Vatican astronomer likens creationism to superstition

Glasgow, Dec. 6, 2007 (CWNews.com) - A Jesuit astronomer from the Vatican Observatory has said that scientific creationism is a form of superstition.

Speaking in Glasgow this week, Brother Guy Consolmagno said that scientists should protect against the tendency of religion to slide into superstition. In turn, he said, science needs religion “in order to have a conscience.” In the case of creationism, he said, believers have constructed a theory that is not supported by scientific facts.

“Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality,” Brother Consolmagno said-- “to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism.”

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55172

Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Me too.

I’m not quite sure what about creationism they’re bashing, but the only alternative to believing in special creation is believing that the universe made itself, and that’s simply illogical.

And before anyone jumps in my case, I am neither a young-universer nor a young-earther.

And of course there are those who believe Jesuits are a form of heresy. :wink:

I say give him the ax.

I’m not quite sure what about creationism they’re bashing, but the only alternative to believing in special creation is believing that the universe made itself, and that’s simply illogical.

That is not now, nor has it ever been the notion that the Vatican questions.
The biblical story of creation is not capable of defense by any reason, science or logic. This does not preclude a Creator…which, I believe, is the Vatican’s position.
Other than that, the world was created 6,000 some years ago and dinosaurs existed with man. Welcome to fundamentalism.

John

Genesis may not exactly fit the account of evolution, but evolution does not exactly fit within the Genesis account. For the guy to say that the concept that God created the Earth and what’s in it through his own Will, considering that He is Omnipotent; is the equivalent of primitive idolatry is just plain silly.

He controlled the wind and the waves in the Sea of Galilee with his voice, and we are going to say that he can’t create the Earth with it if he wants to?

Welcome to the Status Quo Catholicism that ends up having 70%+ of our youth fall away after HS, with virtually no knowledge or understanding of their Faith.

So do you think that insisting on a literal reading of Genesis would stop that slide?

Peace

Tim

What I am suggesting is that easily taking a cop out just to not supposedly feel contradicted between the two ideas, is not always the best way to go. But interpreting Genesis as figurative or allegory when there isn’t exactly any reason to doesn’t help either.

I would agree with that.

But interpreting Genesis as figurative or allegory when there isn’t exactly any reason to doesn’t help either.

Well, I would disagree that there is no reason to interpret Genesis as allegory. There is a wealth of scientific evidence that clearly contradicts a literal reading of Genesis. As a fellow poster on this forum likes to (correctly) point out, truth cannot contradict truth. So either all of the science is wrong or we must look at the creation story in Genesis as an allegory.

Peace

Tim

Am I the only one then who maintains a balanced approach that God created the present world through an evolutionary process?

No.

Peace

Tim

I don’t need scientific proof that Genesis is not historical to see that the creation accounts are full of symbolism.

If you don’t interpret Genesis as allegory, are you saying that a literal serpent caused the fall of man, and that God condemned all future generations of men to suffering and death over 1 fruit from a tree?

The astronomer offered his opinion. There is nothing wrong with his opinion. The Church does not say that Catholics must literalistically interpret the Creation in Genesis. The idea that one ought not to do so isn’t new. St. Augustine of Hippo, for example, argued that the days of Creation in Genesis are not literal days.

What’s more, given the undeniable scientific facts about the age of the Earth, one would be very hard pressed to rationally maintain a literalistic reading of the Creation story.

– Mark L. Chance.

As I said on another thread, when the pronouncements of our astronomer friend here are declared an infallible dogma, let me know.

In the meantime, :yawn:.

We were reconciled by having one man die on two blocks of wood crisscrossed into a t, so while I don’t exactly prescribe to 6 day/24 hour creation account, i don’t exactly have a problem with that if that is the case. Plus, the sin committed was a mortal sin. It was the one thing they were told not to do, they knew that rule came from God, and they broke it anyway; and mortal sins lead to death.

Ok… I think there’s so much more meaning in the story of the fall if you take it as allegorical and try to interpret the symbols. But I’m sure you can’t go astray taking it literally either. :shrug:

Let’s put a scientist next to Jesus in the same time period. Raised Lazarus from the dead? Impossible. Water to wine? Nope. A paralytic being told to take up his pallet and walk home, without physical therapy for obviously atrophied muscles? Not possible. Cleansing lepers? Not possible. A young man being raised from his coffin during his funeral procession? Not possible.

These are the power of God made manifest.
Today, you are not eligible for sainthood unless two miracles can be attributed to your help. Today.

The Catholic Church concerns itself with the real world and its manifest works and the Kingdom of God and its manifest works.

God bless,
Ed

According to todays post on the Catholic Answers Forum, “Ask an Apologist”, the correct answer is:

“While the Church does not forbid discussion about evolution and the origin of the human body, the Catholic faith requires us to believe the following: 1) The human soul is immediately created by God. 2) Our race descended from one pair: Adam and Eve.”

They also elaborate in further detail.

You use this argument often, Ed. Yet you don’t seem to understand the difference between not accepting the creation story in Genesis literally and accepting miracles. There is evidence against a 6 day creation 6,000-10,000 years ago. There is no evidence against those miracles you mention. Do you not understand the difference?

Peace

Tim

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.