Why do some Christian's dismiss Creationism?

[ThaiDuykhang]

That's not an accusation. It's a statement of ourposition in answer to the title question.

This is an accusation:


And this:

What kind of arrogance it is when Dracil said I don't understand evolution? we're not even talking about science here.
I don't like debating evolution with other Catholic is my own feeling any accusation in it?
Do you think he has proved he follows Tradition or the opposite?

And what do you think of the points in the first post?

 

[ebia]

What kind of arrogance it is when Dracil said I don't understand evolution?

My point was, that you shouldn't go around telling other people to not make accusations while doing so yourself.

However, since you raise the point, virtually the only thing you have actually said about evolution itself:

"imperfect" in evolution means "inferior". in evolution, ancient human compared with modern human is imperfect, do you agree?

betrays the fact that you don't understand evolution.

I don't like debating evolution with other Catholic is my own feeling any accusation in it?

Then it was a bit dumb to start with an OP with several "Catholic Only" points in it.

Do you think he has proved he follows Tradition or the opposite?

That's not my call. I'm not a Catholic, so I'm happy to go with what the last two Popes have said was acceptable Catholic belief.

And what do you think of the points in the first post?

Since you ask:

1. No faithful can ever discover evolution as Creationism is a required belief before the appearence of evolution. It has to be discovered by some pagan/agnostic/atheist. When God hid this "truth" from the faithful?

Demonstrably untrue.

2. afterlife consequences for following evolution and wrong is far more severe than following Creationism and wrong. In fact I don't think following Creationism and wrong has any consequences.

Absurd.

3. Jesus can detect the slightest theology error in apostles and fix it, why He didn't correct them if evolution is right?

Because it's not a theological error.

4. Bible is God's words. God doesn't wish to create misunderstanding. then why without any non-theological interference it's always interpreted in favor of Creationism?

It's not.

5. God wish the relationship with man as close as possible. on the other hand God is omnipotent. The bond between God and human is stronger when God created human directly. then Why He choose the method which forms a weaker bond?

God did create us directly. Evolution is the mechanism - it no more denies the direct working of God in creating us than the biological understanding of conception and gestation in the womb does.

6. For Catholics only. Apostolic Tradition always teaches Creationism is truth and evolution is unacceptable(see Baltimore Catechism and Roman Catechism etc). How can one accept evolution against tradition?

N/A

7. For Catholics only. All papal documents that are ambiguous in words on this issue have never explicitly states "A Catholic can accept evolution without damaging faith"

N/A

8. symbolic interpretation of Genesis paved way for symbolic interpretation of the whole Bible. for example: Adam died at 930 years old. Moses died at 120. Why Moses lives only 1/7.75 the years of Adam. A Catholic evolutionist from another forum said scripture regarding Moses's life are also symbolic.

The important understanding of most of the bible is symbolic. Some of it is also factually true.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

My point was, that you shouldn't go around telling other people to not make accusations while doing so yourself.

I've made points(accusations if you like to call them) but they're not empty.

betrays the fact that you don't understand evolution.

Ancient human's brain according to evolution theory leaves much to be desired, don't you think?

Then it was a bit dumb to start with an OP with several "Catholic Only" points in it.

you forget, I also said "but it has to be done"

That's not my call. I'm not a Catholic, so I'm happy to go with what the last two Popes have said was acceptable Catholic belief.

recent 2 popes said nothing about it, though you may interpret it into something and call past popes heretics. I can say nothing about it since you're not Catholic.

Demonstrably untrue.

What's Anglican Church's teaching on this matter before Darwin?

Absurd.

you can't refute me at least. do you like the statement "If you believe in God and He doesn't exist, you lose nothing, If you don't believe in God and He exists you lose everything"?

Because it's not a theological error.

suppose the word you're emphasizing is "theological"
Then why every church including Anglican Church keep teaching it?

It's not.

The why apostles interpreted it that way?

God did create us directly. Evolution is the mechanism - it no more denies the direct working of God in creating us than the biological understanding of conception and gestation in the womb does.

directly means "don't use the result of previous work"

The important understanding of most of the bible is symbolic. Some of it is also factually true.

You must have had a hard time deciding which paragraph is literal and which paragraph is symbolic and finding reasons why it's not literal for some paragraph

 

[notto]

Ancient human's brain according to evolution theory leaves much to be desired, don't you think?

No. This is a baseless statement and shows your ignorance of the theory. If it is not, you should be able to point us to a work on the theory of evolution that states or implies this.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

God did create us directly. Evolution is the mechanism - it no more denies the direct working of God in creating us than the biological understanding of conception and gestation in the womb does.

If you mean after creating every other species, God took some dust, made it into bacteria then insects,fish,reptile, (non-human) ape then finally human. then it IS direct. but God isn't foolish, if He wanted to create human out of apes, he could simply catch an ape in the wild.

 

[gluadys]

1. No faithful can ever discover evolution as Creationism is a required belief before the appearence of evolution. It has to be discovered by some pagan/agnostic/atheist. When God hid this "truth" from the faithful?

Then how come it was Christians for the most part who did discover evolution? God did not hide this truth any more than God hid the truth of the sun (rather than the earth) being the centre of the solar system, the true nature of the moon, comets and planets, the fact that many diseases are caused by germs and viruses, not demons or the existence and structure of the atom and the DNA molecule. All of these things were discovered through the study of God’s creation and were never hid. Do you consider theological truth to be hidden when it takes study of scripture to understand it fully?

2. afterlife consequences for following evolution and wrong is far more severe than following Creationism and wrong. In fact I don't think following Creationism and wrong has any consequences.

Nonsense. There are no negative afterlife consequences for believing the truth God placed in his creation.

3. Jesus can detect the slightest theology error in apostles and fix it, why He didn't correct them if evolution is right?

Because evolution is science, not theology. You will note that he never told them the cause of epilepsy either, but allowed them to continue to think the cause was demon possession.

4. Bible is God's words. God doesn't wish to create misunderstanding. then why without any non-theological interference it's always interpreted in favor of Creationism?

No, the Bible is not God’s words. It is a testimony to and revelation of God’s Word.

5. God wish the relationship with man as close as possible. on the other hand God is omnipotent. The bond between God and human is stronger when God created human directly. then Why He choose the method which forms a weaker bond?

Are you placing a limit on God’s capacity to form a bond with humans, whatever the mechanism of creation?

8. symbolic interpretation of Genesis paved way for symbolic interpretation of the whole Bible. for example: Adam died at 930 years old. Moses died at 120. Why Moses lives only 1/7.75 the years of Adam. A Catholic evolutionist from another forum said scripture regarding Moses's life are also symbolic.

The bulk of pre-Reformation theology aimed to find the symbolic meaning of scripture, since this was held to be of greater import than trivial literal meanings.

 

[gluadys]

No empty accusations please. if you somehow feel unwilling to debate, you can leave this thread alone

Where in that statement did I accuse you or anyone of anything?

I simply made a statement about the nature of creationism.

"creationism" is not a person who can be accused.

And I said I would response to the rest of the post, and I have done so. How does that make me unwilling to debate?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

It is easy to be Traditional if one is willing to dismiss anything one disagrees with as containing no teaching.

 

[PaladinValer]

1. No faithful can ever discover evolution as Creationism is a required belief before the appearence of evolution. It has to be discovered by some pagan/agnostic/atheist. When God hid this "truth" from the faithful?

First off, this statement is quite off grammatically. Mind restating it so it makes better sense, please?

Secondly, science has nothing to do with religious belief. It cannot deal with questions that cannot be experimented on. We can perform experiments on the theory of evolution, but we cannot do so on God.

2. afterlife consequences for following evolution and wrong is far more severe than following Creationism and wrong. In fact I don't think following Creationism and wrong has any consequences.

Fallacy of Consequences and also Fallacy of Prejudicial Language.

3. Jesus can detect the slightest theology error in apostles and fix it, why He didn't correct them if evolution is right?

Evolution isn't doctrine. That's why.

4. Bible is God's words. God doesn't wish to create misunderstanding. then why without any non-theological interference it's always interpreted in favor of Creationism?

The Bible, according to your church, is authoritative in matters of doctrine and morals. Your church has admitted (rightly) many times that it could be in error in regards to secular knowledge. Evolution is secular.

5. God wish the relationship with man as close as possible. on the other hand God is omnipotent. The bond between God and human is stronger when God created human directly. then Why He choose the method which forms a weaker bond?

How is it than human beings are "lesser" because they are descended from a common ancestor of all life? A human is that which it is; by its nature. That nature doesn't change despite its origin.

6. For Catholics only. Apostolic Tradition always teaches Creationism is truth and evolution is unacceptable(see Baltimore Catechism and Roman Catechism etc). How can one accept evolution against tradition?

Firstly, your church isn't the only one that relies on Apostolic Tradition. The Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Old Catholics, and Oriental Orthodox do as well.

Based on your later posts which cite both the Baltimore and Roman Catechisms, it shows that you do not understand what evolution is, since it doesn't go against any of them, nor any of Holy Tradition.

You cite the 4th Lateran Council. It states that God created all things, visible and invisible. Evolution doesn't have to do with biogenesis, but has to do with life changing after its creation.

You cite the 6th Lateran Council. It says God creates each "creature" out of "nothing." Again, this insists something of evolution which it is not. It does not have anything to do with biogenesis. It deals with life after its creation.

In fact, you make this erronous insistence each time you cite a council. Since evolution doesn't deal with the creation of life, and that is all that each of those councils deal with, the only logical conclusion is that evolution is not condemned by those councils.

7. For Catholics only. All papal documents that are ambiguous in words on this issue have never explicitly states "A Catholic can accept evolution without damaging faith"

Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance yourself. Since they are ambiguous, it cannot be said that they explicitly state "A Catholic cannot accept evolution without damaging faith."

8. symbolic interpretation of Genesis paved way for symbolic interpretation of the whole Bible.

Fallacy of Slippery Slope.

for example: Adam died at 930 years old. Moses died at 120. Why Moses lives only 1/7.75 the years of Adam. A Catholic evolutionist from another forum said scripture regarding Moses's life are also symbolic.

I know many Vatican Catholics as well as other Apostolic Christians who know you are dead wrong. I'm one of them.

It is entirely possible to agree with the theory of evolution as well as agree that there was a literal Adam and Eve. I'm one of them. If you knew what evolution is and isn't, you'd see how this is possible.

 

[ebia]

If you mean after creating every other species, God took some dust, made it into bacteria then insects,fish,reptile, (non-human) ape then finally human. then it IS direct. but God isn't foolish,.

What's foolish about that.

Your argument is no more than "that's not how I would do it, so it's not how God did it."

Ancient human's brain according to evolution theory leaves much to be desired, don't you think?

No. Evolutionary theory doesn't make value judgements. The only value judgements we have are "... and God saw that it was good." All of it, not just humans.

you can't refute me at least. do you like the statement "If you believe in God and He doesn't exist, you lose nothing, If you don't believe in God and He exists you lose everything"?

That's Pascal's wager and (a) it doesn't work for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that there is more than one religion to choose from and (b) evolution doesn't deny God anyway - you are not debating with atheists remember.

suppose the word you're emphasizing is "theological"
Then why every church including Anglican Church keep teaching it?

The Anglican Church doesn't teach a mechanism for creation, just that God created.

The why apostles interpreted it that way?

Says who. I very much doubt the apostles would have a modern view of historical fact.

directly means "don't use the result of previous work"

So God didn't create me directly, since he used things he had previously created (an egg and a sperm). You can't have your cake and eat it.

You must have had a hard time deciding which paragraph is literal and which paragraph is symbolic and finding reasons why it's not literal for some paragraph

Not at all.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

What's foolish about that.

First I think this is directly against all forms of TE. I don't know there's a version that believes God enjoys doing repetitive work.

No. Evolutionary theory doesn't make value judgements. The only value judgements we have are "... and God saw that it was good." All of it, not just humans.

God saw it was good then why the size of brain keeps growing. you don't need the brain to hang up like WinXP to declare it imperfect?

That's Pascal's wager and (a) it doesn't work for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that there is more than one religion to choose from and (b) evolution doesn't deny God anyway - you are not debating with atheists remember.

Pascal's wager with atheist is the same my wager with TEs

The Anglican Church doesn't teach a mechanism for creation, just that God created.

Anglican Church taught "humans are directly created by God" before Darwin. Just like it taught artificial contraceptions are wrong before 1930

Says who. I very much doubt the apostles would have a modern view of historical fact.

All apostles are Creationists. if you think you're better in faith than them, well, you know what that's called.

So God didn't create me directly, since he used things he had previously created (an egg and a sperm). You can't have your cake and eat it.


Not at all.

you're as special as me. in short nothing special. however Jesus is special and
He exihibits Jesus' specialty by creating his human body without using sperms.

 

[The Lady Kate]

First I think this is directly against all forms of TE. I don't know there's a version that believes God enjoys doing repetitive work.

How many "versions" of TE do you know?

God saw it was good then why the size of brain keeps growing. you don't need the brain to hang up like WinXP to declare it imperfect?

Why settle for good when things can get better?

Pascal's wager with atheist is the same my wager with TEs

Funny, it fails for the same reasons.

Anglican Church taught "humans are directly created by God" before Darwin. Just like it taught artificial contraceptions are wrong before 1930

So?

All apostles are Creationists. if you think you're better in faith than them, well, you know what that's called.

Progress? We've come a long way since the first century AD... feel free to join us at your leisure.

you're as special as me. in short nothing special. however Jesus is special and
He exihibits Jesus' specialty by creating his human body without using sperms.

What's your point?

 

[ebia]

First I think this is directly against all forms of TE. I don't know there's a version that believes God enjoys doing repetitive work.

What?

God saw it was good then why the size of brain keeps growing. you don't need the brain to hang up like WinXP to declare it imperfect?

What sort of brain you need depends on what you are going to do with it. Are we imperfect because we can't smell as well as a dog or hear as well as a bat? The brain of a mouse is well suited to being a mouse.

Pascal's wager with atheist is the same my wager with TEs

Since Pascal's wager doesn't work anyway, this should give you a big hint.

Anglican Church taught "humans are directly created by God" before Darwin.

It still does. The Theory of Evolution does not remove God from the process.

Just like it taught artificial contraceptions are wrong before 1930

The relevence of this is?

All apostles are Creationists.

You asked them? They certainly would not be creationist in the sense you are implying, since they lived in a world that did not distinguish between true myth and history.

you're as special as me. in short nothing special. however Jesus is special and
He exihibits Jesus' specialty by creating his human body without using sperms.

This is relevent how? You don't strengthen your case by chucking in a few random statements.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

How many "versions" of TE do you know?

It's not "versions", but "variants"
Countless. some say the formation of human body is by pure chance and unguided by God. and seeing this, God made a sole for the ape and turn it into a human. some say God guide the mutation and every mutation is a step closer to human. after the completion of the process, God made a sole. about the origin of the ape to become human. so say to it's no difference to any other apes in natural and some say it's an ape specially made by God from dust. thus already 4 variants in this thread. about the development of wings, some say it comes from tree dwelling reptiles try to glide, some say it comes from land dwelling reptiles try to run faster, some say it comes from water dwelling amphibians try to swim.

Why settle for good when things can get better?

Either off-topic or you're trying to argue for me. please explain your point here.

Funny, it fails for the same reasons.

Give a few examples please?

So?

ebia thinks his theology is better than all the forefathers of Anglican Church and apostles.

Progress? We've come a long way since the first century AD... feel free to join us at your leisure.

read the previous paragraph. change "Anglican Church" to the name of your church

What's your point?

please tell me which of the following points you disagree.
1. Human is special for God
2. To show this specialty to human, God need to use a special method
3. Creationism states the origin of human is different from any other species. while evolution failed.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

What?

What sort of brain you need depends on what you are going to do with it. Are we imperfect because we can't smell as well as a dog or hear as well as a bat? The brain of a mouse is well suited to being a mouse.

the brain of ancient man doen't suit modern man, however the brain of modern man suits an ancient man.

Since Pascal's wager doesn't work anyway, this should give you a big hint.

Since you're a Christian instead of an atheist. it has already worked on you. you believe in God because you're afraid of ending up in hell.

It still does. The Theory of Evolution does not remove God from the process.

Change the word "directly" to Creationism if you have trouble with the word "directly"

You asked them? They certainly would not be creationist in the sense you are implying, since they lived in a world that did not distinguish between true myth and history.

They trusted God wouldn't deceive them like the serpent in Eden. so they choose to take God's words literally.

You think God tries to deceive you into believing something else and you stick to it.

If you call everything can't be scientifically proved is a myth. then all miracles including those directly performed by Jesus is a myth.

This is relevent how? You don't strengthen your case by chucking in a few random statements.

Read my reply to Kate

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

TEs also failed to address why Bible, God's Word, was written in a deceptive way that fooled human being for thousands of years

 

[ebia]

Give a few examples please?

Pascal's wager does not work because there are not just two clear choices with a single possible consequence of each. There are a potentially infinite number of chocies, with at least that many possible outcomes.

ebia thinks his theology is better than all the forefathers of Anglican Church and apostles.

No, I think it's better than what you think the theology of the those people was. I don't pretend to have enough information to know what their theology was, and neither do you.

please tell me which of the following points you disagree.
1. Human is special for God

True.

2. To show this specialty to human, God need to use a special method

False.

3. Creationism states the origin of human is different from any other species. while evolution failed.

It's not evolution's job to say we are special. That's the role of Genesis.
Theistic Evolution says God created all life through the evolutionary process.
Special Creation says God created all life by individually.
Either way, it's the proper role of Genesis to tell us about God's purpose for us in all this.

 

[gluadys]

TEs also failed to address why Bible, God's Word, was written in a deceptive way that fooled human being for thousands of years

Just like it fooled human beings into believing in a motionless earth for thousands of years.

Was that really the fault of the bible, or the fault of those who wrote it, or of those who did not allow the study of God's world to assist in interpreting His word correctly?

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Pascal's wager does not work because there are not just two clear choices with a single possible consequence of each. There are a potentially infinite number of chocies, with at least that many possible outcomes.

Whether you follow Judaism/Christianity/Islam, you end up follow the same God(at least this is Catholic teaching). You have to explain why you follow Christianity instead of Wiccan? because following Wiccan is no better than following atheism, I guess?

No, I think it's better than what you think the theology of the those people was. I don't pretend to have enough information to know what their theology was, and neither do you.

There's simply no alternative to Creationism back then. Do you doubt this?

True.

OK

False.

Can God make St Joseph and Virgin Mary(I'm not sure if this offensive to Protestants) produce the body of Jesus through sexual intercourse then inject the soul of Son into it? Of course He can since he's omnipotent. but He wants to show to us that Jesus is special. so He choose a highly unsual method.

It's not evolution's job to say we are special. That's the role of Genesis.
Theistic Evolution says God created all life through the evolutionary process.
Special Creation says God created all life by individually.
Either way, it's the proper role of Genesis to tell us about God's purpose for us in all this.

Creationism says the method God created human differs the method God created other species. what's the corresponding argument in TE? What's the role of Genesis? whenever one talks about the role of Genesis, he has to take certain parts literally.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Just like it fooled human beings into believing in a motionless earth for thousands of years.

Do you think General Relativity is right? If it's right then the statement "Earth is the center of universe and motionless" can't be falsified.

Was that really the fault of the bible, or the fault of those who wrote it, or of those who did not allow the study of God's world to assist in interpreting His word correctly?

Author of Bible is God. you can't criticize Him.
If Darwin so helped the interpretation of Bible, why no one calls him a theologian?