Creationism As Scientific Fact?


#1

Hey Folks!

I believe in creationism. I do take the the Genesis literally. God created the universe and everything in six days. First, there was great void. Before big bang theory, was universe void? You tell me. According to the new scientific theory, the Earth was totally covered by water. Did God, then, create land and water on Earth? Then, he created living things and lastly people? The scientific community has problem with the six days. I think that one day of God is like millions and millions of year for us. I do believe in adaptation, but not totally evolution. Without adaptation, we all gonna die. How can we go from single protein to an ameba to a complex creature like animals and lastly human? If people are monkey descendant, then where are all the half-people and half-monkey at? You know, there are so many remote islands on earth that have people looking like us (except they look darker, lighter or whatever). If those islands are so remoted, there is a possibility that monkey man still exists. Why we haven’t evolved since we “became” man? Looks like we are doomed as a species because evolution has stopped!!! Give me a break!

God Bless!

MugenOne (Translated as Endless One in English)


#2

For what its worth, I agree with you, mostly, I think.

We know by dogmatic Church teaching through faith that we are descended from ONE pair of ORIGINAL and ONLY people, Adam and Eve.

I don’t see how evolution can jive with that certain fact of the faith.


#3

Well, I neither believe in Creation Science with its literal interpretation of the Bible, or with the theory of Evolution as espoused by Darwin.

There is a middle path where we accept the Truth of the story of Creation in Genesis whilst at the same time accepting that the world itself evolved over millions of years. Whilst there is evidence that supports this form of evolution, there is no evidence to support Darwinism.

I do not believe that the world was created in a literal 6 twenty four hour periods. Even if one says that God can do anything and not believing is allegedly showing a lack of faith, I think that there is a time when common sense has to prevail. We cannot dismiss the following unless subterfuge is being used:

  1. bones that point to the existence of dinosaurs
  2. the existence of the minerals within the earth such as coal
  3. the fact that the Bible does not describe the such animals as dinosaurs yet there exists in Australia a primitive creature called platypus.

The biggest factor against such a simplistic understanding of God’s creation is that of how such earthly things as coal came into existence since the processes takes a very long time. The same is true for both oil and gas.

Now I do accept the Creation story as God’s Truth, because it describes the order of Creation. The language of the Scripture lends itself equally to an interpretation that the earth itself evolved over time before the appearance of man. That is why there is a division of periods (six periods in all) within the creation story with the seventh period being that of rest. The words “Evening came and morning came” are open to very wide interpretation.

It is legitimate to reject Darwin’s theory of natural selection yet it is foolish to accept point blank Creation Science that claims the earth is young. To date the Creation Scrientists have not produced any viable date to support their claims.

Maggie


#4

Actually, there is no problem with combining creationism with evolution. Genesis is written from a process-oriented perspecetive. Whether the days were 24 hours or millions of years is not terribly relevant. That God is the original mover, the designer, the creator is a matter of faith – and one that I accept. That he might have chosen to use a process like evolution is certainly within the scope of how He has worked.

BTW, no theory of evolution says we evolved from monkeys. It says we both had a common ancestor from which we both spring. While there is certainly some genetic links between us, we cannot prove this theory and it remains that, a theory.

Deacon Ed


#5

“1. bones that point to the existence of dinosaurs”

Dinosaurs existed, sure, but when, that is the question. Do you think a brain tumor is “very good?” Remains of a dinosaur with a brain tumor have been found. If the creature lived before the Fall, how is that “very good” as God’s creation clearly had to be, both logically and Biblically?

answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp
answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/dinosaur.asp

“That he might have chosen to use a process like evolution is certainly within the scope of how He has worked.”

So death existed before the Fall, in your opinion?

answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0112rejected.asp


#6

[quote=Deacon Ed]Actually, there is no problem with combining creationism with evolution.
[/quote]

As long as you take genesis as a parable the two are certainly compatible. A literal reading of genesis is in conflict with the scientific evidence. How you resolve that is up to you.

BTW, no theory of evolution says we evolved from monkeys. It says we both had a common ancestor from which we both spring. While there is certainly some genetic links between us, we cannot prove this theory and it remains that, a theory.

Deacon Ed

It’s proved as well as any scientific theory ever is. The DNA similarities between us and the great apes are staggering. Far more than between us and any other life form.


#7

First, let me say that I am a creationist. I believe that the universe is not billions of years old but thousands and was created in six days. I also have a degree in anthropology from the University of Illinois so I have studied the topic quite a bit. However…

You cannot treat the subject of origins as if it is a matter of science. It is not. It properly belongs to the field of history. Even if you could prove that evolution could have occurred, you cannot prove that it did occur.

Consider this, I live in Chicago. If I want to go to New York I can get on an airplane, a train, a bus or a car and go there. If someone who knows me sees me in New York they know I had to get there somehow bit there is no way of experimentally determining how I got there. You need a witness to the process who saw me on the trip.

We can look at the natural world and know that it went from nothing to where we are somehow, but we can’t prove how. God is the only witness and He has told us how He did it. I believe Him.

A couple of other points:

True, not all of the Bible needs to be taken literally. Some people have twisted this so that none of the Bible gets taken that way. Others are more selective. Do we accept the existence of the patriarchs as being literal truth? Of course. However, our evidence of their existence is in the same book as the account of creation. How is it reasonable to take part of the book as literal history and write off another part of it as figurative, especially when there is nothing in the text that indicates it is to be taken this way.

Second, the evidence for evolution is not strong. The fossil record gaps are still as big as they were in Darwin’s day. There are still no evidence of ny transitional forms. Evidence for an ancient Earth is very selective and data that does not agree with the prevailing thought is disregarded. Yet despite the incredibly weak evidence, many Catholics mold their view of the first few chapters of Genesis to make it fit. Let’s not be so willing to conform our faith to a secular idea that has very little objective support.

Also, the Darwinian view of evolution is rapidly losing ground with scientists. Biochemists are discovering that the processes in a cell are so complex that they could not possibly have evolved. They either came into existence all at once or they would have been useless to the organism. For example, how did plants eat while the ability to photosynthesize evolved over millions of years. Obviously, they couldn’t. Photosynthesis, a complex process with over fifty steps, had to come into existence fully functional. It could not have been the process of random mutations.


#8

I am not sure why there is a need to scientifically prove anything spiritually related. This especially goes for the Evolution vs. Creationism argument. I’ve read/heard good arguments from scientists on both sides of the issue (especially in the Origin of life area). In my mind neither side has a definitive scientific answer, so they cancel each other out, and I have to turn my attention away from science to other areas for any revelations of spiritual truth.


#9

[quote=pacersFan]I am not sure why there is a need to scientifically prove anything spiritually related. This especially goes for the Evolution vs. Creationism argument. I’ve read/heard good arguments from scientists on both sides of the issue (especially in the Origin of life area). In my mind neither side has a definitive scientific answer, so they cancel each other out, and I have to turn my attention away from science to other areas for any revelations of spiritual truth.
[/quote]

Thank you, pacersFan. I was getting a bit of a headache reading about the “scientific fact” of creation, the question mark not withstanding.

Of course it’s not a “scientific fact.” We have the testimony of no witnesses to characterize the process, we can’t do the experiment and see if it supports the hypothesis. It isn’t a scientific fact simply because it can’t be.

We have to remember the limits of science. Consider: Science cannot shed a bit of light on the truth or falsity of the following assertion:

“The universe came into being five seconds ago. When it came into being, it did so in a manner such that all of the memories of the people in it, and all of the characteristics of the living and non-living matter in it, are consistent with it having been around for a very much longer period of time.”

As a scientist, there are questions that science must leave alone, and bringing science to bear on those questions is an abuse of science.

Blessings,

Gerry


#10

[quote=MaggieOH]Well, I neither believe in Creation Science with its literal interpretation of the Bible, or with the theory of Evolution as espoused by Darwin.

  1. bones that point to the existence of dinosaurs
  2. the existence of the minerals within the earth such as coal
  3. the fact that the Bible does not describe the such animals as dinosaurs yet there exists in Australia a primitive creature called platypus.

The biggest factor against such a simplistic understanding of God’s creation is that of how such earthly things as coal came into existence since the processes takes a very long time. The same is true for both oil and gas.

Oil and gas is manufactured from waste very quickly when put under pressure. I don’t know about coal, but there’s probably no problem with producing that too in a short time.

Here is a dinosaur, probably an Allosaurus:
Job 40: 17-24
" See, besides you I made Behemoth, that feeds on grass like an ox. Behold the strength in his loins and his vigor in the sinews of his belly. He carries his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are like cables. His bones are like tubes of bronze; his frame is like iron rods. He came at the beginning of God’s ways, and was made the taskmaster of his fellows; for the produce of the mountains is brought to him and aof all wild animals he makes sport. Under the lotus trees he lies in coverts of the reedy swamp-. The lotus trees cover him with their shade; all about him are the poplars on the bqank. If the river grows violent, he is not disturbed; he is tranquil though the torrent surges about his mouth. Who can capture him by his eyes, or pierce his nose with a trap?"

“Carries his tail like a cedar” Can you think of any animal that has a tail like a tree other than a dinosaur? Dinosaurs and man were contemporaries. Another dinosaur is described in Daniel as well.
[/quote]


#11

Oil and gas is now manufactured from waste under pressure in a short period of time. Not sure about coal, but probably not a long period of time either.

Here is a dinosaur, probably an Allosaurus Job 40:15-24
"See, besides you i made Behemoth that feeds on grass like an ox. Behold the strength in his loins, and his vigor in the sinews of his belly. He carries his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are like cables. His bones are like tubes of bronze; his frame is like iron rods. He came at the beginning of God’s ways, and was made the taskmaster of his fellows;p for the produce of the mountains is brought to him, and of all wild animals he makes sport. Under the lotus trees he lies, in coverts of the reedy swamp0. The lotus trees covedr him with their shade; all about him are the poplars on the bank. If the river grows violent, he is not disturbed; he is tranquil though the torrent surges about his mouth. Who can capture him by his eyes, or pierce his nose with a trap?

“Tail like a cedar” What other animal has a tail like a tree than a dinosaur? Another dinosaur was killed by Daniel in the book of Daniel.


#12

[quote=MugenOne]I believe in creationism. I do take the the Genesis literally. God created the universe and everything in six days. . . .
The scientific community has problem with the six days. I think that one day of God is like millions and millions of year for us.
[/quote]

If you really take Genesis literally, then you can’t equate one day with millions of years. That’s not a literal interpretation. The biblical phrase “evening came, and morning followed–the first day” doesn’t allow for millions of years if taken literally.

But I really don’t think that Genesis is about science.


#13

[quote=Christopher]Dinosaurs existed, sure, but when, that is the question. Do you think a brain tumor is “very good?” Remains of a dinosaur with a brain tumor have been found. If the creature lived before the Fall, how is that “very good” as God’s creation clearly had to be, both logically and Biblically?

answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp
answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/dinosaur.asp

[/quote]

However, you misunderstand what is meant by “very good”. You see it in terms of absolute perfection, where it could be seen in terms of “it is pleasing to the eye”. A brain tumor can also be something that is benign. It is possible to have tumour that will not kill you. So no your argument is false and does not prove what you are trying to say or disprove what I have said.

So death existed before the Fall, in your opinion?

answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0112rejected.asp

That depends upon how you analzye the meaning of death and life in the Scripture. I have been trying to get Protestants, Catholics and Fundamentalists to have a good look at the Scriptural meaning of Eternal Life and of death, and I get no response. I wonder why? Could it be that you see death only in terms of physical death, instead of sin?

If you read the Scripture so that instead of death you insert the word “sin” or that which destroys grace in the soul, then you have a meaning that goes well beyond your own worldly understanding of death.

So yes, there was natural death in the world at the time of the Fall. There had to be because according to Scripture:

“There is a season for everything, a time for every occupation under heaven: A time for giving birth, a time for dying, a time for planting, a time for uprooting what has been planted…” (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8)

Physical death was always present in the world. There were always those things that came and went in cycles. What was not present before the Fall was spiritual death because of sin.

Also it sounds like you are saying that man existed alongside the dinosaurs. That has not been proven yet.

Maggie


#14

[quote=catholic2]Oil and gas is now manufactured from waste under pressure in a short period of time. Not sure about coal, but probably not a long period of time either.

Here is a dinosaur, probably an Allosaurus Job 40:15-24
"See, besides you i made Behemoth that feeds on grass like an ox. Behold the strength in his loins, and his vigor in the sinews of his belly. He carries his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are like cables. His bones are like tubes of bronze; his frame is like iron rods. He came at the beginning of God’s ways, and was made the taskmaster of his fellows;p for the produce of the mountains is brought to him, and of all wild animals he makes sport. Under the lotus trees he lies, in coverts of the reedy swamp0. The lotus trees covedr him with their shade; all about him are the poplars on the bank. If the river grows violent, he is not disturbed; he is tranquil though the torrent surges about his mouth. Who can capture him by his eyes, or pierce his nose with a trap?

“Tail like a cedar” What other animal has a tail like a tree than a dinosaur? Another dinosaur was killed by Daniel in the book of Daniel.
[/quote]

Can you prove that the dragon was a dinosaur? It is probable that some of these animals, of a smaller size continued to exist until they became extinct.

As for gas, it depends upon what you are talking about. Natural gas is pumped from under the sea. It is used for combustion heat in my country and is great for cooking.

There is a difference between natural gas and manufactured gas. When I was a little girl we had what was known as town gas or manufactured gas. It was stored in these really big storage tanks. Exactly how the gas was made is a mystery but I can tell you something about that the manufacture of that gas: It had a horrible smell.

There are fuels that can be manufactured to go into cars but they are an inferior product and cause harm to the car’s engine (been there done that) It is also possible to use LPG, or liquid petroleum gas to run the car. The emission is quite smelly, just the the emission from diesel cars.

However, that is not my point about what is known as fossil fuels. These fossil fuels developed over thousands upon thousands of years. Our coal reserves would no be so extensive if the earth was as young as is made out by Creation Science.

Gas, that is natural gas, and oil from under the sea, do not come from something that has been around for a short period of time. Those things need time to break down into their new components having once been trees that were already thousands of years old before they died.

Creation science is my view is based upon a whole lot of false premises. It is not verifiable by the facts that surround us, including memorable features such as the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Niagara Falls, and Uluru.

Maggie


#15

[quote=Deacon Ed]Actually, there is no problem with combining creationism with evolution. Genesis is written from a process-oriented perspecetive. Whether the days were 24 hours or millions of years is not terribly relevant. That God is the original mover, the designer, the creator is a matter of faith – and one that I accept. That he might have chosen to use a process like evolution is certainly within the scope of how He has worked.

BTW, no theory of evolution says we evolved from monkeys. It says we both had a common ancestor from which we both spring. While there is certainly some genetic links between us, we cannot prove this theory and it remains that, a theory.

Deacon Ed
[/quote]

Deacon Ed

I agree with you. That is precisely how I see the whole question. We do not need the either/or scenario that is being created.

Maggie


#16

[quote=pacersFan]I am not sure why there is a need to scientifically prove anything spiritually related. This especially goes for the Evolution vs. Creationism argument. I’ve read/heard good arguments from scientists on both sides of the issue (especially in the Origin of life area). In my mind neither side has a definitive scientific answer, so they cancel each other out, and I have to turn my attention away from science to other areas for any revelations of spiritual truth.
[/quote]

PacersFan I agree with you. There are good and bad arguments on both sides. However, there is another view that we do need to consider, and you have mentioned it in your above statement: the story of Creation is a revelation of spiritual Truth. For that reason it does not have to be literal, since what it is conveying is God’s Truth. This is what the Catholic Catechism in part says:

280 Creation is the foundation of “all God’s saving plans”, the beginning of the history of salvation that culminates in Christ…

282 Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times ask themselves “Where do we come from?”…

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through His works, by the light of human reason…

288 Thus the revelation of creation is inseparable from the revelation and forging of the covenant of the one God with his People. Creation is revealed as the first step toward this covenant, the first and universal witness to God’s all powerful love…

293 …The world was made for the glory of God…

I believe that both Darwin’s origin of the species and Creation Science do not knit together those things that give glory to God. They are bound up instead in the creation of a false dichotomy, imposing upon Christianity because of the desire to impose a literal interpretation upon the Scripture when it is not appropriate in discovering the wonders, glory and majesty of God.

Maggie


#17

[quote=Tlaloc]As long as you take genesis as a parable the two are certainly compatible. A literal reading of genesis is in conflict with the scientific evidence. How you resolve that is up to you.

It’s proved as well as any scientific theory ever is. The DNA similarities between us and the great apes are staggering. Far more than between us and any other life form.
[/quote]

The basic thing is that the findings of science must be measured against the teachings of the Bible, not the other way around. Which is to say that the understanding of human nature as proposed by evolutionists must not contradict that which is revealed in the Bible. Hence the diffrences between men and apes must not be minimalized by supposing, as some do, that
the human embryo is in the beginning “just” an animal, that he “becomes” human only at a certain stage in his development. This would only be true if, for instance, the DNA of embryonic cells get more “human” with development. But DNA seems to be relatively constant from the beginning


#18

I believe that the universe is not billions of years old but thousands and was created in six days.

How do you explain away the fact that we can see billions of years into the past with the Hubble telescope?


#19

MugenOne>> Why we haven’t evolved since we “became” man? Looks like we are doomed as a species because evolution has stopped!!! Give me a break! <<

An evolutionist would respond by saying that our technological advances have removed the necessity for us to adapt by evolutionary means.

Christopher>> I don’t see how evolution can jive with that certain fact of the faith. <<

They would argue that evolution got us up to the point where we had an Adam and Eve who could become our first parents. In other words, rather than form them from the dirt of the ground, God used evolution.

There’s a huge problem with that view, however. If evolution is truly random as the evolutionists claim, the exact same mutations that made Adam and Eve human rather than non-human would all have had to occur at the same time and general location for Adam and Eve to have met. You could argue that God was directing the process but why would He do it that way? And why, if He did choose to create our first parents that way, why would He not say so in Scripture?

MaggieOH>> There is a middle path where we accept the Truth of the story of Creation in Genesis whilst at the same time accepting that the world itself evolved over millions of years. Whilst there is evidence that supports this form of evolution, there is no evidence to support Darwinism. <<

What evidence? The methods that they use to date rocks are not reliable. A few years back they tested a sample of rock with the K-Ar method with is the standard method for dating rocks and it resulted in an age of 2 billion years. The problem was that the rock they tested was formed by a volcanic eruption 200 years ago. That’s quite an error.

MaggieOH>> 1. bones that point to the existence of dinosaurs <<

Reptiles grow their entire lives. Before Noah’s flood humans lived to be almost 1,000 years old so reptiles, many of which live longer than humans, would also have lived much longer and grow to immense sizes.

MaggieOH>> 2. the existence of the minerals within the earth such as coal <<

Experiments have been done which produced coal in a matter of weeks and months. Even if that was not the case, God created the universe with the appearance of age. Adam and Eve were not zygotes. He created trees, not pollen. Distant stars are visible from Earth. There is no reason why He couldn’t have created coal deposits especially since He knew it would become an important resource.

MaggieOH>> 3. the fact that the Bible does not describe the such animals as dinosaurs yet there exists in Australia a primitive creature called platypus. <<

The Bible is not a text on zoology.

Deacon Ed>> BTW, no theory of evolution says we evolved from monkeys. It says we both had a common ancestor from which we both spring. While there is certainly some genetic links between us, we cannot prove this theory and it remains that, a theory. <<

I read in a science magazine that, while we have about a 99% genetic similarity with the chimpanzee, we have about a 90% similarity with the amoeba.

Christopher>> Dinosaurs existed, sure, but when, that is the question. Do you think a brain tumor is “very good?” Remains of a dinosaur with a brain tumor have been found. If the creature lived before the Fall, how is that “very good” as God’s creation clearly had to be, both logically and Biblically? <<

Maybe this particular dinosaur got the tumor after the Fall. We have no reason to believe that any major extinctions occurred at the time of the Fall.

pacersFan>> I am not sure why there is a need to scientifically prove anything spiritually related. This especially goes for the Evolution vs. Creationism argument. I’ve read/heard good arguments from scientists on both sides of the issue (especially in the Origin of life area). In my mind neither side has a definitive scientific answer, so they cancel each other out, and I have to turn my attention away from science to other areas for any revelations of spiritual truth. <<

It’s not that we have to be able to prove our faith scientifically but we are to defend the faith when it is attacked. The matter of origins is relevant beyond the issue of our origins. What we believe about our origins helps to define our beliefs in other areas. Belief in evolution has given rise to Nazism, Communism and laize-faire Capitalism, all ungodly systems of thought that have brought great distress to the world.

Ghosty>> How do you explain away the fact that we can see billions of years into the past with the Hubble telescope? <<

God created the universe with the appearance of age. He made fully grown adults, not zygoytes; trees, not seeds. Gen 1 says that the stars serve as signs for us (see Ps 19). For them to serve as a sign, we must be able to see them therefore He created them visible.


#20

God created the universe with the appearance of age. He made fully grown adults, not zygoytes; trees, not seeds. Gen 1 says that the stars serve as signs for us (see Ps 19). For them to serve as a sign, we must be able to see them therefore He created them visible.

The “appearance of age” I can buy, but I want to point out that we don’t see stars 12 billion years back in time, but rather condensing clouds of gas. God could indeed have created a 12 billion year old universe just 6000 years ago, but that raises the question of why God would intentionally create a deceptive universe, even when such deceptions don’t serve as signs, as in the case of primordial nebulae.


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.