Young Earth Creationists

[fisherman_carl]

Yes, one thing that Chesterton has is the ability to see things in a different light. We are so used to seeing ourselves as normal. He tries to shock us out of that. He calls man a poltergeist. And if he were merely an animal he would be a very strange animal indeed. In fact, he says it is an insult to call man merely an animal. You don’t look for man in the countryside like you do for raccoons. And even in the most prehistoric men, the so called cave men, he says the only thing we really knew about them were they were artists as they drew pictures of animals on the wall. We don’t even know if they lived in a cave. Yet, you can not find any animals who drew pictures of men on the wall. Just like you can find birds who build nests, but none of them built nests in the Gothic style. Since only man is an artist.

 

[twf]

They could, but I don’t think it’s a popular opinion among clergy. For me the issue is that it can turn away souls…if an educated inquierer perceives that Catholics are anti-intellectual or anti-science, it can turn them off from the Gospel altogether.

 

[CampionTheChampion]

That is just not true. I don’t think my own perspective is unusual, in

that I find both theories - old and young - to have merit. To say one

should be looked upon as a red-headed stepchild is simply the wrong way to

go. It’s not only uncharitable, it’s intellectually shaky.

I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Believing in YEC requires believing that generations of the entire scientific community worldwide has been and is conspiring to lie to the public by faking their models. And their supposed fake models just happen to work well–go figure.

So yes, we can say very confidently that the YECs are wrong.

 

[Zaccheus]

The whole point of my question was this: I was under the impression that

the Catholic Church does not dogmatically quantify the age of the earth.

Why, then, are Catholic apologists going beyond church teaching to

basically shame people as being ignorant for simply studying the issue and

deciding to remain open to a young earth. Do you have an opinion on this?

A Catholic may lawfully assert that X is true even though the Catholic Church does not dogmatically pronounce that X is true.

 

[rossum]

What you’re advocating is that there were a group of “near-humans” standing

around one day and God decided to breathe a soul into two of them, but not
the others. Do you not see the problem here?

No, I do not see any problem. There are plenty of couples who can act as universal common ancestors for all living humans, as the Church requires. See MRCA for a discission.

I would also repeat my point that whatever God breathed a soul into had “nostrils” (Gen 2:7), so we are talking about a formed body, not an amorphous mass. Remember also the origin of animals, “Let the earth bring forth…” Animals are just a form of earth/dirt/dust/clay or whatever translation you use.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Why, then, are Catholic apologists going beyond church teaching to basically shame people as being ignorant for simply studying the issue and deciding to remain open to a young earth.

I suspect it is for the reason Aquinas stated:

“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.” – Summa

In scientific terms a 6,000 year old universe is so ludicrously wrong that it puts an “obstacle” to anyone with even a little scientific knowledge believing. “You cannot follow our religion unless you believe that the moon is made of green cheese”.

YEC places a needless obstacle to belief. It is reasonable to criticise it.

rossum

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In scientific terms a 6,000 year old universe is so ludicrously wrong that it puts an “obstacle” to anyone with even a little scientific knowledge believing. “You cannot follow our religion unless you believe that the moon is made of green cheese”.

YEC places a needless obstacle to belief. It is reasonable to criticise it.

Yes, I agree.
Many people who do not really know what Catholics believe might lump the Church in with creationists and assume all of us “Christians” have to believe in creationism, or YEC, as a required tenet of faith. We just had someone on another thread a week or two ago saying that she was considering becoming a Catholic, but she had a science background and believed in evolution, like she had assumed we would make her set that aside in order to join the Church, when in fact it is fine to believe in evolution.

The Church already took a hit to its reputation by the whole Galileo business, where the Pope eventually had to admit the Church made a mistake, and a few similar incidents involving science. In view of that, people may have some interest in making sure that people representing as Catholic don’t come off looking like fools from a scientific perspective.

 

[ChunkMonk]

I guess we know what your real religion is.

Considering the fact that you are willing to openly declare your intention to mock your fellow Catholic brothers and sisters over their belief on the subject.

Apparently believing the Bible is now giving scandal…

Laughable if it wasn’t very frightening.

 

[Zaccheus]

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.

Mockery makes no converts.

 

[Spyridon]

Yeah, my real religion is the same as Pope Francis.

If you’re more Catholic than the Pope, fine. I’m not.

Also, I will continue to trample on the ridiculous belief of Young Earth Creation.

I will belittle and mock this belief the same way I belitle and mock the belief that airplanes are sky demons and nuclear weapons don’t exist - it is a ludicrous belief in par with those and other ridiculous beliefs, and it deserves not even an inch in our modern world.

 

[Spyridon]

Actually, it might.

When a science minded person who was previously turned off by scientifically illiterate Christians sees a scientifically literate Christian vehemently rejecting the ridiculous Young Earth Creation belief, it may very well encourage him that not all Catholics are loony tunes.

I stand in a long line of great Saints who employed mockery in their polemics - specifically thinking of St. Jerome.

You think if St. Jerome were alive today he would hesitate to mock Young Earth Creation? I don’t.

Also, not sure if you’re aware, but there are entire chapters of the Bible which employ mockery. They’re called “taunt songs” and it’s where the Prophet mocks and taunts those battling the will of God.

Mockery is a perfectly legitimate rhetorical device employed by Saints and Prophets since before Christ right up to the modern day. And if Young Earth Creation doesn’t deserve to be mocked, I don’t know what does.

 

[SalamKhan]

Just to first clarify a few things about the Magisterium.

Session 3, Chapter 4, of the First Vatican Council states:

"14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding."

Further, the same Council warns in its Canons:

"4. On faith and reason
…
3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

Again, the same Council states in Session 3, Chapter 2:

“9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.”

This was a reiteration of what was stated in Session 4, Second Decree of the Council of Trent:

“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.”

Finally, it is stated in Chapter 3 of Lumen Gentium:

"25. Among the principal duties of bishops…

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith."

 

[ChunkMonk]

I fail to see how anyone can be “more Catholic” than anyone else. One is either Catholic or not. Am I a better or worse Catholic? I fail to see the relevance but I would generally say I am a worse Catholic than everyone else, including many who are not Catholic at all. What does any of this have to do with the age of the world?

If you meant that you will mock the belief than I consider that acceptable, perhaps unwise, but acceptable. If you meant that you will mock the people holding the belief, or accuse them of sin for holding the belief… That is not so acceptable. You have no right to mock fellow Christians for holding a traditional and widely accepted and Church-approved view of Genesis. You also have no right to accuse your brothers and sisters of the sin of scandal or to impute on them “malicious” motives for said belief. In this you display a vehemence entirely out of proportion with the subject, by this I mean you seem to be far more offended by the person holding a Church-approved and traditional belief about a non-essential item than you are by the person who altogether rejects the essential fact of Christ’s sovereignty.

I also think it is uncharitable to compare the literal interpretation with Genesis to either of those “beliefs” you mentioned. Quite frankly, you are engaging in extreme overstatement and it betrays, at the minimum, an extreme insecurity.

 

[Spyridon]

No I didn’t mean to mock the individual people or condemn them of sin - it is NOT sin to be a young earther just like it is NOT a sin to believe airplanes are sky demons.

Incredibly at odds with science, yes.
Sinful, no.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Then one simply has to wonder why you believe the “science” of Old Earth is so certain. I doubt it is because you yourself have gathered the data.

 

[SalamKhan]

Quite frankly, you are engaging in extreme overstatement and it betrays, at the minimum, an extreme insecurity.

I’ve been getting the feeling that he may be feeling ashamed of believing in God. And to compensate for this, he appeals to the atheists by accepting evolution.

This is why philosophy is a good thing. Evolution is irrelevant to me because I’m certain that God exists. One should really familiarise themselves with the arguments of the philosophers concerning the existence of God. The argument from contingency used by theologians such as Thomas Aquinas are actually only summarised forms of the original, detailed argument of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), which was reiterated and expounded upon by Mulla Sadra.

 

[Spyridon]

Because it is overwhelming and proven from a multitude of unrelated sciences.

There is no motive whatsoever for these scientists to lie or be biased on this either.

The sciences of geology, biology, genetics, physics, paleontology, archaeology, medicine, and about a hundred others are all conclusive in showing the world and universe are very ancient.

Plus it’s been shown time and again that “creation science” is selective and deceptive.

 

[Spyridon]

Oh yeah guy, ya got me.

I have trouble believing in God so I appeal to the atheists to help my insecure faith.

Richard Dawkins is my spirtual director.

 

[ChunkMonk]

I’ve been getting the feeling that he may be feeling ashamed of believing in God. And to compensate for this, he appeals to the atheists by accepting evolution.

Well I think that itself might be an overstatement on your part. I have no reason to doubt his faith in God, just to doubt his faith in science.

Because it is overwhelming and proven from a multitude of unrelated sciences.

I have yet to see this proof.

Plus it’s been shown time and again that “creation science” is selective and deceptive.

As are many geologists, biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, etc.

 

[Spyridon]

@ChunkMonk

Come now, you’re on an internet connected device.

Google “young earth debunked” and “age of the universe science” then read.