Can science prove the world is over 4 billion yrs. old?

[StAnastasia]

I guess I won’t be buying THAT book any time soon

Lui, I’m not suggesting you don’t buy it (my organization bought it for me to review). But there are so many wonderful books out there on the intersection between Catholicism and science that you would be better served reading one of those. For example, Bishop Josef Zycinski, God and Evolution. Or Ken Miller, Finding Darwin’s God. Or John Haught, *Deeper than Darwin. *Or Peter Hess and Paul Allen, Catholicism and Science. Or Sister Ilia Delio, Christ in Evolution.

StAnastasia

 

[Dan_Daly]

Show me passages in the book that are consonant with what educated people today – including Catholics – know about the age and constitution of the universe.

I’m in the middle of the book being discussed and find it very interesting, well written, and well sourced. It’s nice to find a book making a positive argument for a “young earth” (as an aside- I dislike the term, the earth is as old as it is, no more, no less, “young” is only useful when comparing it to an alternative age…which is false). It’s also nice to read a creation book grounded in Catholic faith, as unfortunately most Catholics have been shamed into adopting evolution precisely because they don’t want to be seen as “uneducated” by the secular world.

But what is so “uneducated” about holding a position about the age and creation of the earth and the origins of man, that is in keeping with the traditional teaching of the Church and in total compliance with what the Popes up to the modern day have said on the subject?

If anyone holds an “old earth” theistic evolution view, which includes more than one original man and woman, from whom all other people descend…they are uneducated about what the church teaches.

When you add together all the teachings on origins that the Church HAS declared, and the “young earth” becomes a much more plausible position then an “old” one.

Pax.

 

[Lui]

When you add together all the teachings on origins that the Church HAS declared, and the “young earth” becomes a much more plausible position then an “old” one.

Can you post a link where it says that the Catholic Church’s official position is that the earth is only about 6000-10000 years old?
If a Catholic HAS to believe in the young earth theory(which I’m sure isn’t the case), then I will leave the Church. I can’t ignore all the FACTS that prove the opposite.

 

[grannymh]

Can you post a link where it says that the Catholic Church’s official position is that the earth is only about 6000-10000 years old?
If a Catholic HAS to believe in the young earth theory(which I’m sure isn’t the case), then I will leave the Church. I can’t ignore all the FACTS that prove the opposite.

May I point out what should be obvious, but is not. Old earth, young earth, middle earth have nothing to do with the Catholic Deposit of Faith which depends on Divine Revelation protected by the guidance of the Holy Spirit…

 

[Dan_Daly]

Can you post a link where it says that the Catholic Church’s official position is that the earth is only about 6000-10000 years old?
If a Catholic HAS to believe in the young earth theory(which I’m sure isn’t the case), then I will leave the Church. I can’t ignore all the FACTS that prove the opposite.

I never said I would. But the Church does not say a Catholic must believe the earth is billions of years old either. The Church does say both views deserve fair consideration. It certainly does not say belief in a 6000 year old earth is blasphemy or stupidity.

The Pope could declare infallibly that the earth is 6000 years old, because there is a tradition of this belief throughout the entire Church’s history.

The Pope could not declare infallibly that the earth is billions of years old, because there is no tradition of the belief before modern times.

Pax.

 

[StAnastasia]

The Pope could declare infallibly that the earth is 6000 years old, because there is a tradition of this belief throughout the entire Church’s history.

That would be silly, because it is false.

The Pope could not declare infallibly that the earth is billions of years old, because there is no tradition of the belief before modern times.

 

[StAnastasia]

Can you post a link where it says that the Catholic Church’s official position is that the earth is only about 6000-10000 years old?
If a Catholic HAS to believe in the young earth theory(which I’m sure isn’t the case), then I will leave the Church. I can’t ignore all the FACTS that prove the opposite.

Lui, don’t worry – to be Catholic you don’t need to accept anything in particular that science studies.

 

[Lui]

Lui, don’t worry – to be Catholic you don’t need to accept anything in particular that science studies.

Thanks. I know that isn’t the case. I just tried to point out that creationists try to twist and turn things in a way that it sounds like if you don’t believe their theories then you’re not a real Christian and they are the holders of the truth and whoever believes in evolution and a 4.4 billion year old earth is an atheist.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Thanks. I know that isn’t the case. I just tried to point out that creationists try to twist and turn things in a way that it sounds like if you don’t believe their theories then you’re not a real Christian and they are the holders of the truth and whoever believes in evolution and a 4.4 billion year old earth is an atheist.

That is like the fundamentalists on this board who try to convince everybody that you have to vote Republican because otherwise “you support abortion” and “go to hell”. Sheesh.

(Notwithstanding the naughty little fact that Roe-vs-Wade was decided under a Republican president by a Supreme Court where most of the judges were appointed by Republican presidents.)

 

[StAnastasia]

Thanks. I know that isn’t the case. I just tried to point out that creationists try to twist and turn things in a way that it sounds like if you don’t believe their theories then you’re not a real Christian and they are the holders of the truth and whoever believes in evolution and a 4.4 billion year old earth is an atheist.

Lui, I understand. What I wonder about is why Young Earth Creationism continues to lurk in the shadows of Catholic Fundamentalism, as it does in Protestant Fundamentalism. As a phenomenon it does not long survive in the light of day of shed by universities, colleges, scientific and theological scholarship, and the professional conferences of either scientists or theologians. And yet it still lurks…

StAnastasia

 

[Lui]

Lui, I understand. What I wonder about is why Young Earth Creationism continues to lurk in the shadows of Catholic Fundamentalism, as it does in Protestant Fundamentalism. As a phenomenon it does not long survive in the light of day of shed by universities, colleges, scientific and theological scholarship, and the professional conferences of either scientists or theologians. And yet it still lurks…

StAnastasia

In my opinion Fundamentalism always follows one purpose only: politics. They’re not really interested in what Jesus actually teaches. I think they are more interested in manipulating people for certain political purposes.

 

[buffalo]

Thanks. I know that isn’t the case. I just tried to point out that creationists try to twist and turn things in a way that it sounds like if you don’t believe their theories then you’re not a real Christian and they are the holders of the truth and whoever believes in evolution and a 4.4 billion year old earth is an atheist.

Lui, listen to yourself. Have you not heard the evolution fairytales? And if you do not believe them you are anti-science, etc… This cuts both ways.

Pope Benedict XVI

…The more we know of the universe the more profoundly we are struck by a Reason whose ways we can only contemplate with astonishment. In pursuing them we can see anew that creating Intelligence to whom we owe our own reason. Albert Einstein once said that in the laws of nature “there is revealed such a superior Reason that everything significant which has arisen out of human thought and arrangement is, in comparison with it, the merest empty reflection.” In what is most vast, in the world of heavenly bodies, we see revealed a powerful reason that holds the universe together. And we are penetrating ever deeper into what is smallest, into the cell and into the primordial units of life; here, too, we discover a reason that astounds us, such that we must say with Saint Bonaventure: “Whoever does not see here is blind. Whoever does not hear here is deaf. And whoever does not begin to adore here and to praise the creating Intelligence is dumb.”

Jacques Monod, who rejects as unscientific every kind of faith in God and who thinks that the world originated out of an interplay of chance and necessity, tells in the very work in which he attempts summarily to portray and justify his view of the world that, after attending the lectures which afterward appeared in book form, François Mauriac is supposed to have said: **“What this professor wants to afflict on us is far more unbelievable than what we poor Christians were ever expected to believe.”
**
Monod does not dispute this. His thesis is that the entire ensemble of nature has arisen out of errors and dissonances. He cannot help but say himself that such a conception is in fact absurd. But, according to him, the scientific method demands that a question not be permitted to which the answer would have to be God. One can only say that a method of this sort is pathetic. God himself shines through the reasonableness of his creation. Physics and biology, and the natural sciences in general, have given us a new and unheard-of creation account with vast new images, which let us recognize the face of the Creator and which make us realize once again that at the very beginning and foundation of all being there is a creating Intelligence…"

 

[Dan_Daly]

Lui, I understand. What I wonder about is why Young Earth Creationism continues to lurk in the shadows of Catholic Fundamentalism, as it does in Protestant Fundamentalism. As a phenomenon it does not long survive in the light of day of shed by universities, colleges, scientific and theological scholarship, and the professional conferences of either scientists or theologians. And yet it still lurks…

Belief in the Genesis account survives because it is the truth. In the early Church, there were Greek theories about an ancient universe that evolved through chance reactions The Church fathers rejected them.

In another 200 years, nobody will believe in the “Big Bang” as currently described, just as the older Greek theories were rejected, and just as modern evolutionists try to cast aside Darwin as out of date. But in 200 or 2000 years, there will still be the those who believe the Genesis account. It’s the only enduring creation cosmology- from the time of Adam to the end of the world, because its the only one that is true.

Pax.

 

[razredge]

May I point out what should be obvious, but is not. Old earth, young earth, middle earth have nothing to do with the Catholic Deposit of Faith which depends on Divine Revelation protected by the guidance of the Holy Spirit…

Granny, hypothethically** IF** the Church infallibly declared that the sun revolves around the earth, would that make it so? Yes or No? (and no, saying the Church would never declare such a thing is not a valid response, since it is a hypothethical question)

 

[StAnastasia]

In another 200 years, nobody will believe in the “Big Bang” as currently described, just as the older Greek theories were rejected, and just as modern evolutionists try to cast aside Darwin as out of date. But in 200 or 2000 years, there will still be the those who believe the Genesis account. It’s the only enduring creation cosmology- from the time of Adam to the end of the world, because its the only one that is true.

Pax.

Dan, you’re going to have quite an uphill battle trying to convince hundreds of thousands of scientists – and hundreds of millions of university-educated people – that your theory is cogent. And you will have to convince them despite the total lack of scientific evidence supporting your creation story. Fortunately, Roman Catholics are not compelled to accept your story; Pope Benedict certainly doesn’t.

StAnastasia

 

[Dan_Daly]

Dan, you’re going to have quite an uphill battle trying to convince hundreds of thousands of scientists – and hundreds of millions of university-educated people – that your theory is cogent. And you will have to convince them despite the total lack of scientific evidence supporting your creation story. Fortunately, Roman Catholics are not compelled to accept your story; Pope Benedict certainly doesn’t.

StAnastasia

1. There is quite a bit of historical, geological, and other kinds of evidence to support the Genesis account of creation.
2. Convincing people of the truth isn’t an uphill battle, it’s an impossible one…without the grace of God. Faith is a gift. We can’t make anyone believe in God or His Word. We can’t MAKE anyone do anything, as God has given us a free will. What we can do is choose to follow God and allow ourselves to be His instruments.
3. Science is not based on “consensus”. This is a very recent fallacy that has largely been pushed as part of “global warming” and “climate change”. We are told something is “settled science” and there is a “scientific consensus”. Consenus doesn’t matter in science. Evidence matters. The truth matters. At one time there was a scientific consensus that blacks were an inferior race to whites. Currently, there is a “scientific consensus” that abortion and contraception are ethical medical procedures. Guess what, it doesn’t matter. Popularity does not equal accuracy. There are however, many people who do believe what the Bible says regarding creation, including a long list of Catholics, including Church fathers, doctors of the faith, and Popes.
4. To follow on the “consenus” point, The consensus in Sodom was that sin was fine. That didn’t stop God from destroying it. Before the flood, the consensus was that Noah was a nut- an ignorant religious fool. God saved 8 people- Noah and his family. 8 people out of the entire human population were spared from the flood. What’s the lesson? Faithfulness to God is infinitely more important than falling in line with human consensus.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[StAnastasia]

There is quite a bit of historical, geological, and other kinds of evidence to support the Genesis account of creation.

There is no evidence to support a literal interpretation of Genesis. The evidence from physics, cosmology, geology, biology, paleontology and genetics is that the universe is vast, ancient, dynamic, and evolving.

We can’t make anyone believe in God or His Word. We can’t MAKE anyone do anything, as God has given us a free will. What we can do is choose to follow God and allow ourselves to be His instruments.

True – faith is a gift.

Science is not based on “consensus”.

True. I did not say that the evolutionary view of the universe is true because scientists believe it. They believe it because it is the best explanation for the evidence.

Consenus doesn’t matter in science. Evidence matters. The truth matters.

True. That’s why virtually all working biologists accept the evolutionary explanation.

Currently, there is a “scientific consensus” that abortion and contraception are ethical medical procedures.

False – science has nothing to say about ethics.

There are however, many people who do believe what the Bible says regarding creation, including a long list of Catholics, including Church fathers, doctors of the faith, and Popes.

You yourself just got through saying that consensus does not matter.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Dan, you’re going to have quite an uphill battle trying to convince hundreds of thousands of scientists – and hundreds of millions of university-educated people – that your theory is cogent. And you will have to convince them despite the total lack of scientific evidence supporting your creation story. Fortunately, Roman Catholics are not compelled to accept your story; Pope Benedict certainly doesn’t.

StAnastasia

Pope Benedict indeed doesn’t, Dan. As then Cardinal Ratzinger he ratified the church document Communion and Stewardship as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

It states right in the introduction (emphasis added):

1. The explosion of scientific understanding and technological capability in modern times has brought many advantages to the human race, but it also poses serious challenges. Our knowledge of the immensity and age of the universe has made human beings seem smaller and less secure in their position and significance within it. Technological advances have greatly increased our ability to control and direct the forces of nature, but they have also turned out to have an unexpected and possibly uncontrollable impact on our environment and even on ourselves.

And later on the document states (emphasis added; note that the emphasized sentence is nowhere, also later on in the document, conditioned with a “but” – the scientific findings are simply accepted):

1. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

(While here the brain is mentioned, elsewhere in the document the human soul is emphasized, of course.)

 

[Dan_Daly]

Nothing in those quotes says that Pope Benedict XVI believes in evolution or an earth that is billions of years old.

Of course the world is old. 6000-10000 years is pretty old to me.

“According to a widely accepted theory” is a statement of fact- he’s describing a theory, and saying it is widely accepted, which it is. That has nothing to do with whether or not the theory is valid. It is a widely accepted theory, among CATHOLICS, that the true presence is not real. It’s still a false theory- that is widely accepted.

But even for the sake of argument, say the Pope did make comments endorsing evolution or an “old(er) earth”. Popes are men and fully capable of making mistakes. And as you point out- the document above was from his time as a cardinal. And cardinals can make mistakes as well.

Based on what I have read of his writings and speeches, the current Pope is a very intellectual person, who likes to think out loud, and work through ideas. This doesn’t translate very well into the modern sound bite crazy world sometimes.

Pax.

 

[Dan_Daly]

There is no evidence to support a literal interpretation of Genesis. The evidence from physics, cosmology, geology, biology, paleontology and genetics is that the universe is vast, ancient, dynamic, and evolving.

I disagree

First off, the things you say the evidence points to are mostly true of the Genesis account as well:

Vast universe? check
Ancient universe? check
Dynamic universe? check
Evolving universe? I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that.

As far as evidence for the biblical account of creation, as Catholics we should start with the best source of evidence- God’s word in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

excerpted from:

ENCYCLICAL
HUMANI GENERIS
OF THE HOLY FATHER
PIUS XII

emphasis added

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

So we see:

1. Treating the evolution of man from lower animals as established fact is a rash transgression.

and

1. Polygenism is heresy. Now if you go and tell a secular evolutionists that you believe in theistic evolution, but without polygenism, they will laugh at you the way you laugh at the YEC folk. We are required to believe that Adam was the first man and Eve was the first woman- and that all other people descended from them- because it is the truth. That evidence fully supports the Genesis account. It does not support the vast majority of evolutionary theories put forward, and requires a “hands on supernatural intervention” to be worked into a theistic evolutionary view, which was apparently the type of “unreasonable” belief which led to abandoning the Genesis account in the first place for many.

There’s plenty of other evidence out there, but from the Church and from scientific observation including physics, cosmology, geology, biology, paleontology and genetics.

Pax.