Should Catholics be young-earth creationists? (with Jimmy Akin)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มี.ค. 2022
- In this episode Trent interviews fellow Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin about his debate with Catholic young-earth creationist Gideon Lazar and then talk about the concerns they have regarding this view of human origins.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Young Earth Creationism: Gideon Lazar VS Jimmy Akin - • Young Earth Creationis...
Jimmy's podcasts on YEC:
www.sqpn.com/2021/10/the-grea...
sqpn.com/2020/09/does-science...
sqpn.com/2020/09/does-the-bib...
sqpn.com/2020/10/science-star...
![[TH] 2024 PMWC x EWC Main Tournament Day 3 | PUBG MOBILE WORLD CUP x ESPORTS WORLD CUP](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3EM6gpHgLk4/mqdefault.jpg)
I grew up LCMS Lutheran and nearly lost my faith because of young-earth creationism. I became Catholic in 2019 mainly due to the work of the Holy Spirit, however, Catholic Answers ( and particularly Jimmy and Trent) answered many of my questions along the way. Also, this video came out on my birthday and feels like a birthday present to me, thank you both.
Is young earth creationism the official LCMS position or is it just very common there?
@@VieiraFi I googled it and apparently LCMS had a convention defining Genesis 1 as being Literally 6 days for earth’s creation.
@@VieiraFi Not sure about LCMS, but I was in the WELS synod and (though I'm not sure what "official" synod definition there was) my pastor certainly made it seem like it was official.
"It has generally been taught in our church that unless there is a compelling reason, on the basis of the biblical texts themselves, to understand the six days of the Genesis accounts as anything other than normal 24-hour days, we are to believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days (see Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation, Question 97 [Concordia Publishing House, 1986, p. 106]).
Official members of the LCMS (congregations, pastors, rostered church workers), of course, pledge to honor and uphold the official position of the Synod on doctrinal issues, including its official position on creation."
^ source: www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/the-bible#created
The pastor of the church I grew up in also said that we should believe that the earth is ~6,000 years old and anything other than this literal understanding was not Lutheran. He had a PowerPoint presentation of apologetics that featured things like a fossilized hat and gaps in the theory of evolution that scientists address regularly such as missing of some links between ancient and modern species.
@Curtis MH Yeah sounds very strange to me. I doubt this person is being entirely honest with us/themselves.
Though I'm Catholic the reason why I don't accept evolution is very simple. Jesus refers to Adam as a historical person who lived rather recently, and was personally responsible for introducing humanity to the concept of sin and death. Not only is Jesus talking about it as a very plain historical event, but in the New Testament there are very strong analogies from Adam to Jesus and his death. Adam's sin resulted in death's door opening to all, and his (Jesus's) death will cause the salvation's doors opening to all. The concept of original sin, Jesus's death and resurrection, humanity being cursed and restored were always closely bound with young earth creationism to me even though I was young and never even realized such a theory existed. Just from reading scripture and listening to priests talk about Adam, it was obvious to me that he had to be a real person living in a real place that actually existed some time before Noah, who existed some time before Abraham, who existed some time before Moses etc. So when I learned about evolutionary claims that Adam was an allegory and most of history mentioned in the Bible is false, including humanity being created and cursed with death recently and not living and dying and evolving from apes for past hundreds of thousands of years, I immediately dismissed evolution, since at the time I was already a converted Christian and Bible was a much stronger authority to me than science ever could. After all, people can interpret what we see in nature wrong, and they have for millennia. But God knows everything, and his Word is Holy. Only when I got older I learned the claims of both sides I learned to defend creationism as a scientific possibility with actual arguments. I also researched the Church's teaching about this, and though I agree it's fine to be an evolutionist and a Catholic, I still don't think it makes sense theologically and spiritually if we assume Adam could've not been a real person, or even if he was, there still were millions of people sinning, being born and dying before him. We do take baptism to be cleansed out of the original sin. If Adam never existed and never sinned, our baptism is meaningless. And so is Jesus's death, if he is to be second Adam who came to reverse what was broken. Did Jesus not exist either than? I understand that evangelizing is a lot harder if you use creationism as one of the stepping stones, so I just don't share this aspect of my faith when evangelizing. It's But it does make my personal faith a lot more coherent and simple to believe what Jesus and New Testament said about Adam was true.
Jesus never says Adam was the first man. Him being a historical figure and the whole account of Genesis being literal are two separate issues.
I Believe Adam was the first priestly king of the first tribe of humans capable of understanding the concept of god. God "formed man from the ground" and breathed the spirit into him. This for me is the process of evolution to the point we reach a species intelligent enough to receive divine revelation.
I think I would encourage you to look more into evolution. To believe in evolution isn't the same as believing that Adam and Eve didn't exist - William Lane Craig would be an example of this line of thought
If Adam is Not Real,Jesus died for the original sin that is started by a metaphorical Guy
@@ManlyServant Adam being real doesn't contradict the current scientific account.
This is so fascinating. I genuinely had no idea there were YEC Catholics, or that YEC was as widespread as it is among protestants, until fairly recently. I grew up Methodist and attended Catholic schools where our theology, physics and biology teachers both addressed the idea that evolution and the big bang in no way contradict God's work of creation...
Studying the various views on the origin of earth and life in college was eye opening but only as an adult have I realized that many Christians are YEC and many non-christians assume we all believe in a young earth and literal seven days.
Yes there are many Catholics who hold to YEC as they hold fast to the traditions as taught by the Church throughout the ages vs. scientific novelties that change all the time.
@@ACF1901 YEC was never a Catholic tradition. It´s purely a protestant 20th century creation. The Church doesn´t hold and never has held a position on the age of the universe of on how it came into being in a materialistic sense.
Because YEC is objectively true
@@roan2288 wrong
@@roan2288 That is utter nonsense! By in large, the Church Fathers held to YEC, they were all very Catholic.
I have no problem as a biblical scholar with The idea of an old earth and God working over billions of years to create the world. I also don’t have a problem with the idea of species changing over time. However, there is much about the theory of evolution which I believe has been extremely corrosive on many different levels, and has a far greater cost than we realize. One might argue that this has come from more of a philosophical point of view or from popularizers, but it is nevertheless not clarified enough by Christians who do believe in a theory of evolution. Examples would be the way it is assumed that evolution means that there is automatic and consistent progress in the life of human community, and so what is new is considered to be better. Or that morals and doctrine evolve over time, and so the new is better or at least acceptable no matter what it is. Also there is much bad behavior that is excused as being a result of evolution, such as promiscuous sex. It is also held up as being an explanation that gets rid of God. In general, while it is true that we hold to both faith and reason, there is a tendency to concede too much to science in the interest of apologetics. We forget that the scientific enterprise is based on a desire to control and manipulate the world to our own benefit, to master and conquer. This has been explicitly stated in early modern and in modern sources. I have no quarrel with the scientific method as such, but when it comes to the application of science there is much that is in contradiction to the love and care of creation.
Evolutionary theory is the antithesis of teleology. So, no it does not hold that the new is better than the old. Whatever biological entity exists now or before is adapted to its environment. Survival of the fittest means the best fit for a particular environment. If an organism cannot adapt to a changing environment it goes extinct. Every present living environment adapted, so every single one is the fittest. There is no value claim made in Evolution. To be sure, certain ideology cooped and distorted it for its ends. However, that does not diminish its truth claim. Biological evolutions is separate from societal "evolution," even when certain parallels can be found such as memes. Dawkins who coined that term also asserts that basing one's morals on evolution is absurd. What he and all reasonable (not always right) people recognise is that the natural world is the following: "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short, " Hobbes. Moreover as Hume tells us, we can not derive an "ought' from an "is" without supporting the "ought" premise. Science can help us determine what contributes to human flourishing, but we still must do the heavy lifting of working out what a human morality looks like.
Also, science is not about control, it is about knowledge. It is about understanding the world around us and ourselves. Not all science is applied science. Even applied science at its best is for our benefit, and for other creatures. Yes, science can be used for destruction. However, Where would modern Medicine be without science? You are also communicating on technology created through science. You make unsupported claims, such as "This has been explicitly stated in early modern and in modern sources." Where? I grant you that, some scientist in the past had bad ideas such as promoting control over the natural world, and there are certainly current scientists and others that promote ideas and goals of transhumanism, for example. Just because there are a hand full of scientist that embrace that, it doesn't mean all scientist do. It is quite the opposite. Most scientists are humanists. What you fail to do is make distinctions between science and ideologies, and between individual scientists beliefs. Most scientist reject what your are saddling them with.
Truth does indeed have a corrosive effect upon false, but deeply held, cherished fantasies.
First off, please, stop referring to evolution as a theory. You wouldn’t describe gravity or germs as theories, would you? I do also hope that you understand that the word, “theory”, is not the same as, “hypothesis”.
Secondly, if you think human morals haven’t and don’t evolve over time, then, I’m curious whether or not you think that the, “age of consent”, should be abolished as some degenerates, particularly Marxists, certainly do. Such as CNN staff, “a woman is a woman regardless of her age”, he said. How about another modern-day favorite topic of discussion in the first-world like slavery?
Thirdly, it’s interesting that you focus on promiscuous sex, but, not the practice of taking in a single wife and a literal horde of concubines simultaneously. How’s that for being an explanation that supposedly, “gets rid of God”?
The, “scientific enterprise”, is, “about controlling and manipulating the world”? Lol; you forget the majority of scientists are also Christians. Try the self-identified New World Order, instead. That has less to do with science and more to do with politicians, governments, and their knee-bending puppets and simps.
@@R01202 You are the perfect example of the hubris to which Marilyn's comment is referring.
@@wardomenergy4991 Ah yes, the ol' "I know you are but what am I?" apologetic. Nice.
I applaud Mr. Akin here in the honesty of Genesis 1. It should be obvious that the writer is working with an assumed cosmology. However the teaching that God created the world is clear.
Why is he working with an assumed Cosmology if he was divinely inspired? Didn't God know all the facts about the Earth?
Yes, either that or he's full of shite!
Way overdued reply, but in short, I think God wanted to communicate through the writer with their own language. God has been known to use this pattern of communication a lot.
Imagine explaining the big bang theory to the Old Testament people while trying to communicate the story of God's salvation.
Its all very clear how exactly the world was created. Within the 7 days in parts. This doesn't seem to cohere with the Big Bang and the way scientists describe how certain water animals evolved into land animals.
@@JustARandomBrotherInChri-zg6ku Right, the people in the bible were so dumb. And we are so smart.
Yeah I was one of those kids raised into young-earth creationism (evangelical). Went to the creation museum as a pretty young kid and loved it. It really seemed like they had an explanation for everything and it was great. As I attended school I got less and less comfortable with the view however, and in an attempt to reconcile my faith with reason I started reading Dr. Francis Collins and C.S. Lewis. The fact as you mentioned that the catholic church doesn't ask me to sacrifice reason has been the driving force of my conversion, which I must admit is something still in progress. Love you work, Trent. You've been a big help.
Don't forget that evolution is atheistic in nature, so of course they would try to corrupt your faith in God's creation.
Yeah, I am a European Catholic, and the age of the Earth is a non-issue here, also for Protestants. I just read some of the things in Answers in Genesis, but it's just so stupid. I mean, fossils in high mountains as evidence of the Flood? They don't seem to know that limestone itself is made from fossils that have accumulated on the seafloor over billions of years and were then raised up! (I myself am agnostic about the Flood itself, there may be some evidence, especially in the stories of many peoples around the globe, but the evidence for it are certainly not fossils that are much older than humanity!)
@@zadokmotorfreight2423
Not true
@@zadokmotorfreight2423 Please don't say that again. There are many variants to the theory of evolution, and while some are atheistic, evolution itself isn't. Theories try to explain the "why" something happens. The fact is that something does happen: Creatures change over time.
That "creatures change" shouldn't be harmful to your faith. And saying that it is harms others that realize this isn't reasonable to deny anymore.
@alonso19989 if what you're talking about is adaptation within a species, then I agree. However, 1.it is genetically impossible for a species to evolve into a more complex species because genetic information is lost, not gained over time. 2. God himself clearly says that he made each individual species according to its kind. So, evolution which is taught by the world is, indeed, both wrong and atheistic in nature. God is God. He has the ability to do what He wants, when He wants, however He wants. And He did. And He told us about it.
The main problem I have with evolution is that Darwin set out to prove God doesn't exist and "found" evidence to "support" his thesis. So evolution has been used to promote unbelief. I don't know why we have to have a young earth, however. God is not limited.
No, he didn’t. A simple google search would tell you that Darwin was at least a Christian Theist. He believed in God. He didn’t like religion. He also believed that religion had no place in explaining the natural sciences, and should stick to matters of faith and morals.
Does not Christ's genealogy go all the way back to Adam?
Yeah
No...Jesus wasn't born of Joseph so how could he be related to David or Adam?
by adoption @@OldPirate1718
@@OldPirate1718Mary was a daughter of David.
@@OldPirate1718dumb 😂
I am a Catholic and believe a young earth is *possible*. Mainly because there is really no way of knowing for sure, and atheists seem kind of committed to old earth for obvious reasons. I don't think it's helpful for some old earth Catholics to look down on young earthers, or vice versa. God is God. If we as mere men can create computer simulations with instantaneous creation of simulated distance, space and time, there surely God could do the same with the universe.
Young earth isn’t really even “possible” because of radiometric dating as Jimmy said. A young cosmos isn’t possible because of the speed at which light travels, and the fact that we can see events which occur (have occurred) billions of light years away.
You seem not to know this so…light years are a measure of distance based on the speed of light, they are that distance which light travels in the time it takes the earth to make one revolution around the sun. Astronomical distances are measured this way due to the vastness of the cosmos.
I lost my faith as a child because I was forced to choose between young Earth creationism over evolution. I later converted to Catholicism after learning it was less of an issue.
I find it fascinating that people say they believe God exists, and that God can create Universes, but if He did it recently then THAT is impossible ...
@@lizzard13666that's how Satan is destroying people's faith and sends them to hell
@@lizzard13666 it isn’t that people lack faith that God could create a universe recently. And omnipotent God could create anything in any way he wishes. It’s just that the overwhelming amount of evidence seems to indicate that he didn’t literally create that way, even though he could have. The evidence is there for us to see, evidence he created, and which we perceive with senses and understand with an intellect that he gave us to make sense of the world. To deny all the evidence around us would lead most of us to doubt our senses in doubt anything we thought we know about universe or anything at all. Now I understand you disagree. And I respect that. I would ask you to please respect fellow Christians who have come to a different opinion on this then you have, especially if their opinion is tolerated by the Catholic Church.
@@lizzard13666of course God could have made the world any way He wanted to. But he also gave us brains, and rational thought and reason, and a world guided by physics that He set in motion. It is more rational to believe and more likely that the universe is old, than to jump through hoops and ignore material evidence that God left for us to interpret rationally and say that it’s all an illusion and God made an old looking universe for no reason. It’s about choosing the more likely, more reasonable answer. Nobody’s denying that God has the capability of creating a young but old-looking universe
@@littledrummergirl_19 Actually, it doesn't "look old" at all. That's an assumption that ALREADY requires Telos, and assumes value.
What's really going on is that God would obviously have to create a functional universe. A HUGE misconception under Naturalism/Materialism is that EVERYthing would have had to start from zero. But when God created, do you think He would have created a functional universe, or a non-functional universe? A functional universe obviously requires a range of different states of matter in various phases of decay. And underlying assumption of ZERO decay is very problematic, and unproved, and unexpected under many Theist models.
glad you're doing this. I like when Trent say something like, "you don't have time, but I do, so I'll take it on" Thanks so much.
Mr. Horn, you are wearing a shirt with a collar. Very nice 👍
I prefer the superhero t-shirts
Akin & Horn has just spoke absolute blasphemy against the Roman Catholic Church & God HIMSELF & you're concerned with earthly shallow things like shirts???🤦And fyi superhero images equals abomination & are demonic, not befitting to a Christian, so thanks for the info, it only strengthens my case
@@secretagent101..Do you also believe that Pope Pius XII is a hetetic and blasphemer?
Great video I didn’t know According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Thanks guys 🙏🇻🇦✝️
Thanks for what exactly, hah? For heresy?? For blunt shameless blasphemy against our infallible Church fathers & Scripture itself!?? The universe is 13000 years old, and evolution is an abomination, so get over it or else join the Protestants. Repent
Yes, great video promoting heresies against the Roman Catholic Church and God HIMSELF 👏
The issue of evolution drove my brother and I away from the fundamentalist church we grew up in.
By the grace of God I found the Catholic church, which does not require such a belief, but my brother became an adamant atheist. Please pray for him.
So god has a perfect plan but praying can change his mind? God also knew how your brother would be raised and what he would believe in and take a interest in. So god set him up for failure all the way back at Adam and Eve? Also evolution is a fact.
@@Dcm193 Not sure I understand your comment.
Do you think Catholics do not believe in free will?
@@krjohnson29 free will is a thing but the added myths in Christianity of a perfect plan is just bs and contradictory.
@@Dcm193 Well, it is definitely a thick philosophical nest that many generations of people smarter than you and I have pondered.
But I think it is evident that the goal of all this, from God's perspective, is love (Mat 22:36-40). And love cannot truly exist without free will.
And if there is free will, there's the possibility of rejecting the path set before you.
@@krjohnson29 I know of plenty of smart people through out history who practiced religion. But in this day and age with all of the knowledge you could ever want at the tips of your fingers and people still deny reality because of indoctrination. A religion after so long grabs a hold of you and it bruises the ego when you find holes in the stories. I know that first hand. I have no problem with people who practice religion for the most part but I hate religion and fundamentalist. They are both a plague on man kind.
The church fathers were debating history, and they affirmed against opposition that the earth was less than 6000 years old. The fact that they were not scientists is irrelevant.
how about having faith in God and what He says is true? if He can create the universe in days, you don't think He can create the earth by increasing scientific (time-wise) processes?
By the way, I feel like Jimmy's distinction between "asserting" and "assuming" is not very helpful with respect to most of Genesis, because there is no obvious way to distinguish the assertions from the assumptions. The whole thing sounds like assertion. How much we choose to interpret as merely assumption is arbitrary. And if we're drawing lines arbitrarily, we're creating a slippery slope to interpreting virtually anything as merely an assumption based on contemporary worldly knowledge. Notice that this is essentially what liberal theologians do when they argue that St. Paul's injunctions against gay sex are merely a product of his culture and time, not an inspired teaching or even a reflection on an older divine command.
There are many statements throughout the Old Testament that seem like assertions, not assumptions, but that conflict with empirical findings. I mean, first and foremost are just the first few verses of Genesis 1. These seem like very central, important assertions of God. I don't think we can easily dodge the conflict by just calling the central premise of the Bible an assumed mythology of purely human origin. Moreover, many of them are referenced or reiterated by Jesus as if they are authoritative. For example, Jesus calls Adam "the first man." This is a pretty big problem, and it kinda irks me when Christians try to handwave it away. As I quoted in my other comment, St. Thomas Aquinas did not seem to accept this pooh-poohing argument.
This is why I struggle a lot with this. I'm a recent convert, so it's not like I'm particularly attached to any of this. I studied evolutionary biology and experimental evolution at the graduate level, so I have seen it first hand and I really have no doubt that evolution is possible and that it happens. I can't deny it. And so much physical evidence suggests that the same things I've observed in e-coli are responsible for billions of years of evolution, for all the biodiversity we see today. But once we begin trying to reconcile the Bible with this empirical evidence, it's very easy to draw the conclusion that the Biblical authors were simply mistaken.
I can understand mistakes with respect to minor details, but this is the very first story in the Bible. It's literally the foundation of the Bible. I simply can't believe that something like Biblical inspiration exists, and yet it doesn't apply to the very first story in the Bible. If all the details in this story are purely manmade, not inspired at all, why should I accept any other passage as inspired? I'm left with nothing but a rational belief in the Resurrection and the miracles of Jesus. What are the criteria for determining what's inspired and what isn't? If Genesis of all things is not inspired, then what is?
It would be easy to accept that maybe some of the logistical details in Joshua are uninspired. But the entire creation narrative? It's literally written as if in God's voice. If the standard is so high that not even Genesis qualifies as inspired, then practically nothing in the Bible can be said to be inspired. If the main criterion should be whether the claim passes scientific muster, this undermines it all in a completely different way, because it leaves everything at the mercy of technological circumstance. Why would God give us rules for life and make some of them non-binding, but make it impossible to determine which ones are binding without centuries of advanced scientific research?
This is all very troubling. I would almost rather believe that Genesis _is_ inspired, but that God intentionally lied to us, than accept that the very first words in the Bible, arguably the most important words, and clearly the most authoritative from a literary point of view, were not intended by God. It seems like a recipe for chaos and confusion. I find it hard to imagine how or why God would deceive us about the origins of life and the planet and the universe as a whole, but as with the so-called problem of evil, it's not for me to judge God.
I thought at first this was just a leftover habit from my life as an atheist, but I noticed that other Christians seem to be deeply disturbed by this too. Hence, the so-called creationist scientists who devote their lives to trying to prove the Biblical narrative. I think many people are very uncomfortable with the cognitive dissonance. It's not just discomfort with not knowing, it's discomfort with knowing two things that seem mutually exclusive. We have so many good reasons to believe the contemporary naturalistic narrative about the big bang, the formation of the solar system, the epochs of earth, the evolution of life, and so on.
However, I have gradually become a bit more relaxed about this, simply accepting that it's not for me to know, either. I can _know_ that evolution happens, that the earth has a 4.5 billion year history, that the universe has a 13.5 billion year history, and so on, without asserting that the authors of Genesis were merely repeating human myths that were assumed to be true, and in their normal capacity as humans. I don't know how to reconcile these narratives, but I realize that I'm just a frail human.
For all we know, God created the earth 5,000 years ago with the mere "appearance" of a 13.5 billion year history. It's possible that God just launched the universe to begin at 13.5 billion years into its own apparent timeline. That would imply a universe in which macroevolution is happening and will continue to happen in the future, creating exactly the amount of biodiversity we expect, and yet is not responsible for humans. With what we know about the so-called Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, it's entirely conceivable that there genuinely existed a first man and a first woman, and that mankind has been subject to natural selection ever since, with a real potential for future speciation. There are all sorts of unfalsifiable ways these stories might be reconciled. But it's just not for me to know.
I'd prefer to just accept everything I know about science and simultaneously accept the Biblical narrative at face value. That sounds essentially like cognitive dissonance, but at least in my experience, there's a way for both things to coexist, even to both simultaneously live at the forefront of one's mind. I simply trust that eventually I will know and understand, provided I assent. Naturally, that's not gonna be persuasive to atheists, since it pretty much _is_ mental gymnastics. But as someone who was very well convinced of atheism for my entire life, it helps me to reconcile Christianity with the aspects of science I can't deny.
I never wanted or tried to deny them either. But over the past couple years, I've discovered major aspects of Christianity I can't deny either, and the logical conclusion implied by them basically equals the Christian religion. I think the whole Christian religion logically emerges from those undeniable facts about Jesus. So I can't deny _anything_ about the Christian religion - even if I can't prove every aspect, and even if many aspects conflict with empirical facts of nature that I also can't deny - because it's all one giant, holistic thing. I can't just take a pair of scissors to the Christian faith and start snipping away at it until it fits like a jigsaw puzzle with contemporary cosmology, geology, and biology.
So I guess that leaves me in a position where I'm stuck with contemporary cosmology, geology and biology, and simultaneously stuck with the traditional interpretation of scripture. I don't know how both can be true at the same time, but I operate under the assumption that they somehow are, with faith that either God will tell me after I die, or knowing how the universe began will no longer matter to me in heaven in the first place.
Very good comment!
Why do you think the "deception objection" has much force? To me it seems to be based on two false assumptions. Taken these into account, one could phrase it like this, "If mankind once were to do science in a way that would have a total disregard of the Creator and His involvement in creation and it would then come out with conclusions that would strongly imply a Divine deception, God really were a deceiver." This is obviously ridiculous, because why would God even will this kind of science?
The two false assumptions are 1. Doing science as if God didn't exist and 2. Doing science as if there was no Divine intervention. The two are obviously false, because 1. that God is is certain by force of reason and 2. that God is very intimately involved in His creation (namely, sustaining it's existence at every moment) is a very strong conclusion of Natural theology as well.
I like the Catholic approach to science and faith, but for the aforementioned reasons I don't like the approach the natural sciences have towards creation.
If one does science without God and then tries to reconcile it with his belief in God again, of course there's going to be cognitive dissonance, this approach is almost a little schizophrenic. I would argue that the mistake doesn't lie on the "belief in God" side, because that's certain from reason.
I know exactly what you mean by the pain of the apparent cognitive dissonance. I particularly hate the gymnastics one would have to do regarding the genealogies (because in two Gospels they are Christ's real genealogies). But I will always come out on the side of Christ, that much is certain. I think much of this dissonance comes from the godless (in the plain sense of the word) science we have. I would be very curious as to how a science looks that incorporates the two certainties that God is, and that He sustains creations very being at every moment of it's being, because these certainties are the conclusion of the metaphysics necessary to do science in the first place.
@TM I admire your honesty and vulnerability, as well as your willingness to wrestle with difficult questions. I don’t mean to complicate things further for you (and forgive me if it sounds like I’m assuming you didn’t know this already), but for me, the fact that there are two creation stories in Genesis (one where humanity is created after the plants and animals; another where humanity is created prior to them) always is a helpful reminder to me that the beginning of Genesis is meant to be symbolic.
To your remark about the seeming arbitrariness of the criterion of looking to what the author was inspired to assert (again, idk if this’ll help, but), the Church has not gone and definitively interpreted a ton of Scripture passages, so while there is a rule of interpretation (though it’s, admittedly, a very broad one), you can rest knowing that it is not something that has been abused, and it will never be misused by the Church. Private individuals can interpret things within the bounds of doctrine. Scripture will always speak to us in new ways because it is inspired by God, so if it seems like we’ll never fully grasp it, that’s because we won’t, and that’s ok
Thanks and you're brave for sharing. I think anyone who's never had trouble with their faith is just not paying attention. I've never been atheist because I was baptized and raised Catholic though I attended public schools and therefore learned and believed/assumed evolution and an old Earth. Probably because I was born in the 80s, I've never had real trouble having them both be true. It seems to me evolution is just an extremely slow way God chose to create. It fits the general pattern of God in the bible to reveal Himself and His plans painstakingly slow. I see your point about being unable to accept biblical assumption. I didn't have that problem once I was taught what the Bible is and how it came to be and how we use it in our faith. In other words, I notice a difference in how I view the Bible and some other Christians do. I feel like some people almost view the Bible as this sacred and holy relic that was taken from God's personal journal in Heaven and dropped to Earth. Therefore they expect to find in it all sorts of secret insider knowledge about powers beyond the natural. If one has already a preconceived view like that, I think the struggle is real when you read Genesis. If however you realize these authors are just regular people whom God was with when they wrote NOT for the purpose of giving us some details we're curious about but for the sake of telling us what we need to know to respond to Him, then it's much easier to accept God likes to work in the simple and ordinary. That's the hardest part for me about God. He doesn't care for show and awing displays of His power and knowledge. I kinda want to see that but He prefers the less elevated route, in my opinion anyway.
Trent’s initial concern about the costs of holding the traditional Catholic doctrine on Creation reminds me of Pope Leo XIII’s condemnation of Americanism, which is the idea that "in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age.”
Also, there are no distinctions being made here as to the binding character of the specific “rulings of the Magisterium in the last century.” It’s just thrown out there, all the while disregarding the actual weight of the Church Notes in matters where it contradicts the aforementioned “rulings” or statement(s) that the account of Genesis could be merely allegorical. The idea that this wouldn't affect our Faith is nonsense. Historical Revelation affects our theology, as St. Thomas warns in his Summa contra Gentiles:
“The opinion of those who say that it is a matter of indifference what we believe about creation as long as we have a correct opinion of God is notoriously false, for a false opinion about creation is always reflected in a false understanding of God.“
Akin is a bit of a modernist so no surprise his position
Akin and Trent are not saying our beliefs about Creation are matters for indifference. Nor is the Magisterium. There are certain non-negotiables imposed by the Magisterium for people who adhere to a theory of evolution. The Church has never proposed for belief de fide the teaching that the universe was created in six days. It may one day, but it has not; and to suggest that the Church has caved into modernism by not requiring people to believe in six-day creation is to suggest something not in accord with the Magisterium’s history of teaching.
YEC is protestant fundamentalist Americanism. It's people of our age that try to translate the Bible into an unprovable science. That is a modern notion and practice that also isn't Catholic.
@toddbyrd9071 It was protestant fundamentalists that came up with uninhibited literalist interpretation of the bible. If you are Catholic, you are holding to a modern American protestant fundamentalist interpretation. Are you Catholic and adhere to the teachings and understandings of the church or are you a protestant fundamentalist that solely basis your understandings on not only Scripture, but the extremely limiting view that scripture is always and can only be literal? Adjust yourself accordingly.
😂 He didn't said he only believe in modern mode or Old Mode, he said both could be accepted bcz Church doesn't believe it to be faith but rather a scientific thing like Church doesn't totally talk about limbo even though limbo isn't scientific but a mystery which we can give it to the hands of the God.
So what´s the problem? Catholic Church does not condem young earth and creationism. In fact First Fathers of the Church believed that the Earth was no longer than 6.500 years. For me is totally reasonable to think in a young earth and creationsim. The reason some times not to go with that view is ´cause of the fear of being called lunatic, or caged in one tag. I saw the debate with Gideon Lazar and the basic argument of Akin is that the Church does not condem the evolution and leave the problem open. Considering the evidence that Lazar put on the table that argument was weak.
Thankyou gentlemen for your commentary on Young Earth vs Old Earth teaching and the magisterial position on this.
These guys seem to be presenting only two options, young-earth creation or theistic evolution. There is a third and one that I believe is the correct view. That is old-earth creation. Just as Trent and Jimmy view the first three chapters of Genesis as an old timeline so do old-earth creationists. We just don't feel compelled to buy into the evolution storyline.
Would this be the belief that yes the universe and earth are old like science says, but God literally created Adam and Eve out of the earth instead of them evolving from animals like other species did? I was wondering about this view too, it’s definitely a legit option
If you believe in old earth, you have to believe in evolution.
@@ParkJong_Gun20 Not
The earth may be billions of years old but i don't think humans are hundreds of thousands of years old. That's really the question here.
How can I get in touch with Trent? I have a lot to say about evolution.
At university, back in 2000, I met the daughter of a Baptist Pastor, she was really on fire for the Lord and was very much into spreading The Good News. She was also a young earther. She dismissed me on the evolutionary view being compatible with Christian theology, mostly becuase I was a Papist, so what did I an my idol worshiping backside know? :^D
Anyho, it was rather horrifying to watch her faith just go poof as a mutual friend, a science major, explained in really easy terms how the world was NOT 6000 years old. If that wasn't true, if what she had been taught her whole life about the age of teh earth wasn't real, what else wasn't? Massive crisis of faith. Ended up running full tilt into the secular world of booze, sex and atheism. She was never able, or perhaps not willing, to find a way to fit both science and Christ into her life.
The whole thing was so sad. Since then, I think it's been important for Christians to be honest about evolution/age of the earth in terms of real science, and that it's not a threat to our Faith. Our salvation doesn't require a belief in a young earth, it requires accepting Christ.
That's really sad. For me the strongest anchors are faith in Jesus Christ, and certainty about God by force of reason ans well has the eudaimonistic ethics of the scholastics. Human life seems to be about something by virtue of it's nature, and so with the help of Natural theology and revelation it's abundantly clear that man's actions should be oriented towards God, and only find fulfillment in the intellectual vision of God. Because of this I could not go back to any kind of Atheism, because I would find it impossible to argue that human life is about anything.
I very strongly favor a young earth position, but I 100% agree with you that our faith shouldn't be grounded in that. It should be grounded in Christ Jesus "the founder and perfecter of our faith" (Hebrews 12:2) as well as the certainty which reason gives us of God.
You missed the point. Evolution was never the problem. The problem is that this daughter didn't actually live the faith. You say that some science major explained in really easy terms how the world was not 6000 years? Where can I find these easy terms? Because apparently I can't find anyone who could explain stuffs like this without insulting me for disagreeing with them. And I don't consider myself as a young creationist. But also I'm not a believer of "old Earth". I don't know what happened in the past but also I can't accept something like evolution just because these "prophets of science" say so. And you need to do a lot of mental gymnastic to believe in evolution and also in a God who created the man in His image and died on the cross for him.
@@sfappetrupavelandrei The mental gymnastics for combining Evolution and God are much easier than the ones that result from willfully ignoring the proven fact of evolution.
Or, if you prefer, how about i just say there's a 99.98% universal consensus from the experts that evolution is settled.
Young earth creationism will end up like heliocentrism before too long. Reason always wins
@@sfappetrupavelandreiYou can go see the grand canyon and see the different soil columns from different epochs. That's how easy it is to see that the earth is super old.
Even the old testament agrees the planet was already here and started the 7 days of labor to create what it is now.
What you described are the dangers of fundamentalist literalist interpretation. It serves to push people away from faith because the justification for the faith it assumes is a false premise, and itself a newly concocted modernist interpretation. This is the origin story for so many atheists , its because of the prominent fundamentalist protestant view in the American context that asserts easily refutable falsehoods as truth.
Excellent. I'm glad to see some good content on this topic!
Yes, Gideon provided great content on this topic
I strongly reject evolution and disagree with the pair of you,
I stand with Catholic Gideon , with Catholic Doctor Robert Sungenis on this issue. Dosnt make you a bad Catholic if you disagree though I'm still a fan of trent. I know the majority of the evidence supports your theory of old earth, but I can't.
A good source is kolbe centre and also Dr sungenus.
Faith can never contradict reason. So you're disagreeing with yourself. Science all points toward old earth so you're just forming your thought over what you want to be true not what is
@@justinitsthatguyme010 Does the first tree come from a seed? If the earth gave fruit to the first tree, why would a tree need to produce a seed if the earth already has the ability? Perhaps the initial moments of creation was a very quick process and not a long billion years drawn out one. Does God create Adam as an infant? Can an infant survive without being cared for? Maybe the apes took care of their mutant conscientious offspring? Or perhaps God created material matter from a matured state? And not billions of years of random purposeful genetic mistakes?
….I’m using reason here, am I not?
@@MNskins11 Good point, I reject evolution also. Can life come from 'non life'?
@@justinitsthatguyme010 no science supports old earth
I really want the young earth model to be true but I suspect it isn't. Lord help me to accept the catechism on this. Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn God bless you both. Such defenders of the faith.
The earth is young
@@drazam6608 I guess as a Christian I find that hard to believe given everything we know about astronomy, biology, and all of that sort. You have to create an entirely new basis of physics (like the constant c) in order to come to a logically functioning model.
Imagine I’m teaching you about evolution by using polar bears as an example: a mutation caused their fur to become white, the white ones had higher survival rate in the snow, other colours died out and therefore eliminated from the genenpool. Sounds logical right? Now imagine going to the Arctic, after hearing all this and you find that besides the white bears, all the other coloured bears live and thrive there too. Wouldn’t that be evidence that what you were thought was false? Now that’s exactly what happens when you think about us having evolved from bacteria (supposedly out of necessity) but the bacteria from where we supposedly evolved still lives and thrives.
@@RealDianaGarcia evolution isn't driven by anything but time lol. Natural selection, random mutation, survival of the fittest, none of these are "evolution" in and of themselves
I'm interested in this argument because I'm honestly seeking the truth after a prompt from my sister. I hear this argument a lot from people against evolution. "If Y evolved from X, why is X still around". Well this to me is incredibly basic to answer, we only have to look at for example cases where species have been separated by a river, volcano eruption, movement of continents etc. They develop different attributes and characteristics. If this can happen even over short periods of decades or centuries, it's perfectly comprehensible that over a period of billions of years the same could happen - an organism that didn't receive exactly the same environmental prompts and triggers, would either not evolve or evolve differently.
I personally think it really hurts the church when so many of its members take undeniably anti-science stances. It doesn't help in selling the idea that one can come to know God through reason.
Either way, disagreements are a part of life, and what's most important is that we continue to love and appreciate each other and highlight wherever we find common ground☺
Actually, Y.E.C. is not anti-science. In fact, the evidence I see seems more consistent with YEC, and even antagonistic to Old Earth Evolution. A prime example is the numerous finds of dino soft tissue, still soft (though dessicated) and most the DNA identifiable. This seems utterly impossible if it's 65+million years old. several thousand years, sure, but not millions! Well, unless God miraculously preserved it!
That being said, I'm still pretty agnostic concerning the two models of origins. Believe whichever you will, as long as God is given credit as the Maker.
A
Historically Science is wrong more often then it’s right, so much false Science has been pedaled as fact throughout Human history
@@alcarbo8613 but it keeps refining its understanding. Sure there's plenty of junk science and incorrect theories in history, but because science is a process of omitting biases and making testable predictions, falsities are replaced with knowledge, and knowledge is further understood in greater detail with each breakthrough.
Our entire way of life, from cars to refrigeration to phones to medicine to food, it only exists because science absolutely works and produces results. If a god exists that created a universe attainable by science, then understanding it and using it should be of utmost importance. Science is the pursuit of objective truth🙂
You should focus more on saving your soul than being appealing to unbelievers.
Disagreeing with evolution and old earth is not anti-science. You are making evolution and old earth into a dogma that cannot be questioned.
"Not having to believe things that are unreasonable." Miracles could be called unreasonable.
Thats where I am on the topic also. It seems like we are letting science slowly eat away at the faith in miracles.
The theory of Evolution it’s self is unreasonable lol
Miracles ARE reasonable. If God exists, he wouldn't create a universe that lies to man in every aspect (see the age of the star argument), but He would from time to time show His presence and power to humans.
well said
This is a really bad argument
1. Are miracles possible?
th-cam.com/video/2hQAi0u5Rs0/w-d-xo.html
Is there a reason why we are going on about evolution? Are you saying you believe animals can change into different species? You don't have to believe in evolution in order to think the earth is older than 6000 years.
animals do change into different species, we can even observe it today.
The problem with your questions is we don't even have a difinitive definition of species. There is always some exeption for any definition we make. "Species" are man-made concepts we made to identify similar animals, but it's not like there is a rule that stop living beings into changing radically
Just a question: If all species have evolved through a long, life death, cycle. Does it not follow that our material death was not due to the Fall of Adam and Eve? Original Sin would not be the cause of physical death; only spiritual death?
Maybe there are two kinds of "death", human death (which means separation of immortal soul and body or denial of immortal soul from beatific vision) and non-human death (cessation of vegetative/sensitive soul).
I understand the idea.of the genesis description being symbolism, but the genealogy of Jesus in the gospel of Luke does indeed go all the way back to Adam, through the very lineage given in Genesis, how do you reconcile this?
Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus #15 (On the study of Holy Scripture), 1893 AD: "not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires"
Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum #5 (On Christian Marriage), 1880 AD: "We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time."
Get recked.
Eden is probably not on Earth. Adam and Eve existed, but they arrived in this world through natural selection, they were the first humans God gave a rational soul to.
It is interesting that one can believe in a, worldwide flood, the crossing of the Red Sea, the eucharistic miracle of the blessed Sacraments, etc., but reject literal six days creation. However, I would agree, you can hold to either a young earth or old earth creationism and be a good Catholic Christian.
I was raised in the Catholic church but in Lutheran schools, so I was taught young earth at school and just assumed that’s what all Christians believed, but even in fifth grade when we were talking about dinosaurs, their argument just didn’t make sense to me. When I learned that Catholic teaching allowed varying opinions on the creation of the universe, I embraced it almost immediately and felt much more comfortable with the topic
If we're being generous to the opposing argument, it could easily be explained that God simply created everything in a single moment including the light in transit, and all the atoms at their respective ages, etc. If he can create a universe, he can create it in any initial state he wants to. Unfortunately Gideon shot himself in the foot with his "we don't have funding for our models" I'm sure if he had time to reflect he might revert to what I just mentioned above.
Let’s not forget that Blessed Anna Catharina Emmerich had visions of the life of Jesus as well as of the Old Testament and describes Adam, Eve, Abraham, Noah, Moses,… as historical persons.. She even report Jesus telling the Pharisees about the exact age of the earth..
and she is canonized
It doesn’t matter to those who hold to evolution, they don’t actually hold the Bible as inerrant. They except evolution first, and Christianity second. That is why it is so diabolical.
No she's not. She's a Blessed. And all of her writings are not fully supported yet. So stop lying
No you're making up your own interpretation. You don't know what's literal and what's not. What's historical, and what's describing metaphorically what's happened. Don't be a Protestant and skew even Bible your own way
@@justinitsthatguyme010 it’s not that her writing are not fully supported yet, it’s that the church did not make any claim of infallibility on her writings. Not the same thing.
I actually moved away from a community in part because of this issue. A strong but perhaps small element of that community (who had a larger role beyond the immediate community), seemed to believe that “properly understood”, the Magisterium “tolerated” belief in evolution, geological time scale, a heliocentric solar system etc - but actually teaches YEC, geocentrism, “Dinotopia”, etc.
Whats your “proper understanding” then?
Because they are correct & ORTHODOX. This community is a true Roman Catholic, unlike you Protestants disguised as Catholics who persist in your heresies even after having been explained what the Popes actually said. Shame!
@@candelario4288I will explain to you if you show a sign that my comment has been received & not shut down by Akin & Horn who pretend they are Catholics
I see room for both views in Christianity. Its rather sad to see that people in this comments section seem so quick to demonize YEC and blame it for their loss of faith. But what I see here is that it is not the YEC that began their loss of faith, it is their association and entanglement with secular culture that caused them to disbelieve. No, you didn't outthink the church fathers or the YEC in elementary school, you were the subject of immense cultural pressure to accept a dogmatic secular worldview.
About 9:00 in, I turned it off because Jimmy Akin thinks that Pius XII’s praise of OEC amounts to a ruling of “the magisterium.” Before 9:00, Trent starts off by saying, ‘all the Church fathers might have believed YEC, but I don’t.’ This conversation is not based on solid principles at all. These guys are unfit to handle this topic.
Example of a scientific paradigm.
The Himalayan mountain range and Tibetan plateau have formed as a result of the collision between the Indian Plate and Eurasian Plate which began 50 million years ago and continues today. 225 million years ago (Ma) India was a large island situated off the Australian coast and separated from Asia by the Tethys Ocean.
@YAJUN YUAN Do you believe in a flat earth?
So how long according to science, will it take for the Pacific Plate to make our own giant mountain range against the North American Plate? Why are the Rocky mountains bigger than the Sierra Nevadas?
If you look at the plates, the Eurasia plate and the North American plate don't always seem to form mountain ranges where they meet.
@@Mokinono45 it’s not because the earth is 6000 years old. Lol. I was taliking about the Himalayas. Lol. If you want to try to squeeze world history and geology into 6000 years you are entering crazy town where the flat earthers and geocentrism people live as they watch the rings of Saturn formed in 6000 years. Geological view of the Himalayas is old that’s the consensus of scientific community which has been Peer review and majority consensus. Your view is not even minority or fringe
@YAJUN YUAN do you believe the earth is not flat because scientific consensus says the earth is round?
@YAJUN YUAN Genesis when he separates the waters below from those above. Thereby showing that the OT held to a primitive cosmology that had the world/universe inside some hollow vault surrounded by primordial seas.
Many Orthodox Jews also hold young earth beliefs.
Most don't today
Many Orthodox Js also crucified God 2000 years ago. They also tried to sink the USS Liberty and did the Apollo Affair and Lavon Affair, and look up Dancing Israelis on Google
When it's said that deTh entered the world through the fall does that mean that no animals died before the fall or that only humans didn't die before the fall. If the former then how do you make sense of that with the millions of years of fossils that predate humanity?
With all respect, both Jimmy and Trent are *greatly* overstating the authority of magisterial statements on evolution and the age of the earth. Even though they admit that the Magisterium does not require Catholics to believe in evolution and in an old earth, they fall just short of that by suggesting that the Magisterium strongly endorses evolution and an old earth because science overwhelmingly confirms these positions. Both these premises are highly problematic.
1) The statements of the authentic Magisterium are anything but clear or authoritative. First, the Magisterium does not have the authority to speak on matters of science. This obviously includes questions pertaining to evolution and the age of the earth. Second, almost all magisterial statements since Humani Generis are either incredibly vague (i.e. JPII's famous statement that evolution is "more than a hypothesis") or of very low authority (e.g. local episcopal synods, etc.). So it's not accurate to imply that the "magisterium" strongly endorses evolution, just falling short of requiring assent of faith. For an excellent, balanced survey of the Catholic view on evolution, see Michael Chaberek, Catholicism and Evolution: A History from Darwin to Pope Francis.
2) Jimmy and Trent are also greatly overstating the authority of "science" on matters of evolution and on the age of the earth, as if these were fully settled matters. In fact, the more one reads about the topics, the more it becomes evident that Darwinian evolution (and, to a lesser degree, theistic evolution) is a theory that is full of holes and largely implausible scientifically. Nor are the questions of the age of the earth, the fossil record, or human origins as settled as evolutionists often present them. It's really worth reading the literature from both the creationist and intelligent design camps on these matters. While until recently I thought that the first group, especially, presented a fundamentalist view completely at odds with science, I changed my mind after actually engaging some of that literature. Look up authors such as Jonathan Wells ("Icons of Evolution"), Jonathan Sarfati, Phillip Johnson, or (from a Catholic perspective) Victor Warkulwiz (The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11).
I remain agnostic about the questions of evolution and the age of the earth, and am still open to be swayed in either direction. But I get a strong sense that both Jimmy and Trent are overstating their case for the predominant modern view which, as Gideon pointed out in his debate with Jimmy, is highly problematic in light of the testimony of Scripture and all Church Tradition up to the 19th century.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib
Watch Dr Sungenis and Dr Tours on geocentricty and abiogenesis...
Fascinating discussion, I really appreciate the clarity that both the debate and this follow-up brought to the issue.
I did want to address the last argument that Jimmy brought up and his response to it regarding essences and accidents.
Jimmy made the point that properties that were once accidental can eventually become essential, this sounds to me like the theory of emergent properties, or gestalt theory or the idea that the whole of something is greater than the sum of its parts.
You can also be referred to as Voltron theory, the idea that the individual pieces of something are brought together in such a way that they form something greater and essential when combined, but not when they're disconnected.
For instance, the carbon atoms that are present in the human body if removed and refined would simply just be carbon, not a human body. However, that same pure carbon, if present in food or water and ingested into the human body and so arranged and utilized in a way that is actually healthy for the body, it then becomes a part of the body.
It seems that what it means to be human is not merely the collection of material, or the disembodied spirit, but also the largely unconscious system of arrangement and growth and health that makes up not only the body, but also the mind. It's fascinating to study psychology on this point as well and there is a growing interest in how biology and psychology interact.
It seems that we're getting into ontology, treading into the very nature of being. Excellent discussion, and I agree, that various forms of fundamentalism whether Catholic or protestant, dismisses or ignores so much counter evidence that it makes many of the claims of Christianity largely incredible if pressed to their logical conclusions.
Now I first had to read up on what is meant by “Gestalt theory” ;)
"Gestalt" = visible external appearance (German) corresponds to the words "shape/form"
“etwas gestalten” (German) roughly corresponds to: "to design something; to create something"
With this background knowledge, the term “Gestalt theory” (out of psychology) may become a little more understandable ;)
"The core statement "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" is often attributed to Gestalt theory, which in turn is said to go back to Aristotle. However, this attribution is incorrect, as Wolfgang Metzger emphasizes: "It is... not accurate to say that The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Rather, it must mean: The whole is something other than the sum of its parts. Formal qualities are not only added to the - unchanged - parts, but everything that becomes a part of a whole, "takes on new properties"
The debate was fascinating even though it was clear that both debaters were mostly speculating given that no one knows what really happened in creation. And in this debrief, given that the argument is that the Church and early fathers can/could only weigh on matter of faith and morals, then it is ultimately irrelevant to point out that the current magisterium tip toward evolution, since evolution is neither a matter of faith or morals.
There is One who was present at creation and He let us know what happened.
@@zadokmotorfreight2423he lets us know through reason and science.
@@anthonyhulse1248 true. He also told us clearly in his Word. Everything points to God creating and not to evolution
@@zadokmotorfreight2423And yet Evolution is what happened.
@StudentDad-mc3pu no it isn't
Thanks for this. So if young earth is not correct, does that mean that Genesis is not a literal 7 day account? Shouldn't we read the Bible as it is presented so to speak? Shouldn't the most plainest of interpretations be the most favourable way to interpret scripture Prima fascia? I'm open of course to persuasive arguments from either side. I'm just terribly confused.
It's literal history. But don't take some idioms literally, for example "windows of heaven", which is just metaphor for rain.
Read it as it is. History as history, metaphors as metaphors and you're good to go.
It´s literal history as in that God created the universe, that his creation is fundamentally good, that God created humanity, that humanity received a spirit, ect. But it´s not a literal retelling on how the universe came to be in a literal and scientific sense. Genesis explains the why the universe is, not the how and to be honest the why is the more important of the two.
Ha, almost feel like I shouldn't reply because my advice is going to be different than everyone else who replied to you. My view is that different books of the Bible are of different literary genres. The Gospels, for instance, are biography. The Song of Solomon and the Book of Psalms are poetry. The Book of Revelation, as well as the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. are prophesy. The Book of Samuel, the Books of Maccabees, and the Book of Exodus are history. There's another kind of genre called myth or fable, not to mean that it isn't true, but that it is a story told so that anyone can understand the deeper truths in contains. That what I tend to view the creation accounts in the Book of Genesis as. But that's not by any means infallible or binding; you can have a literal interpretation if you so choose, such as King Pingviini seems to have. That is totally fine, and there's good points to be made in favor of Young-Earth Creationism from both a scientific and Biblical perspective. I myself, however, gravitate towards Old-Earth Creationism.
Biblical literalism was originally a fundamentalist protestant view of the bible that came about as a reaction to evolution. Catholic interpretations of Genesis are much more nuanced. The fundamentalist view is one way to create fire brand Christians based on falsehoods, but also to divide the world and create atheists.
Evolution, or the age of the universe is never addressed. Yes im aware the Bible says everything was created in 6 days, but we don't know how long the first day was. Between genesis 1:1-4 could have been 10 minutes, or 300 trillion years. Only after light was divided was the first day done. The hours of each day are never stated either.
It's really not relevant nor should it be a point of division for the church. Bask in God's glory over creation.
Thank you guys for talking about this. It's a topic that confused me for many of my younger years with no good explanation that made me feel I had to choose between faith and science. Thankfully, early in college, some apologetics friends of mine pointed me to resources that helped me out and ultimately fostered a love of apologetics in me :)
Thanks for what exactly? Blunt heresies? According to Scripture as all Church fathers teached, the universe from the beginning to our times is 13000 years, but Horn & Akin believe that the words of our fathers are fallible as Protestant do, and also Scripture itself! Despicable!!!
Thanks for what? Protestant heresies against Scripture itself???
@@EasternRomanOrthodox.Bro don't be busybody. If she got the answer she looking for which doesn't contradicts scripture why do you act like this. Her sola doctrine beliefs maybe wrong, she didn't came here to talk about it. Have a Nice Day brother & Sister. God Bless. Ave Christus Rex 🇻🇦 †
@@savagemode. Brother, you have no idea what your talking about? What answers? Spitting on the words of Scripture?? Calling them fables or exaggerations?? As long is you get answers no matter if they are blasphemies it is fine to you? No, take your religion & the Bible seriously & reject Akin & the evolutionist heretics please🙏❤️
@@EasternRomanOrthodox. 😂
Interesting how antitheists like Dawkins don’t agree with Akin, Horn, WLC, and other capitulators. They don’t want God at all but you want to believe that they accept you?
Dawkins explicitly denounces theistic evolution.
I find Theo-Evo more tangible then Creationism, BUT! I can't help, but feel that what they do is like "I don't believe Bible on that part, but in other instance, I believe what Bible says".
And also that part, which I find extremely funny. When TE ask Creationist, do you really believe sky has literal windows from wich water is falling, and they say YES. They immediately start to think Creationalists are morons. They think Creationalists are morons, because they believe what Bible says.
@@whelperw evolution theory is mathematically impossible according to John Lennox. It is biochemically impossible according to James Tours.
Stephen Hawking also noticed these improbabilities as troublesome to refuting antitheism.
@@mythologicalmyth
I don't find "evolution is impossible" arguments from creationists and ID particularly entertaining. Evolution versus Creationism debates are fuking boring, but TE versus Creationism...oh, that is worth watching. And even better, Spherical Earth Creationist versus Flat Earther Creationist, the golden mine.
This has to be the coolest thumbnail of the history of thumbnails.
We are free to believe either. The Church has no binding decision this topic because it is a non-salvific issue. If people want to believe they descended from an ape, feel free. I believe we were created separate from the animal kingdom, God created Man in His Image and His image is not a monkey.
👍
I highly doubt that this issue is non-salvific.
I would like old earth believers to answer a few questions:
Would you say that God is the author of death and has used death and suffering to bring about humans?
If so, death wouldn't be the penalty for sin since it's always been here, correct?
How would you reconcile the order of the creation account with the big bang? For example, the Genesis Account has the earth and the heavens created first. Then the sun and stars on day 4. Big bang says stars came before earth.
Another example. The birds are created in day 5 and the reptiles on day 6. Evolution says birds evolved from reptiles.
Thank you.
On the 7th day God denotes that man has dominion over animals, fish, and all plants as food. If literal death did not exist prior to sin, why would God permit a need to hunt and for man to hunger? Clearly the penalty for sin was a 'soul death' the denial of the immortal soul into heaven.
@@Cklert thank you for your reply.
In Genesis 1:29 God tells Adam and Eve that only the plants shall be for for them.
It's not into after the flood that God tells Noah that flesh can be food. There is no animal death until Adam sinned.
I strongly favor a young earth view, but I think the death that Adam and Eve were experiencing when eating the fruit was a supernatural death (as happens when we mortally sin), natural death is a result of that supernatural death. So I think animal death isn't necessarily a result of the Fall.
@@omarvazquez3355 Gen 1:29 does not say "only" the plants are food.
29 Then God said, “I now[bh] give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.[bi]
Where does it say only? Nowhere.
In v. 28, God tells Adam and Eve to "subdue" the earth and "rule" over the animals. The word for "subdue" in other uses in the Bible means "enslave", "conquer by force", and "sexually assault." "Rule" in this context is the same word used to mean govern like a sovereign or king.
This isn't some Disney fairy tail. Dinosaurs didn't eat watermelon.
Genesis 9 follows the same structure as the other Mosaic dietary laws: it lists the general category of things fit for consumption and then lists the restrictions (see all of Leviticus 11).
3 You may eat any moving thing that lives.[c] As I gave you[d] the green plants, I now give[e] you everything.
4 “But[f] you must not eat meat[g] with its life (that is,[h] its blood) in it.[i]
As footnote [d] says, the words "As I gave you" are not in the original text. The translators have added them in as a stylistic decision. The actual Hebrew is "ke yereq eseb" which literally means "as the green plants/herbs", and the Hebrew translated as "I now give" is "na-tat-ti" which is the same construction used in Gen 1:29, which in that verse is translated as "I have given". So really, a more literal translation is:
"You may eat any moving thing that lives. As (perhaps "like" would be more appropriate) the green plants, I have given you everything. But you must not eat meat with blood in it."
God is reiterating that humans may eat plants and animals but is now adding the restriction that humans should not eat meat with blood in it. It's not God now changing his mind and allowing humans to eat meat for the first time.
This is basically the same format as the Levitical dietary laws. For example, see Leviticus 11:3,4a:
3 You may eat any among the animals that has a divided hoof (the hooves are completely split in two[b]) and that also chews the cud.[c] 4 However, you must not eat these[d] from among those that chew the cud and have divided hooves:
God says they can eat any animal that has a divided hoof, but not a bunch of listed restrictions. In Genesis 9, God says they can eat any plant and animal, but not animal meat that still has the blood in it.
There is an even better question for Theistic-evolutionists, and it is rooted in the 4th commandment:
" Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. *For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.* " - Exodus 20: 8-11 (Emphasis mine)
The 4th commandment clearly states that all of creation was made in 6 days. So the question is this: "If we are going to deny the biblical account of creation as laid out in Genesis, should we also deny the commandments as well?" and "If you are so inclined to save your Darwinist worldview, would you selectively eisegete this one commandment out of the ten?"
I understand why the RCC does this (universalism and profit), I just hope that the remnant within the RCC turns the Lord and is saved out from it. Study the scriptures my brothers and sisters so as to not be deceived by the spirit of this world!
The folks over at Sensus Fidelium hate the idea of evolution, so that really impacted me. I am more agnostic on the issue now because like was said in this video, it's not faith and morals. I tend to care more about my own spiritual life and the reunification of the Orthodox and the Catholics.
I am asking Roman Catholics:
Why did God write the verse in Mathew 23:9
”And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.“
There had to be a reason? There is nothing in the Bible that doesn’t belong.
Note: Nobody has ever been able to answer this question.
God of course knows the future. So why did He write that?
@@richardurban2269 literally both of the people in this video have answered this question
@@ByzCathCuban
I am not going to start searching all the videos for the answer. Can’t you just tell us?
@@richardurban2269 To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word “father” in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word “father.”
In fact, to forbid it would rob the address “Father” of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.
But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.
For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: “So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt” (Gen. 45:8).
Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: “I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know” (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: “In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah” (Isa. 22:20-21).
This type of fatherhood applies not only to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim); it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, “My father, my father!” to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21). From Catholic Answers
@@richardurban2269 for the TLDR, St Paul referred to himself as a father in his letters and they had “not many fathers”. Jesus uses hyperbole often, so we need a magisterium to show us what the proper meaning of biblical texts are. Should we actually pluck our eyes out or cut our hands off to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?
I absolutely agree and would go so far to call young earth creationism a stupidity. That does not mean that I would call someone who beliefs in it stupid because these people can have very understandable reasons to believe in it and maybe cannot see how stupid it is. But that does not mean that I would buy into everything the theory of evolution does claim.
Is evolution a definitive part of old earth? I'm open to whatever might be true, though I don't know if I accept evolution despite me believing in old earth
No, you don't have to. As far as old Earth views go, I find Intelligent Design very strong.
Evolution requires time, even more so since on old earth there wasn't life in the begining. You can expect that thousands of years are not enough to evolve from simple organisms to mammals.
Will there be death in heaven? if not, then there wasn't death before the fall either. You take away the whole reason the second person of the Godhead became incarnate, died, and was resurrected. Christ came to defeat death by death. The cost of not believing the fall brought death to the whole universe is the whole point of Christianity in my opinion.
What did Lions eat before the fall of man? I suppose there were no bacteria, fungus or anything else that literally requires something else to die in order to live right? Maybe God had to rework and rethink the whole of creation just cause man screwed up? Adam and Eve were granted immortality as a supernatural gift and lost. We were created to be immortal yes, we are supposed to be immortal, but this wasn't reflected in the whole world. Eden was a miraculous place and so will be the new earth after the resurrection. In the ordinary world things die, they always have died, and they are supposed to die in order for everything to work. Salvation is being free of this cycle, but the cycle was created by God since the beginning.
@@ErickFerraz2 it's hard for us to understand the world before the fall because the fallen world is all we know. We are the union between God and creation. We are made of flesh, yet are made with a spirit that can reach God and understand the heavens. And through the incarnation and resurrection we are to be made like God. We were made stewards of this earth and through us it fell into death. I don't worship the God of death, I worship the God of life, death is the absence of life and therefore of God. The wolf will lay with the lamb, what will the wolf eat in eternity? Or will animals still kill each other for food even though they have the giver of life united with them and all creation?
“Whoever says, that Adam was created mortal, and would, even without sin, have died by natural necessity, let him be anathema”
-Council Of Carthage
Maybe there are two kinds of death, human death (separation of immortal soul and body) and non-human death.
@@kharismabaptiswan1754 Possibly, I'd like to hear some scriputal arguments for it. I just see all animals returning to the pre-fall state which includes not killing and eating other animals. If animal death is a good thing, then why would all animals return to grazing?
"5Righteousness will be the belt around His hips, and faithfulness the sash around His waist. 6The wolf will live with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the goat; the calf and young lion and fatling will be together, and a little child will lead them. 7The cow will graze with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.…" Isaiah 11
If Adam evolved as a result of millions of years of death how can we say Adam’s sin caused death to enter the world and why do we need a savior to save us from the result of Adam ‘s sin?
Maybe because there are two kinds of death, human death (separation of immortal soul and body) and non-human death. God bless.
Eden was probably not on Earth, so when Adam sinned, he was not subject to the logic of this world. When he fell, his nature changed dramatically, it's reasonable to assume that God, being a timeless being, wished Adam on this Earth through natural selection.
´death´ is here not to be understood as a cessation of physical life but as death in a spiritual sense as a break from God.
@@roan2288 No, I don't think that Adam's life would have ended if he didn't sin. We know that we won't die again in the new creation, why did Adam have to die in the old creation if it was kept sinless?
@@tafazzi-on-discord Not necessarily, again spiritual death is the break from God which is infinitely more disastrous than physical death. Physical death also shouldn't be viewed as something evil but a rather as a very integral part of creation. One animal killing and eating another is not a manifestation of sin as animals cannot sin, it´s just the way of creation. And the physical death of organisms is also not due to sin and inherent in their nature. Even the nature of humans and Adam is mortal als the immortality spoken of in Genesis is seen as a great gift from God not something human nature has by default.
I have been watching Ken Ham lately. I have questions. Thanks.
What was the Catholic Church's position on the age of the Earth and Universe, 500 years ago (and before)?
That the universe from the beginning to our times is 13000 years old just as the Church fathers taught perfectly according to Scripture. But Horn & Akin who don't even know what the Popes actually said fall into heresy. Since they believe that the Church is fallible like Protestants, let them join them instead of leading innocent Roman Catholics to eternal fire. Despicable
Not that it was 13 billion.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 Yep. Naturally Trent Horn won't say the Church was "wrong".
@@mashah1085 But he says it de facto. He's a dishonest modernist like Akin who spews blasphemies on a regular basis
@@christsavesreadromans1096 Correct. Scripture & the Church fathers are very clear that the universe is 13000 years old
Trent's concerns are well founded. I have a friend that completely left all religion primarily because his Catholic grade school tried to teach him that evolution isn't real, etc. I still think people have the ability to believe it if they want but they need to admit that they are less certain scientifically and that one doesn't have to believe what they believe to be Christian or Catholic.
You dont really know why he left, in all honesty; these could be excuses.
@@candelario4288 I do know this is a major barrier for him. He refuses to even discuss philosophy with people that deny what most of the world considers settled science. He specifically dismisses Catholicism based on his experiences in Catholic education and the misconceptions of what "good Catholics" MUST believe based on his Catholic school experience. He's a logical, reasonable person and specifically denounces organized religion (much like Dawkins) because he doesn't think that faith and reason can coexist and that he'll be forced to accept things he strongly believes are not true in this world. I've talked to him about these issues so I know at least as well as he understands his own motivations. Whether it is the primary motivation or not, he will not return to faith until he understands how they can coexist and that it's not just a couple people trying to be hand wavy wishy washy about it.
It's one of the reasons I left my evangelical upbringing. The science is clear & I view American Catholics as way too influenced by evangelicals
The part of the scientism of evolution I disagree with is that there is a demand in science classes that evolution is, always has been, and must be *undirected*. This needs to be carefully taught because in the hands of a materialist it will be used as a wedge or cudgel to tell a person of faith that they must deny God and God's agency to accept the science.
It is sufficient to say there is no material direction, or none has been detected.
I'm sorry but if that friend left religion because of evolution then he never actually was a religious person. The topic of evolution is a minor one for people who live the faith. I feel this one like the idea that we should put modern music in churches because young people find boring the religious services.
Trent and/or Jimmy - I would really encourage you to check out the books and presentations of both Stephen Meyer and James Tour. Stephen Meyer in particular shows the information bearing properties of DNA and it would be very interesting if you would interview him in order to understand his argument against evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. He has very interesting information as to why it is not sufficient. Meyer's most recent book "The Return of the God Hypothesis" is amazing and fits perfectly with the idea of faith and science in harmony
Evolution is not the scientific study of the origin of life. That hypothesis of abiogenesis is. Refuting something about DNA, even if verified and factual, would simply further the understanding of what would still be called evolution. Creationism asserts that God created everything, which is therefore an abiogenesis to begin with. Creationism unfortunately primarily serves to confuse the science and the theology. It's best not to entertain the confusion as anything more than that.
Finally a true Roman Catholic...Good Lord...🤦Despite being a Protestant heretic who believes also in billions of years, on the issue of DNA he's doing a decent job. Let him speak only on this - his expertise & not comment on anything Christian. I am shocked at the blasphemy I see here not only from Horn & Akin but also from all those Pseudo Roman Catholics in the comment section. Apparently, Akin believes that the Church is fallible & modern THEORIES come before the words of God, which according to him ALSO fallible. Despicable. They are leading innocent Roman Catholic souls into the everlasting fire of Avadon. Despicable
@@subcitizen2012You are incoherent. No one can figure out what is your position. What exactly you believe - speak directly not in weird scientific terms & isms
The only issue I have with old earth and dinosaurs predating man is the sin issue. That there were problems and death on the earth prior to the fall of man.
I haven't watched the whole video yet so this may be addressed, but there's something I find a bit troubling about one of the first arguments Trent makes regarding potential converts "not having to leave their intellect at the door". I find this argument somewhat reminiscent of the (clearly mistaken) assumption that many of the "Spirit of the Second Vatican Council" liturgical destroyers had that if they only removed obstacles from the liturgy for Protestants that they'd convert. That may be true in some cases. But I think we have to ask the question of WHO is converting from Protestantism, and at the cost of who else otherwise may have. Sure, maybe we got some Lutherans. But good luck getting the Eastern Orthodox - who are far more correct theologically - to accept felt banners and clappy music!
I think this is a potential pitfall for the creation issue, too. Let me be clear: I am NOT saying those who believe in evolution are across the board bad Catholics. That is clearly false. What I AM saying though is that for every Protestant who struggled with the creationism they grew up with who becomes Catholic due to an openness to evolution, we could also be losing a "fundamentalist Bible thumper" who simply can't square genesis with evolution, theistic or otherwise (something I find in conscience myself that I cannot do).
I think if Trent and Jimmy are honest, they would have to concede that those who hold to "modern science" on evolution are as a whole more likely to hold less stringently to other Church teachings (again, not all. I'm not accusing Trent or Jimmy of heresy or anything) than those who accept a view of the Fathers on origins. Where are the young earth creation Catholics who accept contraception and divorce? I can't think of any.
So why are we trying to court those people who are /more likely to hold to a progressive worldview/ and often outright push aside those BEST of Protestants who are known to be anti-abortion, anti homosexual marriage, etc? I have heard from creationist Protestants that this is an issue for them, and I've had to personally assure them that I am a young earth creationist and that it is a totally acceptable Catholic position! This should be well known information, but it's not. I always assumed before researching myself that Catholics just accepted evolution in an official manner. I am thankful to Jimmy and Trent for defending my liberty on this issue!
I think there is a fundamental distaste people have in regard to judging the quality of the converts we seek to convert, but I think it's perfectly legitimate. Do we want cafeteria Catholics or do we want solid, firm orthodox believers who can stand against the tides of modernism and our dangerous age? Any individual can be a good Catholic, but not every /group/ is equally likely to produce good Catholics, and you can't please everybody.
There is a cost to our beliefs, but I think Jimmy and Trent fundamentally invert the weight of those costs. It is evolution that brings with it heavy baggage, not a simple, pious view of creation.
I agree with you. I suggest the "faith" in evolution causes a deficiency in the True Faith. I know many will disagree but we see the results in the current state of our Church from this freemasonic science (you know the kind of science that doesn't follow the scientific method) and universalism. I'm not sure how Catholics can have faith in both. It comes off as "science" being the "authority" then Divine Revelation must reconcile itself to it. This is disordered. Not to mention even secularist are abandoning evolution: th-cam.com/video/noj4phMT9OE/w-d-xo.html
I don't really worry about it, but indeed I'm also more inclined to creationism, and i don't bother others catholics believe in evolution even tho it's only a theory..
True
I think the issue is that on theological grounds purely from the Bible, one can reasonably believe in young Earth creationism. This is, however, a field that can be evaluated by science, and no unbiased scientist studies the issue and comes out as a YEC. It is almost exclusively in the other direction because of just how overwhelming the evidence is.
Amen. I majored in biology and chemistry in high school and in college and it was a stumbling block.
The scientific consensus authority too often mocks people of faith. They promote relativism in all things except for submission to their authority. Most of their arguments are appeals to their own authority. It's very circular. The deeper I have looked into it, I have found more holes in their story than in the Bible.
The inadequacy of the consensus patrum argument needs to be explored and explained more (yes, Jimmy has a blog post about it), if for no other reason than young earth creationists who are "magisterial fundamentalists" are using it to defend geocentrism and other such ideas and heading down a rabbit hole. Oftentimes, as such, those who disagree with them are labeled as heretics.
I know a guy who works at Nasa that claims the idea of Geocentrism isn't far fetched. I trust him because he isn't a geo centrist
Stop labeling others with idiotic American labels & isms which don't mean a thing. According to the INFALLIBLE Church who follows Scripture, unlike you, who persist in your heresy, the universe from beginning to our time is 13000 years, so get over it or else join the Protestant pagaпs👉
This thumbnail is confusing because jimmy akins looks like one of the paleontologists in the movie The Lost World: Jurassic park
That character from the movie is based on a real life paleontologist.
@@maxxam3590 that’s awesome
I'm a protesant and am somewhat unconcerned with what was beleived historically (I wouldn't say its irrevelant, I just think they could be wrong, so I don't think about it much). My biggest problem with evolution/the big bang is how one should intrepret Scripture if the norms of the current science were correct. If the first chapters of Genesis are poetry, what are they supposed to mean? And what about the list of genologies from Adam to Jesus? (that's how we get the 6,000 year number) Also, if these stories, which appear to be literal, are wrong, won't that lead to a slippery slope? What's to stop us from calling every miracle in the Bible a piece of poetry?
To me it’s just a matter of “do the Fathers know best?” As Jimmy would say.
If they do, YEC is true. If they can all believe one thing about Scripture and be wrong, why shouldn’t I just go back to being Protestant?
I became Catholic for the ancient Faith, not for the current opinion of prelates who may or may not be holy.
The Magisterium was never there to just change things. It was there to safeguard the deposit of Faith. Evolution is not and never will be part of that.
Assyrian Faith has a really fascinating video on St. Ephrem the Syrian and his literal take on Genesis which doesn't assume YEC. Being Syrian, he was one of the few Fathers who had a good knowledge of the original Hebrew.
But if all the fathers were making their analysis of genesis*, that would be because of the science of their day. After all, they also thought that the earth was the center of the universe, or that lightning was a direct act of God, not static electricity. That seems to be the whole point made in this video, that the age if the earth is a matter of science, not of faith and morals.
*assuming they all had a YEC view of genesis.
Keep your ancient Faith .
Hey Trent, Eric Ybarra has some really interesting things to say on this topic and about the debate Jimmy had with Lazar. You should have him on the show.
What did he say?
@@YovanypadillaJrYes, what???
Are you saying that Ybarra is also a heretic???
@@secretagent101..no one in that conversation is a heretic
@@bourbonrebel5515 Oh..is that so? I got news for you: Akin & Horn the Modernist evolutionist feminists are the biggest heretics of our time!! Sungenis exposed them, and will release in the coming days another refutation of Akin. Lazar also, and destroyed him in this debate!
I have a hard time trusting evidence (which may be too gracious a term over “theories”) produced or substantiated by individuals who do not possess a Christian (or Catholic, if you insist) worldview.
Great video!
Trent, great content as always with Jimmy Akin. I hope you could speak more about the idea that 'Death' is a result of original sin, etc. How some EOs and Non-evolution Believers hold the belief that there wasn't human death (evolution, survival of the fittest), let alone *animal death* before The Fall.
Eos believe in evolution and the old earth. If you want some names of heirachy metropolitans, archbishops, bishops and eo theologians let me know?
I personally reject evolution and I am a young earther
It is a dogma humans did not die prior to the fall. It is also a dogma that Adam and Eve were the first two humans, so…
Dogmatic Canons of the Council of Trent:
“1.
If anyone does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and through the offense of that prevarication incurred the wrath and indignation of god, and thus death with which God had previously threatened him,[4] and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil,[5] and that the entire Adam through that offense of prevarication was changed in body and soul for the worse,[6] let him be anathema.
2.
If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam injured him alone and not his posterity,[7] and that the holiness and justice which he received from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says:
By one man sin entered into the world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.[8]
3.
If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by imitation, transfused into all, which is in each one as something that is his own, is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by a remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ,[9] who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption;[10] or if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.[11]
Whence that declaration: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world;[12] and that other:
As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.[13]
@@Arkangilos EO don't teach this understanding of original sin. We dont personally inherit the guilt but instead the consequences of Adam's sin.
@@TheLincolnrailsplitt the OP was more than about the EO, and insinuates the author of the OP does not believe that dogma.
"There is no more tiresome error in the history of thought than to try to sort our ancestors on to this or that side of a distinction which was not in their minds at all. You are asking a question to which no answer exists."
--C.S. Lewis, "Is Theology Poetry?"
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
--St. Augustine, _On the Literal Meaning of Genesis_
"The purpose of the creation doctrine, then, is not to ascribe a chronological starting point to the world, but to affirm that at this present moment, as at all moments, the world depends for its existence upon God. When Genesis states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (1:1). the word "beginning" is not to be taken simply in a temporal sense, but as signifying thar God is the constant cause and sustainer of all things."
-- Bishop Kallistos Ware, _The Orthodox Way_
Great explanation of Thessalonians with the fact that sacred authors can say something that is not necessarily infallible! I know some people who might benefit from hearing that!!
I think Akin is incorrect in _his assumption_ that Paul was _assuming_ he would personally be alive at the return of Christ.
"We who are still alive and remain" does not necessarily imply such a thing. It is no different than if an officer in battle, talking to his troops immediately prior to a military operation were to use this same idiom... it would not imply that the officer is assuming he will be among the survivors. Rather, he is merely counting himself among the category of "we", which in this case is the body of the church , among which, despite the massive waves of martyrdom, some of this group (potentially even future generations) will be alive at the time of the return.
@@Giant_Meteor You raise a very good point, I think I may have thought that myself the first time I read the verse and didn't think much of it. However, are there any other points of the Bible that would confirm your or Akin's interpretation? I seem to remember reading in the early church fathers about how they were unhappy the Gospels would be written down because either believed the Lord Jesus would return within their lifetimes, but I can't remember exactly. I realize of course the Fathers and the Inspired Scripture are not the same thing of course.
@@simonfalk1337 It is just a minor point, and I think the text is more ambiguous here than Akin does, apparently.
To me, the bigger head-scratcher is why an Orthodox would subject himself to the authoritarianism of "the magesterium says so", meanwhile trying to push his own personal perspective that runs against the current of their general direction. To each his own.
People may ask, “Why does it matter whether God created over 6,000 years or 15 billion years?”
Here is the answer:
‘If God created over billions of years, He is most decidedly not ‘good’. In such a view, He would have sanctioned and overseen death, disease, cruelty, and suffering for billions of years - before sin entered the universe - and called His death-ridden creation all ‘very good’.’
(“The Creation Answers Book”)
This is the same concept as the quote by Flannery O’Connor: “If it is just a symbol, to hell with it” (referring to the Eucharist). If God created over billions of years (and thus, evidently, sanctioned death, an idea that is completely contrary to our central beliefs about Original Sin), then He is not who He has revealed Himself to be. As Catholics, we hold the belief that if we are really worshipping a piece of bread that is not God, then we deserve to go to Hell, but we do not believe the idea that God created the universe 6,000 years ago (a disbelief which would then mean that God sanctioned death, not humans, as humans would not have existed yet). Instead, as Catholics, we believe that it was Adam and Eve’s decision and free will to rebel against God that brought about death and a fallen world. These two ideas are mutually exclusive from each other (the idea of evolution over billions of years with death occurring before humanity’s Original Sin and the belief we hold about Adam and Eve bringing about death through Original Sin).
If anyone has any questions about the specifics of Creationism, I would be more than happy to try and answer them! :)
Maybe have Gideon Lazar on to support his POV.
Explain to me who is Gideon. Because if he's a Roman eastern Orthodox or Catholic & not a schismatic, I support him on that 100% perfect against the heresies of Horn & Akin. I am shocked to find out that American "Catholics" don't even know the basics of our faith. Shame!
@@LevPolyasky. Heresies? Do tell.
There are two things that I’d like to address on this topic. The first is the idea of God creating a universe in the middle of the action. Creation is an artistic process.
When human artists create worlds they do so with paint or words or pixels or coding. Hamlet, for example, starts with a Prince in Denmark. It has a back story that includes a great many things, including a world where a state called Denmark exists. It is a world of kings and European customs and history. It is a Christianized culture. It is a world with metals and dirt, the earth, and all the physical history the earth entails. All of this is built into the creation even though Shakespeare never wrote a whole world history. He just starts with Hamlet’s father scaring night watchman. The universe of Hamlet must be 5.5 billion years old, but Shakespeare created it 500 years ago. It is a 500 year old universe with 5.5 billion years built in.
Now, as strange as it may seem, this universe could have all the hallmarks of a 5.5 billion year old solar system in a 13.8 billion year old universe and it could still only be 6,000 years old. God may have made it old already.
Okay, that is a strange idea, and impossible to prove or disprove, but still an interesting one.
Next, the science itself. Evolution has been disproven by cellular biology. This is only beginning to be admitted in the field, but, if honest pursuit of where the scientific evidence leads can be followed, Darwin’s basic theory will be overturned. Now, I do not mean that there wasn’t a long history of biological developments in the history of life on earth. I mean that the mechanisms proposed as sufficient by Darwin to account for this history (natural selection, random mutations plus time) are insufficient explanations. These mechanisms are unable to account for the informational capacities or content found within cells, needed for new body plans, or to account for the apobetic and cosentic levels of information science has discovered in cellular biology.
Not enough room here for a fuller explanation of this, but read Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen Meyer and watch videos of Jim Tour on the origin of life.
Darwin being wrong doesn’t mean the earth is 6,000 years old, however, though the actual age is truly unknown and likely always will be.
Evolution has not been disproved by cellular biology.
James tour and Stephen Meyer were debunked by professor Dave dude don’t listen to idiots.
This is an amazing take at this topic, than you!
Thank you. Fun things to think about.
To me it would tend to point to the idea that the earth is indeed younger than these man -understood dating processes would lead us to believe.
I feel like young earth is much different than evolution. The evidence may point to an old earth but I think a scientist is doing exactly what Paul was doing when they say evolution is true. They are assuming based on the evidence we have. Their assumptions can change tomorrow with new evidence. Just like when Paul was dying and he realized he would not be here when christ returned. We should be careful to assume that anything is true that new evidence will change our beliefs. The truth doesn't change
Seems to me, that the fact that there are strong opinions on both sides, it is wisdom that the magisterium has allowed people to make their own decision on this issue (you guys seem to take it more of a magisterial issue than it is, an argument for silence for either of your positions). It also seems that all the major cost of holding one of the opinions falls on the Theistic Evolutionary perspective. Also, a Church fighting against Progressivism in general, would not have had good reason to alienate so many people on this issue and it makes sense to think that they did not want to change the Church understanding of the age of the world but also did not want to completely disregard modern science. Keeping the possibility alive that the world will see it is foolish in this regard.
There are strong opinions on one side and strong facts on the other. The church can thread the needle however it wants because it fundamentally can't choose sides in matters it hasn't already chosen. Also, don't make the mistake of politicizing the church. If the church is combatting progressivism, then it would also need to combat conservatism and anything that else that causes division, including politics itself. Whatever widens the reach and message of the church in accordance with the doctrines is the prerogative. This evolution vs creationism stuff isnt in view of that vision or mission. Be blessed.
@@subcitizen2012 There are good cases to be made on both sides. The Church "fundamentally can't choose sides in matters it hasn't already chosen." Nobody can? Maybe I just need clarification on your point there. I did not make the mistake of politicizing anything. The Church is always combating progressivism and conservatism as ideologies but the Church is simultaneously conservative and progressive. Politics is a lost art, one that Catholics should endeavor to enter and improve upon it again. I agree that evangelization is the driving force in our discernment in these matters. Blessings!
I actually converted into Christianity after realizing how evolution is false and materialism is not the correct view of reality, after decades of atheism and a major in biochemistry. This topic is just a problem if you are comparing two competing theories inside the materialistic paradigm (evolution vs western creationism).
We can question evolution but the idea of the earth being 6k years old is total bogus
I am just amazed how anyone could assume that Paul made a mistake when he said "we who are alive and remain will be caught up" and that he needed to correct himself. This brings into doubt everything this brother says. I mean if you are going to mistake something so simple there has to be a root problem with your spiritual understanding of scripture. But then again this guy could be a Jesuit intent on subtly destruction of the faith of the unwary?
I think H.L. Mencken sneeringly commented at the time of the Scopes “Monkey Trial” (a term which he himself minted, I believe) that the Catholic Church hadn’t got round to condemning the theory of biological evolution but he was confident that they would soon do so. His prediction has proved to be mistaken, it seems.
Well done the Catholic church
Trent, can I just take a moment to give you a huge shout out? Thank you for this channel. It’s one of a handful of channels where I actually am learning something, and you’re not bashing anyone or creating division in the church. I wish other content creators would get that. So thank you for your teachings. This is truly invaluable!
For what?? Total blasphemy against the Roman Catholic Church & God HIMSELF???
I wasn't expecting Trent to be on the side of the step brothers of Jesus. I'd love to hear some evidence to back that up. Assuming this also means he thinks Joseph was an older man
Seems like that the only reasonable explanation-there is mention in the Gospels of ‘James the brother of Jesus’ and we know Mary was ever-virgin.
@@watermelontreeofknowledge8682 The same word is used in scripture to refer to kin and not strictly brother
@YAJUN YUAN What?
@@watermelontreeofknowledge8682 We don't "know" that Mary was a perpetual virgin. The Catholic Church merely asserts that as fact.
The text clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. In order to keep to their dogma, Catholics have to argue that "brothers and sisters" really just means "cousins". See Mark 6:3:
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
The context is clear that these are direct familial relations. Jesus is obviously Mary's son, but suddenly Mark's usage of "brother" and "sisters" mean male and female cousins?
Paul mentions "brother(s) of the Lord" at least twice. Once in Galatians 1:19:
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the Lord’s brother.
Here James is given the descriptor "the Lord's brother." It clearly does not mean "believer" as Catholics like to assign to the usage in 1 Corinthians 9, since the Apostles are obviously all Christians AND Peter is mentioned and not called "brother of the lord". I guess it could mean "cousin".
Regarding 1 Corinthians 9,
5 Do we not have the right to the company of a believing wife, like the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?[c]
Here "the Lord's brothers" are again given their own descriptor. It clearly does not mean believers, since Peter and the other Apostles are obviously Christians. They are separated from "the other apostles" likely because of their familial relationship to Jesus.
Catholics have to assert that both these usages by Paul really just mean "cousin of the Lord" and not actual brother.
Josephus also mentions James, the brother of Jesus in _Antiquities of the Jews_ book 20, chapter 9, 1:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James
I guess Josephus also means that James was just the cousin of Jesus too.
3:35 truth does not have yo be reasonable. Did Iesus raising Lazarus after he started decomposing was reasonable? Also as a note evolution was thproughly debunked multiple times yet people still believe in it.
Now we just need your detailed reasoning on how this doesn’t interfere with the truth of scripture. That’s the real issue here; when young earthers are pressed, that’s their main concern.
One direction would be to delve into what a literal sense of scripture really means. Many assume a literal interpretation is what it means to me when I hear the words. But the literal sense is more about what the author is trying to convey than how it comes across to me, the reader. What is the author of the creation account really trying to say? Jimmy does address this in his mysterious world episodes on young earth
53:00 Nylon is organic (C12 H22 N2 O2)n 🙂
I remember making nylon in one of my organic chemistry labs 😂
Trent, what happend to your lips ?
They were really chapped from the dry weather and I put a tad too much vaseline on to compensate. Oh well . . .
@@TheCounselofTrent Oh T-Ho, that is so you. Boy Meets World has come to life. A good example of life-imitating-art-imitating-life.
@@TheCounselofTrent okay 😂
Material and matter are subservient to the transcendent and spiritual knowledge.
I defer to St Paul’s argument to the unknown God.
The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (AD 787), Sess. 6: “In the year 5501 Christ our God came to mankind and lived with us for thirty-three years and a little less than five months.”
Perhaps we should delve into the philosophical, historical, spiritual, personal relationships, social spheres of those who professed and brought the 'theory', yes 'theory' and origins of Evolution to the fore; and, their possible Agendas that were definitely in mind.
"A scientific theory is a structured explanation to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world that often incorporates a scientific hypothesis and scientific laws. The scientific definition of a theory contrasts with the definition most people use in casual language."
Don't make linguistic mistakes to make logical mistakes to them assert falsehoods. Evolution a body of proven facts, hence it is a scientific theory.
Science and facts are independently verifiable beyond personal agendas. You wouldn't scrutinize the church or its leaders through the ages for their agendas and personal persuasions, so please try to avoid intellectual and spiritually dishonest. Be blessed.
Even if Adolf Hitler said that the sky is blue it doesn’t make the sky pink
The Catholic Church accepting the believe in evolution and the Big Bang was my gateway into the faith.
My friend, the church does not accept those beliefs. Wayward priests do.
Evolution is false. There is zero evidence for it. Modern science is a cult which purports lies.
@@graymann7762 In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that God created all things and that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[3] Today, the Church supports theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creation,[4] although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory.
@@graymann7762
The Church accepts as valid interpretations both evolution and creation.
It's not accepting in the sense of doctrine, like the Church accepts Christ's Divinity as true.
It's more like the Church accepts both people that believe that Purgatory is just a process and those that believe it is also a place
@@royalsoldierofdrangleic4577 that's modernism interpretation
@@graymann7762 nah, it’s catholic interpretation.
Interesting to have a post debate discussion for Akin to save face. Question: how far off should we really believe Luke’s report of Jesus’ genealogy is?
It's a complete fiction.
@@StudentDad-mc3puYou’re a heretic.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 The response of someone afraid of the truth or an alternative point of view.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu The Bible is inerrant, if you’re insinuating that there is an error in the genealogy, then that is heretical.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 The Bible is not inerrant that's a laughable dogma that does not stand up to 5 minutes scrutiny.
Yes
Regardless of whether you hold to evolution or YEC, you will have to make some stretches.
Creationists have to interpret the data available in a way that might seem quite stretchy for the current scientific paradigm, while someone holding to a theory of evolution needs to do some theological stretches to fit in a historical Adam. The creationist has to stretch science, the evolutionist has to stretch Holy Scripture. In the end, both are doing the same thing: trying to fit Holy Scripture with science. What's simply different is the place one starts. One starts with Scripture and Tradition, while the other starts with science.
My preference would go with giving priority to Scripture and Tradition.
This remark is not by me, but I find it very interesting: "Without the claims of modern science, nobody would think about reading the first books of Genesis as figuratively."
I also think that it's a stretch to say that someone like St. Augustine says that the creation account must not be read literalistically, therefore evolution. As he often does, St. Augustine proposes multiple possible readings. In De Civitate Dei he uses the genealogies as if they were real history.
He is also a very YEC, as he believes creation was instantaneous, and not 6 days. So I'm not sure he's a great person for the OEC people to use, as it seems disingenuous to claim he'd agree with you.
@@VACatholic He also doesnt agree with YEC he believes the days are symbolic not literal 24 hour days and points to the fact the first 3 days could not be literal days as there is no planet. He’s a view to himself with overlaps to both sides.
@@lilwaynesworld0 If you studied the issue, you'd know he held to that because he thought scripture couldn't contradict scripture, and due to a confusing translation of Sirach into Latin that he worked on, for he didn't know Greek, he concluded that the days must be instantaneous _on the basis of scripture alone_.
Thus, trying to then say "well Augustine believed they weren't literal so I can too" would be to horribly abuse St. Augustine, and take advantage of a consideration that he would never have countenanced, and it is completely disingenuous to claim otherwise.
@@VACatholic exactly
Echoing the Fathers before him, St. Augustine also saw, at his time, mankind as being less than 200 years shy of 6000 years old. They based it on the chronology given in the LXX. The Hebrew OT, thereby St. Jerome, had the chronology, that dated the age of mankind, by his time agreeing with the Jews, at c.4400. If you follow the Greek OT (LXX) we are c.7500 years old. If you follow the Hebrew OT, we are about a century shy of 6000.
Great debrief! I deeply appreciate that the Church allows for a number of positions. I for one, based in my geology background and biology (albeit a layman's understanding of DNA), am an old earth creationist. Namely, I don't think the universe, and particular earth's genesis in our particular solar system and galaxy, is old enough for large scale evolution beyond specification. (We aren't talking about 14.5 billion years for life to evolve, but only 550 ish million years since the end of the Precambrian era)
"I don't think the universe, and particular earth's genesis in our particular solar system and galaxy, is old enough for large scale evolution beyond specification" -- care to expound?
@@wingedlion17 Certainly! My premise is based on the Rare Earth Hypothesis of Doctors Ward and Brownlee and the problem of the Femi Paradox. They argue against Dr. Sagan and co that earth is highly atypical when it comes to being a home for complex life given a whole list of criteria: Galactic habitable zones, solar habitable zones, planet to sun size and distance, solar system planetary composition and arrangement, earth to moon size and distance relationship, a relatively stable planetary orbit, enough ocean to land relationship to allow for global tides, atmosphere composition and pressure, et cetera. Boiled down our planet being conducive to life for the last 500-800 million years is quite the exception in length.
Second: one of the creedal articles of evolution is that it takes time, lots and lots of time. I agree and don't think 800 million years is nearly enough time for complex species to develop given iterative attempts at successful mutations and the creation of new DNA code on the evolutionary path from single cell to multi to more and more complex organisms. I see why and how evolution as a theory, philosophy, and reactionary model came about out of the 19th century and has proven somewhat useful in the way biology has been conducted to our present moment. However, as a model moving forward I see it as useful as a solar panel in Ireland or a golf club at a baseball game; a fair enough tool in its own right but not fitting in the context or interpretive lens of the corpus of data in the fields of biology and geology.
As a creedal Christian who sees and believes God working and acting in time, most clearly in the incarnation of Christ, I have no difficulty assigning His creative hand in countless acts of creation from the dawn of the Cambrian Explosion on down to the creation of man so many hundreds of thousand years ago with a kind of microevolution or specification as a variation on a theme.
@@andrewbosela764 If I may ask what do you mean by the creation of ´ new genetic code´? I´m also in the field of geology with some training in basic biology but if I remember correctly evolution nowadays is not just to be understood as only an expression of the creation of new genes but also of various other factors like enviroment, or how the already existing genes are expressed. Evolution can be a very rapid process as seen after a mass extinction for example due to the opening up of many previously occupied niches.
Now I agree that the 19th century conception of evolution is very outdated but this is a view all evolutionary biologists also hold. I have yet to meet one who would describe themselves as a ´darwinist´.
Good point about faith and morals, whether or not the earth is young or old has nothing to do with it. Also a day to God is like a thousand years to us to paraphrase. I also think that arguments like this is a way that the devil uses to distract what the real message is that God created the heavens and the earth in his own time and way.
My understanding is that the Hebrew language did not have a word for ‘cousin’. Therefore, brother/sister was used.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Contra Gentiles (book 2, chapter 3, verse 6):
"It is, therefore, evident that the opinion is false of those who asserted that it made no difference to the truth of the faith what anyone holds about creatures, so long as one thinks rightly about God, as Augustine tells us in his book On the Origin of the Soul. For error concerning creatures, by subjecting them to causes other than God, spills over into false opinion about God, and takes men’s minds away from Him, to whom faith seeks to lead them."
"Sic ergo patet falsam esse quorundam sententiam qui dicebant nihil interesse ad fidei veritatem quid de creaturis quisque sentiret, dummodo circa Deum recte sentiatur, ut Augustinus narrat in libro de origine animae: nam error circa creaturas redundat in falsam de Deo sententiam, et hominum mentes a Deo abducit, in quem fides dirigere nititur, dum ipsas quibusdam aliis causis supponit."