What's up with creationism?

[athrock]

Because, you're claiming that Catholics are required to believe in the literal interpretation of the story of Genesis. Which is a 100% completely false statement. Most Catholics believe the story in Genesis is allegory/symbolism for God being behind all of creation, and for human beings to have free will and have the ability/intelligence to choose between good and evil.

Hi CL, long time, no chat.

I can empathise here because my mother raised me in her Irish Roman Catholic tradition which interprets the Genesis creation story literally: Original Sin was a real thing that Jesus had to save us from. As I grew in the faith, I was introduced to Catholic, non-literal interpretations and that opened my eyes. You see, my father had taught me about classical Greek, Roman and Nordic mythology; that their religions were a myth was never in doubt. Once I saw that the Genesis story was as much a myth as the creation of Midgard, I understood that the entirety of christianity was made up.

My question to you is, understanding (as you do) that there was never a literal Adam or Eve, Eden, Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil (and subsequent fruit), a talking serpent etc., how/why do you believe/accept that Jesus was created to save you from the Original Sin that never happened?

I found this too:

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

[robvalue]

If God (Yahweh) showed up, I would not worship him. Why some people are so desperate to worship something I'll never understand.

But I would know he existed. I'd be happy to talk to him. If he wants to communicate with me, he can do. He needn't use terrible, pointless methods indistinguishable from fictional drivel.

He could offer me a reasoned argument why I should change the way I'm living, if he sees something wrong with. If he can't do that, then I must be doing pretty well.

[Catholic_Lady]

Hi CL, long time, no chat.

I can empathise here because my mother raised me in her Irish Roman Catholic tradition which interprets the Genesis creation story literally: Original Sin was a real thing that Jesus had to save us from. As I grew in the faith, I was introduced to Catholic, non-literal interpretations and that opened my eyes. You see, my father had taught me about classical Greek, Roman and Nordic mythology; that their religions were a myth was never in doubt. Once I saw that the Genesis story was as much a myth as the creation of Midgard, I understood that the entirety of christianity was made up.

My question to you is, understanding (as you do) that there was never a literal Adam or Eve, Eden, Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil (and subsequent fruit), a talking serpent etc., how/why do you believe/accept that Jesus was created to save you from the Original Sin that never happened?

First, the Catholic Church holds that there was a first man and woman who received their human nature from God. Whether their names were Adam (which simply means "man", btw) or not is unimportant. Consequently, Catholics who accept creation are obligated to accept the premise that there was an original set of human parents.

Second, it's not reasonable or important to the account of God's creation of the world to believe that Moses had to have all the facts of that creation (whether literal or via evolution) correct. God left some things (like DNA, for example) for us to figure out later. What IS important is that GOD created all things. How he did it is secondary.

Third, the account of the fall of man tells us of man's rebellion against his creator. The talking snake is a literary device. So, your assumption that Original Sin never happened because the story of the Fall of Man contains an apple and a serpent misses the point badly.

Wow, just realized I missed this post from Ben Davis. Sorry Ben, wasn't meaning to ignore you. 

But yes, looks like Athrock did a good job answering for me though. This is all correct.

[Mr.wizard]

Catholicism would be one of those, I was raised catholic and never once was I taught to not take the creation story literally or anything in bible for that matter.

Your post intrigued me so I did a bit of Googling, and here is what I have found from the Catholic Church's catechism:

I. CATECHESIS ON CREATION

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 have asked themselves:120 "Where do we come from?" "Where are we going?" "What is our origin?" "What is our end?" "Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?" The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.

283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."121

284The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?

285Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.

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,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123

287 The truth about creation is so important for all of human life that God in his tenderness wanted to reveal to his People everything that is salutary to know on the subject. Beyond the natural knowledge that every man can have of the Creator,124 God progressively revealed to Israel the mystery of creation. He who chose the patriarchs, who brought Israel out of Egypt, and who by choosing Israel created and formed it, this same God reveals himself as the One to whom belong all the peoples of the earth, and the whole earth itself; he is the One who alone "made heaven and earth".125

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 towards this covenant, the first and universal witness to God's all-powerful love.126 And so, the truth of creation is also expressed with growing vigor in the message of the prophets, the prayer of the psalms and the liturgy, and in the wisdom sayings of the Chosen People.127

289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the "beginning": creation, fall, and promise of salvation.

+++

Reading this, I don't get the impression that the Catholic Church is afraid of science. Do you?

I didn't  say they where afraid of science, my point is the account of creation was written down to be taken literally. The catholic church has adapted with the times regarding evolution but that doesn't make the genesis account all of the sudden metaphor, it just makes it wrong. It's a dishonest approach, basically they have taken the position that if something in the bible doesn't match with scientific discovery than it should be written off as metaphor. If the church had to actually address the inconsistencies in the bible as errors then they would have acknowledge the fact that the whole thing could be in error or a lie.

[Cyberman]

Then it's not a particularly flattering point. If the message, essentially, is that being Catholic doesn't mean you're not open minded and you can actually make a useful contribution to science, it's as patronising as telling women not to worry about not being male because they too can be scientists.

Oh, and the Big Bang isn't part of evolution theory.

It's really, really hard for you to let go of this, isn't it?

After having it pointed out to you that Lemaitre was a Catholic priest (and there were literally dozens of famous scientists who were also Christians throughout the course of history), you can't bring yourself to simply drop the subject.

And why is this? Because you really don't want to acknowledge that there is NOTHING incompatible between science and Christianity, do you?

Yep, that's completely spot on, I simply can't argue with that, you've got me bang to rights on that one, oh my yes indeedy-doo I am sooo busted...

Yay, you win! Good for you!