Young Earth Creationists

[CampionTheChampion]

YEC is just wrong. We know this as well as we know the Earth is round. That’s why there’s hostility.

 

[Zaccheus]

This is the document I had in mind: https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

He indirectly talks about ensoulment there as something that happened somewhere along the line of evolution. I suppose one could say that this is possible with a “bottleneck” theory of evolution, but that doesn’t even seem to be Scriptural (consider those who were east of Eden).

My original statement, though, I cannot support as such.

Having read the document, I think he talks about evolution as a set of permissible theories. He is not at all saying that he himself accepts or believes in evolution.

 

[Zaccheus]

“Everybody used to believe X” does not prove that “X” is likely to be true.

Also evidence that Mankind has existed only thousands of years is not the same as evidence that the planet Earth has existed only thousands of years.

I submit to you that the creation account in Genesis does not rule out the possibility that life existed for millions or billions of years before Adam and Eve were created.

I’ll check back on this thread in a week or two in hopes you reply to this post.

 

[rossum]

There is no evidence that hominids were anything but animals like primates today.

And what would you accept as scientific evidence for an immaterial human soul? Can a soul be found in a particular DNA sequence?

Science can only look at the material, and looking at the material it is obvious that material human bodies are descended from earlier near-human hominid material bodies. Science leaves it to the theologians to decide at which point God breathed a soul into the nostrils of one of those bodies.

The presence of nostrils (Genesis 2:7) shows that there was a material body present before God added a human soul.

rossum

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Having read the document, I think he talks about evolution as a set of permissible theories. He is not at all saying that he himself accepts or believes in evolution.

I disagree. “Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

“More than a hypothesis” pretty clearly implies that he believes it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In closing, while I’m an attorney by trade and only have a bachelor’s degree in Physics (vs. others on this thread who may have masters or higher in a field relevant to question of origins), I would beg to differ with claims that the young earth position is anti-intellectual bunk. I believe there is overwhelming support for a young earth and global flood from Scripture–not to mention Tradition–and (gasp) even from a careful study of God’s creation.

What, pray tell, do you say about dinosaurs?

 

[FrDavid96]

My family has sent me some Young Earth Creationist materials (they are evangelicals, which is how I was raised prior to becoming Catholic). At one point I was under the impression that Catholics had some freedom in this realm to believe in either evolution or creationism, which in my mind equated to a difference between uniformitarianism and special creation, where the crux of the matter was the age of the earth.

After doing some more research, it seems that a few noteworthy Catholic apologists are somewhat hostile to the Young Earth view. They seem to look down on Catholics who hold this view. Here is an example:

“Now consider advocates of a young earth. They claim the earth is only 6,000 years old. If so, for the Grand Canyon to be as deep as it is, it would have to have been worn away not at one inch per century but at 920 inches per century. In those century-old photos, instead of trails with no apparent change, we should see trails entirely washed away, not a trace left. But that is not what has happened.”

However, this particular argument seems to suggest that the author isn’t familiar with the Young Earth position on geological formations such as the Grand Canyon. The author seems to assume uniformitarian mechanisms, meaning there is a constant rate of erosion. The Young Earth position is that a catastrophic event caused the Grand Canyon. It seems the author is unfamiliar with the Young Earth position.

First question: Does the reason that many Catholic apologists look down upon Young Earth Catholics as rubes have more to do with Young Earth arguments originating in Protestant, specifically evangelical circles?

Second question: If some form of theistic evolution is true, at what point in man’s ancestry is it believed that he was given a soul?

Thanks,
Mike

The Church leaves scientific questions to be answered by science.

How old is the earth? is not a theological or spiritual question.

For good reason, one of the world’s greatest sponsor of science is the Catholic Church. The Vatican Observatory, with locations in Italy and Arizona, is one of the premiere centers of scientific research about the stars, planets, etc.

Sacred Scripture is not a science book, and it should never be read as science.

 

[Spyridon]

@Zaccheus this position is called Old Earth Creationism.

OP: Young Earth Creation becomes untenable if one has a firm grasp of science. This is why no Pope has been a young earther since the 19th century (at least).

 

[Zaccheus]

I disagree. “Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

“More than a hypothesis” pretty clearly implies that he believes it.

No. In science, more than a hypothesis means it’s a theory. Theory does not equal proven true. It means a credible idea that scientists may treat as if proven for now.
I point out in that document the Pope spoke of “theories” of evolution–plural. They can’t all be true.

 

[Spyridon]

@edwest211 that’s simply not true and it displays a stunning level of ignorance.

There is a PLETHORA of evidence showing hominids acting like humans (having religious rites, communities, art, etc.) going back nearly 2 MILLION years.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No. In science, more than a hypothesis means it’s a theory. Theory does not equal proven true. It means a credible idea that scientists may treat as if proven for now.

We are talking about whether the pope BELIEVED evolution happened. For him to call it “more than a hypothesis” speaks to his believing it, personally. It does not speak to his believing that it has been “proven true”. That is another question.

 

[Spyridon]

Prodigal_Son

Oh cmon you’re being unreasonable - OBVIOUSLY Adam and Eve rode the dinosaurs around like this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Fff…aahhhhahahahhahaha… Ahahgahahahahahhaha… hahhhahahahahahahahhahahaha! deep breath hahhahahahahahahhahahahhhahaha

PS: young earth creation is a LUDICROUS position which should be openly ridiculed, people holding it ought to be laughed to scorn - they do a TREMENDOUS amount of damage to the Christian cause. It’s embarrassing beyond words.

Places like the “creation museum” and “creation science” ought to have their tax exempt status pulled then be shut down for defrauding the public. It’s sickening.

 

[thistle]

Frankly its silly to believe in a young Earth. There is overwhelming EVIDENCE (not speculation) that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old.

 

[Spyridon]

It’s not just silly.

It’s downright embarrassing and it drives people away from Christianity because they get the impression we’re all a bunch of ignorant yokels who are too dull to process scientific research.

 

[Spyridon]

Any Young Earther Catholics here:

I URGE you to review this article from the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science (Inters - which is an e-resource set up by the Advanced School for Interdisciplinary Research (ADSIR), operating at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome which was set up to advance the dialogue between faith and science).

Not just young earth folk, but Catholics and Christians in general. If I ever ran an RCIA or CCD class, these two articles would be mandatory reading.

Here: http://inters.org/creation and http://inters.org/evolution

 

[Prodigal_Son]

young earth creation is a LUDICROUS position which should be openly ridiculed…

I don’t believe in ridiculing people. If someone honestly holds a view, they deserve the patience of being addressed kindly.

 

[Spyridon]

Not the people - the ridiculous position which they use to drive souls away from Christianity.

We’re way past the time of debating over this.

We shouldnt debate a young earth anymore than a flat earth. It’s an illogical ridiculous position which deserves to be mocked.

 

[rossum]

In science, more than a hypothesis means it’s a theory.

Correct. A theory is more than a hypothesis. A theory is as good as it can get in science.

Theory does not equal proven true. It means a credible idea that scientists may treat as if proven for now.

Correct. All scientific theories are “the best explanation we currently have”. Newton’s theory of gravity was never proven, and was replaced by a better explanation of gravity: Einstein’s General Relativity. In its turn Einstein will be replaced by the theory of Quantum Gravity, once scientists have finished developing it.

If you want “proof”, look to mathematics.

rossum

 

[twf]

In particular, was it simply a test of faith when God ensured that chimpanzees would share over 98% of their DNA with us? YECers tend to dismiss all our hominid cousins as just another ape… interestingly our closest living relative, the chimp, shares more DNA with us than they do with other living apes. YECers should stop and think on that. You and I have more in common, genetically, with a chimp than a chimp has with a gorilla. Humans and chimps are like first cousins, while gorillas and other living apes are distant second cousins… another example of God testing our faith?
The complete dismissal of modern genetics and geology is troubling from an intellectual perspective. The fossil record shows a history of progressive evolution…another example of God testing our faith?

 

[Zaccheus]

We are talking about whether the pope BELIEVED evolution happened. For him to call it “more than a hypothesis” speaks to his believing it, personally. It does not speak to his believing that it has been “proven true”. That is another question.

Your conclusion is based on interpreting his words. I do not agree with your interpretation.