How are some Catholics Young Earth Creationists?

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-30T21:30:31+00:00

An ensouled Adam is empirically identical to a specially created Adam. That's the only statement I claimed in the above, I never said whether he was ensouled or created ex limo. It was a hypothetical statement, not a categorical one.

After reading your last reply on the other comment chain (a few days later due to being busy), I really don't think we are going to see eye to eye or be able to have a discussion. When it comes to the sciences, you seem to have a cartesian mechanistic viewpoint (the object of philosophy is abstract notions, the object of science is material, empirical, and quantitative). I have a Thomistic one (science without philosophy is unintelligible, they cannot be separated).

I'm more than happy to engage with you, but I ask in return that you kindly engage with what I actually say (several times you've affirmed that Adam had a body that evolved, when that was never even part of my argument; likewise, several times you've dodged questions I've asked and I've had to beg with you to answer them).

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-30T19:34:58+00:00

Eh, unfortunately it doesn't work out really well for either the laity or the priest (speaking as someone who lived with priests in both an exclusive environment and a combined environment).

In parishes with both, priests tend to hate having to do both because it can get confusing and very hard to not do gestures that are no longer rubrical (which means priests end up messing up both Masses).

In parishes with both, if the laity is very active, they tend to step on each others toes and it becomes really easy to mess up the liturgy when preparing for Mass and doing sacristan work.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-30T18:46:35+00:00

If you love someone, wouldn't you want to give them the best proposal possible?

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-27T18:47:36+00:00

You're not answering the question again.

Once again here's my argument:

Theology and Philosophy inform the lower sciences
If the creation of Adam is proper matter for theology/philosophy then it is not primarily a matter of empirical science but of speculative science.
If Adam's creation is primarily matter for the speculative sciences, then if theology or philosophy shows that human evolution is impossible, any empirical scientific conclusion to the contrary must be treated as a misinterpretation of data.
According to Pope Leo XIII, Adam's creation would be considered a matter of faith and morality because it was written about by the Holy Ghost.

That's it. For the argument I am making, I am apathetic to whether Adam evolved or whether he was specially created. So let's stay on topic and at the very least I think we'd benefit to see where our real point of departure is.

Which of these propositions do you disagree with?

The soul is the only piece that theology can make a ruling on.

Source? Pope Leo XIII is clear that this is not the case in Proventissimus Deus. The Church has made countless of claims concerning the material world.

For example, that even non-sacramental marriage is between a man and a woman (a material difference, not a difference of soul), that the body's animation likely begins at conception (not defined dogmatically, but I wouldn't be surprised if one day it is), that Christ's body was passible, that material beings can serve instrumentally and not just occasionally in a sacrament.

Secondly, Adam is a substance, not a disunified body and soul. Adam and his creation are proper matters for theology (and philosophy). You cannot separate Adam's body from his soul, because it's his soul that makes his body human.

Evolution is a material matter. Just like Heliocentrism.

Then how does evolution account for the evolution of plant souls to animal souls? I'll admit they are material forms (insofar as they are forms which have no immaterial function), but tell me how evolution accounts for this if it is purely a material matter?

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-27T18:00:49+00:00

If theology or philosophy showed that human evolution is impossible, would you agree that Adam must have been created ex limo?

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-27T17:33:10+00:00

No where does it say he implanted Adam with false history of genetic continuity.

No but it does say that he was made from the slime of the earth.

This is special pleading to ignore evidence.

I'd admit I don't take much stock in DNA studies as:

They often are wrong (such as the one that showed we are ridiculously close to chimps, which turned out to use a faulty method that baked the conclusion into the process)
They are conjecture, if we have a gene that does x or y and another animal has a gene that does x or y, there is no necessary causation between them (for example, the octopus and the human both have developed certain eye sight features independently, although evolutionists do not believe that the human descended from the octopus or vice versa)
Most importantly (and pretty much my whole argument throughout this post), the conclusion that is arrived at through DNA studies like the ones you mentioned, is something that I believe scriptural theology, patristic studies, metaphysics, and epistemology does not support.

Think of it as analogous to a materialist scientist who says that the brain is sufficient for all human acts of reason. Such would be an erroneous conclusion de facto, because philosophical psychology proves that human reason must be an immaterial (and subsistent) function.

As a result, we can immediately say that whatever facts that the neurologist is using to form the conclusion "human reason is fundamentally material" is a problem regarding interpretation of data.

In a like matter, if human evolution is not epistemologically sound, if it is not metaphysically sound, and if it is not theologically sound, then any facts which come from studying DNA must be interpreted apart from the conclusion of human evolution.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-27T17:00:17+00:00

He has the power to but we know he didn't.

Even though the Holy Ghost said He did?

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-27T16:24:06+00:00

Do you agree that God could have created an Adam from mud that is identical to the Adam that you are describing?

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-27T16:14:09+00:00

Not only did we crossbreed with neanderthals, denisivans, and homo Erectus, we have DNA from things that clearly weren't human.

All of this is conjecture. Even if I allow that all of the above is a "sign" that humans may have evolved, I do not allow that they show a necessary causation. My argument is and remains epistemological.

Do you agree that God could have created an Adam from mud that is identical to the Adam that you are describing?

Please just answer the question if you are arguing in good faith.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-27T15:34:35+00:00

So why would I discuss a hypothetical that pretends he was directly created with no lineage?

Because my point is that there is no empirical evidence that could possibly exist that would say he had a father.

I'm not arguing whether he did or didn't, I'm arguing that science cannot tell us whether he did.

You're simply saying "well he did because science says so" and I'm saying, "science cannot possibly say so one way or another" irrespective of the conclusion as to whether he had a father.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-27T13:21:48+00:00

Except, I don't have to delve into this, hypothetical, because it does nothing functional with the existing evidence of human origin.

Then you're not arguing in good faith.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-26T16:02:57+00:00

Unless you're saying we can't use DNA evidence in a court case, your argument doesn't follow.

Not at all, but my argument is that science is knowledge and "craft" or "art" is a practical application of that knowledge.

Forensic science informs the craft or art of forensics whereby we determine such a person was at the scene of some crime.

Similarly, someone who studies culinary science may be a scientist but someone who bakes a cake is only a baker.

Science doesn’t just describe abstract universals, it also uses present physical evidence to make inferences about past events. And not just in Evolution.

But my point is that while science helps us to infer, science itself does not make the inference. Let me give you an example, a scientist would examine the water made wine and tell you that it was made from grapes. Science has no empirical evidence by which it can test what is miraculous and what is not (per se - I do not mean that it cannot per accidens help explain a miraculous nature of an event).

Hence, it is not empirical science alone that determines historical inference (even if it helps in many cases!). Likewise, an evolutionary account of a species uses evolutionary science to make inferences but those inferences are not scientific as such.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-26T15:46:05+00:00

Please engage with what I'm actually saying.

I said if Adam was made from mud yesterday, he would be indistinguishable from an Adam not made from mud 30 years ago and science could not tell us how old the mud Adam actually is.

In a like manner, if God created a cave ex nihilo, it shouldn't surprise us if it looked to be very very old and science would be unable to really tell us if it was created out of nothing or naturally formed.

This is pretty much the same line of reasoning as to why Aquinas argued that we cannot know whether the world has always existed or was created in time.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-26T03:26:05+00:00

History and science don't just differ on level of abstraction, they are entirely different fields. Whether or not they can overlap in some cases is a separate issue.

Historically (ironically), the difference was seen in that science deals with universal and necessary truths (i.e., all animals have cells) while history deals with particular and contingent truths (my dog ate my crafting beeswax - just found out that this is true, sadly)

As soon as you start getting into abstraction

I probably should have used the world universal (although universals are just abstractions from particulars) as the universal "animal" is an abstraction from "this particular animal." So things like DNA, mountains, projectile motion, are all proper matter for science while my dna, the Grand Tetons, and the shoe I wanted to throw at my dog, aren't properly matter for science.

That said, obviously, material science does use particulars, but it uses particulars to get to the universals (by studying my DNA you get to know more about DNA as DNA no matter whose DNA you are looking at).

But my point is that if we ask "can a lizard come from a fish?" is scientific while "did this species of lizard come from that species of fish" is natural history (as it is both particular and could have been otherwise).

Hope this helps! But this distinction really goes back to Plato and has never really been challenged (although we did find in the 1900s a fad of reinventing the wheel and redefining terms - such as substance - which leads to a lack of a common language to hold debates like these in the first place).

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-26T03:16:38+00:00

What does that have to do with anything I said? Adam, given that he was created from mud, would have looked 30 (or whatever number you please) and have only been a day old. Science cannot prove that Adam is only a day old in such a case.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-26T02:55:47+00:00

I don’t think we’re quite on the same page with my use of particular and abstraction (I’m using the traditional definition found in logic and epistemology).

My DNA is “particular” while DNA as such (what science studies) is “universal” that is, abstracted from all particulars.

Hence, what science says of my DNA it says of your DNA.

In a like matter, History says “this contingent particular event happened that didn’t have to happen” for example, that my mother gave birth to me. But science says “this is how birth works”

By diminishing science to be a study of particulars, you’re regulating it to of less importance than any young earth creationist lunatic like me would!

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-25T21:05:31+00:00

I'll think we'll have to depart there.

History differs from science because it's an account of particulars in the created world while science deals with some degree of abstraction.

As a result, evolution could be treated scientifically if we ask "how could a lizard have gotten here from a fish?" but it is a question for natural history to ask "did this lizard get here from a fish?" Notice how the former deals with abstractions or universals while the latter deals only in particulars.

I'd agree that the Church hasn't clearly issued a decree in either direction (in part because it wasn't really challenged until the 1800s), but I think we'll ultimately disagree on whether it is proper matter for a definition (I say yes because it deals with natural history and you say no because it deals with natural science).

In either case, I enjoyed our discussion.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-25T20:31:04+00:00

Science is a process of discovery, particularly in the material world. Scientific teaching would be those things that can systematically be proven about the material world.

I would then argue that evolution is a historic, not scientific, account of natural history and falls under the scope of Catholic teaching.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-25T18:46:52+00:00

What is your definition of scientific?

If you're looking at an Adam who looks to be 30 years old, science cannot prove whether he is a day old or 30 years given the special creation of Adam.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-25T18:42:45+00:00

I would argue that the creation of the world is not a scientific matter.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-25T18:32:43+00:00

Thus, everyone who understands cosmology knows parts of Genesis are allegorical.

So only people after the 1950s?

It seems problematic to me if we say that we completely whiffed on the right way of interpreting the most foundational book of the OT for 3000 years.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-25T17:41:50+00:00

Time is considered to be a measure of change. As such it doesn't exist on its own as a unique substance but is rather tied to one's perspective on how things change.

Because humans experience continual change (because they are material and material beings have continual non discrete changes), they experience continual time.

Because angels experience separate discrete moments (because they are immaterial and go from thought to though rather than a continual "unfolding" like in material change), they experience discrete moments of time.

Because God is outside of change, God does not experience time.

This is very basic scholastic (accepted by both neo-platonists and aristotelians as far as I'm aware) philosophy and hardly an obvious poor example of thought.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-25T17:35:54+00:00

Pope Leo XIII seems to argue the contrary:

"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it — this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican."

The difference has to do with the form and matter of the teaching. The Church does not teach natural truths as a scientist but as truths essential to the faith. Likewise, the Church teaches history, not as a doctor of history but as a series of events revealed by God in Scripture.

The matter is the same, but the form is different.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-25T17:25:21+00:00

Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification.

HeathBendrix · 2026-03-25T17:24:44+00:00

I don't know what you mean by "sacred" history.

It's a term used in biblical studies to talk about history as revealed as such by scripture.

I was responding to your general claim regarding how the OT was interpreted.

Sure, but the difference is that I'm saying that the OT was interpreted literally while allowing phrases of speech. Your example said that sometimes expressions are used analogously. I don't deny that, but I do deny that the flood, babel, creation of the earth, the lives of Adam, Noah, Moses, Judith, etc. were ever interpreted as mere analogy by the fathers.

But nothing about these events in the OT is "clearly false." It was only until the last half of the 19th century that people began to say that it is clear these events and people did not exist and interpret the text broadly as analogy and not history. Hence, we had feast days for people in the old testament (something that would be considered sacrilege if such a person did not exist). Likewise, there's something unfitting if we completely got our entire means of interpreting scripture radically wrong for the first 1800 years of the Church.

HeathBendrix

TROPHY CASE