creationism and evolution

[Stevereeno]

SydLake:

Creationism, on the other hand, has a very dark side. The fatalistic nature of the dictated development of our world has God intimately involved in not only every good, but even in every evil.

It is as if God predicated a system that would have his hand in the holocaust or the Tsunami. That really doesn’t fit with the word or the spirit of Jesus’ teachings.

You need a good dose of Fr. Corapi. God is NOT evil, sin is evil. Death and suffering exist because of sin. Thus, since only human beings are capable of sin, you and I are to be blamed for the holocaust and the tsunami.

SydLake:

So from a Jesus centered standing, creationism doesn’t make sense.

Why, then, didn’t Jesus correct all of the creationists (including the Apostles and early Church Fathers) when he was here?

 

[PhilVaz]

Stevo << Were the beliefs of the writers of scripture and the Church Fathers folly, for they had no science. >>

Steve, thanks for the quotes from Keane. I am aware of most of them. It would help if you listed with your notes when some of these people lived, rather than me looking it up. Cardinal Ruffini? Fr. Fehler? When? 16th century before the age of modern science? 19th century when evolution was still controversial? Or late in the 20th century when evolution is no longer controversial in the scientific community?

I understand that Pope Pelagius lived in the 5th, 6th century. So yeah, I would put him with the rest of the Fathers who wrote before the rise of modern science. They taught not only the earth is young, but the earth does not move. However, neither the Church, nor the Fathers, nor the Popes would be infallible on science issues, and science itself is not infallible, but the Catechism clearly supports modern science (CCC 159, 283-284).

Ludwig Ott the expert on dogma states not only is evolution compatible with orthodox Catholic faith, but the Fathers were acting as private scientists and therefore could be totally wrong in their science (see Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pages 92-95)

I’m sure Keane deals with the contradictions between Leo XIII (at least that one quote from Keane) and Pius XII and John Paul II who say contradictory things on the scientific issues and how to interpret Genesis. For example:

Leo XIII says Adam was created “on the sixth day of creation” and this too is “known to all and cannot be doubted.” Is that so? Are you sure?

Pius XII says the universe is billions of years old:

“With the same clear and critical gaze with which it examines and judges the facts, it discerns and recognizes there the work of creative Omnipotence, whose strength raised up by the powerful fiat uttered billions of years ago by the creating Mind, has spread through the universe, calling into existence, in a gesture of generous love, matter teeming with energy.” (Pius XII, 11/22/1951, speaking about the problem of the origin of the universe at the Study Week on the subject of microseisms organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences)

John Paul says Genesis tells us how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go:

“The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer… Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences)

Cardinal Ratzinger and his Theological Commission says the universe is around 15 billion years old, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and evolution, including human evolution, is “virtually certain.” (cited above, also see link below) Granted, Adam and Eve could still be “miraculously” created, but that would be outside of science. The report from 2000-2002 of Ratzinger’s Commission I’ve quoted shows Ratzinger and company accepts modern science including human evolution.

The Catechism tells us the “creation week” is symbolical not literal in paragraph 337-338 and the main point is that God is the creator of all, not how or when that creation (or evolution) took place.

I’m sure Keane deals with all this in great detail which is why I should get his book, right? So Keane is saying Pius XII, John Paul, Cardinal Ratzinger, Ludwig Ott, and the Catechism are totally wrong in their agreement with modern science, is that correct? Not to sound too confrontational, but I think I would be very disappointed if I bought Keane’s book.

See Documentation here, Parts 1 and 3 are finished, working on Part 2

Phil P

 

[Stevereeno]

PhilVaz:

I understand that Pope Pelagius lived in the 5th, 6th century. So yeah, I would put him with the rest of the Fathers who wrote before the rise of modern science. They taught not only the earth is young, but the earth does not move. However, neither the Church, nor the Fathers, nor the Popes would be infallible on science issues, and science itself is not infallible, but the Catechism clearly supports modern science (CCC 159, 283-284).

Pope Pelagius I is describing the miracle of the creation of Adam and Eve. That makes his statement a teaching on the matter of faith, not science.

PhilVaz:

Ludwig Ott the expert on dogma states not only is evolution compatible with orthodox Catholic faith, but the Fathers were acting as private scientists and therefore could be totally wrong in their science (see Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pages 92-95)

Who? Are you trying to trump the teaching authority of the Church Fathers with that of a layman? What is the “science of the Fathers” to which he refers?

PhilVaz:

Leo XIII says Adam was created “on the sixth day of creation” and this too is “known to all and cannot be doubted.” Is that so? Are you sure?

Pius XII says the universe is billions of years old:

There is no contradiction. Pope Leo refers to the creation of Adam and Eve, while Pope Pius is talking about the creation of the universe. They are two separate, miraculous events.

“The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer… Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences)

JPII is speaking about the creation of the universe, not the creation of Adam and Eve. These words were directed to the PAS probably while they were discussing the Big Bang hypothesis… er, theory… well, whatever it is.

PhilVaz:

Cardinal Ratzinger and his Theological Commission says the universe is around 15 billion years old, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and evolution, including human evolution, is “virtually certain.” (cited above, also see link below) Granted, Adam and Eve could still be “miraculously” created, but that would be outside of science. The report from 2000-2002 of Ratzinger’s Commission I’ve quoted shows Ratzinger and company accepts modern science including human evolution.

Read the opening, qualifying statement from paragraph 63: “According to the widely accepted scientific account, …”. Also, I doubt Cardinal Ratzinger believes in human evolution. Otherwise he would be in direct opposition to the Council of Cologne:

"Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that…those who…assert…man…emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.”

PhilVaz:

The Catechism tells us the “creation week” is symbolical not literal in paragraph 337-338 and the main point is that God is the creator of all, not how or when that creation (or evolution) took place.

I’m not sure if you understand what CCC 337 states. Look at the first two sentences of 337, below:

“337. God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work,” concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day.”

It is the “work of the Creator” that is presented with symbolism, not the “succession of six days”. However, since these paragraphs do not address the creation of Adam and Eve, their pertinence wanes.

 

[buffalo]

343 Man is the summit of the Creator’s work, as the inspired account expresses by clearly distinguishing the creation of man from that of the other creatures.211

 

[buffalo]

"Each for the other" - "A unity in two"

[371](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/371.htm’) God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243** The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion:** "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

[372](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/372.htm’) Man and woman were made “for each other” -** not that God left them half-made and incomplete:** he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (“bone of my bones. . .”) and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”,245 they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth."246 By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator’s work.247

 

[buffalo]

** How to read the account of the fall**

[390](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/390.htm’) 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.**264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

 

[oriel36]

john doran:

oriel, the only reason i haven’t taken you up on this point is that i still just don’t understand it, and i could tell that i was trying your patience by continually asking you to simplify or restate your position…

i understand that you believe that the current value for the period of earth’s rotation on its axis is incorrect, and that the error has its source in some kind of calculational dispute between keplerian and newtonian physical systems…

i still don’t know precisely how the mistake was made (or even clearly just what the error is), or what impact it has on the rest of science.

if you feel like you want to take another kick at the can, i’d love to discuss this stuff with you.

Do you know the difference between the Earth rotating on its axis in 24 hours as one value and 23 hours 56 min 04 sec as another value ?.

Do you know the reasons why the Earth rotates constantly on its axis in 24 hours exactly and how that principle goes into the construction of a clock and the pace of equable hours,minutes and seconds ?.

Do you know just how wise our ancestors were in fixing the principle of axial rotation to the Sun rather than the other stars ?.Do you see how they assumed constant axial rotation even though there was no actual celestial reference for that constancy ?.

Do you recognise the awful lapse in reason that is bound up in tying the Earth’s axial rotation directly to the other stars (John Flamsteed) ?.

Can you see where Newton adopted Flamsteed’s axial rotation/stellar circumpolar equivalency and transfered it to an geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency ?. This is the first instance of astronomical framehopping (Earth around the Sun is the same as the Sun around the Earth).At this stage if a Catholic dares to feel uncomfortable with accepting the Earth/Sun framehopping they have a very good reason to.

The early 20th century concepts are pure and utter trash and an expansion of Newton’s geocentric/heliocentric framehopping into total homocentricity.

Now ,if you feel that this is adrift of the evolution/creationist debate you had better think twice.The so-called ‘big bang’ is a particular astronomical picture with its roots firmly in the Newtonian view,to know why in principle,it is wrong and therefore cannot be submitted as a physical argument you had better begin with the first and most fundamental principle of all,the axial rotation of the Earth and why it is NOT 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

I see that another participant appealed to ‘Einstein’ in this thread but considering that his 1905 concept is based on Newton’s use of the 24 hour equivalency via the Equation of Time principle rather than Flamsteed’s ,you can see,even in outlines just what a gigantic mess I have to wade through.This mess surfaces in all discussions on science/religion and especially in the anti-Christian relativity mindset.

“Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions.”

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time

People haved been moved by the visible holocaust from the last century but are unaware of the intellectual one which crept in from the beginning of the 18th century.The anti-Catholic Newton would approve of what he wrought and the pretensious intellectual tyranny known as empiricalism that is supported by Catholics who know no better.

 

[buffalo]

Third International Catholic Conference on Creation is now history…

Over two hundred people turned out on October 15-17 at Christendom College in Front Royal, VA to hear world class Catholic experts teach on the subject of theology, philosophy and natural science defending the topic of Genesis as true history. The Third International Catholic Conference on Creation gave attendees the opportunity to evaluate the evidence for special creation and the literal historical interpretation of Genesis and to decide for themselves whether compromise approaches such as theistic evolution or special creation better explains the facts of Scripture, tradition and natural science.

Conference speakers included:

       Dr.         Joseph Mastropaolo, Professor emeritus,         California State University [(hear mp3         sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/Mastropaolo.mp3);

       Gerard         J. Keane, Australian author of* Creation Rediscovered *[(hear         mp3 sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/keane_web.mp3); Mr. Robert Sungenis,         President of Catholic Apologetics International [(hear         mp3 sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/sungenis_web.mp3);

       Fr.         James Anderson, of the Missionaries of the         Holy Apostles, a philosopher [(hear mp3         sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/anderson_web.mp3);

       Fr.         Victor Warkulwiz, theologian and physicist;

       Dr.         Joseph Strada, an aerospace engineer [(hear         mp3 sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/Strada.mp3);

       Dr.         Robert Bennett, physicist;

       Mr.         Jamey Turner, lecturer and glass harpist [(hear         mp3 sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/turner_web.mp3);

       Dr.         Robin Bernhoft M.D., surgeon [(hear         mp3 sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/Bernhoft.mp3);

       Mr.         Gerry Matatics, President of Biblical         Foundations International [(hear mp3         sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/matatics_web.mp3);

       Mr.         Salvatore J. Ciresi, Lecturer in Catechetics,         Christendom College [(hear mp3 sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/ciresi_web.mp3);

      Fr.         Brian Harrison, M.A., S.T.D., Professor of         Theology at the Pontifical Catholic University of         Puerto Rico

 

[buffalo]

Symposium in Rome

       Following the         Creation Conference in Arlington, Virginia, a         Symposium was held in Rome. This was reported in a         local Italian newspaper and has been translated for         our website.

       Read the Italian         paper, Tempo, article [*Scientists         Flunk Darwin*](http://www.kolbecenter.org/tempo.report.html)

 

[buffalo]

Listen to Hugh Owen’s presentation at the Second International Conference on Creation - Arlington, Virginia

       You need to an mp3 player such as         quicktime, real player or mediaplayer to listen.

       [Creation         and Catholic Spirituality - Listen](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/Owen.creationspirituality.mp3)

       [Who         is Hugh Owen - Listen](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/whoishughowen.mp3)

 

[Argh]

“To ask that question is to miss the point.”

Does it really, really matter all that much, honestly? We know we’re all here now. We know God created us in his image.

Would it change anything if, for some unexplicable reason, humanity learned 100% for sure either way?

Not to knock anybody, it’s certainly perplexing.

 

[Orogeny]

Argh:

Does it really, really matter all that much, honestly? We know we’re all here now. We know God created us in his image.

Would it change anything if, for some unexplicable reason, humanity learned 100% for sure either way?

I agree 100%.

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel36]

“To ask that question is to miss the point.”

Does it really, really matter all that much, honestly? We know we’re all here now. We know God created us in his image.

Would it change anything if, for some unexplicable reason, humanity learned 100% for sure either way?

Not to knock anybody, it’s certainly perplexing.

Well it should be perplexing for Catholics,the acceptance of the whole creationism/evolution or science/religion thing now basically constitutes a religion on its own.

The great Catholic bishop Nicolas Steno basically worked out the principles of geology about the same time Ussher was making a misguided attempt to impose the Genesis chronology on the calendar system.

I certainly don’t know why Catholics would start appealing to the importance of Ussher over Steno unless they really did get some enjoyment out of the so-called ‘creation’ debates.

ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/steno.html

From my seat the whole thing amounts to intellectual laziness for it should take a Catholic only a few minutes to figure out that the concepts of long term geological development give rise to the long term development of life on the planet and long term geological development as a discipline began with the Catholic bishop Steno.

How Catholics managed to find themselves on the backfoot is interesting but that the empirical tradition managed to set the terms of ‘debate’ must constitute a recognised victory for that particular outlook which is neither good nor right.

So far Catholic opposition is blatantly poor despite the obvious intelligence among most of the participants in this forum.

 

[rossum]

Third International Catholic Conference on Creation is now history…

Over two hundred people turned out on October 15-17 at Christendom College in Front Royal, VA to hear world class Catholic experts teach on the subject of theology, philosophy and natural science defending the topic of Genesis as true history. The Third International Catholic Conference on Creation gave attendees the opportunity to evaluate the evidence for special creation and the literal historical interpretation of Genesis and to decide for themselves whether compromise approaches such as theistic evolution or special creation better explains the facts of Scripture, tradition and natural science.

Conference speakers included:

       Dr.         Joseph Mastropaolo, Professor emeritus,         California State University [(hear mp3         sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/Mastropaolo.mp3);

       Gerard         J. Keane, Australian author of* Creation Rediscovered *[(hear         mp3 sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/keane_web.mp3); Mr. Robert Sungenis,         President of Catholic Apologetics International [(hear         mp3 sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/sungenis_web.mp3);

       Fr.         James Anderson, of the Missionaries of the         Holy Apostles, a philosopher [(hear mp3         sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/anderson_web.mp3);

       Fr.         Victor Warkulwiz, theologian and physicist;

       Dr.         Joseph Strada, an aerospace engineer [(hear         mp3 sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/Strada.mp3);

       Dr.         Robert Bennett, physicist;

       Mr.         Jamey Turner, lecturer and glass harpist [(hear         mp3 sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/turner_web.mp3);

       Dr.         Robin Bernhoft M.D., surgeon [(hear         mp3 sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/Bernhoft.mp3);

       Mr.         Gerry Matatics, President of Biblical         Foundations International [(hear mp3         sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/matatics_web.mp3);

       Mr.         Salvatore J. Ciresi, Lecturer in Catechetics,         Christendom College [(hear mp3 sample)](http://www.kolbecenter.org/sound/ciresi_web.mp3);

      Fr.         Brian Harrison, M.A., S.T.D., Professor of         Theology at the Pontifical Catholic University of         Puerto Rico

Not many Biologists there, and none of them are called Steve.

(If you don’t understand the reference see here. The Steve-o-meter is currently at #538.)

rossum

 

[Chris_W]

“To ask that question is to miss the point.”

Does it really, really matter all that much, honestly? We know we’re all here now. We know God created us in his image.

Would it change anything if, for some unexplicable reason, humanity learned 100% for sure either way?

Not to knock anybody, it’s certainly perplexing.

Does God form a child in the womb? or does God merely give that living creature a soul?

Can a husband and wife create a life? Or does God need to actively participate in the creation of that physical life?

Did God create you to physically look like you do, or did He merely set the laws on nature in motion and give you a soul?

Do the answers to questions like these depend on a person’s belief regarding evolution? I believe they do. I believe it affects the faith of Christians, and Catholics in particular, in siginifcant ways.

 

[SydLake]

oriel36:

I see that another participant appealed to ‘Einstein’ in this thread but considering that his 1905 concept is based on Newton’s use of the 24 hour equivalency via the Equation of Time principle rather than Flamsteed’s ,you can see,even in outlines just what a gigantic mess I have to wade through.This mess surfaces in all discussions on science/religion and especially in the anti-Christian relativity mindset.

People haved been moved by the visible holocaust from the last century but are unaware of the intellectual one which crept in from the beginning of the 18th century.The anti-Catholic Newton would approve of what he wrought and the pretensious intellectual tyranny known as empiricalism that is supported by Catholics who know no better.

First you need to reread what is posted, the reference to Einstein was not to support evolution but to counter the conclusion that someone had made about scientists being divorced from belief.

But to the subject, relativety(E=MC2) is definately still considered an unprovable theory, while there are some experiments that seem to confirm it, and some recent experiemnts seem to contradict parts of it. But even given that, Einstein didn’t believe in the absoluteness of the perpetual acceptance of his theory.

But that is where creationism falls on its face, first it comes from a book that is said to be true but has humans only being around for a scant amount of the time they have been. So on the face of it Genesis is not always true, hence there are a ton of conditions that are applied , even by our church. (despite what a prior post said about the church fathers).

It is interesting, or maybe ironic, that people who distrust science will use the absense of absolute proof to say a scientific proposition is false, but will tolerate a multitude of inconsistencies in the theories they say are true.

That’s why I do not base my faith on the truth of creationism or the lack thereof or for that matter on things of status. But when it comes to Jesus it is pretty easy to see the universal applicability of what He taught about how we should live.(not that I measure up to His standards, luckily our catholic church cuts us a lot of slack on actually following the letter of what he taught.)

Peace

 

[oriel36]

SydLake:

First you need to reread what is posted, the reference to Einstein was not to support evolution but to counter the conclusion that someone had made about scientists being divorced from belief.

But to the subject, relativety(E=MC2) is definately still considered an unprovable theory, while there are some experiments that seem to confirm it, and some recent experiemnts seem to contradict parts of it. But even given that, Einstein didn’t believe in the absoluteness of the perpetual acceptance of his theory.

But that is where creationism falls on its face, first it comes from a book that is said to be true but has humans only being around for a scant amount of the time they have been. So on the face of it Genesis is not always true, hence there are a ton of conditions that are applied , even by our church. (despite what a prior post said about the church fathers).

It is interesting, or maybe ironic, that people who distrust science will use the absense of absolute proof to say a scientific proposition is false, but will tolerate a multitude of inconsistencies in the theories they say are true.

That’s why I do not base my faith on the truth of creationism or the lack thereof or for that matter on things of status. But when it comes to Jesus it is pretty easy to see the universal applicability of what He taught about how we should live.(not that I measure up to His standards, luckily our catholic church cuts us a lot of slack on actually following the letter of what he taught.)

Peace

Sir

Relativity/Einstein is a particularly nasty piece of indoctrination that exists through a series of really,really dumb maneuvers centered on Newtonian concepts.

As many do not know or care what constitutes relativity save some association between an equation and an atomic bomb,the availibility of people to discuss the ins and outs of what goes into the relativity concept is very small while those who are willing to throw the name about of Einstein,spacetime,time dimensions ect is very large.

If you have followed the trajectory of reason earlier in this thread you probably would recognise an attempt to focus on how Newton managed to destroy the pure heliocentric system of Copernicus and Kepler and backslide into an odd form of quasi-geocentricity (earth about sun is the same as sun about earth) in order to get his terrestial ballistic agenda to work.

The great trick of empiricalists has always been to taint anyone who approaches or contends with relativity as a crank,silly or a primitive individual with little or no knowledge of the concept or as simply a mathematical construction understood only by mathematicians.How convenient !,you imagine Einstein as having achieved something spectacular without actually having to go through the nuts and bolts of what the final picture looks like in terms of warped space’,variable time,multiple universes and other exotic offshoots of that theory.

So,lets start from scratch and do some real work .

Newton was basically working off the idea that planetary motion behaves like natural terrestial objects such as a falling apple.Throw an apple in the air and it slows down,stops and accelerates back to Earth likewise Newton thought of Keplerian motion of the planets this way.It sounds great but it is incorrect and while it is possible to get away with a limited value such as the launch of rockets there is a much better way to approach planetary motion.

Are you up to it or not ?.

 

[oriel36]

I’m sure you have heard the story of the apple and Newton,perhaps it more productive to frame that notion within Kepler’s work and just how Newton managed to mesh the geometry of terrestial ballistics (falling apple) with planetary motion.

bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=1&size=1&id=bm.1861.11.x.90.553.x.593

Now introduce a new notion that supersedes Newton’s,its a bit more complicated but familiarity will ease that complication after a while.

The Earth has two known motions greater than axial rotation namely the heliocentric motion of the Earth around the Sun and the galactic orbital motion of the Earth and the rest of the solar system around the Milky Way axis.

Even without being too fussy with a cause,gravitational or otherwise,it is fairly easy to grasp that the motion of Earth would be both elliptical and variable by virtue of the simultaneously motions of the Earth around the Sun and around the Milky Way axis.

Ultimately this all gets back to ‘big bang’ conceptions and the observational flaw in determining the evolution of the cosmos by that concept.Presently contemporaries accept an absurb homocentric view of the universe or ‘every point is the valid center’ and bluff and bluster their way into getting others to accept it but as a Catholic I do not have the luxury of accepting nonsense while I watch my astronomical and geological heritage destroyed.Neither should any other Catholic.