quote:
Is that officially noted somewhere on the internet? I’d like to see it. Also, I can’t find a single official Catholic review of this book anywhere. There are several reviews on the back cover of my paperback from scientific sources, but none from Catholic sources. I can’t find any Amazon reviews of it from a Catholic source. I’m not saying that none exist, but if no one on this thread can point me to one, then it’s safe to say they don’t exist. Why are they hard to find/non existent?
The singling out of the human soul, rather than the body doesn't come from a review of Miller's book. It comes from the 1996
statement by Pope John Paul II. And in fact, such a view was considered much earlier. John Paul II quotes Pius XII:
If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God
quote:
The word young isn’t necessary. It’s not called the Young Earth Creationist Museum. The one single dimension of time that humans are limited to isn’t accepted as a measure of all of reality by Christians the same way it is by atheists.
That is just silly. AiG is a Young Earth Creationist organisation. The museum presents a Young Earth Creationist viewpoint. The presence of the word "Young" IS necessary to accurately characterise the museum.
quote:
I hope I’ve explained the insignificance of the word young. If not, let me know and I’ll elaborate more on that.
No, you haven't. And since there is a real and valid distinction between Young Earth and Old Earth Creationist views - and those are the generally accepted terms - I don't think you need offer any more explanation because your assertion is obviously wrong.
Anyway I will ask again. Do you really claim that the YEC doctrine of AiG with it's dinosaurs living alongside humans and the like is endorsed by all denominations ?
quote:
I hope I’ve explained the insignificance of the word young. If not, let me know and I’ll elaborate more on that. Concerning Adam’s soul vs a literal person, That’s a big leap, one that reduces Genesis (and all of Christianity) to an allegory.
I think that you are confusing two different points. First I suggested that it was possible for a Christian to reject the idea of a literal Adam, then I pointed out that Catholics allowed for humans to have physically evolved, but insisted on the human soul being God's creation. Two distinct ideas.
Even more, "reducing" the Garden of Eden story to an allegory is hardly reducing all of Christianity to an allegory. I think it's fair to say that the story as it stands is an obvious myth - so shouldn't Christians prefer an allegorical view of it ? Because if it isn't literally true it's significance can't come from the literal meaning, can it ?
quote:
Dawkins is one of the few prominent atheists who doesn’t care
So you agree that you were wrong to suggest that he should help Miller ?
quote:
Most atheists want to help Miller. It’s always about the money.
There doesn't seem to be much money in supporting Miller. And I've not seen anyone suggest that they want to help Miller work out his theology. Your quote from Provine only suggests that scientists are keeping quiet about the fact (as Provine sees it) that science provides very strong evidential support for atheism. Unless you agree with Provine on this point - and I don't think that you do - then it doesn't help you at all.
Anyway, perhaps you can tell me what your objection to theistic evolution actually is. It seems very odd that you haven't done so yet - shouldn't that be the main thing you talk about on this thread ?