I'm trying to find out more about Creationism. Does anyone know of any Catholic website about Creationism? I've found a couple, but I think they're mostly Protestant. Do Catholics and Protestant have the same beliefs when it comes to Creationism? I just want to make sure that I'm learning the Catholic belief on this subject.

Thank you.

-- Melanie (design465@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003

Answers

Well, that would depend on just what you mean by "Creationism". If you mean the belief that God created all that exists outside of Himself, and that He alone is responsible for the existence of the universe and everything in it - then Catholics and Protestants both hold those beliefs absolutely.

On the other hand, if you are speaking of openess to the findings of science regarding the natural means God may have used to bring about change over time within His creation, most Protestants are not open to such information, having already decided that their interpretation of scientific findings conflicts with their interpretation of the biblical account of creation. The Catholic Church on the other hand, is open to genuine truth from all sources, recognizes that truth cannot conflict with truth, and does not feel threatened by scientific discovery. The Church does not teach that biological evolution within God's creation IS a fact, or is NOT a fact. The Church recognizes this as a scientific, not a theological question, and allows its members to decide for themselves based upon the available scientific evidence, but always subject to the following essential doctrinal truths:

(1) Human nature, among all of physical creation, includes an immortal soul and supernatural character which could not have come into existence by any natural means.

(2) Therefore, man could not have come into being by biological evolution alone. At some point in time, God necessarily breathed immortal spiritual life into a pre-existing biological entity, thereby creating the first human beings "in His own image and likeness".

As long as these necessary truths are satisfied, we may accept any theory we choose concerning the means by which God may have brought the above-mentioned "biological entity" into existence. If you wish to accept the Protestant position that God, in one moment, formed the body of man from "the dust of the earth", and then immediately breathed spiritual life into that body, that is completely compatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Or, if you wish to accept the idea that God formed the body of man from inorganic matter ("the dust of the earth") over a long period of time, through a complex biological process of His own design and creation, and then breathed spiritual life into that body, that is likewise completely compatible with the teaching of the Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 08, 2003.

Thanks Paul, I have been wondering about this very thing. One of our teachers at a small rural parish has been introducing the theory of evolution in her class. I do not object to this being taught as a "theory" as that is all that it is, however, as you probably know, it is generally taught as fact within our public school system, and should certainly NOT be taught as fact within a Christian school.

Much has been discovered since Darwin's theory of evolution was hatched, and hence many scientists no longer subscribe to this theory as fact. Darwin's theory hit the big-time in our country in the 60's, and since that time we have seen the demoralization of our country, from sex, drugs and rock 'n roll to the anniliation of the family. Any connection? Could be. After all, if Darwin's theory is correct, might as well "eat and drink for tomorrow we die."

You could also logically draw a connection between Hitler's Final Solution, i.e., the extermination of those not fit for human life (survival of the fitest). You could also draw a connection between Darwinianism and euthanasia, abortion, etc.

Good topic. Thanks for bringing it up.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 09, 2003.

So, what you're saying is the Catholic Church doesn't really teach one certain thing on Creationism. (Whether it took 6 days to create the universe or it took a process over millions of years).

-- Melanie (design465@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.

Hi Melanie,

You might want to try
Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation.

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 10, 2003.

Actually, the universe was probably created instantaneously - that is to say, the sum total of matter and energy which make up the universe, and which were created ex nihil by God, by an act of His divine will. However, the Church makes no statements about how long it then took for planets and solar systems to form, how long it took the earth to cool to a temperature where life could exist, how long it took for life to appear on earth, or any of the other ongoing developmental changes which God brought about. The Church cannot make such a statement because this information has not been revealed by God. Why would it be? It has no bearing on salvation or on our relationship with God. Science has discovered some of this information, and the Church allows us to accept what science reveals - or to reject it if that is our preference. One thing we do know with certainty. The universe was not created in six earth days. Not only is this utterly impossible based on what we know from science, but there is no reason to think that the eternal God, in bringing the universe into existence, would base the timing of His creation on the period of revolution of one little planet in one solar system in one galaxy among millions, which hadn't even been created yet. A period of 24 hours is significant to creatures who happen to live on this little planet. God however is not bound by earth days.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 10, 2003.

Jmj

It's not going to be fun for me -- possibly getting attacked from both sides after I say this -- but it is impossible for me to stay silent (for Melanie's benefit).

It can often be unwise to take a position at one extreme or another. I think I'm seeing two guys here at opposite extremes, and I can't approve of either.

On the one hand, we have "FGC" trying to send Melanie to something called the "Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation." I didn't have time to look at everything at the site, but what I did look at shows that FGC goes along with the site's insistence that it is impossible (and even contrary to the Catholic faith) to believe in evolution -- whether atheistic or theistic evolution.

This is an extreme position. It is not taught by the Church. It is even against what the Church teaches, for she allows for the possibility of so-called theistic evolution.

On the other hand, we have Paul M mostly saying good and legitimate things, but then trying to tell Melanie that she is not permitted to believe in a literal reading of Genesis: "One thing we do know with certainty. The universe was not created in six earth days. Not only is this utterly impossible ..."

This too is an extreme position. It too is not taught by the Church. No one (except God) can say that he "know[s] with certainty" that the "universe was not created in six earth days." No mere mortal can say that it is "utterly impossible" for God to use "six earth days." As the angel Gabriel told Our Lady, "nothing is impossible with God."

Now, I am not arguing in favor of creation "in six earth days." I am just playing the "devil's advocate" to show that the Church permits a wider range of beliefs about this than we being permitted in the above two posts. It seems more likely to me that some kind of "theistic evolution" occurred -- though I will probably never make up my mind about this.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.

Dear John,

My saying that we know with certainty that the universe was not created in six earth days is not equivalent to saying that Melanie is "not permitted" to believe otherwise. She, or anyone else, has complete freedom to believe whatever they wish to believe in this regard. What we know to be true from science would make a literalist interpretation clearly erroneous; but I never suggested that people do not have a right to be wrong if that is their choosing. Neither did I suggest that the facts concerning the gradual development of the universe are "taught by the Church". The Church is not in the business of teaching astrophysics or other related sciences.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 11, 2003.

Hi Melanie,

You also might want to read

Providentiss imus Deus
ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII

Good luck in your studies. FGC

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 11, 2003.

"...what I did look at shows that FGC goes along with the site's insistence..."

JFG,

Would you please verify your telepathic powers concerning my beliefs about theistic evolution?
Do you realize how you sound?
Aren't you embarrassed?

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 11, 2003.

Oh, in other words, FGC, you recommended that Melanie go to the "Kolbe Center" site -- even though you reject the Center's position? The Center appears to reject "theistic evolution." Are you now saying that you support "theistic evolution," but you sent Melanie to the Kolbe site anyway? If so, I wish that you had made that clear to her and all of us. (Under the circumstances, I see no need to feel embarrassed. Maybe you should!)

Thank you, Paul M, for your clarification, but I still reject what part of what you are claiming. I know that you are a scientist, so I would have expected you to avoid claiming, as a categorical fact, something that is not scientifically proved (and is probably unprovable) beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It is improper for you to say this: "What we know to be true from science would make a literalist interpretation clearly erroneous; but I never suggested that people do not have a right to be wrong if that is their choosing."

(1) We can "know" a lot of things "to be true from science" -- that is, things that scientists can determine with certainty about the present. But there are many things that science cannot "know to be true" about the past. About many things of the past, science can only theorize, not "know." Among the things about which science can only theorize are how God created everything and how quickly he created everything.

(2) From the first point -- that only "theorizing" about the origins of everything, not "knowing," can be done by science -- it follows naturally that the Church permits us to believe in the possibility of creation in "six earth days." And it also follows that neither you nor I are capable, or permitted, to tell others that such a belief is "to be wrong." The Church does not permit us to insult other believers by saying that they "have a right to be wrong." Instead, Catholics have a right to believe anything, in this area, that has not absolutely been proved wrong by science. (It it had been absolutely proved wrong, the Church would not permit us to believe it.) [By the way, people do not "have a right to be wrong." They only have the freedom "to be wrong."]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.

"(1) We can "know" a lot of things "to be true from science" -- that is, things that scientists can determine with certainty about the present. But there are many things that science cannot "know to be true" about the past. About many things of the past, science can only theorize, not "know." Among the things about which science can only theorize are how God created everything and how quickly he created everything."

A: That's right John, we do not know the exact time frame for the development of the universe. But just as we can only theorize about "many" things in the past, we also have substantial knowledge about "many" things in the past. We know that the earth was originally a mass of molten matter, and that it took a very long time for the surface to cool to a temperature where life would be a possibility. Therefore, we know for a fact that life, let alone complex animals, did not appear on earth within 144 hours of the formation of the earth. Therefore, anyone who interprets the Genesis story in that simplistic fashion is simply wrong. I still maintain that they have every right to do so however, if that is their preference for whatever reason.

(2) "And it also follows that neither you nor I are capable, or permitted, to tell others that such a belief is "to be wrong." Catholics have a right to believe anything, in this area, that has not absolutely been proved wrong by science. (It it had been absolutely proved wrong, the Church would not permit us to believe it.)

A: Yes, I already said that I fully support the right of a Catholic or anyone else to believe whatever they want in this area, since it is merely a matter of scientific knowledge, and not a matter of necessary doctrine. I also fully support their right to believe that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of green cheese. However, I certainly do have the right, and more importantly the knowledge, to point out that these beliefs are in error. I try to be sensitive in doing so, since it is only a matter of scientific knowledge, not a matter of salvation. But as a teacher I would be remiss if I simply let people persist in ignorance when pointing out a few simple facts might cause them to think about things in a new way, which they simply had not thought about before. That's the process of education.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 11, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Paul M.

You wrote: "... we also have substantial knowledge about 'many' things in the past."

I disagree. We have "substantial knowledge" only of historical events witnessed by man and "recorded" by him (in writing or via oral tradition). About the rest, we don't have "substantial knowledge," but rather scattered facts from which people have drawn up "assumptions" and "theories."

"We know that the earth was originally a mass of molten matter, and that it took a very long time for the surface to cool to a temperature where life would be a possibility. Therefore, we know for a fact that life, let alone complex animals, did not appear on earth within 144 hours of the formation of the earth."

In light of what I explained to you in my previous message, I don't know how you could have persuaded yourself to use such language. Actually, we don't "know" that the earth was a "mass of molten matter" that needed "a very long time ... to cool." Instead, some scientists have "theories" and "assumptions" that these things are true, based on objects examined and observable events in our own time. But, we don't actually "know" that these scientists are right, because (1) no man was alive to witness creation and because (2) God has not revealed its details to us.

I am being very precise about language and thought here, and my mind does not allow even the possibility of simply accepting a potentially wrong assumption. By contrast, you are freely accepting scientists' potentially wrong assumptions as if they are things that we "know." Perhaps you are doing this because, as a scientist, you are trained to do so (to freely accept) and because you could not otherwise do your job. But here we are not merely doing a job. We are examining something that requires far more precision before we can use the words, "I know" -- namely the certainty that comes from (1) contemporaneous visual witness or (2) divine revelation. These are lacking, so we are unable to use the words, "I know."

You wrote: "Therefore, anyone who interprets the Genesis story in that simplistic fashion is simply wrong. I still maintain that they have every right to do so however, if that is their preference for whatever reason.

We are not capable of saying that this person is "wrong," because their rightness or wrongness cannot be proved. However, if this person really were "wrong," he would have no "right" to hold that "preference." No one has the "right" to be (or to prefer) what is wrong.

"I also fully support their right to believe that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of green cheese. However, I certainly do have the right, and more importantly the knowledge, to point out that these beliefs are in error."

I'm glad you brought this up, because it helps me to illustrate the distinction I've been trying to explain. I reiterate that no one has a "right" to believe that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of green cheese -- but they do have the liberty to believe those things. And you do indeed have the liberty and knowledge "to point out that these beliefs are in error." Why? Because science can prove that "these beliefs are in error." They are untenable, because the contrary can be demonstrated via human experience that can be witnessed in our own time. By contrast, science cannot prove what you have chosen to believe about creation. It can only theorize and make assumptions. And that is why it is inaccurate and unjust to use the words, "wrong" and "error," to refer to people who interpret Genesis literally. It seems to me less likely that they are right, but no one has absolute proof that they are wrong.

You wrote: "But as a teacher I would be remiss if I simply let people persist in ignorance when pointing out a few simple facts might cause them to think about things in a new way, which they simply had not thought about before. That's the process of education."

Paul, I'm not sure that you wanted to give me such a big opening to drive through! I won't refer to your position as "persist[ence] in ignorance," but only as "persistence in unclear thinking" -- which persistence I hope has now come to an end. I have been "pointing out a few simple facts" to cause you "to think about things in a new way" -- to urge you to begin drawing necessary distinctions between a "science of facts" and a "science of theories." I hope that this "process of education" has enlightened you!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 12, 2003.

"The Catholic and Protestant view should be the same, since we all proclaim the Bible as being God's Word--and He clearly describes how He created everything."

A: Why would the Catholic and Protestant views be the same, when there is no doctrinal belief that all Protestants accept in the same way? Catholics and Protestants both use the Bible, but Catholics have access to authoritative, accurate interpretation. Protestants simply guess what various passages might mean, which predictably results in multiple interpretations of virtually every passage in the Bible. the Bible does not describe "how" God created everything. It simply states THAT He created everything. Science gives us insights into the specifics which the Bible doesn't address at all.

"Unfortunately their are many people who think that they have to reconcile evolution with God's Word because they believe that evolution is a fact. This belief system is refered to as "Theistic Evolution."

A: To a believer in God, all science is theistic. In fact, a believer's whole world view is theistic. "Theistic evolution" is not a "belief system" any more than "theistic photosynthesis" is. A believer in God simply acknowledges that all natural systems and phenomena are the work of His hand.

"I think that Creation Science should be taught along side Evolution in maybe a Philosophy type course--rather than in a "science" class because in truth, neither evolution or creation can really be considered a true science study. True science must necessarily be demonstrable within a laboratory setting."

A: Really? So we should not teach about black holes and quasars? we should not teach about atoms, since they are not directly demonstrable in the laboratory? (actually no-one has ever seen one). In fact, evolutionary change can easily be demonstrated in the laboratory using bacterial cultures, which reproduce a new generation every half hour or so, and therefore represent an accelerated example of genetic change.

"In other words--we must be able to repeat it in order to observe it--otherwise it cannot fall under a "true science" category. We cannot do that where origins are conserned because we cannot go back in time to that moment when life began."

A: Here you demonstrate the typical misconception that evolutionary biology deals with origins. It does not. Evolutionary biology deals with the mechanisms of change in already existing organisms. Evolution explains many observable details of speciation. It demonstrates nothing about initial origins, nor does it claim to.

"We can only develope models of hypothesis and then study our world to see what is most likely the truth about our origins."

A: That's right. That's how science works. We develop hypotheses and then study to see what is most likely true. That applies to whatever we are studying - the causes of cancer, the formation of species, the origins of the universe, whatever.

"I think we are best served to listen to what God has revealed to us about our origins--and Creation Science shows us that the world in which we live better fits the "creation model", as opposed to the "evolution model."

A: There is no true science which suggests any such solution. So-called "creation science" is simply fundamentalist biblical interpretation couched in scientific and pseudoscientific terms. No-one who knows anything about science - OR anything about the Bible - will swallow a word of it.

"A very good book on the matter is titled "What is Creation Science?" Written by Henry Morris and Gary Parker. This book does not contend with religion at all. It is strictly about Creation Science."

A: Nonsense. This book is just one of dozens cranked out by fundamentalist Christian groups, presenting their unauthorized manmade theologies under the thin guise of pseudoscience. On a typical page of such a work a knowledgeable person can point out multiple errors, both scientific and biblical.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 21, 2003.

"True science means knowledge--not speculative philosophy or naturalism."

A: In fact, true science, while not a "philosophy", is highly speculative in nature, dealing primarily in theories and hypotheses.

"The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation, repeatability."

A: Right - for example, observation and measurement of the fossil content of sediments of a particular geologic age, over and over again, from localities around the world, repeatedly finding the same life forms associated with given periods of geologic time, and more complex life forms in more recent strata.

"The great philosopher of science, Karl Popper stresses that "falsifiability" is the necessary criterion of genuine science."

A: Right - which is why your initial statement was wrong. Scientific "knowledge" is always subject to change, in view of subsequent evidence. If anyone ever discovers any scientific evidence indicating that biological evolution did not occur, true scientists will have to take such evidence into account. To date however, all available evidence - and there are mountains of it - point to evolution as a reality.

"Clearly neither model of origins--evolution or creation --is scientific in this sense."

A: We are not talking about origins. We are talking about evolution - ongoing change in already existing organisms. The origin lies outside the realm of science, since it is scientifically impossible for matter and energy to appear spontaneously from nothing.

"The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of man-- all took place in the past and cannot now be studied in the laboratory."

A; Nonsense. Events of the past leave evidence which can be observed in the present. Therefore the past can be studied in the present. Such sciences as archaeology, paleontology, astronomy, etc. all use present evidence to study past events. In astronomy, events which actually occurred eons ago can actually be observed happening in present time.

"Although you seem to deny it--the evolution model does indeed claim that life began by chance and time. It purports that somehow life spontaneously errupted up out of nothing by chance. It denies a creator or designer."

A: That is simply not true, as shown by the great number of believers who happen to work as scientists. No scientific theory makes reference to God, either pro or con, because God lies far beyond the realm of science. Scientists simply observe and interpret natural events in natural terms. A scientist who is a believer knows that what he observes is the work of God. A scientist who is an atheist assumes that what he observes happened atheistically. But neither of those viewpoints is part of the scientific process. The purely scientific conclusions of an atheist and a Christian with equal scientific background are equally valid. The fact that a neurosurgeon may be an atheist does not make brain surgery an atheistic subject. That is pure nonsense.

"Creation science does not deny that things have varied and mutated within its own kind--and that is something we can see. But it is a stretch to believe that man used to be a fish or that dinosaurs have evolved into birds."

A: We know that life has been present on this planet for hundreds of millions of years. We also know that living things have been mutating, just as you said, for that entire time. It is a stretch to believe that something could undergo continuous change for a million years, and end up the same thing it was before it started to change. Draw a picture of an animal. Then make 5,000 different changes in your drawing. Then try to convince someone that what you have is still a picture of the same animal. Change "within its own kind" is tenable in the short term. But not in the long term. Cumulative changes over a very long period of time will necessarily change a thing enough so that it can no longer reasonably be called the same thing it was before the changes started to accumulate. This is just common sense.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 23, 2003.

My college physical anthropology book started with the passage from Genesis (on the page before the contents--I forget what it is called), and went on with the science from there. I never had any problems reconciling the two.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 23, 2003.

There is never a problem reconciling truth with truth. Of course I'm not suggesting that everything scientists propose is necessarily the truth. However, when it comes to the collective consensus of the world's leading scientists vs. some unauthorized denominational church's interpretations of a book which denominational religion has already demonstrated its inability to interpret, I lean toward the opinion of the experts.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 23, 2003.

AAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!! who let faith back in here?!?!?! last thing before i left for break, faith was banned for life? has that been changed or is she trying to sneak back in using an alternate IP?

if the ban has been lifted, WHY? after the hate, contempt, and scorn she showed for the church, us, Christ's mother, etc etc, and her repeated violations of rules which she was fully informed about i would have thought shed bought a one way ticket out of our forum...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 23, 2003.

oops, faith, i appologize, i had you mixed up with jeanie for a minute there. while i dont agree with you, i dont think youve done anything to warrant banning either, so i hope you will forgive me for my rash typing...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 24, 2003.

"What you seem to fail to understand is that Creation Science is not a study of the Bible or of any religion. It can be studied independent of the Bible."

A: Regardless of whether scripture passages are avoided to create an illusion of "science", the whole nonsensical philosophy is based solely upon fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. That is the sole source of the claims that are made, regardless of whether they are attributed to that source or not.

"The evolution model, by its very nature, is an atheistic model (even though not all evolutionists are atheists)since it purports to explain everything without God."

A: As I already said, ALL true science explains things in natural terms, without reference to God, precisely because science is the study of the natural world, and God is not part of that natural world. Does a physiologist explain digestion in terms of theology? Does a chemist explain the reactions of molecules as works of God? Does a physicist bring God into a lecture on quantum electrodynamics? Of course not! And if he does, he has taken the liberty of a momentary departure from the realm of science. Does this mean that "an atheistic model" of digestion or chemical interaction is being presented? Of course not! It means that a purely scientific presentation is being given. Ecvolutionary biology is no different.

"The Creation model, by its nature, is a theistic model (even though not all creationists believe in a personal God) since it requires a creator able to create the whole cosmos."

A: Correct - which is why it has nothing to do with science, even though some of its tenets may be quite true. Theologically true, not scientifically true. Which is why it so quickly becomes false when it attempts to incorporate scientific matters into its philosophy.

Theism and atheism are mutually exclusive philosophies and are therefore in the same category.

A: Of course they are mutually exclusive. And neither has any direct application to scientific inquiry. I'm not quite sure what "category" might includes both knowledge and ignorance.

Whoever defined science as naturalism? The word science comes from the Latin scientia meaning "knowledge."

A: Science is indeed naturalistic, in the philosophical, not the theological sense. Philosophical naturalism is defined as "a system of thought holding that phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws and causes, without attributing moral, spiritual, or supernatural significance to them". That's science in a nutshell! Which is why a Christian and an atheist can draw equally valid scientific conclusions from observed phenomena, since they are both working from the same perspective - the scientific perspective. Once such purely scientific conclusions are drawn, how they relate personally to those scientific revelations will of course depend upon their religious identity. But at that point they have moved past science.

"To assume that knowledge can be acquired solely on the assumption of naturalism is to beg the question altogether. Scientists are suppose to search for the truth., wherever that search may lead."

A: SCIENTIFIC knowledge can be acquired solely through natural means, and only relative to natural entities. There is of course a tremendous fund of knowledge that pertains to other than the natural realm, and this is where an atheistic scientist and a theistic scientist part company - but this is not a scientific disagreement, for the supernatural lies outside the realm of science, and its truths cannot be attained through the methods of science.

"Since you believe in God, I am surprised that you can believe that God created us--yet evolution explains our existence better than creation science does."

A: It doesn't matter which one I think "explains" our existence better. That question is philosophical, not scientific. The scientific question is which explanation is better supported by the available, observable scientific evidence.

"Let me just give you an example of how Creation Science works. We know that the evolution model claims that we have evolved from lesser organisms and have slowly over time developed into man."

A: Yes - biologically! And for an atheist, that's the whole story. But of course believers, including scientists who are believers, know that man is not merely a biological entity.

"The Creation model claims that we were created exactly as we are--men from the get-go."

A: That's right. As soon as God breathed an immortal soul into the biological entity He had previously created from the dust of the earth, man existed. Until that moment, man didn't exist. Incidentally, what does "just as we are" mean? We are not all alike. African Pygmies, Australian Bushmen, and your typical British man on the street are quite different indeed. How did that happen?

"If evolution is true--then the fossil record should be replete with transitional fossils of all the stages we were before that final leap into manhood"

A: Of course; and indeed it is. The mere fact that we have not yet found all of them is to be expected. We haven't found every solar system yet either, but they are still there. The significant number we have found, through the few little scratches we have so far made in the surface of the earth, is a firm indication of the presence of a great many more that are yet to be found.

"(and I would ask *why* have we stopped evolving?)"

A: Who says we have? The only way to stop evolving is to become extinct.

"If Creation is true- -then the fossil record should reveal fossils of man appearing suddenly in the record, and exactly as we are."

A: That's right. But instead, the fossil record shows many pre-hominid forms which existed prior to anything that could - biologically - be called "human". And the oldest known populations which possessed distinctly humanoid biological features were quite different from modern man.

"You may not believe that evolution purports to explain our origins, but you are wrong. That is a newly made claim by evolutionists."

A: You may have misinterpreted my previous statements. When i spoke of "origins" not being addressed by evolutionary biology, I meant the initial origin of the universe - of matter and energy. In your statement above, you refer to "our" origins. That is a different story. Yes, evolutionary biology does indeed seek to reveal the biological history of our own species, just like any other species. Again, for an atheist, sadly, that's the whole picture. For a believer, evolution can only describe the unbelievably complex and wondrous natural process through which God saw fit to form the body of man from the dust of the earth. It cannot describe the origin of man, for man was formed in God's image and likeness, at the moment He breathed spiritual life into a biological entity He had already formed. That's what the Bible tells us. But it doesn't tell us the natural process God may have used to form that biological entity.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 24, 2003.

And just because we can explain some of what has happened in the past, or what happens during the course of a pregnancy makes it no less of a God-given miracle.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 24, 2003.

Someone stated earlier in this discussion that the Church doesn’t state that creation didn’t take place in six days. However, in her role as interpreter of the Sacred Scriptures, the Church has indeed stated that the Genesis story of six days for creation is symbolism.

‘‘337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day.’’ (CCC)

The central truth of creation is that God is the Creator of all things, visible and invisible . The Church recognises that Sacred Scripture describes how creation occurred in symbolic language. However, as Paul said, she doesn’t categorically state the exact processes of how God chose to physically bring about the reality of our Universe.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), December 26, 2003.

"Paul...you clearly have no idea just what Creation Science really is. I suggest you read the book before you mock it. Your responses reveal that you have not so much as read a single word about the topic."

A: In fact I have read such a book cover to cover, and have started reading several similar books (I don't recall which one I forced myself to finish - that was years ago). However, it soon became apparent that all such books are simply regurgitations of the same nonsense trying to pass itself off as "science". It also became pitifully obvious that the writers knew virtually nothing of science. For example, every such book devotes a chapter to "proving" that humans are not descended from apes, an idea that it so ridiculous that no scientist would ever make such a claim. The very idea of men evolving from apes was concocted by fundamentalist religious groups as a means of riduculing legitimate science. Yet anyone who reads such material would think (as you apparently do) that this is actually an idea that scientists believe.

"A study of our earth is the same whether you are a creationist or evolutionist. We are working with the same evidence. The difference is in what you believe about this natural evidence and what it is telling us."

A: A scientist approches the evidence with an open mind, and draws whatever conclusions the evidence indicates. A so-called "Creationist" approaches the scientific evidence with the purpose of either refuting it, or forcing it to fit the conclusions he has already formed from other sources. I wouldn't call that "the same" at all.

"Just as we are means that *we*-- being human beings--appear in the fossil record as fully developed human beings. We appear suddenly and there are no transitional fossils even though scienctists work feverishly to find them. Apes and other baboons and whatnot, are just that...apes and baboons and whatnot. They are not pre-humans. Human beings are human beings. Neanderthal man is one of the greatest proofs that man used to live longer, just as God's Word reveals in Genesis."

A: Here we have a typical example of the kind of nonsense you are fed while reading one of these books. In fact, "we" do not appear suddenly at all. Numerous biologically pre-human forms are known, preceding any forms which are clearly biologically human. I say "biologically" because the creation of man in God's image and likeness from a pre-existing biological entity was a supernatural act, which cannot be determined from biological evidence. Therefore we actually have no way of knowing which early hominids were truly human and which were not. Or to put it another way, we have no way of knowing the point in historical time when our biological lineage received from God an immortal soul and moral capacity, thereby becoming human. As you say, apes, baboons, etc. are entirely separate biological lines, and are not and never were pre-humans. NO-ONE claims otherwise, so I don't see the point of mentioning this obvious fact. (I just love it when these books state "Men could not have evolved from apes because apes are STILL HERE!", as though this were some sort of profound revelation. Golly gee, how careless of scientists to have overlooked this fact!) We don't know what the life expectancy of Neanderthal "man" was, though it was likely far shorter than that of modern man. However, whatever it was, it doesn't offer any evidence concerning early human beings because the Neanderthal line became extinct, and clearly was NOT ancestral to modern man.

"I believe that God can be taken at His Word that it was six days-- because God can do anything and there is really no evidence that the earth is as old as scientists claim."

A: It's really pretty egocentric to think that God based the timing of the creation of the entire cosmos on the period of revolution of one little planet. (You do realize that "day" doesn't mean "24 hours" anywhere else in the universe but here?). You seriously think that scientists make "claims" without first observing relevant evidence? Again, this just demonstrates a dearth of understanding regarding science and how it works.

"Prior to written history (which only goes back a few thousand years), of course, chronologists are forced to rely on various changing physical systems (e.g., decaying radioactive minerals, erroding continents, build-up of chemicals in oceans.,etc..) for time estimates. None of these estimates, which are really just assumptions, are provable, testable or even reasonable. Some of these methods for calculating age are so unreliable that many archaeologists have abandoned them altogether".

A: That is absurd. Your books tell you that "scientists have abandoned many of these methods altogether", but they fail to tell you that this happens only when new and more accurate methods have replaced the older methods. Radiodating is extremely accurate, and becoming more accurate all the time as methods become more refined. I had to laugh when one of your little anti-evolution books claimed that "scientists admit that carbon dating can be off by as much as 50,000 years!" This is true of course. What they don't point out is that in dating fossils from the Cambrian Period, 600,000,000 million years ago, an error of 50,000 years is less than 0.001% error.

"But it doesn't matter.,my point is that God created us by design, and we did not evolve up out of some puddle of sludge--through time and chance, as evolution (in the Darwinian sense) teaches."

A: Exactly right! Darwin was an atheist, and an atheistic explanation of evolution is theologically erroneous. And, his attribution of all evolutionary change to simple natural selction is scientifically inadequate. But that's what science is about - building on the basic discoveries of earlier scientists.

"We don't have to comprimise the Word of God for the word of men."

A: No, we don't, for the word of men, when true, aligns perfectly with the Word of God, which is truth. We have nothing to fear from science. Truths revealed by science cannot conflict with God's revealed truth, and when such a conflict appears to a small group of people, we can be sure that either their understanding of science or their understanding of scripture, or both, are faulty. Given that the people who write books like the one you recommended have no scientific training, and have no means of understanding scripture except their own person interpretations, it's no wonder that they waste time and effort fighting against enemies that don't exist except in their own imaginations.

"Not only does the creation model better explain the scientific data"

A: Curious then that scientists who have broght their scientific training and in-depth knowledge to bear on the scientific data have not noticed this?? Either they must be wrong in their scientific conclusions - or you must be wrong in yours. No contest!

"I am not going to claim that these religions: Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism, Confucianism, Sikhism, Jainism, Animism, Spiritism, Occultism, Satanism, Theosophy, Bahaism, Mysticism, Liberal Judaism, Liberal Islam, Liberal Christianity, Unitarianism, Religious Science, Unity, or Humanism., are all based on modern Darwinism--because some of these religions obviously pre-date Darwin. But--They are all anti-creationist evolutionary religions and have easily adapted to modern evolutionary science."

A: Yes - because they all recognize that scientific investigation is not part of their religion, and that they have nothing to fear from truth, regardless of its source.

"The basic criterion of evolutionism is the rejection of a personal transcendent Creator who supernaturally called the space-time universe into existence out of nothing but His omnipotence."

A: Utter nonsense. What you describe is the basic criterion of atheism, not of biology.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 26, 2003.

Well, has anyone noticed that Genesis contains two completely different creation stories? (1:1-2:3; and 2:4-2:9). Not only different, but contradictory!

This seems to suggest that even the earliest readers of Genesis were not expected to take the creation stories literally.

What is important about the stories is:

* God and only God created everything. Genesis therefore firmly rejects the Canaanite/Babylonian creation story that many of its earliest readers would have considered authoritative. (It is similar to Genesis 1:1ff., but involves several gods and goddesses at each stage).

* Some aspects of the human condition are because our first ancestors broke God's commands.

Scripture is divinely inspired, but it is also God's word to a specific people at a specific place and time. Paul's epistle to the Corinthians was God's word to the Corinthians, and while we can read it with profit, we must not presume to treat it as a private message to us. Similarly the ten commandments and the prescriptions of the Torah were meant for the Israelites. Similarly Genesis was written for a people who had problems accepting monotheism. Presumably some of them would point to polytheistic creation stories to show that there must be more than one god.

From the viewpoint of such a reader, the most striking features of Genesis 1:1ff. would be:

* Only one God is necessary to explain life, the Universe, and everything.

*God is not just the tribal god of the Hebrews, he is the God of all descendants of Adam and Eve. (Interestingly, a "first couple" must exist as a logical necessity of evolutionary theory.)

What is NOT important in these accounts is the precise mechanism of creation, which simply follows the traditional (polytheistic) stories. To underline that this is not important, we have monotheistic versions of two DIFFERENT traditional stories. It's as if the author is saying "Okay, these are common ideas abouot how creation happened, but in one important respect, they can't be right! It's gotta be this way, with only one God..

What creationists are trying to establish as scientific fact are the primitive (and heathen) ideas of Canaan and Babylon. Even the Canaanites took them about as seriously as modern Hindus take the idea that the Earth is balanced on the backs of an infinite stack of turtles.

-- __ (___@__.__), December 26, 2003.

Faith,

You seem to have difficulty grasping that to believe in God creating all things doesn’t necessarily conflict with scientific theories of how that creation physically came about. You’re right when you say that nobody can say without a doubt how creation actually occurred. However, since God gave scientists (and all of us) intellect, and these scientists have studied, as far as possible to-date, creation, I would tend towards giving them the benefit of the doubt that some form of evolution has occurred. My belief is that God chose this way, just as he chose that humans would share in his creation through the process of procreation. In fact we can say that creation is still occurring. It isn’t yet complete and won’t be until the last day. Humans change physically, and probably in other subtle ways, from one generation to the next, we evolve slowly over time, according to God’s will.

If I’m ill I pray for a cure. However, I don’t just pray for a cure, I go to a doctor, who shares in God’s plan that we may or may not (by his Divine will) be healed. God gives these scientists the ability to study, learn and put into practise what they’ve learned. I don’t think to myself that God will heal me without utilising the services of the doctors whom he enabled to participate in the healing process. Likewise, I wouldn’t dream of only trusting in the skills of doctors without also putting my total trust in God.

There really doesn’t have to be a conflict between science and religion, providing we allow for the fact that God may not necessarily do things in the way that we’d expect Him to. Certainly, some scientists would deny the existence of God, but that doesn’t mean that we can say that all of the valid findings that have been made by these scientists can or should be ignored. At the end of the day we know that they cannot disprove God’s existence, or his Creation of all that is visible and invisible (however He did it!), because that’s Truth, and Truth cannot be denied.

God bless you

Sara

p.s. I recently had the pleasure to attend a course on the writings of the Old Testament, given by a young priest who'd specialised in this subject in Rome. The last poster ...@... gave a beautiful summary of what this priest taught about Genesis, and the style of writings of the Old Testament. Thank you!

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), December 27, 2003.

Jmj

Hi, Sara.
I do not take a "literalist" position on the creation of the universe as related in Genesis. However, in playing the "devil's advocate," earlier in this thread, I defended the right of others to interpret Genesis literally without being ridiculed. (I did this because I was taught long ago that the Church permits us to take such a position.)

It may have been my defense of others that elicited the following comment and CCC quotation from you:
"Someone stated earlier in this discussion that the Church doesn’t state that creation didn’t take place in six days. However, in her role as interpreter of the Sacred Scriptures, the Church has indeed stated that the Genesis story of six days for creation is symbolism. '337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine 'work,' concluded by the 'rest' of the seventh day.’"

I'm sorry, Sara, but I don't agree with you that CCC 337 is saying that a Christian is forbidden to believe that creation took place in something other than "six days." The "symbolism" of which #337 is speaking is that of the "work of creation," not of the specific timespan. The time involved is something tangential and not theological -- and would thus not be something about which the Church would pronounce doctrine. My opponent in the earlier debate was a deacon, and (despite CCC 337) he acknowledged this point, stating:

"I fully support the right of a Catholic or anyone else to believe whatever they want in this area, since it is merely a matter of scientific knowledge, and not a matter of necessary doctrine."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 27, 2003.

Hi John

John, I think I’m actually in agreement with you on this point:

‘I'm sorry, Sara, but I don't agree with you that CCC 337 is saying that a Christian is forbidden to believe that creation took place in something other than "six days‘

(If I’m not in agreement with you on that point, perhaps you meant to type ‘I'm sorry, Sara, CCC 337 is saying that a Christian is forbidden to believe that creation took place in something other than "six days)

My contention is that the Church is stating that the creation story, including the six days, is symbolic. I think the Church is saying precisely and categorically that the faithful don’t have to believe that the six days was an actual timescale. I was responding in particular to Faith's assertion that the Genesis story must be understood literally.

I wish I knew how to do html coding, in order that I could put the proper emphasis on particular words...maybe that way people would understand what in my rambling manner I'm trying to say!

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), December 27, 2003.

Faith's explanation of the (apparent?) discrepancy between Gen 1:1ff. and Gen.2 is essentially the same as that proposed by St. Augustine in "On Christian Doctrine".

I will not deny that this is a perfectly acceptable interpretation. But I will point out that it backs away from literalism. It denies the literal meaning of Gen.2:4 in order to support the literal sequence of events in Gen.1.

Just to add a little to the previous discussion on the issue, there are clear limits to the extent to which a Catholic can embrace evolution. A Catholic CAN accept that it offers a better explanation of the scientific evidence than Genesis, but a Catholic CANNOT accept that it offers a better basis for morality. Okay as a description of events, but not okay as a prescription for behavior. A Catholic cannot for example embrace the philosophy of Daniel Dennett's "Darwin's dangerous idea".

-- __ (__@__.__), December 27, 2003.

Jmj

Hi, Sara.
I am furious at myself posting one of those messages that says the exact opposite of what I intended -- and then for forgetting to proofread and catch the error!

You wrote:
"John, I think I’m actually in agreement with you on this point: ‘I'm sorry, Sara, but I don't agree with you that CCC 337 is saying that a Christian is forbidden to believe that creation took place in something other than "six days"‘ (If I’m not in agreement with you on that point, perhaps you meant to type ‘I'm sorry, Sara, CCC 337 is saying that a Christian is forbidden to believe that creation took place in something other than "six days.")'"

I must have started to write my sentence in a certain way, but then revised it -- but not completely. What I intended to express was this:

"I'm sorry, Sara, but I don't agree with you that CCC 337 is saying that a Christian is forbidden to believe that creation took place in six 'Earth days.'"

So, I meant to say the opposite of what I actually said.

Now, I did not mean to say what you thought I might have in mind -- i.e., that "CCC 337 is saying that a Christian is forbidden to believe that creation took place in something other than 'six days.'"
I think that the Church leaves us free to believe that creation could have taken place in any span of time -- from an instant to billions of years. [Fundamentalists are wrong to insist on a literal understanding of the timing. The Bible is not a "natural history textbook."]

I did mean to say the contrary of what I thought you were contending. That is, I thought you originally were implying that CCC 337 now forbids a Christian to believe in a literal meaning of "six days." But now, after your new post, I wonder if you were actually going that far. Now you have stated (with my emphasis added): "My contention is that the Church is stating that the creation story, including the six days, is symbolic. I think the Church is saying precisely and categorically that the faithful don’t have to believe that the six days was an actual timescale."

Well, I don't agree with you as to extent of the symbolism, but that's another issue. I'll just stick with my original focus now. The one thing that you have not yet stated is whether you think that the Church forbids a person to believe in "six days" literally. I say that we haven't been so forbidden -- because the timing and mechanisms of creation are outside the realm of religious doctrine.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 28, 2003.

Hi John,

I thought there had been some kind of misunderstanding! I have to say, I had to re-read your last post several times to get what you actually meant!!! (It’s always more difficult to correct errors than to make them, don’t you think?)

Now, as to what I think the Church is saying regarding how we understand the six days. I don’t think the Church is actually saying very much on the matter as, like you say, the timing isn’t a matter of religious doctrine. The important thing that we are bound to believe is that God created all, visible and invisible, that's the central truth.

My personal feelings is that some form of evolution occurred over thousands of years, in accordance with God’s plan. However, since God is all-powerful, and could create all of the universe in an instant, it is also feasible that He created everything in six days, or one second, and therefore people are entitled to believe that, should they so desire.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), December 28, 2003.

It is obvious that Adam and Eve were not symbolic. There was a time when there were no humans on earth. Followed by a time when there were (and are) human beings on earth. Logically then, someone must have literally been the first humans on earth. We call those first humans Adam and Eve. It is likewise obvious that original sin cannot be symbolic. There was a time when there was no sin on earth, followed by a time when sin existed (and exists) on earth. Logically then there must have literally been a first, or original, sin.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 28, 2003.

"How would we be expected to accept and believe these teachings as true and accurate coming from a book that couldn't record accurately even the simple things such as the creation account or any historical information?"

A: Your problem Faith, is that these teachings did not "come from a book". Neither did any other Christian truths. The Church believed and preached all of these truths before a word of the New Testament was written. That's why these truths were mentioned by the Apostles and other inspired writers - because they had already learned these truths from the pillar and foundation of truth, the Church. That's also why the Church, when it decided to compile a book of its inspired writings, allowed these particular writings to be included in the book - because they fully agreed with everything the Church had already been teaching for over 350 years. The Bible is not a "source" of doctrinal truth. It is a written record of doctrinal truth which already existed in the Church, which had received these truths from the original source - Jesus Christ Himself. Protestants of course try to make the Bible an original source, having rejected the real source provided by God; but obviously that just doesn't work, or every Protestant sect which uses the book would not come up with a whole different set of conflicting and contradictory beliefs. The Bible was an outgrowth of pre-existing Catholic teaching, and therefore any teaching supposedly from the Bible which does not agree with Catholic teaching has missed the point completely, and is therefore false.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 28, 2003.

"To decide that Genesis is symbolic when the literary writing style doesn't even ask that of us, just to uphold the theory of evolution-- seems a little closed-minded to me."

Nor is it necessarily Catholic to do so, thankfully.

Further upthread, Paul, you stated this:

"If you wish to accept the Protestant position that God, in one moment, formed the body of man from "the dust of the earth", and then immediately breathed spiritual life into that body, that is completely compatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Or, if you wish to accept the idea that God formed the body of man from inorganic matter ("the dust of the earth") over a long period of time, through a complex biological process of His own design and creation, and then breathed spiritual life into that body, that is likewise completely compatible with the teaching of the Church."

First of all, it is absolutely and in no way a uniquely Protestant take on the matter that ..."God, in one moment, formed the body of man from "the dust of the earth", and then immediately breathed spiritual life into that body..." I realize you do say that it is not incompatible with Catholicism, but to identify it as of Protestant origin is less than accurate.

This part is what isn't really consistant with Catholic belief:

"Or, if you wish to accept the idea that God formed the body of man from inorganic matter ("the dust of the earth") over a long period of time, through a complex biological process of His own design and creation, and then breathed spiritual life into that body, that is likewise completely compatible with the teaching of the Church."

The reason why is that it is completely incompatible with the philosophies which compromise the foundations of Catholic theology.

It comes down to this: it is what is identified as soul that directs the formation of the matter to suit the soul's ends and purposes, and essence. The soul is the principle of life, and as such, dictates how the matter, or the body, comes to be in the first place.

The way you have it laid out above, where a body is progressively formed and then at some point being ensouled at a later time necessitates a dual life principle, or dual principle of soul: one soul for the formation of the body, and the second to sort of "possess" the body.

This is not at all how the philosopher would approach the principle of life, or soul, and it's relation to organized matter.

The human soul singularly directs the formation of matter in a manner proper to it's unique nature. Your theory would defy basic principle concerning soul, principles such as might be found in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas which in turn refer to De Anima by Aristotle. It might be worth reading On the Soul unless, that is, people think that Aristotle was a primitive moron. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 28, 2003.

Let me expand on what I'm getting at with an example.

We have these finches in a cage here, and one day recently, I walk by the cage and suddenly there's two new baby finches just out of nest; a surprise. So I got to thinking about that. My wife puts millet in the cage, and water. Out of this millet and water come these finches... it's pretty much a closed system: water, seeds and whatever air floats into the cage. That's what these new little birds are made out of. I look at the detail in their eyes, the color, the beak, the feathers, and it's simply amazing.

What causes the organization of the simple elements of seeds, air, and water into two baby finches? It's the principle of soul, or life- principle, that organizes matter in the same way every time. Finch-ness, whatever that happens to be whether we comprehend it fully or not, is what directed basic building materials from the very beginning all the way to their conclusion as a finch. Finch-ness was not imbued into the process half-way through; this would be philosophically untenable.

The soul principle works from the very instant of conception, and the proximate and available matter is enslaved to the soul's purposes at that instant and follows the principle's dictates all the way through to completeness or maturity.

In practical, everyday life, this reality is in fact what makes the Catholic pro-life position so solid in truth. The soul is present at conception and directs the formation of matter from the beginning, from that point of conception.

You can't have no apes running around suddenly getting ensouled and being named Randy, or Jeff or even Adam and being called to eternal life.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 28, 2003.

Obviously apes have nothing whatsoever to do with it. However, whether your theology is guided by scientific findings or by fundamentalist assumptions, what you end up with is a biological entity which was just like a human being except for the presence of an immortal soul, and which then became a man when God breathed an immortal soul into that entity - just like the Bible records. Theologically that's the whole story. Theologically it's the same either way. The only difference is the process by which the non-human biological entity was produced. Either by a rational, meticulously designed and orchestrated natural system; or by taking a handful of dust and POOF, there it was. Since God has chosen to produce every other element of His physical creation through rational natural processes of His own design, I don't see why He would deviate from this universal plan in forming the body of man, resorting instead to something that looks more like a magic trick.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 28, 2003.

Jmj
Hi, Sara.
You wrote: "I have to say, I had to re-read your last post several times to get what you actually meant!!! (It’s always more difficult to correct errors than to make them, don’t you think?)"
You are absolutely right! And I fully understand why you had to "re-read [my] last post several times"!
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 29, 2003.

I don't see why [God] would deviate from this universal plan in forming the body of man, resorting instead to something that looks more like a magic trick.

The possible direct creation of man by God has nothing of the appearance of a "magic trick" to the average person. Perhaps it could have that appearance, though, to someone who is prejudiced -- someone who is in danger of idolizing science and who has become "doctrinaire" about evolution (which, we must always remind ourselves, is theory, rather than proved fact).

People can easily "see why" God, in creating man, may have "deviate[d]" from evolution -- a mode of creation that cannot be labeled "universal," since it is theoretical even with regard to sub-human life.

So, why might God have "deviated" for man?
Consider the divine nature of the Creator. How much above human nature is it? Infinitely superior. Perfection. Just "Being," never "coming into being." An eternal, divine soul.

Now consider the human nature that Adam possessed. How much above sub-human created things was it? Perhaps we would not say that it was "infinitely" superior. But we must see humanity as SO far superior to everything sub-human, SO special -- because of its immortal soul, made in God's image and likeness -- that it seems quite fitting for God to have fashioned the first man and woman in a significantly different way from the way he fashioned sub-human creatures. Fitting -- not necessary -- but fitting.

After all, Adam (like every unborn, one-celled human baby) was of greater value than all the rest of creation combined -- past, present, and future. It would have been fitting for God to have created Adam directly. Fitting -- not necessary -- but fitting.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 29, 2003.

Faith, you are not a Catholic, and your opinion -- based on private, unguided interpretation of the Bible -- is of no use to anyone. Go away, please. Permanently, please. Better yet, stay and read and learn -- but "silently." No more posts. Just lurk until you join, or return to, the Catholic Church.

You wrote: "I believe God when He says that He spoke everything into existence. He *created* everything just as He said -- instantaneously."

You never heard God "say" anything. God did not write the Bible with his own hand. The Holy Spirit is the primary author, indeed, but he used human men and human language to communicate the truth. It takes authorized human men to explain God's written word to us -- the ordained shepherds of the Catholic Church.

We don't need, and won't accept, a heretic like you telling us about the Bible, what it says, and what it means. Your comments cannot be trusted. For example, God never said that he "created everything ... instantaneously," as you falsely claimed.

You also stated: "He didn't use a long process called evolution and doesn't allude to such a thing either."
But, it doesn't matter a bit that the written Word of God does not "allude to such a thing". God may have used evolution, but then may not have inspired the writer of Genesis to mention it. You have no way whatsoever of knowing the mind or the hidden deeds of God.

Just as I will not allow some to ridicule others for believing that God may have created everything in six "Earth days," so I will not allow you to spout off and demand that everyone reject evolution as a possibility.

JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 29, 2003.

Faith, you mention several times that one must receive Christ. As you would easily guess, when I hear such a comment I immediately think of Holy Communion.

What is it that you take it to mean when you say receive Christ? This is not clear to me.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 29, 2003.

"Now consider the human nature that Adam possessed. How much above sub-human created things was it? Perhaps we would not say that it was "infinitely" superior. But we must see humanity as SO far superior to everything sub-human, SO special -- because of its immortal soul, made in God's image and likeness -- that it seems quite fitting for God to have fashioned the first man and woman in a significantly different way from the way he fashioned sub-human creatures."

John,

We know for a fact that God "fashioned the first man and woman in a significantly different way from the way he fashioned sub-human creatures". He did not breathe an immortal soul into any other creature. That is a profoundly different way indeed. However, there is no reason to say that humans are BIOLOGICALLY superior to animals. Their anatomy and physiology is quite the equal of ours. Therefore there is no reason to think that God formed our BIOLOGICAL nature any differently than He formed other equally complex and wondrous biological beings. Evolution can only take us up to that point. The creation of MAN occuirred when God breathed an immortal soul, with moral capacity and free will, into the biological being He had formed. That's what the Bible tells us. The "human nature" Adam possessed was indeed, as you said, far superior to that of other creatures. However, that superior human nature came about as a result of a supernatural act applied to a non-supernatural prior creation. Again, that's how Genesis describes it.

"After all, Adam (like every unborn, one-celled human baby) was of greater value than all the rest of creation combined -- past, present, and future. It would have been fitting for God to have created Adam directly. Fitting -- not necessary -- but fitting."

A: I agree completely. And God did create Adam directly, when He infused into the biological entity which was not yet Adam, a nature which caused that entity to be transformed into "God's own image and likeness".

"I believe God when He says that He spoke everything into existence. He *created* everything just as He said--instantaneously. He didn't use a long process called evolution and doesn't allude to such a thing either...."

Actually, Faith, the Bible doesn't say anything at all about the process God may have used, or the time frame involved. The word "instantaneously" does not appear there. That is your personal interpretation of what you read there. God said that it would happen, and it did happen - that's all the Bible tells us. However, we do know through science that our solar system and everything in it did not appear "as is", and in fact is different now than it was yesterday. Yes, it was His eternal word which made it happen. But that doesn't tell us anything about HOW it actually unfolded, or how long it took. After all, God is outside of time and is not bound by time. We know it was His word that caused the Rocky Mountains to appear, since they are a part of His creation - but we also know they did not appear overnight, let alone instantaneously. The natural geological processes which formed the Rockies are well understood. This knowledge does not exclude the hand of God, since He designed and set into motion the processes responsible. The same is true of the development and replacement of living species.

"Evolution in the Darwinian sense is a dying theory at that...."

A: Yes - "in the Darwinian sense". Darwin's theory that evolution was the result of simple natural selection is indeed rejected by modern biologists, who now know that evolution is a far more complex process than Darwin ever imagined.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 29, 2003.

Paul, any variety or manner of evolution which you might pick or choose as supposedly being consistant with Catholic doctrine, is going to fly in the face of the philosophical handmaidens to the Faith which have been selected by the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

You understand that, right?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 29, 2003.

If God created Adam...was Adam created as a baby or did God create a fully developed adult? ... And if the answer is adult--as it should be--

Just out of curiosity, why do you say that? I am not aware of the Bible saying he as created as a boy, teenager, adult or old man. What am I missing?

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 29, 2003.

Q: Do you see what I mean?

Possibly, you are reading into scripture what is not there though. For you see it is also possible that Adam was under God's care until he could fend for himself. If you can read stuff into the Bible, I guess I can read other stuff into it... or are you relying on some kind of tradition? :)

Genesis 2:15 "The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it. " We don't know how long it was after he created man to the time God put the man in a garden to cultivate and care for it. The Bible does say God made man before the garden so some time had to have passed. It may have been a short or long period of time. Or am I missing something else here? Is there a tradition you are relying on here as well?

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 29, 2003.

I don't see where the Bible claims that Adam was made before the Garden..am I missing something?

Genisis 2:7-8 "the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being. Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed. "

1st He made man, THEN the He made the garden. So it is written. We don't know how long it took to do either, nor how much time is in between the actions. At least not from the Bible. What tradition are you following to read more into this?

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 29, 2003.

"The Bible speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and the universe . . . Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made, but how to go to heaven."

Pope John Paul II

-- __ (___@__.__), December 30, 2003.

Yes, Adam was created as an adult - by infusion of a human soul into an adult biological body which God had created from the dust of the earth by an undesignated process.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

I was thinking all the earth's greenery when you said garden.

I kind of thought that after I wrote

The garden isn't really the issue. It doesn't matter.

We were discussing creation vs long evolution, and Paul was saying that one could tell by looking at the Rocky Mountains that it didn't just appear instanstaneously.

That is why I brought up Adam. By looking at him, we wouldn't assume that he had just appeared instantaneously either--yet there is a good chance that that is exactly what happened. Adam was created as an adult as far as Scripture is concerned....

I have enough faith for all of us, so don't worry.....I don't believe God needed time or chance to create.....

Faith, I don’t think we really know how long it took Him to create Adam or the garden. There are a lot of time spans in Genesis that we don’t know for certain what they mean in earth time. We do know God doesn’t run by earth time. What is long to us is not that long to Him.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.

end italics

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.

Personally, I find that Scripture really denies evolution. It isn't even necessary...

Scripture is silent on evolution. It doesn't deny it. Again, we don't know anything about how long things were around and changing between 'days' in Genesis. We do know that things do change within species (no definate scientific proof yet, I don't think about the evolution of new species). Anyway, it is very possible Paul is correct and you are wrong here. Then again, you might be correct and Paul is wrong. We simply won't know until we are in heaven, with God.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.

"There is nothing in the Scriptures that suggest that humanity evolved for millions of years before God included a soul into the final product."

A: That is exactly right! And there is nothing to suggest that humanity did not do so. "Day" obviously means nothing to God. It means a period of time, and that is exactly what science tells us - that the universe as it now exists came into existence as a gradual ongoing process over a very long period of time, which can easily be divided up into sub-periods or eras or "days" if one wishes to do so. Since the Bible says nothing on the matter, my position is not based on the Bible - and neither is yours. My position is based on the very substantial scientific evidence which sheds light on the matter for anyone who chooses to look at it openly and honestly. Your position seems to be based on nothing substantial at all, since scripture says absolutely nothing about the development of species or the manner in which God formed man's body from inorganic matter, and you refuse to look at the scientific evidence out of some irrational fear that it might reveal truths that you don't want to accept. So you have your assumption, and I have all the available evidence. Why do you fear it so much? If your doctrinal beliefs are really true, then no truth revealed by science could possibly conflict with them. Truth can't conflict with truth. That's the position I find myself in - able to fully accept both the truth of divine revelation and the truth of scientific discovery, without conflict or contradiction. But in the end, no-one's salvation will depend on their acceptance of scientific findings, just their acceptance of divinely revealed truth. On the other hand, if certain scientific findings actually are true, and your religious beliefs conflict with them, then it's time to re-examine the validity of your religious beliefs. If I were in denominational religion, I'd feel compelled to re-examine my beliefs constantly, just from the realization that other denominational beliefs conflicted with mine, and my denomination had no more authority to define truth than any of the others. That isn't the way God intends us to live. He provided One Church, built on Rock, the pillar and foundation of truth, guided by the Holy Spirit, so that all men might be able to actually KNOW the truth, not simply assume that their current denomination is right and the thousands of others are wrong.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

"Scripture is silent on evolution. It doesn't deny it."

The Church denies evolution implicitly; it does so through it's accepted and approved philosophy and theology.

Bill and Paul, Faith's take on the evolution is more Catholic than your own.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

"On the other hand, if certain scientific findings actually are true, and your religious beliefs conflict with them, then it's time to re-examine the validity of your religious beliefs."

This is completely inverted and to be honest, it's contrary to the Faith. The Doctors of the Church would all pound their fists on the table a scream that it is the nature of Faith that we hold our priniciples of our Faith to be more certain than that two and two equal four. More certain!

The path we're on here, where you have it, is that we hold human reason and the products of that human reason to the ultimate standard, thereby relegating the principles of Faith to the status of a variable if a conflict should arise. This makes human reason the captain of it's own ship. Hey, that's just like the rest of the nonbelieving world.

This is what happens when all of human knowing is reduced to the empirical... God save us from engineers. It's what happens when people try to mix the Divine light with the things of this world. Sometimes I can't understand why it's so hard for people to get this, and why they continue on trying to make the Catholic Faith fit with everything the world waves in their face. Maybe it's just an irrational desire to fit in with the rest of society and keep status and avoid looking like a fool, who knows.

Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

The Church denies evolution implicitly; it does so through it's accepted and approved philosophy and theology.

Do you have a cite for such a statement?

see:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

In Christ
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.

Do you have a cite for such a statement?

Sure... all of works of Thomas Aquinas, for one. You've read at least some of them, right? If you understand the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies which serve as handmaidens to the Faith, then the principles of soul they speak of would by nature rule out any sort of evolutionary process as we think of it today. In any of it's various forms, and on principle. On principle.

The people at New Advent are no different than any of us here. Are they the Catholic Church?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

Yes, What I referenced at the New Advent site is from the old Catholic Encylopedia, it is definately orthodox. If you want to know more about the Encylopedia, go to: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/00001a.htm

I would say they are authorative.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.

One doesn't need to; it's not a matter of what's authoritative or not, it's a matter of what's true and if it's in keeping with the heart and the mind of the Catholic Church from Day One to the present.

Argument by authority, the philosophers will tell you, is the worst form of argument. (I wonder if anyone is going to catch that one...) Quoting New Advent as an authority in and of themselves would be an argument well within this domain. Not that New Advent isn't a place to find some good stuff, because it is.

It's the worst kind of authority unless it's the authority is the Catholic Church, that is, which is obviously a different variety of authority; in which case, the Church's authority reigns supreme on these matters.

And it does reign supreme: the Church states that the classic philosophies are to be to the ancilla fidei. The evolutionary theories don't come from these handmaidens to the faith; they instead have their origins in modernist mush philosophies which are poison to the Catholic Faith, and it shows.

Forget New Advent. Read this instead by Pope Leo XIII.

Pick up Aristotle's De Anima as well, maybe. Hey, I'll read it with you Chapter by Chapter and we can discuss it; it's been a while for me too and I could stand to read it again.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

From that document linked to above:

"Lastly, the duty of religiously defending the truths divinely delivered, and of resisting those who dare oppose them, pertains to philosophic pursuits. Wherefore, it is the glory of philosophy to be esteemed as the bulwark of faith and the strong defense of religion. As Clement of Alexandria testifies, the doctrine of the Savior is indeed perfect in itself and wanteth naught, since it is the power and wisdom of God. And the assistance of the Greek philosophy maketh not the truth more powerful; but, inasmuch as it weakens the contrary arguments of the sophists and repels the veiled attacks against the truth, it has been fitly called the hedge and fence of the vine."

There's two year's worth of touche...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

Emerald,

I said: "On the other hand, if certain scientific findings actually are true, and your religious beliefs conflict with them, then it's time to re-examine the validity of your religious beliefs."

You say: This is completely inverted and to be honest, it's contrary to the Faith. The Doctors of the Church would all pound their fists on the table and scream that it is the nature of Faith that we hold our priniciples of our Faith to be more certain than that two and two equal four. More certain!

A: Of Course! What you say is absolutely correct, where the TRUE faith is concerned. I didn't address that comment to Catholics! If a scientific conclusion conflicted with Catholic doctrine, such a conclusion would be, by definition, false! There CANNOT be a circumstance in which scientific truth conflicts with TRUE doctrinal beliefs! However, other churches hold many beliefs which are NOT true, and some of those FALSE beliefs cause them to reject scientific knowledge offhand, and to avoid reading anything authoritative on the subject, lest their beliefs be challenged by truth from other sources. Those are the people I directed the comment to. If we KNOW that the earth orbits the sun, but a denomination requires its members to believe as doctrine that the earth is the center of the solar system, then it's time to re-examine those doctrinal beliefs.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

ok ok ok! lol. When you put it that way, I see what you're saying, but still, there's something to what I'm getting at, which is the danger of trying too hard to reconcile faith and reason, or in this case faith and science, in so far as it tempts reason to stand a little higher than it ought at times in relation to the principles of faith. In reality, it shouldn't be Faith and Reason but Faith over Reason. There are some heresies associated with misunderstanding the latter, but understood properly, it keeps reason in it's proper place and safeguards Faith.

I think this is a case where Faith (the poster) is actually right about evolution and it's non-viability in light of the Scriptures. What I'm not sure about is why we would want pull her away, in this particular instance, from a good example of religious faith held rightly in the face of what's supposed to be reasonable, in this case Evolution, in order to bring her out of it and into alignment with scientific theory, and then re-assimilate her back in the name of Faith (Catholic belief) in other arenas. That seems the long way home.

I don't think we have to go this route; I think what's missing here is the proper philosophical basis from which to operate. What we are missing anymore is a proper way to handle abstract reality, since all we do is observe and measure things anymore without really drawing universal principles. That's the lost art that's proper to the ancient philosophies, but people write them off anymore as obsolete or primitive.

If we could somehow resurrect an interest in healthy philosophy and make less of an emphasis of witnessable phenomena like modern science does, then we could make more sense as a faithful people, as Catholics. We would also being doing what the Church has asked for... Pope Leo XIII:

"Whoso turns his attention to the bitter strifes of these days and seeks a reason for the troubles that vex public and private life must come to the conclusion that a fruitful cause of the evils which now afflict, as well as those which threaten, us lies in this: that false conclusions concerning divine and human things, which originated in the schools of philosophy, have now crept into all the orders of the State, and have been accepted by the common consent of the masses."

That makes complete sense to me.

If Faith (the poster) has a genuine desire to know and a genuine willingness also to have Faith (what we call Catholic stuff), there has to be a way to reconcile the two, and the old tried and true handmaidens are the only successful means to do so in the Church, and that's why the Church uses them. We need to look at them more, and less to modern science, which will be the first to tell everyone that it, modern science, has no real love for the immutable anyways.

There's something that I think I've noticed, and there may or may not be something to it. Almost each and every one of the non-Catholic posters, and even a lot of the Catholic ones, have abstract ideas that just kind of float around but never seem to settle into and resolve themselves in concrete reality. They flit around but never find their roots in reality. For instance, poster Faith talks about recieving Christ, and it's this etherial and elusive thing, but we as Catholics have the Word made Flesh on our altars. It's truth incarnate, and the Protestants are missing these reality-rooted things. Same with Mary the Mother of God, where the destruction of Original Sin is a walking human creature.

In fact, it seems all the Sacraments have this same aspect about them, of God truly dwelling among us in specific terms with a definite physical character to them. The Protestants are completely missing these things, and it's just MHO that the Sacraments always have been and always will be our most attractive aspect as Catholics with something to offer.

The Protestants are not at all devoid of recognizing truths and realities, but without the Church, they have no way to take the wandering abstract realities and pin them down to our physical existence.

Somebody's got to explain to Faith the poster, as best as they are able, the incredible Mysterium Fidei, the Blessed Sacrament. Someone needs to tie in what she knows in an elusive way to the concrete reality that we are in possession of. I think she could understand this and come to know this because she already has the loose concept of it already; it just needs to be pinned down to existence, or to reality.

I doubt she's going to ditch her anti-evolution stance, and I don't think she even has to. I think it's a good thing.

What if the earth really is the center of the universe? Would we be willing to accept this if our Catholic Faith told us so? That's rhetorically put forth, of course.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

Some doctrines are hard at first:

"Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?"

...from John 6, you know which doctrine this refers to.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

"Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." --John 20:25

Like this?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

That one who does not know Christ in the Blessed Sacrament does not really know Christ.

That's all.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

The dot that I can't connect is this: what in the world does a theory of evolution have to do with doing the will of God and salvation?

Salvation is serious business.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

I was just trying to point out that we didn't need to comprimise God's Word to fit it in with a theory that wasn't anymore scientific.

But it's okay to ignore or fudge the evidence because it doesn't fit in with every literal detail of Genesis?

-- __ (__@__.__), December 31, 2003.

I do not have an answer to the original question. I just stumbled upon this site doing some research of my own on the question of Evotlution vs. Creationism.

I am neither Catholic nor Protestant by faith. Although, my faith would be considered more Protestant. I am a member of an Assembly of God Church which most refer to as Pentecostal.

I have found the postings very interesting. I have not read all of them, but skimmed most of them.

In the end it is all about faith in my opinion. Whether you believe in the Theory of Evolution in its totality or in a literal interpretation of Creation as presented in the Bible,or some combination of the two, you have to decide what authority to believe.

I just recently had an interesting and rather lively discussion with a co-worker who said he did not believe in God as I do, but believed that we were all God or made up God. I will not go into the full discussion as it was quite long, but I told him in the end it was all a matter of faith. If you read something in a book, on the internet, or are told something in a seminar, you must decide if you trust and believe in the authority behind the words spoken or written, or not.

I have chosen to believe the Bible as the Word of God. I know that what I read is not the original text (as it has been translated and retranslated many times), but I believe that with the Holy Ghost as my guide and teacher I can find the truth there that God wants to reveal to me day by day. And I believe that Genesis presents the Creation accurately. Everyone gets hung up on the time issue. I look at it as an outline, or an order in which things took place. God could have created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th. But that is not as important to me as the fact that God created all that there is. I also believe that God created in each living organism a certain amount of adaptability, so it could continue overtime without His constant intervention. Our minds are so finite to His. That is why we find creation so hard to fully understand. I don't pretend to know or understand it all. It isn't necessary. I just stand in awe of God every time I hold a small infant in my arms, look at a spectacular sunset, or smell the aroma of a beautiful rose. I am just content to enjoy His creation.

Jackie B

-- Jackie Bankston (jacbeng@yahoo.com), January 02, 2004.

Dear Jackie,

That is a pretty well balanced approach. However, I can't accept what you say entirely. You see, I, like yourself, have also chosen to believe the Bible as the Word of God. However, I, unlike yourself, also freely accept what science reveals to be true, confident in the knowledge that there cannot be any conflict between genuine truths from different sources. My authority on matters theological is what the Bible says should be my authority - the Church Christ founded, which the Bible identifies as "the pillar and foundation of truth". My authority on matters scientific is scientists. If I were to find any conflict between what science reveals and what the Church and its Bible teaches, there would be no contest - the Word of God prevails. But so far, as an ordained clergyman and a professional scientist for many years, I have not encountered any situations where I had to make such a choice.

You say "I believe that with the Holy Ghost as my guide and teacher I can find the truth there that God wants to reveal to me day by day". However, to be honest, you have to admit that Protestants of every denomination say exactly the same thing, yet many of their beliefs conflict with yours. Surely then, not all of these conflicting beliefs are "what God wants to reveal". Which casts doubt on the whole system which is being used by such denominations to define "truth". You are right that no-one knows or understands it all. But Jesus did say that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to "all truth". And a system which produces conflicting and contradictory beliefs therefore cannot be His Church, or His will.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 02, 2004.

Paul, I in know way was trying to suggest that my denomination represented “The Church”. I believe that “The Church” is composed of people who believe in God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, as their personal savior, and the Holy Ghost. There are many doctrines common to all of the Christian denominations in existence today. There are also differences. I have always tried to search for common ground. I admit I do not have your qualifications, not being a member of the clergy, nor a professional scientist. Rather, I am just a common person with a humble profession of a draftsman and design technician with a heart for Jesus. What I meant, in my previous posting, was that God’s Word was a guide to my daily living, and that by studying the Word, and learning more about Jesus, I would find what I needed there to meet my every need. Nor was I trying to cast a shadow on science and discount its importance. But, instead, that if there was a conflict between the two (as you yourself stated), the Word of God would be my standard. If I have caused offense, please forgive me. It was certainly not my intent. I have a great deal of respect for all my Christian friends and acquaintances no matter their particular denomination.

-- Jackie Bankston (jacbeng@yahoo.com), January 05, 2004.

Dear Jackie,

Absolutely no offense was taken. On the contrary, your original post was presented clearly, intelligently, and respectfully. Just the kind of post that is welcome here. My rather straightforward, matter-of-fact manner of writing may come across as a bit cold at times, but actually it takes a lot to offend me. You didn't even come close :-)

Catholics, just like yourself, look to God's Word as our guide for daily living. "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). However, we acknowledge that the Bible does not claim to be the only source of God's Word, and was never viewed that way by Christians until a few hundred years ago. We recognize that God's Church was teaching the fullness of God's Word before the Bible existed, and that God promised that all truth would be available through His Church (John 16:13). And, we accept the biblical teaching that God's Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15); that listening to the Church is equivalent to listening to God (Luke 10:16); and that whatever the Church teaches is guaranteed by God to be true (Matt 16:19).

Peace!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 05, 2004.

Here's a puzzle.

Suppose a colony of surviving Neanderthals was discovered. How do we respond? Should we send in missionaries to save them? Or would it be okay to use them in medical experiments or as an exotic food?

-- __ (__@__.__), January 15, 2004.

That is an interesting thought. I believe that most believe that Neanderthal was an early version of the human species. They had 48 chromosomes instead of the 46 that we have. In one of the sites on the internet, it said that some scientists did not believe that Neanderthal and modern man could have bred with each other because of the chromosome difference. In the article, it suggested that Neanderthal was more closely related to the large apes than to us and that the split took place millions of years ago. I’m not sure that I agree with all of that; but even so, I would not eat a gorilla or an ape or monkey of any kind, much less a Neanderthal. Scientists have done studies with gorillas that show they are able to communicate simple ideas and concepts with humans using sign language. The gorillas appear to be self aware and communicate simple emotions. Most of the recent studies done on chimpanzees, gorillas, and other of the great apes have been limited to mostly observation and some physical exams done in the least harmful way. Since we treat these animals with such care, should we treat Neanderthal, who is supposedly akin to us, with less respect? Therefore, I would not like to see any medical experiments that could possibly do physical or psychological damage to Neanderthal any more than I would like to see it done to a gorilla, or a dog for that matter.

As for sending in missionaries, I think that it would be best to determine if they were in deed human and had the capacity to understand the concept of God.

Jackie B

-- Jackie Bankston (jacbeng@yahoo.com), January 16, 2004.