The Great Creation/Evolution Debate

February 6, 2014 | 33 comments

On Tuesday night the Kentucky-based Creation Museum hosted a debate on origins that over 500,000 people watched on the Internet. CNN”s Tom Foreman served as the debate moderator. Although there have been lots of creation/evolution debates in the past, this one generated extra excitement because of the high-profile status of the debaters.

Defending the young-earth creation (or YEC) perspective was Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis. Defending the mainstream scientific account of evolution was Bill Nye, a.k.a. the "Science Guy,” who hosted a popular children’s educational television program during the mid-90’s and still works as an advocate for science education. The debate came about after Nye said that young-earth creationism was inappropriate for children, which didn’t go over well with the Answers in Genesis crowd. A debate was offered in response.

After watching it on YouTube, here are some of my thoughts:

A Risky Debate Topic for Ham: I was surprised that the official topic of the debate was, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Normally YEC’s like Ken Ham try to put their opponents on the defensive by pointing out alleged gaps in the evidence for evolution without defending their own views. However, this specific topic forced Ham to defend the YEC claims for a young earth, worldwide flood, and a sudden and recent emergence of all life forms. In this case, it was Nye who trotted out data which seemed to contradict Ham's "model."

Nye pointed out that we have evidence from tree rings, ice core samples, biological diversity among species, radiometric dating, and starlight that is billions of light-years away all of which can only be explained if the earth more than 6,000 years old. Ham’s response to all of this was to say that Nye must assume things about the past in order for this evidence to count against the YEC hypothesis: for example, that ice layers grow at a standard rate, that atoms decay at a normal rate, and that the speed of light hasn’t changed over time. For Ham, there is only one assumption about the past we can reliably make, that the Bible accurately records it.

Two Kinds of Science, or One Kind?: Ham’s argument basically boiled down to the idea that there are two kinds of science: Observational science you can verify directly (like what you measure in a test tube) and historical science, which deals with facts about the past. According to Ham, everyone, including YEC’s, agree about observational science. However, since historical science can’t be directly observed we must make inferences about what happened in the past. As a result, we have to assume things about the past before we can analyze observable evidence that shows what happened. For Ham, this means starting with the assumption that the Bible is the word of God and that it literally describes the creation week. Any currently observable data simply fits within that assumption.

Nye, in contrast, starts with the assumption that the laws of nature are uniform and we can trust our senses. Nye countered Ham's distinction between observational and historical science by noting that astronomy and criminal forensics are legitimate sciences even though they deal with events that happened in the past. I would add the example that even though I can't observe the process of rust overtaking an abandoned car, I can scientifically determine that did happen by using observable evidence and common sense assumptions. For Nye, there is no reason not to trust our assumptions about the laws of nature that we use to explain what happened in the past, be it events that took place five minutes ago or five million years ago.

The Bible Says It, I Believe It, That Settles It: I was sympathetic to Ham’s argument that scientists must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to account for why science works. According to Ham, the Christian worldview explains why things like the laws of logic or the laws of physics are universal, unchanging, and ground the conclusions arrived at through science. Indeed, I believe the regularity of the universe’s natural laws is better evidence for God than the complexity found in living creatures, because the latter can be explained through evolution while the former cannot.

But what was bizarre about Ham’s approach is that not once during the debate did Ham explain why we should believe that the Bible can be trusted as a source about the past. Ham simply took the Bible as his starting point and ran with it. As he waxed eloquent about how Christ died for our sins, and flashed Scripture verse after Scripture verse on his PowerPoint, I kept thinking to myself, “I agree with you, Ken, but why would any non-Christian accept this?”

Rather than start with an assumption that the Bible is the Word of God, the Catholic approach to the inspiration of Scripture follows arrives at the conclusion that the Bible is the Word of God through a series of valid logical and historical inferences.

Civil Discourse is Possible: One thing I was extremely impressed with was Ham and Nye’s demeanor throughout the debate. There were no shouting matches or rude interruptions. Neither side took any “cheap shots,” and the harshest criticism was basically, “I’m not satisfied with that argument.” This is a great testimony to the fact that even if people passionately disagree about something, it is still possible for them to civilly engage their passionate disagreement.

Fear of a False Dilemma: I worried, and still do worry, that many people who watched this debate believed there are only two positions when it comes to the question of origins: naturalistic evolutionary biology or a literal interpretation of Genesis that holds that the entire universe was created in six days about 6,000 years ago. To his credit, Nye worked hard to not disparage religion in general, and said there were billions of religious people who don’t accept young earth creationism.  Ham, in contrast, made it seem like it was his way or the highway. He challenged Christians who reject young earth creationism to explain how there could be death before the fall (Matt Fradd has actually addressed that subject here).

In contrast to the YEC view, the Catholic Church has no official position on scientific questions like the age of the earth or the evolution of life. Catholics are free to hold basically any position on those questions so long as they acknowledge that God directly created man’s immortal soul. (See our tract on the subject here.)

A Future Hope: I hope in the future there can be a public forum where a skilled defender of the Church’s position on creation and evolution can contrast that position with both the YEC view and atheistic evolutionary position. It would be a great opportunity to show that, as Pope John Paul II wrote in Fides et Ratio:

Even if faith is superior to reason there can never be a true divergence between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals the mysteries and bestows the gift of faith has also placed in the human spirit the light of reason. This God could not deny himself, nor could the truth ever contradict the truth.


After his conversion to the Catholic Faith, Trent Horn earned a master's degree in theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville and is currently pursuing a graduate degree in philosophy from Holy Apostles College. 

He serves as a staff apologist for Catholic Answers and...

Comments by Members

#1  Kevin Gunn - Leesburg, Virginia

For as much hype as this debate got in the social media, I thought the topic itself was, as you observed a "false dichotomy." Even when I wasn't a practicing Catholic, my views on the topic, as an engineer, pretty much agreed with the Catholic view...and I didn't even know, then, what the "Catholic view" was. (a "creationevolutionist"?)

I'm not a YEC-er so I've never heard of Mr. Ham. I have, of course, heard of Mr. Nye. While he's done admirable things for science education in his recently-resurgent career, I understand he's not a scientist himself--he's mostly an entertainer and spokesman.

The mutual-dismissiveness of the extremes of both sides of this argument is disheartening, at best. And as you noted, civil discussion requires respect for the other side's rational arguments, even when you disagree with their premises.

(By the way--that's what I love about your work, Trent--I just finished "Answering Atheism" on Kindle--well done, indeed!)

February 6, 2014 at 5:22 pm PST
#2  Mark Jeffords - Ceres, California

Trent, I'm sorry, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Catholic Answers apologists continue to insist as you said that "Catholics are free to hold basically any position on those questions (creation of earth/of man) so long as they acknowledge that God directly created man’s immortal soul."

That's just not true and I've raised this issue with Catholic Answers before and received no response.

I can only assume you haven't studied Pre-Vatican II magesterial teachings on the creation of man. The Church always taught in the past that man was created from the slime of the earth and eve taken miraculously from his rib while he slept. The Church has never left room for the faithful to believe in "theistic evolution", despite the fact that Catholic Answers apologists keep insisting that.

In 1880, in an encyclical on Holy Marriage, Pope Leo XIII wrote to the Bishops as follows:

"We call to mind facts well-known to all and doubtful to no-one: after He formed man from the slime of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and breathed into his face the breath of life, God willed to give him a female companion, whom He drew forth wondrously from the man’s side as he slept. In bringing this about, God, in His supreme Providence, willed that this spousal couple should be the natural origin of all men: in other words, that from this pair the human race should be propagated and preserved in every age by a succession of procreative acts which would never be interrupted..."

Both the Council of Trent and Vatican Council I taught that no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture “contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”

In the words of Fr. Victor Warkulwiz:

"The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unanimously agreed that Genesis 1-11 is an inerrant literal historical account of the beginning of the world and the human species as related by the prophet Moses under divine inspiration."

I would like to know why it is that you would think Catholics are free to believe in "the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms."?

The tract that Catholic Answers has written on evolution states that but without making a case for it. Pius XII permitted the research and discussion on the origin of the human body, not that the faithful could all of a sudden take a position contrary to what the Church had always taught. In fact he specifically forbids that later in the same document as the tract points out. Doesn't it seem more likely that PIUS XII permitted the study of human evolution so that Catholic intellectuals could debunk it?

Why is Catholic Answers so eager to try and Christianize evolution? Christ and Baal do not mix.

February 6, 2014 at 11:49 pm PST
#3  Salonsar War - Shillong, Meghalaya

I feel that 'Theistic Evolution', which would more or less connote our Catholic view on origins is actually a compromise and a position we hold simply because we have not or do not want to delve into a literal reading of Genesis 1-3. Yes, it is important that we acknowledge that God directly created man’s immortal soul but what is it that's stopping us from acknowledging that God also directly created Adam's body? I don't see anything metaphorical in the Bible's account of how it happened, and for that matter, the account of Creation itself. To believe that God created over millions of years would be to render the Genesis account 'unworthy' or 'errant'. The detail of the language and grammar which God chose to present Genesis to us leave no room for long ages, not even a million years and definitely not billions of years. There are other Scripture passages (apart from those in Genesis) that supports a literal Genesis (six day creation) but I feel the one that substantiates it best is Mark 10:6 where Jesus lectured the Pharisees on Marriage : "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.". God made Adam and Eve on Day 6 (the first week) and not after thousands or millions of years (which would not be 'at the beginning').
Creation and Salvation were enacted by the same God.
If God has worked out our Salvation with such detail, then I believe he worked out our Creation with equal detail.
I would encourage fellow Catholics to re-look at the evidence from a Biblical perspective and then take a stand. Good sources are www.creation.con,, and, among others.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 "but test everything; hold fast to what is good".
God Bless

February 7, 2014 at 7:31 am PST
#4  Nate Stevens - Green Bay, Wisconsin

Hey Mark,

The Early Church Fathers were NOT unanimous about literal 6-day creation. Both Origen and St. Augustine said it was figurative so I don't know where that false idea originated from.

Also, not everything in an encyclical or even in a Ecumenical Council (like Trent) is infallible, so again, I don't see the Church definitively teaching YEC. I.E. the evidence you presented is interpreted by the Church, not YECists. The Church has stated that BOTH positions are fine. As a matter of fact, if you view it through Einstein's Theory of Relativity, it actually could have been BOTH depending if you were in the Creation event or outside.

Hope this helps, God Bless

February 7, 2014 at 8:15 am PST
#5  Mark Jeffords - Ceres, California


Can you give me a quotation that indicates "The Church has stated that BOTH positions are fine."?

February 7, 2014 at 5:20 pm PST
#6  brady steele - mesa, Arizona

To Trent and fellow Catholics,

Did you have a side you were rooting for in the Superbowl? Was your zeal for that football team before the game more than it was for a debate between a "Christian" and "atheist", both defending their worldviews? Would you agree that the response in this article may come across as luke warm? It would is hard to tell which side you have taken.

I have an answer to Bill Nye's question that would supposedly convert him. Forget about just a fish swimming up layers of mud. There are bottom feeding sea shells found at the top of mount Everest! There are petrified trees that traverse "millions of years" of sediments. I would argue those layers were layed down from catastrophic torrential rains and tidal waves over the course of 40 days and 40 nights.

I get the impression that a lot of churches and Catholics don't want to identify with young earth creation. Why? Why not worship a God that can create the world in 6 literal days? That God would be awesome and perfect, without blemish. He did it right the first time. Why teach darwinism, trial and error, in Catholic schools? Why take the broad road of destruction, theisitic evolution? Is a decaying animal carcass filled with ants and maggots, beautiful? Is it creative?

Maybe as Catholics we can be more introspective and look at what is being taught to kids. Why not start by removing darwinism from Catholic schools, to lead an example to public schools? Its a worthless subject at best and a lie from satan meant to undermine the faith, and justify apathy to death and suffering at worst.

If a person's taught that their great grandpa, times a million, was a ball of cells that washed up on the beach, then with love and understanding of our enemy can we see where their conscience may be misformed on abortion? It stands to reason for them, based on that worldview, to think of a child in the womb as a ball of cells. It also might give some explanation as to why people that otherwise identify themselves as Catholic, stumble on these issues. The science community had a phrase for this called "phylogeny recapitulates oncology". It was proven a hoax and a fraud in Germany but still seeps into classes and is logically inferred by any devout darwinist.

When Jesus returns, the lion will graze with the lamb. I pray that as Catholics we would not be luke warm but rather teach a worldview to kids that inspires them and prepares them for His coming.

"But first must he suffer many things and be rejected of this generation. And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." -Jesus Christ Luke 17:27

February 8, 2014 at 1:59 pm PST
#7  Mark Schumacher - Littleton, Colorado

This is an interesting piece, and while I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak, since whether the earth was created in 6 days or billions of years does not change what I believe about God's love and Christ's effective sacrifice, I do think that after listening to Father Spitzer's stuff on creation and evolution (the Magis Center for Faith and Reason), the case can be made for an earth that is older than a few thousand years. But again, I don't know, and expect to find out definitively should I be blessed with the grace of Salvation.

But the point I'd like to make, since we have a visitor supporting the literal interpretation, and could be from the AIG, is to those who interpret the creation story literally: why do you interpret the Bible's account of creation literally, but refuse to interpret Jesus' Bread of Life Discourse literally (John 6)? You cannot interpret some things literally, and refuse to do so for others when they differ from your interpretation. To do so makes you a hypocrite. While there is no clear context in which to judge the literal translation of the creation story, we know for a fact that Jesus was speaking literally by the way his audience reacted, because they so clearly understood His statements to be literal ("How can this man give us his flesh to eat", and again, "This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?", and again, "after this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him").

Remove the beam in your own eye first, and then you can clearly see to remove the splinter in your neighbor's.

February 9, 2014 at 4:21 pm PST
#8  brady steele - mesa, Arizona

Hi Mark, Yes, I was at Adoration on Friday. I take them both literally. So, that means I'm not the one being a hypocrite. No worries, my friend. Check out, a creation believing group of Catholics.

With that said I hope my comment did not come across as a criticism but rather a passionate exhortation. Christ made a strong warning about offending or leading his little children to sin. There is no reason as Catholics we need to compromise Christ's redemptive work on the cross for darwin. None.

I believe the log that needs to be removed from Catholic schools is Darwinism.

God bless and Happy Lord's Day.

February 9, 2014 at 5:31 pm PST
#9  Mark Schumacher - Littleton, Colorado

Hi Brady, I actually wasn't referring to you, sorry to make that insinuation. I hope you didn't think I was referring to you as a hypocrite. I was not. My post was based on my reading of Salonsar War's post, who, now that I read it again, may or may not be a fundamentalist (based on the organizations that he/she promotes, based on my experience with them and those who are heavily supportive of them). My first read lead me to believe that he/she is a fundamentalist, and so the hypocrite reference was to him/her if that is in fact the case.

To your point about Darwinism, I really don't have an issue with it being taught in Catholic Schools, as long as it's taught from the perspective of Faith and truth, and that the weaknesses of it are manifestly shown so that we can understand it, but also understand why it is to be rejected. I think if we shy away from teaching our children about the true, and the false, philosophies or schools of thought, we risk leaving our children susceptible to attack later on in life.

For this reason, I don't have an issue with my children, who will attend a Catholic school next year, learning about Egyptian, Greek, and Roman mythology, eastern religions such as Buddhism, and Hinduism, etc, as long as they are shown in the light of the True Faith, so that they can see what is Truth, and what is everything else (as you say, from the devil). In fact, we chose this particular school because they use a classical education format, which is designed to inculcate the skills of forensic evaluation and assessment, critical thinking, rhetoric, logic, and debate.

I think the issue we have with so many Catholics leaving the Church is that we were never taught to think for ourselves, to become like shrewd moneychangers, who can determine the difference between pure gold and the imitation. To a fault (even though I believe that to a certain extent this is good and necessary), we simply took on faith what we were told, and left the critical thinking behind, until we were challenged to do so, and overthrown by seemingly superior "logic".

I don't believe that there is anything to fear in terms of education, God wills our salvation, and will show us the Truth and lies, if we maintain a pure heart and seek the truth. Unfortunately, this inability to become shrewd moneychangers leads to adoption of non-Catholic Christianity (which still has a lot of truth, but not the complete truth), or even worse, new era philosophies which are downright apostasies, in my opinion.

So I actually see the teaching of Darwinism, if done in light of the truth that it lacks, is valuable for the faith formation of our children, and indeed, for their very salvation.

February 9, 2014 at 6:03 pm PST
#10  brady steele - mesa, Arizona

Hey Mark,

Yeah perhaps I can agree, but it sounds like a vaccine form of education. I don't know that it is always healthy and necessary to vacinnate for everything though. A strong healthy body filled with the Truth can evade a lot of sickness.

I don't know that all phoney books can be hashed through as well. I haven't seen Mein Kompf listed under "Great Books" and "Harvard Classics" and I'm glad its not. It is disappointing to see Origin of Species and Communist Manifesto on there though. I know "Great Books" are used at Catholic schools.

I don't know if after 12 years of just learning the Bible, Cathechism, GK Chesterton, St Thomas Aquinas, CS Lewis and St. Augustine that there would be much room for other writings.

I would argue that logical fallacies are the most common and most important defense argumentation needed. "Tu quoque" would be the logical fallacy that you used in your previous comment. That is to say even if someone only believes one part of the Bible to be literal, it doesn't invalidate their point. Both parties have an area of the Bible to be taken literally.

My understanding is an ad populum of educators are teaching Theistic Evolution. So when Darwin is taught, they say that yes man may have come from apes but that's ok, he was infused with a soul. I would argue this is a poor vaccine with metaphorical mercury ingredients ruining a child's vision of the world.

February 9, 2014 at 8:19 pm PST
#11  Mark Schumacher - Littleton, Colorado

Brady, good points, especially your last about Darwinism. I was shocked to recently learn that Catholics are allowed to believe that man evolved from apes, as long as we believe that man has a God-given soul, which sets him apart from all other animals. When contemplating that, it just doesn't resonate with me as truth. So in this sense, I accept the creation story as literal in terms of man's creation in one day, not as an evolution of man, I'd also probably state that God created everything in 6 days literally, and that our notion of time as it stands today is based on how quickly things progress in physics today naturally, apart from God's extra-ordinary effort to complete creation in literally 6 days. I do believe that as we measure the age of the universe, 13.8 billion years, give or take is accurate, but again, this is based on how quickly things are transpiring at today's rate of time, and that God is not bound by today's rate of time. It might simply be a statement that what would naturally take 13.8 billion years, as we measure, can be accomplished in 6 days because God is that powerful. But I certainly don't know, there are some very smart Catholic physicists, Father Spitzer being one of them, who confirm the universe's age at 13.8 billion years (the big bang actually support a Creation theory, imo).

In terms of Darwinism itself, I think it's a incredible leap of faith to believe that man evolved from apes, who ultimately evolved from slime. In my opinion, which is not all that learned when it comes to the intricacies of Darwin's theory, the theory speaks to adaptation, which is irrefutable, but not to evolution, which necessitates a change in kinds (fish to birds to mammals, etc). So I really don't view Darwinism as a serious threat, if one considers the fact that, as a scientific theory, it can't be measured or evaluated, since we have yet to see any change in like during the whole of recorded human history.

February 10, 2014 at 6:08 pm PST
#12  brady steele - mesa, Arizona

Thank you Mark, I appreciate you taking the time to look into the matter. It is a very serious issue and I appreciate that you're sympathetic to that point.

You know the problem with billions of years for the universe is that the Biblical account says that the moon and stars came on day 4 after the earth and vegetation.

I know its hard to imagine the earth being created before the sun and stars, but check out the documentary "A Privileged Planet". It is remarkable how unique our planet is, and how much God must love his creation. The movie's investigation begins with the incredibly perfect distance and size the moon is from the sun to allow a matching solar eclipse.

As you know, to God, a thousand years is as a day and a day is as a thousand years. The theory of relativity gives some further insight into the flexibility of time. I'm also aware a Priest came up with the big bang theory. I think there is a lot that can be discussed in the realms of time and space. However, the neat and orderly sequence of biblical creation gives a balance sheet, or a yard stick to measure up to. It keeps far reaching and inflating ideas from leading His children astray.

You know the moon is moving away from the earth just a few inches every year? Now imagine rewinding that a few million years. You see the problem? There are many other problems like that with billions of years.

The inflated age of the earth as we know it began with Charles Lyell by the way. He was a lawyer and self styled geologist. He began the uniformitarianism that scientists largely practice today. Their only option now is to tell a story based on what they their looking at, ignoring the possibility of a great flood or any other catastrophes of biblical proportions.

February 10, 2014 at 9:17 pm PST
#13  Mark Hartman - El Cajon, California

I find it interesting that so many good Catholics here dispute over the English translation of what was, after all, originally written in Hebrew.

The way translated "day" in Genesis literally means "period of time" in Hebrew, which (according to a Jewish friend knowledgeable in Hebrew) could be as small as an hour, or as long as an epoch.

I find it even more interesting -- and, frankly, much more to an appropriate scale for God -- that the "days" in Genesis, according to the events allocated to them, correspond roughly to one rotation of the galaxy.

"God created all things in their forms inseminate, and they evolved to what we see today." -- St. Augustine of Hippo

February 12, 2014 at 10:31 am PST
#14  Ramon Tristan - Winton, California

I've defended my faith. I don't push any of things topics on anyone. I've been asked about this stuff. "Why isn't this in the Bible?" "Why is this suddenly important?". Everyone here has a different way of stating the same opinion. I do what I personally believe to be more important. I talk about what is in the New Testament. Just because something is left out does NOT mean what is in the written Word does not apply. I don't talk about Genesis. I have to speak of Christ first and foremost. If and when people try to challenge what I'm telling them, I let them tell me their views. I am not getting off the subject. This is a touchy subject. How many debates have you seen televised on national TV about other topics regarding Christianity in any sense? I believe that we don't or will ever find every answer to these questions. As believers we will have the answers to EVERYTHING we've never known. My belief in Christ does not make me literally blind to the unknown. Who here thinks every inventor successfully achieved their goal through prayer? Jesus did create the Earth. AND the stars. Our beginning here on Earth is the ONLY beginning that matters to us. I believe the Earth is billions of years old. That don't make me a non-Catholic.

February 13, 2014 at 8:39 pm PST
#15  brady steele - mesa, Arizona

Re: Mark and Ramon,

"Catholic" is commonly defined as "universal", as in universe. Uni-verse, etymologically speaking, comes from a single spoken sentance. "In the beginning God, created the heavens and the earth".

My friends, let me tell you about the birds and the bees and the flowers and the trees, the moon and the stars and the earth and the sky. There is an amazing, beautiful symbiotic relationship to our created world. The flowers could not wait billions of years for the bees.

We live and operate in the natural world, and its natural laws. God is super-natural though. When Jesus healed the blind, it was super-natural. When he raised the dead, my brother, it was outside of natural. It was super-natural. It was a miracle. A doctor practicing medicine could not do that. Because He is Lord of creation, he can intervene. When He does so, he can do so in His nature, which is a super-nature. My friends the Good-news is exciting and awesome in power.

As Catholics we are not required to know the account of Genesis. However injecting billions of years is its own belief as you said. It leads down a dangerous road. As I pointed out, it breaks apart the orderly symbiotic sequence of Genesis and makes the first pages of the Bible a stumbling block for the avid reader.

You know in reality as Catholics we could say that the universe is 2 thousand years old when Jesus said "It is finished". We are a new creation in Him. I would implore you, brethren, not to be conformed to the ways of this world. We don't need to compromise. God bless.

February 13, 2014 at 10:21 pm PST
#16  Salonsar War - Shillong, Meghalaya

Friends, Genesis is the first book of the Bible. If we cannot accept what is plainly written there, it would indeed, as Brady states, be a stumbling block for the avid reader and especially for a new believer who wants to trust the whole Word of God. By the way, thanks for the website you suggested ( It's great to know there are Catholics who take the Creation account literally and seriously.

Friends, out of Love and with no judgement, I exhort you again to research more into the literal creation account. Believe me, it will help us to appreciate our Creator all the more. We serve a Mighty and an awesome God indeed! A 6-day Creation, a young universe / earth, men living upto 900 years, dinosaurs existing with humans, dragons breathing fire, a global flood-- these are the things people would laugh at; but they are all true!!
The pre-flood world was not 'very good' in God's eyes (since sin had alredy entered the world) but it was not very far off. The conditions then (the atmosphere, oxygen content, etc) were vastly differently than what it is now. That's the reason why the earth could support 'giants' in those days (mammals, humans, insects, etc), as evidenced in the fossil record we have today.
Friends, the truth is indeed liberating and amazing and I can go on but for a lack of time and space. That's why I request you all to please learn more about the Creation account. Yes Ramon, believing that the earth is billions of years old does not make anyone a non-catholic. I say belief in a literal Creation should make us better Catholics. Our faith in Christ should not waver whatsoever our opinions. In fact, it should get stronger by the day and I believe trusting in his every word as he meant it should make our faith more deep-rooted.

Besides the websites I gave in my earlier post, you can check out Dr. Kent Hovind's videos on youtube. He's a Creationist and his lectures on this topic are quite informative. Some of the topics he speaks on and which you can search are 'The garden of Eden', 'The age of the earth', 'Why Evolution is stupid', to name a few.
I am not a fundamentalist, and it is because I believe in a literal Creation as Scripture tells me that I have no problems in believing in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as Scripture tells me.
Creation & Salvation --- both handiworks of our Awesome God.
Friends, I am male and am from India and since the site didn't allow me to select an Indian state when I registered, that's why my city (Shillong, Meghalaya, India) landed up in Kentucky ;)
God Bless

February 14, 2014 at 5:24 am PST
#17  Michael Robinson - Scappoose, Oregon

There is a false debate here, it is not evolution or creation. The question is whether God was involved or not in the origins of life. And really, there is no reasonable way for scientists to argue against God by citing evolution. The latter is a faith issue.

What did Nye argue about evolution suggesting that the teaching of evolutionary theory is better than teaching a theory that the Earth is young and was created a few thousand as opposed to a few billion years ago?

Arguing that there has been enough time for random mutation to lead to what we see today strikes me as tenuous at best. I point to the dinosaurs, they are mostly extinct today unless you consider birds dinosaurs and they were among a number of species that were arguably highly developed billions of years ago. When did man supposedly come into existence? A few thousand years ago, well 10s of thousands of years ago. Hardly long enough for random mutation to produce the most self conscious and intelligent life form in the known universe IMHO.

Evolution is happening today. People get taller from one generation to the next or maybe because of crowding/famine they get shorter. Are we to assume if there are natural processes at work that God isn't directing them?

A few irritations with what some folks are saying. There are many calendars in the bible and you can get really funny ideas about what the bible says if you don't use the correct calendar. Nowhere in the bible does Christ say that the Earth is young or even very old for that matter. Some scripture passages, especially genesis passages, are not to be taken literally lest they be weakened. Any piece of literature is written to make a point where the point of a bible piece is often NOT making a historical account of an event. The synoptic gospels are largely historical and it is critical that they be read as historical documents referencing other non biblical sources as needed to validate them.

The story of the origin of life is not the big bang and it isn't 6 days (however long those days were) when nothing existed. There has always been and always will be God. If you dismiss that, good luck explaining how something arose from nothing and became everything.

We are not to put God to the test. When we simplify creation to the point of making it an absurd explanation to human origins, we are doing just that. God can use evolutionary processes. Nothing prevented God from creating man by creating a primate first and directing the evolution of that ape. Perhaps God allowed the animals to evolve and then one day created a new form of primate, man, from the dirt and breathed into man a soul. The key thing is that man has a soul and is more than just a collection of cells. The soul exists at the moment of conception and lives on forever after when nourished by the eucharist at least once in a person's earthly
life time.

We should be extremely grateful that the Father created us, the Son redeemed us, and the Holy Spirit guides us. We should be extremely grateful and feel fortunate that God not only created us, but He cares
about us deeply. We have the hope of heaven ahead of us.

God Bless.

February 16, 2014 at 12:31 am PST
#18  brady steele - mesa, Arizona

Salonsar, thank you for your posts. Welcome to Kentucky my friend, ha ha. I appreciate you referencing Dr. Kent Hovinds seminars as I have to admit, those were the videos that had the biggest impact in changing my world view. He is one of the most hated and mocked people on youtube. So, I could tell he is on to something. I recommend Age of the Earth and The Garden of Eden from

Michael, I would exhort you as well to check out one of those videos. I would be astonished if they don't change your worldview as well. He is actually a very funny, engaging and entertaining speaker as well. Also, I hope in this forum we can be ecumenical and not form an 'us' vs. 'them' mentality when referencing other Christian materials.

Michael, this is an age old debate. In fact, Louis Pasteur was such a devout Creationist that he came up with pasteurization with the intent of discrediting the ancient Greek belief in "spontaneous generation". Darwinism is just a modern repackaging of that age old belief.

Michael, you are very right about the false dichotomy of evolution vs. creation. "Evolution" by definition means change over time. Obviously things change over time. If not you might get pretty anxious sitting at a stop light. Re-volution, by the way, means change over time in a circular pattern or returning to a previous state. So are things changing over time for the better or worse? In some ways better, thank God, and in other ways not.

I've been careful to emphasize Darwinism, or as Kent would describe, macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, conversely, is what everyone recognizes as fact such as changing beak size or people getting taller as you described. Macro-evolution or Darwinism, on the other hand, has a religious nature. A lizard turning to a bird is not science. Also, I would not give credit to Darwin ever having a "Theory" as I have yet to see a mathematical equation. It is properly classified as an hypothesis.

My hypothesis for the dinosaurs is that they were simply really big lizards, just like the really big sloths. In fact, they used to use pet lizards in the old days to play the "terrible lizards" on the silver screen. If reptiles, as we know, never stop growing and they got to live for hundreds of years, pre-flood, well you can imagine how big they got. Its that simple.

Michael, my friend, we evolved or changed over time from a "fetus" latin for little person, to a big person. Brother, as you know, we were a person, the whole time. As Catholics if we want to help and protect the least among us, we should stop teaching and defending Darwinisn and its kissing cousin theistic evolution.

God bless.

February 16, 2014 at 7:58 pm PST
#19  Trent Horn - San Diego, California - Catholic Answers Blogger

Thanks to everyone who left comments here on this blog! I think it might be helpful for me to make a few quick points however:

1. There is no conciliar decree or statement which states that the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches the universe is of a certain age or that life developed in a certain way. Those who claim otherwise bare the burden of proof on the issue. The Catechism only says, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers." (CCC 283)

The Catechism also states that, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man." (CCC 390). As such, we must be careful in using literal descriptions of Genesis found in ecclesial documents to support the view that the Church endorses a young earth or is anti-evolution.

2. Within the Church there has not been a universally taught belief about how life evolved and Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis states that this issue may be researched and discussed provided that such discussion is done with "seriousness, moderation and measure." There were Church Fathers who believed the account in Genesis was not a literal chronological account but a symbolic "framework." (See Origen and Augustine). Those interpretations, along with a belief in evolution, can be validly held by the faithful.

3. On a personal note, I subscribe to the mainstream view that the earth is 4.54 billion years old and that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. However, I don't feel it is necessary to argue with fellow believers who disagree with me on this issue. Although, I hope they are willing to look into the evidence supporting this view as it is one a Catholic may hold.


February 17, 2014 at 12:43 am PST
#20  Michael Robinson - Scappoose, Oregon

Regarding other christian materials in my comments, how was I us verses them? I don't recognize the creationist literature of non Catholic christians as having any teaching authority at all. There is a false debate that the world and everything in it was either created by God or evolved through random mutation.

Most christians, unfortunately, take their views from non authoritative sources. You can't talk about the origin of life without a solid authoritative foundation to build your claims on. It is tempting to say that the Earth is young and was therefore created. This is an unwise path to follow, the Earth doesn't have to be young to be created nor does life on Earth have to be a recent phenomenon for man to have a soul and profound value. Buy into the false debate and try to argue one side of it or the other, that is akin to trying to go against class 5 rapids without a paddle. The problem is that God is being limited. The atheist tries to say that God doesn't exist, the most extreme limiting of God. The creationist goes to the opposite extreme and says that the very evolution that the atheist claims precludes God is wrong entirely. Oops, guess the creationist is limiting God to using supernatural means to create life. Macro evolution probably does exist, at least for the animals that God says we are stewards of and can eat. Pure Darwinian evolution is flawed and even Darwin didn't like it, but don't jump on this comment as an extremist and throw evolution out altogether.

A Catholic understands as an informed Catholic that the Catholic church has teaching authority on all matters of faith and morals. As a matter of faith, a human person has an immortal soul given at conception that lasts forever. Any self aware life form that has free will and asks both who is God and what is my purpose could have a soul, and probably does. Why say this? I say this because there could be advanced aliens in a universe near enough to ours that we can reach them one day. Our faith must and should survive if there are aliens just as it should survive if there are not aliens.

Christians be wise and don't go to extremes to try and defend God and our faith from God. God can defend the faith better than we ever can, and we must trust that He will. Don't put God to the test. Instead, guide the scientists with conscientious reason based on revealed truth. Say what human reason can reveal about the origins of life and trust that God will finish what you begin.

I will not embrace that which is not compatible with the truth just to be ecumenical and I shouldn't. For us all to come into one fold, we need to stick with truth and the debates that are to come need to be framed properly. This Bill Nye verses the other fellow debate was clearly framed wrong. Pray for both debaters that they will see this and that we all will see this and arrive at the proper framing. Pray that faith and reason will come together and that the truth, however complex it may be, will rise out of obscurity. Only the Truth of God can set us free from our unbelief. The creationist doesn't want to believe that God worked through nature. The atheist doesn't want to believe that God exists at all. I hope we can start to see that both the atheist and the creationist are wrong.

February 17, 2014 at 1:30 am PST
#21  brady steele - mesa, Arizona

Re: "The creationist doesn't want to believe that God worked through nature" ..This is not true Michael. God entered our natural world through the Virgin Mary, by the Holy Spirit. He worked supernaturally to enter our natural world.

In the Old Testament God used a flood and Noah's boat. God used a whale to save Jonah. Jesus directly referenced both of these events in the Gospels as true events. God works super-naturally in the natural world, even to atone perfect justice for the original sin of Adam and Eve. This debate may be as old as pride itself.

If you need to see Catholic authoritative resources check out As you know, Jesus is the ultimate authority and source of Truth. He is why we are not alone in the uni-verse.

February 17, 2014 at 1:44 pm PST
#22  Salonsar War - Shillong, Meghalaya

Friends, Trent has made it clear that :
1. There is no conciliar decree or statement which states that the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches the universe is of a certain age or that life developed in a certain way
2. Within the Church there has not been a universally taught belief about how life evolved and Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis states that this issue may be researched and discussed provided that such discussion is done with "seriousness, moderation and measure."

This means that the question of Church authority does not arise at all, which further means that we can and SHOULD go ahead and research and discuss this issue, for enhancement and enrichment of our knowledge, as the Cathecism states. Furthermore, there are Church Fathers that did support a literal Creation account and there are those that did not.

Friends, this is a serious issue and we should not be lukewarm about it. Do you know that bulk of the scientific evidence available points to a young earth? The insertion of billions of years has been done only to support the idea of evolution, which was an idea purposely created to deny God.

Definition of Scientific Theory : A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Evolution can neither be tested nor observed, leave alone experimented. There is nothing scientific about it; it is just a big lie that the enemy had used to successfully enter our classrooms. Adaptation (or micro-evolution as they call it) DOES happen (within its own 'kind'), but macro evolution is an absolutely ridiculous theory.
-The only physical evidence of previous life are fossils and there is no shred of evidence whatsoever in the fossil record of evolution.
-The word 'day' in Genesis (hebrew 'yom') when used the way it is done so --morning, evening - the first day / morning, evening - the second day, etc.-- can only mean a literal solar day.
-God created with an appearance of age. On Day 6, Adam could walk, talk, name the animals and have sex with his wife. Yet, he was only one day old. Likewise, the 'distant starlight problem' can be explained. There is a scientific model (pure, emperical science model) proposed by creation scientists called Gravitational Time Dilation Effect which seeks to explain the starlight issue. On day 3, God created 'trees bearing fruit' (one day, not years).

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood FROM WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, so that people are without excuse. ----Romans 1:19-21
Friends, God created nature to declare his Glory and what we learn from nature, we credit it to him and so far, evidence from nature has proved and is compatible with the biblical record.
God Bless.

February 18, 2014 at 6:02 am PST
#23  brady steele - mesa, Arizona

Amen Salonsar. Brethren, there are children in the womb being treated like animals, accused of having gill slits, that need you to take a stand against "theistic evolution". Darwinism is a religion of death and apathy. Syncretism compromises the faith and its the children that suffer.

In reply to Pope Pius XII, yes this is a "serious" issue and I don't find billions of years "moderate" or "measured". Measuring current erosion rates alone would leave the earth mountain-less and smooth as a marble in just a few million years, assuming the moon isn't grazing the mountain tops.

Trent, I have looked into millions of years. I grew up in the public school system. I saw Jurassic Park, 65 million years in the making, the second day it came out. I've been to the Grand Canyon. My biology teacher was my football coach. I grew up hooked on Discover magazines. I'm not entirely green to this. I gave theistic evolution, the old college try. It didn't work.

February 18, 2014 at 11:14 am PST
#24  Salonsar War - Shillong, Meghalaya

Dear Friends, fellow Catholics, Trent Horn and all at Catholic Answers,
PLEASE please do visit the website suggested by Brady Steele, I have browsed through the site and I HIGHLY suggest and exhort all of us to visit and go through it without prejudice.
-It is a Catholic site which supports the TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC 'TRUE' TEACHING OF CREATION (special creation and a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11) and provides Authoritative and Magisterial teachings and references from Popes, Bishops and Councils on the said topic.
-From the site's Mission Statement page >>> The directors of the Kolbe Center are members of St. John Bosco Parish in Mt. Jackson, Virginia. The Episcopal Advisor of the Kolbe Center is Bishop Roman Danylak. The Kolbe Center’s Theological Reviewer is Fr. Victor Warkulwiz, and its Spiritual Advisor Fr. Robert Ruskamp
-It provides clear, pure, scientific, historical, geological, linguistic evidence which is consistent with a special creation and a young earth.
-It provides NO evidence for evolution as there is NONE.

Friends, I know I am commentng on an old post, but am doing so since this is a topic close to my heart AND I strongly believe that as Catholics, we should not compromise with the Truth and out of the three beliefs -- Evolution (without God), Theistic Evolution (God using Evolution) and Special Creation (Literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11)-- only one is TRUE and it's not the first two. As Catholics, we may and should only hold on to what is true.

February 21, 2014 at 4:00 am PST
#25  brady steele - mesa, Arizona

This is something I heard in Church this morning and felt called to share.

Celebrant: "For an end to abortion and all its root causes. For this we pray to the Lord"

Response: "Lord hear our prayer. "

Thank you Salonsar, and thank you Catholic Answers for hosting this topic.

In the humble spirit of the Dominicans, I pray that as members of the Church we can assume our broken society is due to lack of better teachings. I pray that we can humbly re-examine what is being taught (or not taught) to our children so that through our faith and works we can lead them toward what is good, beautiful and True as Salonsar rightfully pointed out.

Thank you again and God bless.

February 21, 2014 at 12:17 pm PST
#26  Hans Yunge - Aurora, Colorado

Great stuff!! I love a great debate, I know I'm posting a bit late. But something I want to throw out there: Evolution relies on some very serious assumptions - 1.) Speed of light is constant - there are measurements over the last couple hundred years (don't quote the timing) that has shown the speed of light actually slowing. This would shatter modern assumptions of our universe. This would also explain why it appears that the light from stars took millions of years to arrive on Earth 2.) That the Earth's atmosphere has been constant - there is evidence that this is not the case, significantly altering results to radioisotope dating which depends on a constant atmosphere. .... There are many other assumptions, but in the end no one was present, except God, during creation, and any conclusion to this matter is purely speculative, philosophical and belief either way requires faith, making this a matter of religion rather than science.

June 19, 2014 at 8:36 pm PST
#27  Salonsar War - Shillong, Meghalaya

Hey Hans,
Better late than never, they say! Welcome aboard. Guess it's just you and me now. Yes Hans, you're right. No human being was present when it all started, but someone was indeed present ----- the Creator himself and he has carefully had it documented in a way which leaves us no room as to HOW it happened. Glory be to God!
Your point no. 2 about the assumption that the Earth's atmosphere has been constant--- That's called Uniformitarianism--- a concept evolutionists, long age proponents and atheists use; popularly epitomised by the epithet 'the present is the key to the past'. So according to this principle--- Noah's Flood (which affected MAJOR changes to our atmosphere and the planet itself ) is ignored, overlooked and discarded -- and Creation itself is discarded -- God having super-naturally and spontaneously created this universe complete and functional.
God Bless.

June 24, 2014 at 1:42 am PST
#28  matthew crews - Barnhart, Missouri

I'm always the last to the party. I hope it's not over. People were disappointed that Ken Ham did not present much scientific evidence, but instead continually pointed to the Bible. At first, I was disappointed too, until I realized his organization has been presenting evidence for years and it is impossible to give an in depth scientific answer in a one minute rebuttal. Answers in Genesis website, is full of evidence. I just went to their site and punched in dinosaurs on the search bar and it gave 6,730 references. I punched on the first one and it was a video comparing dinosaurs and dragons. Ken was right to keep pointing to the Bible and Jesus. What people believe is based on our point of beginning and who we choose as our authority over us, God or Men.
Many people say Genesis should not be read as history, but what they mean is they don't want to read the difficult parts that way. They struggle to believe the Creation account or the Flood account. But they generally have no problem believing Joseph was an actual man, and who would say that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not exist? If they never lived, there would be no problems in the middle east, since it would be devoid of their descendants. If Genesis is a parable, why are there so many begats recording the earthly line of Jesus. If the flood didn't really happen, why would the record indicate dates for nothing but a story? The flood began "in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month." What is the point of giving the age of each man at the birth of his son if not to give a genealogical record of history? Genesis is literal and historical. It was written as a series of ten historical accounts each ending with, "this is a record of" or "these are the generations of" depending on the translation, Gen 2-4, Gen 5-1, Gen 6-9, etc. Finally, we should believe Genesis as truth because Jesus believed it. In Jesus parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16-31, "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." Why would he say this? Because Moses and the prophets were miracle upon miracle, page after page, from creation, the flood, the miracles in the wilderness, Elijah, Jonah, on and on. If you can't believe in miracles, how can you believe in the resurrection? If a person is an evolutionist who believes in only naturalism and nothing spiritual, ultimately he cannot believe in miracles or even God, since God is spirit. The first miracles Christians give up on is creation and the flood. But let's get realistic. If you cannot believe in the miracle of creation because you claim that science has "proven" that the universe is ancient, "proven" that men descended from monkeys and before that tadpoles and slime, then you have to throw out all the other miracles. Water cannot turn into wine, people don't walk on the water or command the wind to stop. Jesus could not possibly have been born of a virgin and it is absolutely impossible to raise the dead or to wake up from the dead of your own accord and walk out of your tomb. Science has "proven" it.
On the other hand, if the naturalists are wrong and spirits do exist, if you believe there is a God and He is almighty, give Him the credit that He may know more than us. Trust Him, Believe Him. It's after the point of faith that Jesus is "The Truth", when real science begins, and it is not the same science the atheists cling to.

July 13, 2014 at 7:02 pm PST
#29  Maria Case - Glen Ellyn, Illinois

I just want to first commend Catholic Answers for allowing people to have these conversations. I have been on other similar sites that erase every comment they deem too long, or too "high spirited" or not on point enough, etc. I meet fellow Catholics here, and it must be a boon to people living where I grew up, down South, where there were very few of us in my small town. Thank you to Catholic Answers.

Secondly, I had never heard these challenges to the constancy "the present is the key to the past" paradigm, however I am familiar with the paradigms framing thought, invention, and inspiration, as my husband is in the "natural health" field.

I will watch these video our exhorters insist upon. How interesting to think that the speed of light may be subject to entropy, but why not? It does have particles (neutrinos), be they ever so small. I don't know, it seems like "flat earther" stuff, but I will watch the videos first. Honestly, I don't know if that will do any good, as I am pretty poor in the sciences, and would be a dubious candidate to perform logical comparisons.

However, I do find it difficult to see humans deveoloping out of apes. My dad always said, "God made the Laws of Nature, and He doesn't have to break His own rules," to explain how evolution could have some truth in human history.

Here's a wrench: some people (Anthroposophists, there must be others) think that the Neanderthals, et al., were actually DEVOLUTIONS of the human being.

There's a "fringe" geologist (can NOT remember his name, but it starts with a C, Cremo or something?) who looked at "anomalies" in the field, and he found what look like little bee-bees, small metal spheres that actually had molding lines around the circumference, obviously human made, and they were, if I recall correctly, billions of years old. A day and a night could have been a very long time (the Vedas point to this), and even the "rising of the sun and settig of the moon" translation given by Salonsar (who I find totally cool!!! My hometown priest is Indian!), could still mean long periods of time; if the speed of light is subject to change, maybe one day, at the time of 6000 years ago, actually took one turning of the galaxy.

This is one of the most interesting pages on CA ever. I think it's more interesting than the debate in question itself!

July 31, 2014 at 3:41 pm PST
#30  Maria Case - Glen Ellyn, Illinois

plus the moon and sun were not created till afterwards, so the day and night were not subject to those two heavenly bodies.

July 31, 2014 at 4:12 pm PST
#31  Maria Case - Glen Ellyn, Illinois

Okay, going into these videos having just read how Hovind spent many years in prison for tax evasion. He gets rich off these lectures and other dubious dealings and was a shady fool in his trial and out of can see it all, it's public info. That doesn't sound good for the rest of his arguments. I must ask if those exhorting us to watch his stuff knew this about his character.

July 31, 2014 at 5:27 pm PST
#32  Maria Case - Glen Ellyn, Illinois

Well, WOW. I spent about a week watching every minute of the 7, each 2-3 hours long, videos on Youtube of this man. I think he has some very interesting ideas and points, such as the canopy and hyperberic atomosphere causing the largeness of creation, and the principles of Evolution leading to Eugencis (the subtitle of Darwin's book should be taught along with its content, I agree with him there).

However, on some of his stuff, you really have to look up people who debate him back. In these videos, he has a monologue and no one to question him. But his comments and quotes about Carbon-14 dating apparently come from scientists speaking to certain anomalies, specifically high carbon content fossils due to diet, etc. One person wrote that he is known for "quote mining." I found a site that answers nearly every argument he makes, though I didn't always feel convinced by all of those (site: "How Good Are Those Young Earth Arguments" should bring it up in Google search). So, I found it worth watching, and feel it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I feel it is irresponsible, over and above naive, of anyone to buy everything he says hook, line, and sinker, and then to tell everyone else to believe, without ever really looking at the other side's arguments. I will say this, though: I found myself wanting it to be true. I'm not sure how to put it, but it was almost like...I felt like I would love God more and be more amazed by Him if it were true, and I don't know what to make of that feeling. I think I feel bad about that. And the verse about entering the Kingdom like a child kept coming to mind.

One last thing, regarding the messenger and considering the source. He not only went to jail, but whatever tax shenanigans he was up to landed his wife in prison, too. I don't like his constant jokes and comments and fake accents that poke fun at different nationalities (even though he makes fun of his own, and I guess he feels that makes it okay). I know he is not really trying to be mean, just funny, and he abhors racism, clearly. It just says something about his being out of touch with reality, as no one ever laughs at these jokes in his presentations, yet he never adjusts his script to leave any of these out. It's just weird.

***I would LOVE to see a Catholic Answers apologist with a solid science background look into his claims, as well as the other side's answers, on a separate article.***

August 14, 2014 at 8:07 am PST
#33  Salonsar War - Shillong, Meghalaya

Hey Maria,
Yes, this is one interesting topic all right. I agree with you that the comments section can get pretty interesting as well and we thank Catholic Answers for that. I suggest you also check another blog (similar topic) by Trent Horn -- "Reflections on the Big Bang discovery". The article is good but do check out the comments section for some more spicy stuff.

God Bless.

August 29, 2014 at 6:59 am PST

You are not logged in. Login or register to leave a comment.