Science can tell us only about the world before it. It has no access to a world when the current laws of nature either did not exist in their present form or were in the process of coming into existence. And at any rate, Divine revelation always supersedes the claims of science.
We do not claim that the Bible has any errors. We're just arguing over interpretation of it.
The notion that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are some sort of mythological "poem" different from the rest of the Torah rests on liberal Biblical criticism, which in turn rests on uniformitarian assumptions.
I'd love to see the proof that YEC was once an infallible dogma, not just that it was believed by most, if not all, Christians.
Perhaps the virgin birth or resurrection will one day join the list of those things once believed by most chr*stians that will be rejected one day on the authority of science.
Don't you think it is absurd to believe that a religious organization with several hundred million members headquartered in Rome would pick and choose its beliefs based on whether or not it contradicts with those of rural Americans?
I don't think it's absurd that the American members of that organization go out of their way to disassociate themselves from the beliefs of Fundamentalist Protestants, even as they accept the primitive beliefs of folk Catholicism.
I was referring to the anti-redneck attitude, not its belief in evolution, original sin, or other theological issues.
There's precious little difference between one and the other--especially when American Catholic apologists often thump the "don't confuse us with those awful people" mantra.
I don't think this is a point of disagreement.
Perhaps the virgin birth or resurrection will one day join the list of those things once believed by most chr*stians that will be rejected one day on the authority of science.
They won't, because they're dogmas. Anyways, the ideas of the virgin birth and resurrection have always been against science, and they have not been rejected.
I don't think it's absurd that the American members of that organization go out of their way to disassociate themselves from the beliefs of Fundamentalist Protestants, even as they accept the primitive beliefs of folk Catholicism.
I don't think that's absurd either, but it seemed as if you were arguing that the Catholic Church picks its based on whether they are contrary to those of Fundamentalists.
There's precious little difference between one and the other--especially when American Catholic apologists often thump the "don't confuse us with those awful people" mantra.
They may be related, but there is a difference.