Replies

I’ve earned praise from you on occasion for my literalism, although I think my “evolutionism” probably dooms my stance fatally in your eyes.

I haven’t worked out my own stance on Creation to my satisfaction

There is no need to understand the workings of creation, which only G-d can do. The problem is with dismissing historical events described by G-d (ie, the creation narrative in Genesis) as didactic mythology or fables because "stuff like that just doesn't happen." Of course stuff like that doesn't happen!!! It doesn't happen because the universe now exists! But before it existed it was created in the manner described in Genesis. Where is the difficulty? Science has nothing to say about creation whatsoever. Cosmogony is not a scientific field at all. It is theological and historical, not "scientific."

Some time back I had a very heated argument with a very fanatical Darwinist Catholic who, ironically, described the situation far more perfectly than I ever had. He distinguished between the creation of the universe (the instantaneous "big bang") and its formation (millions and millions of years of purely natural processes with no Divine "interference" whatsoever). I insist that the universe's formation is part and parcel of its creation--that the formation of the universe until the creation of Adam and Eve was the creation factually described in the first two chapters of Genesis. Ironically, the fact that Genesis begins in the construct state, often taken by higher critics and evolutionists as falling out on their side of the argument, seems to me to actually be teaching exactly what I have just said--that the creation and formation are one and the same. There was a "beginning" to the creation process, and it didn't "end" until Adam and Eve had been created. All this constitutes the "creation of the universe," and Genesis narrates the history of these events just as it narrates the events of Joseph's life in Egypt.

I realize you must regard me as a simpleton, but I honestly do not see the difficulty with accepting Genesis literally.

Did I say I dismiss it as a fable? I must've missed that.

There was a "beginning" to the creation process, and it didn't "end" until Adam and Eve had been created. All this constitutes the "creation of the universe," and Genesis narrates the history of these events just as it narrates the events of Joseph's life in Egypt.

I couldn't agree more though! That's clearly the case. If Genesis 1 doesn't describe development then I don't know what does.

For a variety of reasons, I've taken to lurking and reading on this type thread, more than actively participating. Usually my questions get answered before I ask them ... in this case, though ... I'll crawl out of the woodwork for a bit.

There is no need to understand the workings of creation, which only G-d can do

I find that a curious statement, and would be obliged if you'd elaborate on it.

It seems to imply that some fields of scientific inquiry might be "off-limits" ...

1) Is that a correct interpretation of your statement?

1a) If so, what are those fields?

2)If not, what does it mean?

realize you must regard me as a simpleton,

That bit, frankly, got old a long time ago. Your commentary on this forum cannot possibly have come from a simpleton.