Shameless Ad

[Guest Eremite]

I believe in creationism. It's a dogma of the Catholic faith.

Whether the person who effected his plan of creation, namely God, did so in an immediate or an evolutionary manner, I have no idea. Like I said before, that's for scientists to figure out.

But since this is the debate board, I thought I'd try to get some discussion going, either way.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 19 2005, 11:49 AM']I believe in creationism. It's a dogma of the Catholic faith.

Whether the person who effected his plan of creation, namely God, did so in an immediate or an evolutionary manner, I have no idea. Like I said before, that's for scientists to figure out.

But since this is the debate board, I thought I'd try to get some discussion going, either way.
[right][snapback]616119[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I basically agree with what you've said in your post, but the more I read of Eastern Christian sources the more I tend to see the creation of the body itself as having been accomplished by God directly. In the East the creation of man in the image of God ([i]eikon Theô[/i]) involves the body and not simply the intellect and will.

[Brother Adam]

I got ya, I got ya. This wasn't really meant to turn into a debate, but I suppose that's fine. I'm the only one who argues for a young earth here (though more believe in it, they just refuse to debate). Since I don't have time to argue here right now it might not go very far.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]In the East the creation of man in the image of God (eikon Theô) involves the body and not simply the intellect and will.[/quote]

This article [url="http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html"]here[/url] discussess a distinction between "natural" and "special" transformism:

[quote]some theologians - in contrast to scientists - have included among the theoretically possible varieties of "evolution" a hypothetical scenario which they call "special transformism" (as distinct from "natural transformism"). According to this hypothesis, evolution from primitive, cellular forms up to the level of hominid creatures may well have occurred by exclusively physical laws and processes; but these would have been incapable of producing the superior genetic make-up of a being physically apt for - and hence requiring - a rational soul. Hence, it is said, a last-minute supernatural intervention at the moment of Adam's conception would have been necessary in order to give his embryonic body the genetic constitution and physical features of a true human being. We shall argue in this essay that special transformism, limited to the case of Adam's body, is the only 'evolutionary' explanation of man's body which could perhaps be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine on this point, which, while commonly forgotten or ignored today, could, already in 1880 if not before, be recognized as having attained infallible status.[/quote]

So basically, it argues that, while it is possible that natural evolutionary processes provided the basic form of the human body, they could never provide an actual human body and brain capable of receiving a human soul. Thus, the substance of man's physical makeup would have to be formed directly by God, and infused with a soul, thereby making a [i]true[/i] human subject.

Although, I think the article's claims of "infallible status" are an exaggeration. But that's a whole other issue.