YEC

[Squishy]

Is ‘Young Earth Creationlism’ a belief that the catholic church allows?

I was watching an intresting documentry in which a YEC Scientist was interviewed (i cant remember which field) and he was stating that he believes 100% that humans and dinasours co-existed. Becuase he is going for a litteral interpretation of Genisus? in which dinasours and humans where creted on the 6th day. Now i know this is not a belief held by most catholics but is it something that the church allows to be taught?

On a side note the documentry had a definate one sided view of science > religion for understanding the natural world. But some of the priests interviewed had a lot to say that i would say piqued my curiosity. One of the interviewed priests an anglican i believe said that Religion cannot talk about the natural world. But is their to allow us a deeper understanding of the spiritual side of the world. Another interviewed priest said that religion and science are more than compatable even when science counters what religion has said in the past. This is because as we tell children somthing simple and mabey expand on it as they grow. So to did god tell his children something simple, but as his children grow and evolve so to can religion, and the church. To allways allow the children to reach god regardless of their ‘age’

 

[thistle]

Is ‘Young Earth Creationlism’ a belief that the catholic church allows?

I was watching an intresting documentry in which a YEC Scientist was interviewed (i cant remember which field) and he was stating that he believes 100% that humans and dinasours co-existed. Becuase he is going for a litteral interpretation of Genisus? in which dinasours and humans where creted on the 6th day. Now i know this is not a belief held by most catholics but is it something that the church allows to be taught?

On a side note the documentry had a definate one sided view of science > religion for understanding the natural world. But some of the priests interviewed had a lot to say that i would say piqued my curiosity. One of the interviewed priests an anglican i believe said that Religion cannot talk about the natural world. But is their to allow us a deeper understanding of the spiritual side of the world. Another interviewed priest said that religion and science are more than compatable even when science counters what religion has said in the past. This is because as we tell children somthing simple and mabey expand on it as they grow. So to did god tell his children something simple, but as his children grow and evolve so to can religion, and the church. To allways allow the children to reach god regardless of their ‘age’

We are allowed to believe the earth is 6000 years old or 4.6 billion years old. However, in my view the young earth theory is absolute nonsense.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Is ‘Young Earth Creationlism’ a belief that the catholic church allows?

I was watching an intresting documentry in which a YEC Scientist was interviewed (i cant remember which field) and he was stating that he believes 100% that humans and dinasours co-existed. Becuase he is going for a litteral interpretation of Genisus? in which dinasours and humans where creted on the 6th day. Now i know this is not a belief held by most catholics but is it something that the church allows to be taught?

On a side note the documentry had a definate one sided view of science > religion for understanding the natural world. But some of the priests interviewed had a lot to say that i would say piqued my curiosity. One of the interviewed priests an anglican i believe said that Religion cannot talk about the natural world. But is their to allow us a deeper understanding of the spiritual side of the world. Another interviewed priest said that religion and science are more than compatable even when science counters what religion has said in the past. This is because as we tell children somthing simple and mabey expand on it as they grow. So to did god tell his children something simple, but as his children grow and evolve so to can religion, and the church. To allways allow the children to reach god regardless of their ‘age’

the reason for alot of the protestant pseudoscience babble is to support a literal understanding of Scripture. the whole sola scriptura deal.

it casts all religion in a bad light, as most people don’t know the difference between us and them.

 

[Squishy]

This is what i dont understand, how on earth can the catholic church justify not making a decision one way or the other. Clearly it makes a big difference to peoples world view, and its not like its a small gap we are talking BILLIONS of years.

I know of no evidence to support YEC. But a lot of evidence to support a much older earth. Are their any YEC folks who inhabit here who can give eveidence outside of scripture for thinking the world is 6000 years old ?

 

[reggieM]

This is what i dont understand, how on earth can the catholic church justify not making a decision one way or the other.

It doesn’t have much relevance to matters of salvation. The Church does not usually pronounce on scientific matters unless they represent a clear violation of the moral law or of revealed truths. Some forms of evolutionary theory, for example, have been declared to be incompatible with Catholicism. But the Church does not evaluate scientific proposals for correctness.

Clearly it makes a big difference to peoples world view,

What difference would it make?

 

[VociMike]

This is what i dont understand, how on earth can the catholic church justify not making a decision one way or the other. Clearly it makes a big difference to peoples world view, and its not like its a small gap we are talking BILLIONS of years.

I know of no evidence to support YEC. But a lot of evidence to support a much older earth. Are their any YEC folks who inhabit here who can give eveidence outside of scripture for thinking the world is 6000 years old ?

The problem with this view is that once the Catholic Church starts making doctrinal scientific statements, where does it stop?

In reality, the Church has made a strong statement against YEC, through her stated principle of fides et ratio, faith and reason. The reason part strongly argues that not all of the enormous body cosmological and geological science that indicates an old earth and old cosmos is false. The reason part strongly argues that we are capable of gathering true insight into God and his creation through our God-given intellect, and that true insight overwhelmingly points to old earth and old cosmos.

 

[Squishy]

It doesn’t have much relevance to matters of salvation. The Church does not usually pronounce on scientific matters unless they represent a clear violation of the moral law or of revealed truths. Some forms of evolutionary theory, for example, have been declared to be incompatible with Catholicism. But the Church does not evaluate scientific proposals for correctness.

Fair enough but doesnt it make a difference between literal/non-literal translation of the bible. Which I would think does concern the church.

What difference would it make?

IT would alter the way you perceve the world a lot i would think. This is why i was asking about evidence. As i cannot comment more untill ive seen what evidence their is to support this theory.

Do YEC take all of the bible as 100% fact and only use this to base their observations of the world? Or do they only go with the bible when evidence counters something that is understood by a literal interpretation.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Is ‘Young Earth Creationlism’ a belief that the catholic church allows?

I was watching an intresting documentry in which a YEC Scientist was interviewed (i cant remember which field) and he was stating that he believes 100% that humans and dinasours co-existed. Becuase he is going for a litteral interpretation of Genisus? in which dinasours and humans where creted on the 6th day. Now i know this is not a belief held by most catholics but is it something that the church allows to be taught?

On a side note the documentry had a definate one sided view of science > religion for understanding the natural world. But some of the priests interviewed had a lot to say that i would say piqued my curiosity. One of the interviewed priests an anglican i believe said that Religion cannot talk about the natural world. But is their to allow us a deeper understanding of the spiritual side of the world. Another interviewed priest said that religion and science are more than compatable even when science counters what religion has said in the past. This is because as we tell children somthing simple and mabey expand on it as they grow. So to did god tell his children something simple, but as his children grow and evolve so to can religion, and the church. To allways allow the children to reach god regardless of their ‘age’

You can believe the Young earth theory or the old earth theory. I think that the 4.6 billion years concept is complete hogwash myself.

 

[Squishy]

You can believe the Young earth theory or the old earth theory. I think that the 4.6 billion years concept is complete hogwash myself.

Perfect. Why. Do you have any articals or web pages that i can read to get an idea of why you think this ? Or mabey you can just jot it down in a quick post ?

 

[Fidelis]

Fair enough but doesnt it make a difference between literal/non-literal translation of the bible. Which I would think does concern the church.

Not exactly; because, technically speaking, to intrepret the Scriptures** literally **means to interpret them in the sense that the original writer intended to convey. This takes into account historical and cultural context, language, and literary genre, among other things. This is a manner of interpretation endorsed by the Church.

An entirely different way of intepreting Scripture is to interpret it **literistically **—word for word, just as it is written on the page with no thought to historical context or literary genre. This is how many fundamentalists and Scripturally illiterate people do, and is definitely not endorsed by the Church.

It [whether one believed in a YE or an OE] would alter the way you perceve the world a lot, I would think…

Perhaps so, but not so that it has to affect ones salvation.

Personally, if someone personally wants to believe in a Young Earth (or to take everything in Genesis 1–11) at face value, I don’t have a problem with it if it helps their faith. In the big scheme of things, it doesn’t make any differerence as long as we acknowledge the biblical truth of God as the Creator of heaven and earth, and the reality of the fall and original sin. The problem arises when those who hold this interpretative stance insists that the Faith stands or falls upon believing them this way, and insists the literalistic interpretation on these events is the only one possible.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Perfect. Why. Do you have any articals or web pages that i can read to get an idea of why you think this ? Or mabey you can just jot it down in a quick post ?

I one piece of information in regarding the young earth theory. It is my chronology in my Douay-Rheims that I got from Baronius Press. That is all the evidence one needs for the young earth theory.

 

[tobinatorstark]

also the whole Douay-Rheims would indicate that the earth is roughly 6000 years old. The NAB chronology also would indicate that. My Protestant KJV Thompson Chain Reference also indicates such

 

[Squishy]

also the whole Douay-Rheims would indicate that the earth is roughly 6000 years old. The NAB chronology also would indicate that. My Protestant KJV Thompson Chain Reference also indicates such

Ok, so its only because of religious teaching ?

 

[reggieM]

Many of the Fathers of the Church and great Saints of the past believed in a much more literal reading of Genesis.

The goal of life is sanctification and union with God and one does not need and understanding of the origin of the universe or of life itself to attain closeness with God and fulfillment of His will.

In that regard, the age of the universe means very little.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Ok, so its only because of religious teaching ?

As a person who rejects evolution, I feel putting science in this case is putting science before God and his teachings.

 

[Squishy]

Many of the Fathers of the Church and great Saints of the past believed in a much more literal reading of Genesis.

The goal of life is sanctification and union with God and one does not need and understanding of the origin of the universe or of life itself to attain closeness with God and fulfillment of His will.

In that regard, the age of the universe means very little.

Im sure it doesn’t. But does the persuit of knowledge and understanding of our world mean nothing at all. Is it all a meaningless excerise. The persuit of knowledge has been one of humanities prime driving forces since the dawn of man, when ever that was.

I think in this case to discount the huge amounts of evidence to discount the idea of a 6000 year old world, based on scripture. Seems a little strange. Why would such evidence exists and none to the countery (im assuming)

As a person who rejects evolution, I feel putting science in this case is putting science before God and his teachings.

This isnt about evolution. Which as been debated to death else where. I was curious if the claim of a 6000 year old earth. Can be backed up in any way out side of scripture.

 

[VociMike]

As a person who rejects evolution, I feel putting science in this case is putting science before God and his teachings.

As the OP pointed out, this is not about evolution but about the age of the earth (and by implication, the cosmos).

The real question, IMO, is whether we accept that science can reveal truth about God’s creation. Does science, the application of the human intellect working via the scientific method, accomplish what it claims and is it fundamentally trustworthy, or is it seriously broken, flawed and fundamentally untrustworthy?

 

[tobinatorstark]

Why should I believe the scientist over God. putting science, men or whatever ahead of God’s word is idolatry

 

[cerad]

Why should I believe the scientist over God. putting science, men or whatever ahead of God’s word is idolatry

It’s a bit off topic but don’t you already do that in your daily life?

The Old Testament lists a number of cures for various maladies. When you get sick do you limit yourself to the OT or do you avail yourself of modern medicine?

 

[Squishy]

This is one of the things that puzzles me and because i am not versed on my bible texts very well i cant quantify my puzzlement. But im sure that in all of the OT and NT their must be a lot that is contradicted by modern science and modern understanding of the world.

Mabey im wrong and their is not. But if their is why do people get to cherry pick what they believe. When clearly not affecting issues of salvation but affecting the way in which you live and percieve the world. Such as the post above me. Why accept modern medicine and reject the OTs remedies. Is it soley about selfish self preservation?

Im really curious about this, and unfortunatly i know of no YECs in my day to day life to conduct a debate with so my knowledge of arguments in their favour is very weak. Which is why i would like them to come here and debate with me.

I just want to learn more about your beliefs.