 

[samiam1611]

Aah, yes, I do not subscribe to absolute free will for humans, and as far as I know nobody else does. Free will in humans, relative free will, makes choices within given inclinations that are outside of our control. Deep inside, I can’t change the way I am, and you can’t change the way you are, but we both still can make meaningful decisions to propel our life forward in a positive way (and of course, I also hold that for exercising rationality we need free will).

Okay. If you recall from a few posts ago, the point I was trying to make by saying free will semi-quantitative is that I don’t see why it must be so that God created the human soul instantly, and that it did not evolve. If (since) animals have free will, there is nothing supernatural about it; our ancestors had an intermediate amount of free will. The ability to think rationally and act accordingly increased over time and there is no reason I can see to think souls/free will could only come about by God immediately creating it.

So given your admittance that free will is relative, what is your reasoning for taking the Catholic Church’s teaching that souls/free will could not have come about naturally/gradually, that they are created instantly by God?