Poll: The creation narrative in Genesis is scientifically and historically accurate down to the last detail, including 6 literal 24-hour days. Yes or No?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
20
0%
0 0%
12
0%
0 0%
75
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Are Trads Required to be Biblical Literalists?
#41


This can't evolve.  Keep in mind this is one protein.  This will then combine with dozens of other proteins to form a machine.  This can't evolve.
Reply
#42
(05-07-2011, 03:21 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: If a catholic is required to do something, why do we need to differentiate between a trad and a non-rtad.  We are Catholics first.

I phrased the question the way I did because that's the way the challenge was initially presented to me (by Nic, in another thread). The unstated assumption was that liberal/NO Catholics, who believe all sorts of crazy things, might be OK with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, but that a TRADITIONAL Catholic (i.e., a "real" Catholic) would not. I took issue with this statement, and that's the reason for this poll.

If we're talking about what a Catholic (with no qualifications) is required (by the Church) to believe, that should be a simple matter -- just check the official documents of the Church. A seemingly sound place to begin that process would be with the Catechism. However, the current Catechism was heavily influenced by Vatican II, and many trads view it with the same distaste as Vatican II itself. There are all sorts of things in that Catechism that many/most trads do not accept, and there are many things in, say, the Roman Catechism (i.e., the Catechism of Trent) that modern liberal/NO Catholics do not accept.

So it becomes very difficult to define what all Catholics do believe, or must believe. That's why I made the distinction. This is a trad forum, so I was curious how trads feel about this issue. Based on the poll results, it seems that most of them feel the same way I do -- a pleasant surprise for me. I really expected it to go the other way. I was just hoping for a few supporting votes to show I wasn't completely alone.      :)
Reply
#43
The way the poll is worded makes it seem like answering "no" would be denying biblical inerrancy as understood by the Church.

"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus)

For what it's worth, I accept evolution within the limits set forth by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. I'm just not willing to say that Genesis is in error.
Reply
#44
(05-07-2011, 04:02 PM)James02 Wrote:

This can't evolve.  Keep in mind this is one protein.  This will then combine with dozens of other proteins to form a machine.  This can't evolve.

To argue this might be worth the effort and time, but it's not really a Catholic argument.  The Catholic argument is about what Scripture and Tradition say about creation, not about the probabilities of a protein evolving in a certain way.  I happen to think, as amazing as these proteins are, they could evolve.

The theological question is, even if there were no theory of evolution, how would we understand Genesis.  I don't think fundamentalist literalism is the Catholic way.  Not everyone has understood creation as literal six days (e.g. St. Augustine).  And there is the very important matter I brought up earlier: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 give two creation stories.  If we use a very rough and unsophisticated, untraditional and Protestant hermeneutic of "let's take every verse and mark it as a fact in the simplest way to construct a literal story," then we are stuck with two stories that seem to contradict each other.

I have never heard a good way to reconcile Genesis 1 and 2 except by (a) ignoring Genesis 2 which is what the fundies do, (b) taking them both as true but not forcing our ideas of 24-hour days, and reading them as true but not as lists of scientific statements that require ridiculous things the sacred authors may never have intended, such as believing there really are waters up there separated from the waters down here that are the same molecules of H20 that we have or © giving up and concluding they contradict and so scripture cannot be true, which is what the liberals and secularists do.

To avoid errors (a) and ©, I feel I must choose (b).
Reply
#45
(05-07-2011, 12:48 PM)timoose Wrote: Do you understand that if we are evolved and then God intervened at a specific point giving us immortal souls you are positing God in the gaps. This denies ex nihilo. God thought and it was made. If the earth and all it's flora and fauna is on a course and God intervenes at certain points only, then it is a clock work. Me and several others here are engineers but God is not.

I don't follow your logic.  My view is that certainly God created all manner and energy ex nihilo.  He created all spirits (angels and souls) also ex nihilo.  But matter changes.  The Grand Canyon was not created by God just as it is now, it is created by God but in a different form and He allowed in His Goodness for it to take the form it has now after years of moving water wearing down rock.  Just one example.

The same with physical bodies, the evolution of animals, and so on.  This does not deny ex nihilo, everything was initially made ex nihilo.  But not everything in its present form is ex nihilo!  God created me, but before I was in the form I was in now I was a child, before that an infant, before that an embryo.  Your logic would seem to argue against any change at all, but we know there is change.

The other flaw is when you say "God intervenes at certain points only."  He doesn't "only."  He started the whole thing, but he also created certain laws of physics.  As a result of these laws of physics we have chemistry (which is just physics seen at a bit higher level) and also laws of other sciences (evolution/ natural selection is just a consequence of an ordered universe in which there is self-replication that is imperfect and there is competition and enough time ... we do it artifically all the time e.g. dog breeding).  So He starts everything, natural selection can still occur, and He can intervene as He sees fit including creating our first parents as true human persons with immortal souls, sinless at first.
Reply
#46
Quote: as amazing as these proteins are, they could evolve.

NO, they CAN'T evolve.  This is the starting point.  Even with these proteins you don't have life.  You also need the DNA that contains the information.  And you need the proteins to build the factories that make the proteins.  And these aren't "chemicals".  They are nano-machines.

This can't evolve, because there is nothing that precedes this.  Before this, you have nothing.  In fact, this highly complex protein could not be "alive".  It needs other proteins to fit together into a machine, such as mithochondria ATP-ase, which is basic.  And an order of magnitude more complex than this protein.

This does not exist in the inorganic world.  Evolution is finished.  It will take a hundred years to kill it off, but it is done as a theory.
Reply
#47
"God in the gaps" is a Protestant theory to explain Evolution. God sits back and at certain moments acts, like giving humans a soul, or making homo hablis, or Austrolepithecus. It denies God is acvtive in Creation. In this theory He is the clock work engineer, When we designed machine tools before the advent of computers it was necessary to build in a kind of clock ergo clockworks.

Darwin said if we can not find the missing links this theory would not stand. 200 years and no missing links. There is no evidence for Evolution. Natural selection is antithesis of Evolution, it reduces the gene pool, meaning less diversity, and no possible mutations. It narrows the species, by removing entire swath of animals. Dawkins in a moment of candor admits that theory explains Evolution but he'd prefer it were space aliens because he so hates God.

Genesis doesn't give us a complete picture and research needs to be done, but wasting time a dead theory isn't the way forward. There have been serious work done to debunk lots of the current state of "science". Oil isn't made from Dinosaurs, the sediment layers do not give a sense of ages, carbon dating is completely flawed, just to name a few. here's a link to start looking;

http://www.kolbecenter.org/

tim
Reply
#48
(05-06-2011, 04:48 PM)Rosarium Wrote: I think the question is meaningless, because of the Fall.

Our entire way of looking at the world is through fallen eyes. We live in the rubble.

What was "time" like before the fall? What was life like? What changed and what didn't change because of the fall?

We do not know.

Personally, I think we cannot image it. It was not two naked people in a garden, but two creations of God, created in His image, living in a pure world full of life without any disorder which was suddenly destroyed by sin, forever altering the world.

I do not think God created a world which followed the rules of chaos and death which govern it now. This is the problem. All cosmic and biological observations are governed by death and chaos. For this reason, I do not think we can use "evidence" to reconstruct history reliably because we are missing a crucial part.

:salute:
Reply
#49
Here's pope Bendict XVI's homily from Easter tossing Evolution in the dust bin of time.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110...704239857/

tim
Reply
#50
(05-08-2011, 11:46 AM)timoose Wrote: Here's pope Bendict XVI's homily from Easter tossing Evolution in the dust bin of time.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110...704239857/

tim

This article has a more accurate explanation of Church teaching than usual for the secular press:
Quote:Church teaching holds that Roman Catholicism and evolutionary theory are not necessarily at odds: A Christian can, for example, accept the theory of evolution to help explain developments, but is taught to believe that God, not random chance, is the origin of the world. The Vatican, however, warns against creationism, or the overly literal interpretation of the Bibilical account of creation.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)