Catholic Answers Should Do A Radio Show On Biblical Creation


#1

The Biblical view of creation was shared by many of the Church Fathers and with break throughs in genetics more and more Catholics are starting to believe in Biblical Creation.

I think that Catholic Answers doing a radio show with Creationist Catholics would go a long way toward healing Protestant Catholic wounds and bring more Protestants into the Church. Even if you don’t agree with what science has shown in favor of Biblical Creation, it is a valid Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture and we should use that Catholic view to reach Protestants.

St. Paul would do it, why not Catholic Answers.


#2

No. No they’re not.

I think that Catholic Answers doing a radio show with Creationist Catholics would go a long way toward healing Protestant Catholic wounds and bring more Protestants into the Church.

I doubt that. It could push some intelligent people away though.

Even if you don’t agree with what science has shown in favor of Biblical Creation, it is a valid Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture and we should use that Catholic view to reach Protestants.

I don’t think science has shown anything in favor of “Biblical Creation.” All the available evidence would seem to contradict a (what I suspect you mean by) “Biblical Creation.”


#3

It could be presented as an aceptable Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture, which it is. Why hide this fact? We should not hide the truth because of what some may think. Let the Holy Spirit work in their hearts. We should present the whole truth which does include the Catholic interpretation that God Created in 6 days and on the 7th day rested. Hiding what we believe is dishonest.


#4

While it’s not against Church teaching to believe in a literal 6 day creation some 6,000 years ago, such a view is contradicted by all available evidence. The fact of the matter is that we can reasonably conclude that such a view of creation is incorrect. Promoting it does nothing to attract people to the Church and can only serve to drive intelligent, educated people away.


#5

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

St. Augustine


#6

I agree- invite Robert Sungneis, Rev. Victor P. Warkulwiz, and Fr. Harrison for the creation perspective, and whomever they wish for the evolution perspective.


#7

Can you update us on the progress Robert Sungenis’s geocentric ideas are making in convincing the scientific community that the earth is the unmoving centre of the universe?

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm


#8

I could be wrong, but I don’t think the Church’s doctrine dictates precisely 6 days of Creation, followed by 1 day of rest. I don’t think it even dictates that we declare a belief in either Creationism or Intelligent Design, two theories that, while intriguing, still come from a Protestant *sola scriptura *background.

We ARE required to believe that God created the universe, then rested, but no specific time frame is involved with that.

Personally, I’d be very happy if both the Evolutionists AND the Creationists would knock it off. Neither side can definitively prove it’s case by scientific research.

John


#9

Given my last post, I may as well ask:

Does anyone know of a definitive Catholic interpretation of Creation that doesn’t simply repeat most of what the Protestant churches declare?

Or in other words: Does anyone know of any interpretation besides Creationism or Intelligent Design that is promoted by the Church and able to be defended in public?

I’m not aware of one.

John


#10

Even the Pope recognizes that evolution is the only scientifically supportable answer. However, as he also recognizes, it is not the complete answer. Evolution can explain in naturalistic terms, how life has developed, but it cannot explain why there is nature, or Who is behind it all.


#11

Actually we are required by Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical on the study of Sacred Scripture to hold to the literal and obvious meaning of Sacred Scripture, unless by necessity we must depart from it. For me, since I see no proof of evolution I am required to believe in 6 days of creation.

However, my point here is that since we are permitted to believe in a 6 day creation we should use this as a bridge to other Christians who believe this.


#12

Oh sure, how about CA Live does a whole week on this stuff…

List of pseudoscience

I’m sure it will be a blast. :stuck_out_tongue: The program on “Biblical Creation” was done by Cardinal Schonborn last month. Maybe you missed it, but he said earlier in a catechetical lecture (all included in his new book Chance or Purpose, but in a slightly different translation):

"Now there is another misunderstanding that is constantly found in the ongoing discussion, and I have to deal with it right here at the beginning. I refer to what is called ‘creationism.’ Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with ‘creationism.’ But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements – I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it – is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way. It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools…

“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of ‘creationism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.” (Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Cat Lecture for 11/13/2005)

Phil P


#13

I haven’t seen the Pope’s scientific analysis of this. Did he present the scientific proof from an Encyclical? On the contrary the Pope has said that we can not believe in Polygeism. Which for me definately rules out evolution. If we only came from two parent the evolutionary model really doesn’t make any sense to me. For me as a Catholic it is either believe what the Church says to believe, that is that we all came from Adam and Eve, or believe in Evolution. For me, I don’t see how the two can be reconciled so I personally can not believe in evolution and remain Catholic at the same time. If you had to choose whouldn’t you choose to be Catholic? It is best for me not to believe in evolution because for me it would also mean heresey. I am glad the Church allows me to believe in complete Biblical Creation and not just parts of what the Bible says about Creation.


#14

For me, since I see no proof of evolution

You’re not looking hard enough. Or your bias has blinded you.

Fossil records, vestigial structures, geographic distribution, molecular variation and many other biological evidences are strong proof of evolution. But see, it’s not just evolution that testifies for an old earth; astronomy, geology, radioactive dating, etc. all tell us that the Earth is significantly older than a couple thousand years.

The fact is, if Genesis was meant to be taken literally, then it’s straight-up wrong. The Earth is not 6,000 to 12,000 years old. Every branch of science can soundly say that Earth was born 4.5 billion years ago. The literary qualities of Genesis say that it’s probably an allegory.


#15

Literal is not the same as the literalist interpretation that most n-Cs and particularly the young earth people use. The difference is important. Literal Interp

And while on this subject I strongly suggest that you listen to Cardinal Christoph Schonborn and I discuss this very issue on Catholic Answers Live from just over two weeks ago. (Yeah, I got on the air again. :smiley: ) I will be reading his book soon as well. You probably should too.

Listen (Real) Click here to listen to show in Real audio format

Download (Real) Right click (Mac: option-click) and select Save

Listen (MP3) Click to listen to MP3 (right-click to download)


#16

When you truly look at it, every thing you have mentioned requires more faith to believe in than I am scientifically capable of . Most people are not aware of all the assumptions that go into everything you have mentioned, fossil records, vestigial structures, geographic distribution, molecular variation, astronomy, geology, and radioactive dating all need to make scientific assumptions inorder to support evolution because the information just is not available. If you are satisfied with all these assumptions then I let you go in your conviction. Just make sure that your faith in these things do not get in the way of the faith provided by Christ through the Church. I once saw things the way you do and for the most part I don’t think it impacted my Catholic faith. But, if the world forces me today to choose between a faith in scientific theory and assumptions and a faith in Christ, I choose Christ and the Holy Church He founded.

We should use this worldy faith to Faith in Christ difference to reach other Christians who do not share our faith in the Holy Church He founded.

God Bless

Steve


#17

Perhaps Cardinal Schonborn does not see the opporrtunity to reach Protestants that I see. The Holy Spirit chooses His own instruments and I won’t question who He decides to use in what way. But, even if both Catholic Answers and Cardinal Schonborn do not share my point of view, they can reach out to Protestants by openly discussing the view of young earth Catholics. Even if I agreed with you and Cardinal Schonborn which I scientifically do not, I would still see an oportunity to leverage people who believed in a young earth and were Catholic to reach our Protestant brothers and sisters. What is more important, promoting scientific theory which is here today and changed tomorrow or reaching those outside the Bark of St. Peter?


#18

Did you listen to the show?

The problem here is that the good Cardinal is actually right.

You don’t sacrifice the truth to “reach out to Protestants” and the young earth system is an error both scientifically and Biblically.

I don’t think we should be seeking to “leverage” people, but to dialog where possible.

As I said though, that does not mean embracing something that is an error.


#19

Actually we are required by Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical on the study of Sacred Scripture to hold to the literal and obvious meaning of Sacred Scripture, unless by necessity we must depart from it. For me, since I see no proof of evolution I am required to believe in 6 days of creation.

As noted below, you have confused “literal” and “literalist.” St. Augustine wrote a work entitled “The Literal Meaning of Genesis,” in which he showed why a literalist six day creation week was a logical absurdity.


#20

I’ve generally understood that Catholic Answers intended to educate all people about the ins and outs of Catholic faith.

Given the nature of the postings thus far, I’d say there’s more discussion and confusion on this in for Catholics than I would’ve anticipated. Perhaps an hour or two on the subject would be wise, though I’d think they’d want to be very clear that “Creation” in this sense is NOT the same as the Protestant “Creationism”, because I, for one, would very easily and quickly make the mistake.

On a personal note, I don’t believe in either Creationism or Evolutionism exclusively. I don’t think either theory adequately explains what all we’ve seen from science and from faith.

John


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.