http:\/\/www.church.org.uk\/brjul98.htm<\/a> )<\/p>\nWhy it\u2019s here, masquerading as a direct quotation from the encyclical, is answerable only by the author and the NOR editors. Indeed, a complete rewrite of the Pope\u2019s thoughts appears in this section, presented as if they were direct quotations. What is the point of referencing a butchered and bowdlerized version of an encyclical in support of a theological position?What can be said positively of a theological approach that quotes a comment on the Papal encyclicals as if they were the Pope\u2019s words verbatim?It\u2019s painful to point out such cavalier treatment of a papal encyclical in a reviewed article published by a periodical self-styled as traditional and orthodox Catholic; one would hope to focus on content and not on correcting citation errors.The question is bound to arise: Does the science research advancing old earth beliefs mirror the integrity of this theological approach?<\/p>\n
This section isn\u2019t anomalous, but characteristic of most of the support references. The article says that obviously, the Pope\u2019s approach to Genesis in Humani Generis<\/em> is quite different from young-earth-believers. \u201cObviously?\u201d Really? In the authentic version of HG, the Pope \u201cdeplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament.\u201d<\/span>But this sentence was not cited in the article. The specific purpose of the HG:38 reference to the PCBS letter is to point this out (although this is not mentioned in the article). Even the PCBS letter, which is not part of the deposit of faith, supports the Bible as true history, subject to refinement by ongoing research (such as is now under way at the Kolbe Center).So we ask: Is reading \u201ca day\u201d and thinking \u201ca day\u201d an excessively free interpretation of Genesis?<\/p>\nIn another citation of HG:20 below, the Magisterial revision continues with three negatives omitted from the encyclical\u2019s text, teaching authority is changed from \u2018supreme\u2019 to \u2018ordinary\u2019, etc\u2026. ??More text is inserted and deleted than left untouched!<\/p>\n
Article:<\/span><\/p>\n\n[20. Nor must it be thought that w] ^W^hat is expounded in Encyclical Letters [does not] of itself demand^s^ consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes [do not] exercise the [supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the] ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to [say] ^apply Christ\u2019s words^: \"He who heareth you, heareth me\".<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nEncyclical:<\/span><\/p>\n\n20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: \"He who heareth you, heareth me\"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nThe article declaims that Lateran IV and Vatican I don\u2019t mention a creation date or the days until Adam\u2019s creation. But why should the councils take action, if there was no need of a creation date for salvific definition or heretical suppression?Genesis plainly says Adam was created on the sixth day.Is it the role of councils to sanction every word of the Bible by repetition or infer what common sense can approximately compute from the succession of the patriarchs?If so, all the globe\u2019s libraries couldn\u2019t hold the volume of verbiage produced\u2014just look at Canon Law!<\/p>\n
The Pontifical Biblical Commission has already opened this issue to discussion between theologians and scientists. So, let\u2019s continue to discuss it.<\/p>\n
The article claims that Providentissimus Deus<\/em> says certain truths about the material world can be established by scientists with \u201cirrefutable evidence.\u201dAs we have come to expect by now, Providentissimus Deus<\/em> does not use the phrase \u201cirrefutable evidence\u201d or either word separately. Mark this as \u201csource unknown.\u201dBesides the phantom quotation, it is interesting to note which words of Pope Leo XIII from Providentissimus Deus<\/em>:18 were not included in the article (for good reason):<\/em><\/p>\nIt need not be pointed out how the nature of science, just as it is so admirably adapted to show forth the glory of the Great Creator, provided it be taught as it should be, so if it be perversely imparted to the youthful intelligence, it may prove most fatal in destroying the principles of true philosophy and in the corruption of morality\u2026.<\/span><\/p>\nThere can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, \"not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nThese detestable errors, whereby they think they destroy the truth of the divine Books, are obtruded on the world as the peremptory pronouncements of a certain newly-invented \"free science;\" a science, however, which is so far from final that they are perpetually modifying and supplementing it.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the warning contained in this passage does not appear to have been heeded.Instead, as much mistaken confidence is placedin the ability of the natural sciences to arrive at \u201cirrefutable\u201d conclusions about unrepeatable events, such as creation, as isplaced in the ability of empirical science to form \u201cirrefutable\u201d conclusions about repeatable events.This is a serious philosophical error.<\/p>\n
In reality, it is quite impossible for natural science to produce irrefutable proof of the nature of creation and the age of the universe, first, because, as God reminded Job, we were not there when He created the universe, second, because we cannot be at all sure that the uniformitarian principle\u2014which states that all presently observed natural processes have always been in operation exactly as they are today\u2014is true; and, finally, because even the so-called \u201claws\u201d that govern the present day universe are subject to change in light of new evidence.For example, the article claims that \u201cNewton\u2019s laws are examples of irrefutable evidence<\/em>.\u201dActually, Newton\u2019s laws are sufficient for the study of simple \u201cevery day\u201d systems dealing with low speeds, weak gravity and macroscopic objects.For moderate systems they are incomplete approximations and virtually worthless for extremal systems.<\/p>\nWe read, \u201cThe universe is 10 to 20 giga years old according to General Relativity.<\/em>\u201dIn reality, the universe is 10 to 20 giga years old, not according to General Relativity specifically, but <\/span>according to one theoretical cosmic model \u2013 the standard Big Bang - based on General Relativity which assumes an unbounded isotropic space and abundant adjustable parameters to support the metaphysical materialism of the cosmological principle.Several simpler finite models based on General Relativity are consistent with a Biblical age and have fewer assumptions, such as those of Dr. Russell Humphreys and Dr. Robert Gentry.According to Leo XIII, as long as natural scientists with impeccable qualifications can explain the facts in front of them in harmony with the literal and obvious sense of Genesis, the burden of proof is on those who would challenge the literal interpretation.<\/p>\nAs mentioned above, the indemonstrable uniformitarian principle underlies most if not all of the alleged \u201cirrefutable proofs\u201d for long ages of time since the beginning of creation.However, the article itself states that the physical processes that Adam and Eve experienced prior to the Fall were different from the physical processes that we now experience in the post Fall world.Since this is so, might not physical processes in the earth and in the stars also have varied since the beginning of creation?In his Letter to the Romans, St. Paul (another exegete with a penchant for the literal historical interpretation of Genesis) teaches that not only human beings but all creation is made subject to decay by the Original Sin and groans in expectation of the revelation of the children of God.<\/p>\n
Although St. Paul\u2019s words do not mean that the Second law of Thermodynamics did not come into force until after the Fall\u2014a false view that some evolutionists like to attribute to defenders of special creation\u2014they do indicate that God allowed decay to accelerate throughout the universe in some way as a result of the Fall.Indeed, there are many phenomena, such as polonium radiohalos, decay of the earth\u2019s magnetic field, and helium retention in zircons from deep earth cores, that are impossible to explain within a giga year framework using the uniformitarian principle.Moreover, the experimental work of sedimentologist Guy Berthault has demonstrated that the earth\u2019s fossil bearing rocks could have been laid down in a relatively short period of time, a mere fraction of the hundreds of millions of years generally assigned to the formation of the fossil record.His work alone would be sufficient to demolish any claims to \u201cirrefutable proof\u201d of an age for the earth of hundreds of millions of years.<\/p>\n
Besides citing \u201cirrefutable proof\u201d in the form of widely accepted interpretations <\/strong>of data among physicists, it isargued that God would not have deceived mankind by creating a world with an appearance of age that it did not really possess.In this connection, there ismention that Adam and Eve would not have \u201caged\u201d as we experience aging, prior to the Fall.While a true statement, this begs the question of whether Adam and Eve were created with the appearance of age.No evidence is offered that our first parents were not created fully mature and with an appearance of age that they did not actually possess. Furthermore, the argument is drawn that the irreducible complexity of living things refutes Darwinian evolution through natural selection, butwhat is not drawn is the logical conclusion that the prototypes of the various kinds of living things must have been created irreducibly complex, fully functioning, with an appearance of age that they did not actually possess.<\/p>\nIt is a crowning irony that defenders of special creation are accused of misrepresenting God as a deceiver who gives things a false appearance of age when God Himself has told us in his own words that He created the heavens and earth and all they contain in six days.The 1994 Catechism<\/em> teaches that:<\/p>\nThe word \u201cDecalogue\u201d means literally \u201cten words.\u201dGod revealed these \u201cten words\u201d to his people on the holy mountain.They were written \u201cwith the finger of God,\u201d (Exodus 31:18) unlike the other commandments written by Moses.They are pre-eminently the words of God<\/strong> (emphasis added) (CCC<\/em> 2056).<\/p>\nIn these words written \u201cwith the finger of God,\u201d God tells Moses and the Hebrews that \u201cin six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested.\u201dThus, no one can accuse God of deceiving us if the world is full of a number of things that look much older than they really are!<\/p>\n
There are claims that Deriving the earth\u2019s age from the patriarchal genealogies is not taught by the Magisterium<\/em><\/span>.This is right, of course, but neither is it forbidden\u2014it\u2019s an open question, a detail related to the general open discussion now being debated by scientists and theologians with regard to the Church\u2019s position on evolution.Moreover, by the criteria laid down by Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus <\/em>and upheld by Pope Pius XII and the Second Vatican Council, the literal and obvious sense of the genealogies as intended by their authors must be accepted unless there is irrefutable proof that they cannot possibly be true.Indeed, Pope Pius XII strongly condemned the now alarmingly-popular view that the Bible contains errors in natural science and history.In Divino<\/em> Afflante Spiritu<\/em>, Pius wrote:<\/p>\nWhen, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the \u201centire books with all their parts\u201d as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as \u201cobiter dicta\u201d and, as they contended, in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus<\/em>...justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the divine books by most wise precepts and rules (Para 1, [3]).<\/p>\nThe 1994 Catechism <\/em>reminds us that the literal sense is the basis for all other interpretations of Scripture and that this sense can only be interpreted correctly if the reader is \u201cattentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm\u201d (CCC<\/em>, 109).To the chagrin of critics of the literal historical interpretation of Genesis 1-11, modern scholarship has merely underscored the intentions of the author(s) of Genesis to give an historical account of the early history of the earth and of mankind.According to James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, there is no longer any doubt among scholars that the author(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey historical facts to their readers:<\/p>\nSo far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world class university who does not believe that the author(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that,<\/p>\n
Creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.<\/p>\n
The figures contained in the Genesis<\/em> chronologies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.<\/p>\nNoah\u2019s flood was understood to be world wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the Ark.<\/p>\n
Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the \u201cdays\u201d of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.<\/p>\n
The article reports with alarm that the first International Catholic Family Conference on Creation had a speaker promoting earth as the center of universe; but no physics experiment has ever detected whether the Earth is stationary (at the center) or in motion, without making metaphysical presumptions about the structure and dynamics of the rest of the universe.According to astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle :\u201cWe know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance.\u201dThe current relativistic view of the science majority is not heliocentricity but that there is no center because any point may be taken as central: acentricity. <\/span>The sense of Revelation is that the Earth is the focus of physical creation, this sense being eloquently upheld by St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine during the Galileo \u2018affair\u2019 and continuing within the teaching of the common Magisterium to this very day.<\/p>\nIn regard to a presentation on evidences for a young earth and a young universe at Kolbe\u2019s First International Catholic Conference on Creation, claims are made that it contains 15 points based on cosmic data, but that \u201cnone forces a young earth conclusion<\/span>.\u201d All of us at the Kolbe Center would agree that no creation event is provable from natural sources, but all the evidence cited in the above-mentioned talk either favors a young earth or excludes the possibility of cosmic gigayears.<\/p>\nIn conclusion, like Dr. Mullan, the Kolbe Center would also teach children that scientists have access to truths about the world that God created. In fact, they have a unique access to natural truths by virtue of their God-given talent and profession. But that access implies a responsibility to teach innocent children (and adults) that can be abused and misused, by ignoring the primary source of truth \u2014 the precious words of Truth taught by Holy Mother Church. By blindly following the interpretation of facts offered by secular modernists, Catholic natural scientists may unwittingly advance their anti-Christian agenda.<\/p>\n
\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
[The April 2003 issue of the New Oxford Review(NOR) featured an article entitled, \u201cHow Old is the Earth?\u201d by Dr. Dermott Mullan. This was our reply.] Are Catholic Defenders of …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1506,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[55,243],"tags":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/10\/noah.jpg?fit=324%2C162&ssl=1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/694"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=694"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/694\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1506"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/10\/noah.jpg\" "\\"noah\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n