Why do some Christian's dismiss Creationism?

[ThaiDuykhang]

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?

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.

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

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?

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?

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?

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"

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.

-----------------------
newly added
9. Why a week lasts 7 days?
10. God would have been stupid, if he couldn't get everything right the first time
11. It's not the character of God to use misfits and death.

 

[Dracil]

Regarding your Catholic stuff, I'd suggest you read Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis. Also read Pope John Paul II's statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996.

I'd also like you to point out the exact sections in the Catechisms that explicitly states that "evolution is unacceptable"

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

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?

Darwin was a Christian when he developed his theory. Many of the pioneers of gradualism in geology were ministers.

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.

One's opinion about the process God used to create the world is for the most part irrelevant to one's salvation.

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

Jesus cares about bringing the lost sheep back to his Father. Science lessons can wait.

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 only non-theological "interference" that is required to properly understand Genesis is an understanding of how the ancient Hebrews would have understood it. When one uses a modern understanding on an ancient text, misinterpretation follows.

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?

That's your opinion. I think that it is arrogant to say that God should have done something one way because we think it is better. Rather, we should look to see what God actually did.

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?

Christianity has a long tradition of looking at God's Creation to understand God's creative act. There is along the strong tradtion that God's Creation is good.

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"

Perhaps not in those words, but John Paul II says its more than a hypothesis.

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.

Some parts of the Bible are non-literal. Literal doesn't equal true.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

This article might be useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

 

[Dracil]

Also, some words from St. Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Genesis in Twelve books)

"Now to think of God as forming man from the slime of the earth with bodily hands is childish. Indeed, if Scripture had said such a thing, we should be compelled to believe that the writer had used a metaphor rather than that God is contained in the structure of members such as we know in our bodies."

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."

Something for you to think about.

As for the answer to the title of the thread, we dismiss it because Creationism contradicts God's Creation.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

CCC makes no direct statement whether evolution is acceptable or not. so one has to turn to Tradition for answer.

Councils

Lateran Council IV and Vatican Council I assure us that all things, visible and invisible, were created in the six days of Creation week, and there is nothing being created by God at the present time.



Lateran VI says: Firmly we believe and we confess simply that the true God is one alone, eternal, immense, and unchangeable, incomprehensible, omnipotent and ineffable, Father and Son and Holy Spirit: indeed three Persons but one essence, substance, or nature entirely simple. The Father from no one, the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from both; without beginning, always, and without end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the Holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal and omnipotent and coeternal; one beginning of all, creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body. For the devil and other demons were created by God good in nature, but they themselves through themselves have become wicked. But man sinned at the suggestion of the devil.



Vatican Council I says: If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, or, shall have said that God created not by a volition free of all necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves Himself, or, shall have denied that the world was created to the glory of God: let him be anathema.



In 1441, the Council of Florence stated in its decrees: "God...is the creator of all things visible and invisible, who, when he wished, out of his goodness created all creatures, spiritual as well as corporal; good, indeed...since they were from nothing..."



In 1860, the Council of Cologne condemned the idea of human evolution in very straightforward words: "Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that...those who...assert...man...emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.”

Baltimore Catechism

Q. 241. Could man's body be developed from the body of an inferior animal?



A. Man's body could be developed from the body of an inferior animal if God so willed; but science does not



prove that man's body was thus formed, while revelation teaches that it was formed directly by God from the clay

Roman Catechism

Lastly, He formed man from the slime of the earth, so created and constituted in body as to be immortal and impassible, not, however, by the strength of nature, but by the bounty of God

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Darwin was a Christian when he developed his theory. Many of the pioneers of gradualism in geology were ministers.

I don't deny he's Christian
He has terrible faith before he "discovered" evolution.

One's opinion about the process God used to create the world is for the most part irrelevant to one's salvation.

What would God think, if you attribute His special efforts to monkeys/apes? According to you, is how bread turns into the the flesh of Jesus in mass irrelevent to one's salvation?

Jesus cares about bringing the lost sheep back to his Father. Science lessons can wait.

Who told you the method of creation is only a science issue and not a theology issue?

The only non-theological "interference" that is required to properly understand Genesis is an understanding of how the ancient Hebrews would have understood it. When one uses a modern understanding on an ancient text, misinterpretation follows.

evolution is a modern understanding, Creationism is traditional.

That's your opinion. I think that it is arrogant to say that God should have done something one way because we think it is better. Rather, we should look to see what God actually did.

isn't God for the best of human being? God can't be understand using physics. God is above all physic laws. one can only understand God using love.

Perhaps not in those words, but John Paul II says its more than a hypothesis.

JPII said it's right? JPII said it doesn't damage faith?

Some parts of the Bible are non-literal. Literal doesn't equal true.

I don't soly rely on literal interpretation. when discussing with fellow Catholics, I have tradition on my side

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I don't deny he's Christian
He has terrible faith before he "discovered" evolution.

Is it at all relevant?

What would God think, if you attribute His special efforts to monkeys/apes? According to you, is how bread turns into the the flesh of Jesus in mass irrelevent to one's salvation?

I don't attribute His special efforts to apes. Rather, I think that He created us in a different way than you think He created us.

I have no idea how the bread becomes Christ's flesh. The how is probably beyond any human's understanding.

Who told you the method of creation is only a science issue and not a theology issue?

The theological question is who created. The scientific question is how creation occured.

evolution is a modern understanding, Creationism is traditional.

Tradition isn't just about things being old.

isn't God for the best of human being? God can't be understand using physics. God is above all physic laws. one can only understand God using love.

God knows what is best. You and I can only make feeble attempts to know what God already knows.

JPII said it's right? JPII said it doesn't damage faith?

His comments make no sense if he believed that it does damage faith.

I don't soly rely on literal interpretation. when discussing with fellow Catholics, I have tradition on my side

An unquestioned assumption isn't Tradition.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Is it at all relevant?

Yes. even if Darwin hadn't "discovered" evolution. it would eventually have been "discovered" by someone with little faith. no faithful can challenge teaching of his church

I don't attribute His special efforts to apes. Rather, I think that He created us in a different way than you think He created us.

I have no idea how the bread becomes Christ's flesh. The how is probably beyond any human's understanding.

transubstantiation. bread remain it's taste etc but it's now Christ's flesh. not just a name change.

The theological question is who created. The scientific question is how creation occured.

Then why all Christian/Judaism/Muslim churches keep teaching Creationism before the appearence of Darwinism?

Tradition isn't just about things being old.

Tradition is about Catholic Church's never changing teaching in the past. recent popes teach nothing on the subject.

God knows what is best. You and I can only make feeble attempts to know what God already knows.

By approaching God with love, human can know. maybe you should explain to me why God thinks evolution is better than creationism for humans.

His comments make no sense if he believed that it does damage faith.

His comments simply contain no teaching. otherwise you risk calling all past popes heretics

An unquestioned assumption isn't Tradition.

It's answered, some just loses confidence the answer

 

[Dracil]

Ah, a copy and paste work from Sungenis. Let's break it down.

1st paragraph is Sungenis's own interpretation.
2nd paragraph: Does not actually state anything about evolution
3rd paragraph: Does not state anything about evolution. Creation ex nihilo is not incompatible with theistic evolution.
4th paragraph: same as above.
5th paragraph: As there is no concept of "imperfection" to "perfection" in evolution (rather it is just the population changing from one state to another state), this does not actually contradict evolution.

Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Trent. The Baltimore catechism was based on the Catechism of Trent, and the Catechism of Trent was already superseded by Pope Pius X's catechism, and in fact, contradicts parts of the CCC, hence why some people preferred the older catechisms. There is a good reason evolution is not addressed in the CCC. Those other sources I have provided you should make clear that reason.

Furthermore, you need to address Tradition in light of new information from the Church as well, as Tradition does not exist in a vacuum, and even then, what is accepted is a matter of dispute amongst Catholics, as demonstrated by those opposed to the reforms from the Second Vatican Council.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Ah, a copy and paste work from Sungenis. Let's break it down.

1st paragraph is Sungenis's own interpretation.
2nd paragraph: Does not actually state anything about evolution
3rd paragraph: Does not state anything about evolution. Creation ex nihilo is not incompatible with theistic evolution.
4th paragraph: same as above.
5th paragraph: As there is no concept of "imperfection" to "perfection" in evolution (rather it is just the population changing from one state to another state), this does not actually contradict evolution.

1st paragraph, you'd better offer prove it's wrong, instead of making empty accusations.
2nd paragraph,

who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human,

see the word "each"?
5th paragraph, "imperfect" in evolution means "inferior". in evolution, ancient human compared with modern human is imperfect, do you agree?

Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Trent. The Baltimore catechism was based on the Catechism of Trent, and the Catechism of Trent was already superseded by Pope Pius X's catechism, and in fact, contradicts parts of the CCC, hence why some people preferred the older catechisms. There is a good reason evolution is not addressed in the CCC. Those other sources I have provided you should make clear that reason.

Is Pius X not infallible or JPII is more infallible than Pius X? There's no contradition on evolution between CCC and Baltimore Catechism. CCC teaches nothing and can't contradict anything. your other sources are either ambiguous (like CCC) or have no authority (like from a cardinal)

Furthermore, you need to address Tradition in light of new information from the Church as well, as Tradition does not exist in a vacuum, and even then, what is accepted is a matter of dispute amongst Catholics, as demonstrated by those opposed to the reforms from the Second Vatican Council

It's current church must follow Tradition instead of Tradition must follow current church. Honorius I was declared a heretic with the help of Tradition.

 

[Dracil]

1st paragraph, you'd better offer prove it's wrong, instead of making empty accusations.

It's not an empty accusation. It's the equivalent of the thesis statement in an essay. It's disproven by disproving the rest of the paragraphs, which I did. Less empty rhetoric on your part would be appreciated.

If you meant my accusation it's a copy and paste work by Sungenis, I suggest you do a quick Google search with your quotes. Or are you actually claiming that the words "Lateran Council IV and Vatican Council I assure us that all thing, visible and invisible, were created in the six days of Creation week, and there is nothing being created by God at the present time. " and those that followed it were your own? If so, you may want to check the rules about plagiarism.

2nd paragraph,
see the word "each"?
5th paragraph, "imperfect" in evolution means "inferior". in evolution, ancient human compared with modern human is imperfect, do you agree?

No I don't actually. The fact that you're making that assumption highlights that you dont really understand evolution.

Is Pius X not infallible or JPII is more infallible than Pius X? There's no contradition on evolution between CCC and Baltimore Catechism. CCC teaches nothing and can't contradict anything. your other sources are either ambiguous or have no authority (like from a cardinal)

JPII was a cardinal? BTW, you may want to check your dates and history again. The Catechism of Trent was by Pius V not Pius X, the one I mentioned. Pius X's catechism was simply the Catechism of St. Pius X. There may be no contradiction about evolution between your catechisms and CCC, but there are contradictions between other teachings. The lack of mention of evolution itself though, is actually a blow to how important the one liners in the older catechisms you like (not very).

It's current church must follow Tradition instead of Tradition must follow current church. Honorius I was declared a heretic with the help of Tradition.

Then you must still go to mass in Latin? That's an example of Tradition that changed.

 

[Dracil]

Just in case you started replying during my edits, please check the edits and respond accordingly. Thanks.

 

[Dracil]

Oops, double post.

Oh well, might as well make use of it.

It may interest you to know that Robert Sungenis, whose arguments you used, also advocates geocentrism as something that must be accepted by all Catholics as well. Fascinating isn't it? As such, I refer to my second Augustine quote regarding his views.

 

[gluadys]

Creationism is dismissed because it is not factual.

Theology must be built on facts, as theology is not capable of changing facts.

Have to run now. Will respond to rest later.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

It's not an empty accusation. It's the equivalent of the thesis statement in an essay. It's disproven by disproving the rest of the paragraphs, which I did. Less empty rhetoric on your part would be appreciated.

If you meant my accusation it's a copy and paste work by Sungenis, I suggest you do a quick Google search with your quotes. Or are you actually claiming that the words "Lateran Council IV and Vatican Council I assure us that all thing, visible and invisible, were created in the six days of Creation week, and there is nothing being created by God at the present time. " and those that followed it were your own? If so, you may want to check the rules about plagiarism.

No I don't actually. The fact that you're making that assumption highlights that you dont really understand evolution.

One of my least favorite thing is debating evolution with Catholics. so much arrogance in their words. But it has to be done.

Burden of provingthe quotations are false is on you. I'm not responsible for others' words I just quote and put it here.

I have no problem discussing evolution with agnostics and atheists.

JPII was a cardinal? BTW, you may want to check your dates and history again. The Catechism of Trent was by Pius V not Pius X, the one I mentioned. Pius X's catechism was simply the Catechism of St. Pius X. There may be no contradiction about evolution between your catechisms and CCC, but there are contradictions between other teachings. The lack of mention of evolution itself though, is actually a blow to how important the one liners in the older catechisms you like (not very).

Speech to that science academy isn't infallible, like his attitude on Iraq War like St Peter's denial of Jesus Christ. And he no where says evolution is right or accepting evolution doesn't damage faith.

Give me an example of contradiction and tell me which pope do you think is a heretic.

Then you must still go to mass in Latin? That's an example of Tradition that changed.

If tradition held mass must be in Latin, then NOM would be invalid and heretical. but tradition never taught so. give me a quotation of the opposite if you like


Some Catholics are fastest to deny tradition in this thread. Pathetic, isn't it?

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Creationism is dismissed because it is not factual.

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

 

[Dracil]

One of my least favorite thing is debating evolution with Catholics. so much arrogance in their words. But it has to be done.

Burden of provingthe quotations are false is on you. I'm not responsible for others' words I just quote and put it here.

I have no problem discussing evolution with agnostics and atheists.

Pot. Kettle. Black. And I already proved them so. Not willing to accept them and pretending they weren't disproven is arrogance.

Speech to that science academy isn't infallible, like his attitude on Iraq War like St Peter's denial of Jesus Christ. And he no where says evolution is right or accepting evolution doesn't damage faith.

Nor are authoritative teachings.

Give me an example of contradiction and tell me which pope do you think is a heretic.

Given above. Whether you wish to accept them is your perogative.

If tradition held mass must be in Latin, then NOM would be invalid and heretical. but tradition never taught so. give me a quotation of the opposite if you like

Or perhaps the tradition that all masses had to be in Latin was invalid. Give me an example of masses not being in Latin before then.

Some Catholics are fastest to deny tradition in this thread. Pathetic, isn't it?

And apparently, some Catholics are fastest to resort to flaming.

Shape up or there's no more point in responding to you.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Pot. Kettle. Black. And I already proved them so. Not willing to accept them and pretending they weren't disproven is arrogance.

You need to prove quotations of council decisions are false, Baltimore Catechism and Roman Catechism are heretical etc. where's your prove?

Nor are authoritative teachings.

You're right and?

Given above. Whether you wish to accept them is your perogative.

I don't accept them as contradicting and no one is a heretic. if you think they're contradicting, then tell which one is a heretic.

Or perhaps the tradition that all masses had to be in Latin was invalid. Give me an example of masses not being in Latin before then.


And apparently, some Catholics are fastest to resort to flaming.

There're simply no other forms of masses defined back then. currently we have 2 forms of mass. Tridentine and NOM
Then explain to me how you follow Tradition?

 

[ebia]

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

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

This is an accusation:

One of my least favorite thing is debating evolution with Catholics. so much arrogance in their words.

And this:

Some Catholics are fastest to deny tradition in this thread. Pathetic, isn't it?