{"id":757,"date":"2009-10-21T23:54:38","date_gmt":"2009-10-21T23:54:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/doxacommunications.com\/kolbe\/dr-mullan-and-kolbe-center-dialogue-continues\/"},"modified":"2009-10-21T23:54:38","modified_gmt":"2009-10-21T23:54:38","slug":"dr-mullan-and-kolbe-center-dialogue-continues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/dr-mullan-and-kolbe-center-dialogue-continues\/","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Mullan and Kolbe Center Dialogue Continues"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dr. Mullan and Kolbe Center Dialogue Continues<\/strong><\/p>\n

Dr. Mullan has drafted a response to the Kolbe Center critique of his article, \"How Old is the Earth?\". Following this response is another reply to Dr. Mullan from H. Owen and Dr. Robert Bennett.<\/p>\n

A Reply to Dr. Mullan's Response to Our Critique of \"The Age of the Earth\"<\/em><\/a>
by Hugh Owen and Robert Bennett<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Response to H Owen and R Bennett
critique of \"How Old is the Earth?\"
by Dermott J. Mullan<\/span><\/p>\n

I wish to respond to the comments<\/a> by the above authors (hereafter OB) which appear in the Kolbe Center website concerning my article<\/a> in April 2003 issue of New Oxford Review<\/em> (NOR).<\/p>\n

Some of the main concerns expressed by OB have to do with the particular translation that I used for my quotes from two encyclicals: Providentissimus Deus (PD) and Humani Generis<\/em> (HG). Because OB cannot locate certain specific words in the translations to which they refer, they accuse me of a number of things: (i) lack of integrity, (ii) using \u201ca phantom quotation\u201d, (iii) \u201ccavalier treatment of a papal encyclical\u201d, and (iv) taking quotations from a Protestant clergyman. These charges can be refuted by citing the reference work I use for my translation of the encyclicals.<\/p>\n

I use a standard reference work entitled \u201cThe Church Teaches: Documents of the Church in English Translation\u201d by John F. Clarkson et al. (of St Mary\u2019s College, St Mary\u2019s Kansas), first published in 1955 by Herder Book Company. The original book appeared with the Imprimi Potest<\/em> and Nihil Obstat<\/em> issued by religious superiors, as well as the Imprimatur of Edmund J. Hunkeler, Archbishop of Kansas City. The book was reissued by TAN books in 1973, and it is the TAN version that I use for my citations.<\/p>\n

The words \u201cirrefutable evidence\u201d are not \u201ca phantom quotation\u201d, with \u201csource unknown\u201d, as OB claim. Instead, they appear on p. 50 (para. 106) of the TAN version of the English translation of PD. I note that these words are part of the translation of the following Latin words in Denzinger 1947: \u201cQuidquid, inquit, ipsi de natura rerum veracibus documentis demonstrare potuerint, ostandamus nostris Litteris non esse contrarium\u201d<\/em>. The words \u201cirrefutable evidence\u201d which appear in The Church Teaches<\/em> are not an unreasonable translation of the words \u201cveracibus documentis\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Similarly, OB claim that the quotation I cite from HG \u201cHowever, it is not right to judge them by modern standards of historical composition\u201d is \u201cCERTAINLY NOT IN HG\u201d (my emphasis added). However, OB regard it as significant that \u201cthe phrase does appear in a fundamentalist commentary on HG by a contemporary English vicar\u201d. OB claim that because I include the above quotation in my NOR article, I am involved in the practice of \u201cmasquerading as a direct quotation from the encyclical\u201d. OB refer to me as using a \u201cbutchered and bowdlerized version of an encyclical\u201d. But as any reader may verify, the above quotation is a word-for-word quote from page 65 (para. 141) of The Church Teaches<\/em>.<\/p>\n

OB claim that I mislead readers by citing from HG some words that appeared originally in a letter from PCBS to the Archbishop of Paris. OB suggest that I am quoting the words from that letter as if they were the Pope\u2019s own words. This is not a serious point: since the Pope actually quotes the words in his encyclical HG, he is in essence making the words of PCBS his own.<\/p>\n

OB also criticize me for changing the indefinite article \u201ca\u201d to the definite article \u201cthe\u201d: this is also not a serious point. As members of the Roman Catholic Church, we believe that the official teachings of the Church are contained in the Latin documents in Acta Apost. Sedis<\/em>. Now, there are no articles in the Latin language: therefore, definite and indefinite articles are both acceptable English translations.<\/p>\n

OB charge me with altering the text of Section 20 of HG, such that \u201cmore text is inserted and deleted than left untouched\u201d. Perhaps OB are not aware of editorial constraints on word counts. An article in a magazine can simply not include every last word that an author would like to include: it is not the same as posting an article on one\u2019s own web site! If there had been room to quote at length, I would have done so. I chose my abbreviated words so as to preserve the meaning of HG faithfully. I challenge OB to demonstrate how my abbreviated version is in any meaningful sense a departure from the true meaning of the HG text.<\/p>\n

OB again charge me with not including certain paragraphs that Leo XIII writes in PD. But again I remind OB of the constraints on space in a magazine article. And I could direct the same charge at OB: why did they not cite the following words of the Pope in PD (Denz. 1948). \u201cThe unshrinking defense of Holy Scripture however does not require that we should equally uphold ALL OF THE OPINIONS which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages WHERE PHYSICAL MATTERS OCCUR, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statement which IN THESE DAYS HAVE BEEN ABANDONED AS INCORRECT\u201d (my emphasis added).<\/p>\n

OB suggest that the age of the Universe is not 10-20 Gyr, and they refer to a \u201csimpler finite model based on GR\u201d theory by Russell Humphreys. The latter author published a book entitled \u201cStarlight and Time\u201d in which he tried to explain the redshifts of galaxies in terms of a relativistic process known as time dilation. However, Humphreys made a serious mistake in his work. In discussing time dilation, Humphreys got things precisely backwards: the effects of time dilation as outlined by Humphreys would be to create BLUE shifts, not redshifts, in galaxy spectra. This was first pointed out by J. Byl in CRS Quart. Vol. 34, p. 1 (1997). Moreover, a detailed quantitative criticism of Humphreys\u2019s theory has been given by Conners and Page (CEN Tech J 12, 174, 1998): Humphreys theory simply cannot withstand the criticisms of physics. I have heard one of the authors of the latter piece (Don Page) openly profess his belief in Christ in a physics setting (highly unusual!), and Don Page certainly knows a lot more about physics than Humphreys does. As evidence for this statement, I point to Page\u2019s successful publication of physics articles in highly critical refereed journals.<\/p>\n

OB say that the Earth may be the center of the Universe, because \u201cno physics experiment has ever detected whether the Earth is stationary (at the center) or in motion\u201d. OB do not say how they interpret the observations of regular patterns of stellar motion due to annual parallax and the aberration of light. Astronomers have been measuring these now for 2-3 centuries, and both of them are signs of Earth\u2019s orbital motion. Nor do OB mention how they interpret what the twelve astronauts saw when they stood on the Moon and looked back at Earth: the Earth was not stationary, but was rotating about its axis before their very eyes.<\/p>\n

Why should people believe that the \u201cEarth is the focus of physical creation\u201d, based on what Robert Bellarmine said 400 years ago. As if being a saint and a cardinal confers infallibility concerning the physical world. Pope Leo XIII recognized in his encyclical PD that information about the physical world changes with time. In choosing to espouse beliefs such as the fixity of the Earth at the center of the Universe, the Kolbe Center runs the risk of making itself a laughing stock in the eyes of reasonable people. In a world where people have watched spacecraft travel to the outer planets (based on the laws of Newton), how many people does the Kolbe Center think it can convince that the Sun is not the principal body which controls the motion of bodies in the solar system?<\/p>\n

As regards the 15 points based on cosmic data in the talk by J. Strada at the First Kolbe Conference (June 2002), I stand by my claim that a correct interpretation of these points (in the sense of being consistent with the laws of physics) does not at all point towards a young Earth, contrary to Strada\u2019s conclusions. A few months ago, I started to discuss these 15 points with R. Bennett via e-mail, and we reached a measure of agreement concerning my criticisms of the first two points. But we never got past Point 3 (which dealt with hot stars). In the absence of an impartial umpire, there was no way to arrive at a decision one way of the other.<\/p>\n

back<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0 <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

A Reply to Dr. Mullan's Response to Our Critique
of \"The Age of the Earth\"
by Hugh Owen and Robert Bennett<\/span><\/p>\n

We welcome Doctor Mullan\u2019s clarification of his article in the New Oxford Review<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It seems reasonable to understand that The Church Teaches: Documents of the Church in English Translation<\/em> (TCT) was used in good faith, but some points still seem puzzling, even after perusing the book.<\/p>\n