Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy

  • Thread starter Thread starter PoG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PoG

Guest
Faith and Reason
(from Kolbe Center Articles Section)
www.kolbecenter.org

To conclude this whole question of faith and its various branches, we have still to consider, Venerable Brethren, what the Modernists have to say about the development of the one and the other. First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death - dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself.
Pope Saint Pius X - Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also:
Second Book of Machabees, 7:28

But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
Holy Gospel according to St. Mark, 10:6

The Catholic Church does not read Holy Scripture in a purely literalist manner as do some people but we are taught that the literal, historic sense must be presupposed. We are also taught that wherever the Fathers of the Church were in unanimous agreement upon a certain interpretation of Holy Scripture, then that is the true and lawful understanding that we are obliged to believe. In 1564 the Council of Trent, one of the Church’s most important Ecumenical Councils and to which the Catholic conscience is bound forever, dogmatically taught that

Furthermore in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall - in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine - wresting the Sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which Holy Mother Church - whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures - hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. [1]

This infallible teaching was restated by the First Vatican Council in 1870. Responding to the Modernist attack upon Holy Scripture His Holiness Pope St. Pius X issued his Praestantia Scripturae, 18 Nov. 1907:

Wherefore We find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this Our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman Congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions. [2]

The Biblical Commission of June 30, 1909, laid down very strict guidelines for Catholics to read and understand the first three chapters of Genesis…

The forum won’t allow the posting of the bulk of this highly recommended article because of its length. To continue reading visit www.kolbecenter.org/fishwick_faithnreason.html
 
That’s a very strange post to make considering that the article consists of a long list of Magisterial statements and actions of the Holy Office (which was an arm of the Magisterium). Perhaps you should read it before commenting.

It’s also a strange remark to make in light of the fact that it is now publicly known that His Holiness is very sceptical about what they call macroevolution, which is, I expect, the idea of a shared ancestor with apes. It appears he is interested in fact, not idle speculation.

I read an interview by John Allen with a scientific advisor to the Kolbe Center. It turns out that several of their scientists are friends of His Holiness and he appears to be sympathetic to their position. I expect he’s aware of the Magisterial pronouncements contained in the article that I referenced. Here’s the interview: [ncronline.org/ma(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/tassot_interview.pdf](http://ncronline.org/ma(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/tassot_interview.pdf)

Pax Romanum.
 
Kolbe Center trumped by all the articles on my site, which now includes the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission. Let’s take your post one at a time…

PoG citing Pius X << To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death - dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself. – Pope Saint Pius X - Pascendi Dominici Gregis. >>

Has nothing to do with biological evolution, but concerns the heresy known as “Modernism” which arose in the late 19th, early 20th century. The “evolution” condemned here involves an essential change in revelation or dogma, although there is an allowed development of doctrine (as Cardinal Newman explained in his 1845 work on the subject).

The heresies of the Modernist crisis at the turn of the 20th century involved: (1) agnosticism, both in natural theology and in the symbolic, nonobjective approach to dogmatic content; (2) vital immanence, an exclusive immanence of the divine and a consequent natural vital evolution of revelation; (3) total emancipation of exegesis from dogma and of political-religious movements from ecclesiastical authority. See the articles in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) on Modernism (volume 9, page 991ff), Pius X (volume 11, page 408ff), Lamentabili (volume 8, page 350), and Pascendi (volume 10, page 1048) which contain a brief history and description of Modernism and the heretics to whom Pope St. Pius X directed his encyclicals.

You can now stop quoting Pius X as relevant to biology.

NEXT.

Second Book of Machabees, 7:28 – God made everything from nothing; and Mark 10:6 – God made them male and female – OK, man was made from “nothing” and God made us, but consider:

Genesis 2:7-8 “And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed…”

Uh oh, looks like man was made from the “slime of the earth” (Douay-Rheims) or the “dust of the earth” (modern translations) according to Scripture. So which is it? Nothing or slime? Both can’t be true, right? 😃

Evolution and science reconciles them both: man is ultimately from nothing since God is the First Cause of the universe which began ex nihilo, and man is also from the slime of the earth since we come from the “stuff” of the earth (created 4.5 billion years ago).

NEXT.

PoG << 1564 the Council of Trent, one of the Church’s most important Ecumenical Councils and to which the Catholic conscience is bound forever, dogmatically taught that >>

Has nothing to do with science, but faith and morals. “God made man” was unanimously taught by the Fathers and is still the teaching of the Church, but the question science answers is “how” and “when” while the Church and revelation answers “why” and “who.”

NEXT.

Phil P
 
PoG << The Biblical Commission of June 30, 1909, laid down very strict guidelines for Catholics to read and understand the first three chapters of Genesis… >>

I now have the essential teachings of that Pontifical Biblical Commission on my site, these are:

“…the creation of all things which was accomplished by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the divine command laid upon man to prove his obedience; the transgression of that divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from their primitive state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer.” (from Acta apostolis sedis, 1 [1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission], cited from Origin of the Human Species by Dennis Bonnette, page 145)

Most of these do not touch on science (miracles are not testable) and must be held by faith. What the Biblical Commission says is that the literal and historical cannot be totally dispensed with in reading the early chapters of Genesis. See the questions at the bottom of this page here. The Kolbe Center on evolution is trumped by Ludwig Ott who says:

“The doctrine of evolution based on the theistic conception of the world, which traces matter and life to God’s causality and assumes that organic being, developed from originally created seed-powers (St. Augustine) or from stem-forms (doctrine of descent), according to God’s plan, is compatible with the doctrine of Revelation. However, as regards man, a special creation by God is demanded, which must extend at least to the spiritual soul [creatio hominis peculiaris Denz 2123]. Individual Fathers, especially St. Augustine, accepted a certain development of living creatures…The question of the descent of the human body from the animal kingdom first appeared under the influence of the modern theory of evolution. The Biblical text does not exclude this theory. Just as in the account of the creation of the world, one can, in the account of the creation of man, distinguish between the per se inspired religious truth that man, both body and soul, was created by God, and the per accidens inspired, stark anthropomorphistic representation of the mode and manner of the Creation. While the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense, is, on weighty grounds, permissible.” (Ott, pages 93-94, 95, emphasis added)

Also, Catechism 159, 283-284 endorses the findings of modern science, and the statement of the International Theological Commission (already cited) endorsed by Ratzinger trumps the Kolbe Center. Neither Cardinal Schonborn nor Benedict XVI are young earth geocentrists. Sorry to inform you: 👍

“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.”

"In the Beginning…": A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict

Let me know what the Kolbe Center response is to the above. 👍

Phil P
 
PoG said:
It’s also a strange remark to make in light of the fact that it is now publicly known that His Holiness is very sceptical about what they call macroevolution, which is, I expect, the idea of a shared ancestor with apes. It appears he is interested in fact, not idle speculation.
Click to expand...
If indeed Benedict is sceptical about the truth of evolution and common descent (a speculation on your part that seems rather unlikely given other statements by him) - but if he is indeed sceptical, then as a non-scientist non-biologist his opinion on the matter carries no scientific weight and is of no consequence whatsoever.
I read an interview by John Allen with a scientific advisor to the Kolbe Center. It turns out that several of their scientists are friends of His Holiness and he appears to be sympathetic to their position. I expect he’s aware of the Magisterial pronouncements contained in the article that I referenced. Here’s the interview: [ncronline.org/ma(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/tassot_interview.pdf](http://ncronline.org/ma(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/tassot_interview.pdf)
Click to expand...
The Kolbe Center is a rank creationist propaganda organisation. The so called ‘scientific adviser’ (on the biological theory of evolution - ye gods!) is a mining engineer who has spent his career in metal processing plants, and Berthault, the lauded destroyer of modern geology is a crank whose work is rightly ignored by all professional geologists. If indeed Benedict has been influenced by him, which I doubt, but if he has, that says more about Benedict’s gullibility than about the known facts on the deposition of geological strata.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
I also bring to the witness stand, question 6 of the June 30, 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission, your honor:

Question VI. Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.

Or another English translation:

Question VI: Whether, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some passages of the same chapters, with the example of the Holy Fathers and the Church herself showing the way, can be wisely and profitably applied? – Reply: In the affirmative.

LATIN:

Dubium VI.: Utrum, praesupposito litterali et historico sensu, nonnullorum locorum eorundem capitum interpretatio allegorica et prophetica, praefulgente sanctorum Patrum et Ecclesiae ipsius exemplo, adhiberi sapienter et utiliter possit? Resp.: Affirmative.

Phil P
 
Three important documents worthy of review:
  1. APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI, TO MÜNCHEN, ALTÖTTING AND REGENSBURG (SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006), MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE, LECTURE OF THE HOLY FATHER, Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, Tuesday, 12 September 2006.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
  1. ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Monday, 6 November 2006.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061106_academy-sciences_en.html
  1. SESSION OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES – Predictability in Science: Accuracy and Limitations of Predictions based on Scientific Knowledge (3-6 November 2006).
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_20060310_plenary-session-2006_introduction_en.html
 
Evolution simply does not happen.

Why are so many people believing something so absurd?

It’s almost like people will believe anything except the truth.
 
PoG said:
That’s a very strange post to make considering that the article consists of a long list of Magisterial statements and actions of the Holy Office (which was an arm of the Magisterium). Perhaps you should read it before commenting.

It’s also a strange remark to make in light of the fact that it is now publicly known that His Holiness is very sceptical about what they call macroevolution, which is, I expect, the idea of a shared ancestor with apes. It appears he is interested in fact, not idle speculation.

[snip]

Pax Romanum.
Click to expand...
I think it would benefit you to read my previous message (#8) which contained important information. Pope Benedict XVI stated on November 6, 2006 to the members of the PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, “The establishment of the scientific method has given the sciences the ability to predict phenomena, to study their development, and thus to control the environment in which man lives.”

You mention ’ a shared ancestor with apes’. I did read an extremely fascinating article yesterday from Howard Hughes Medical Institute entitled ***Could Interbreeding Between Humans and Neanderthals Have Led to an Enhanced Human Brain? ***
hhmi.org//news/lahn20061006.html
 
Void << Evolution simply does not happen. >>

I’m afraid it does and has. Sorry to disappoint.

Void << Why are so many people believing something so absurd? >>

Because so many people in here agree with the Popes? But that’s just a guess. Pius XII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.

“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.” (From the International Theological Commission, headed by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI, statement “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,” plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004)

Void << It’s almost like people will believe anything except the truth. >>

New here are you? 😃 Evolution is a truth (small t). So I take it you’ve read the following 4 books?

Miller, Kenneth R. (1999), Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.
Miller, Keith B. (2003), Perspectives on an Evolving Creation.
Falk, Darrel (2004), Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology.
Collins, Francis (2006), The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

If not, get started. 👍 All available from Amazon or elsewhere.

Phil P
 
Dear PhilVaz, hecd2 and any future contributors to this thread,

Before we go any further I would like to make the point that if you wish me to respond to your posts please note that I find a blase attitude and verbal attacks, denigration of people, character assassinations, and so on extremely boorish, tiresome and unbecoming of anyone, especially Roman Catholics. It should be noted well that calumny, slander and detraction are serious sins that must, and will, be acounted for. So let us all, please, write in a responsible manner.

The purpose of this thread is not to debate the scientific limitations, or otherwise, of evolutionary processes but to bring to light the Church’s Authoritive Teaching on the matter so that Catholics may reflect upon exactly where we stand on this matter. What are we allowed to accept in regard to scientific speculations and what does the Faith forbid us to believe in this regard?

I would also advise you to actually study the article referenced at the beginning of the thread. So far you have just been tilting at windmills of your own making. The points that you raise, PhilVaz, are all covered in the article if you would but care to read it. Otherwise I fear that you will continue to make yourself look foolish in the eyes of those who do read it.

hecd2 - Alec: For your information it has not been claimed, except by yourself, that the scientist in the referenced interview advises the Kolbe Center about biological evolution. He has qualifications in mathematics, physics and chemistry. If you look at their Advisory Council Board (listed on their website) you will find that they have highly qualified scientists from the biological sciences to advise on such matters.

I hope that you will have the courage to withdraw your rather pathetic attack on Berthault. He is a highly qualified research scientist who graduated from the Ecole Polytechnique - the elite scientific training ground in France. Although his main interest is in physics I have read that he holds the equivalent of three Ph.D.'s from this multi-disciplinary French system. He is acknowledged as being instrumental in the successful battle to prove the scientific authenticity of the Holy Shroud and the invalid C14 dates widely promoted back in the eighties and early nineties.

If he and his research on sedimentation properties are so cranky please explain why his papers on the subject have been published by journals of the French, Russian and Chinese Academies of Science. Perhaps you could explain why he was recently invited to present his experimental research to an important geological conference in Europe? Some of his papers can be found here should you wish to study them: geology.ref.ac/berthault

Now, perhaps, we can get back to the purpose of the thread and discuss it in a calm, reasoned and respectful manner as called for by His Holiness Pius XII, as also obviously desired by the Reigning Pontiff.
 
**FAITH & REASON **- The next section of the article
Kolbe Center Articles Section - www.kolbecenter.org

The Biblical Commission of June 30, 1909, laid down very strict guidelines for Catholics to read and understand the first three chapters of Genesis.

Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.

Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
**Answer: In the negative to both parts. **

In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
**Answer: In the negative. **

In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
**Answer: In the affirmative. **

Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.

Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.

As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of Creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative.

In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative. [3]

Theistic evolutionists often claim that paragraph IV allows them leeway for their belief in biological macroevolution because…
 
PoG << I would also advise you to actually study the article referenced at the beginning of the thread. So far you have just been tilting at windmills of your own making. The points that you raise, PhilVaz, are all covered in the article if you would but care to read it. Otherwise I fear that you will continue to make yourself look foolish in the eyes of those who do read it. >>

Windmills? Windmills? We’ve gone through this in detail many many many many times in here. I agree it does get boring since the creationist claims of the Kolbe Center have been answered, both theologically and scientifically. The articles below cover the Councils, the Catechism, some theologians and the Popes on creation and evolution. All the ones mentioned in that article (Lateran IV, Vatican I, local council of Cologne, etc). I did not cover the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission but list the “essential” (De Fide) teachings here. I am way ahead of the Kolbe Center and that article. 👍 They need to deal with the science more honestly.

Part 1 covers theology
Part 2 covers age of earth
Part 3 covers evolution

Questions –

When Benedict XVI says in his commentary on the Genesis story that it “does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are” and that we need to “grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason” is Benedict denying the literal historical sense of Genesis 1-3 and thus violating the 1909 PBC statements?

When the International Theological Commission endorsed by Ratzinger in 2004 says that macroevolution is “vritually certain” and that “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” are they violating the 1909 PBC statements?

When the Catechism says “the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God” and that “many scientific studies have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man” and that the meaning of our origins “goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences” and that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work’ " (CCC 159, 283-284, 337, etc) is the Catechism violating the 1909 PBC statements?

Correct answers are: No, No, and No. Thank you. 😃

Phil P
 
We’ll get this settled next Wednesday then we won’t have to debate this anymore in here. 😃 Be sure to call in…

Date: November 15 2006
Time: 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM
Title: Pope Benedict XVI on Intelligent Design
Guest: Fr. Joseph Fessio

Phil P
 
PoG << The points that you raise, PhilVaz, are all covered in the article if you would but care to read it. Otherwise I fear that you will continue to make yourself look foolish in the eyes of those who do read it. >>

BTW, which points in that amazing Kolbe Center article you think I have not yet addressed? BTW we’ve been discussing this stuff in here since May 2004! Where have you been??? :eek:

We’ve debated some of the Kolbe Center people in here as well (Peter Wilders, Hugh Miller, Joseph Mastropaolo), they’ve visited, and we (myself and Orogeny and HECD and others 😃 ) scared them all away eventually. 👍

Phil P
 
PoG said:
That’s a very strange post to make considering that the article consists of a long list of Magisterial statements and actions of the Holy Office (which was an arm of the Magisterium). Perhaps you should read it before commenting.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should refrain from making assumptions. I have read that article several times. Did you read the document I linked to?
It’s also a strange remark to make in light of the fact that it is now publicly known that His Holiness is very sceptical about what they call macroevolution, which is, I expect, the idea of a shared ancestor with apes. It appears he is interested in fact, not idle speculation.
Click to expand...
Again, did you read the article I linked to?

Peace

Tim
 
PoG said:
I hope that you will have the courage to withdraw your rather pathetic attack on Berthault. He is a highly qualified research scientist who graduated from the Ecole Polytechnique - the elite scientific training ground in France. Although his main interest is in physics I have read that he holds the equivalent of three Ph.D.'s from this multi-disciplinary French system. He is acknowledged as being instrumental in the successful battle to prove the scientific authenticity of the Holy Shroud and the invalid C14 dates widely promoted back in the eighties and early nineties.

If he and his research on sedimentation properties are so cranky please explain why his papers on the subject have been published by journals of the French, Russian and Chinese Academies of Science. Perhaps you could explain why he was recently invited to present his experimental research to an important geological conference in Europe? Some of his papers can be found here should you wish to study them: geology.ref.ac/berthault
Click to expand...
And he is a crank. I am a professional geologist, so I am qualified to make that statement!😃

Berthault is a “scientist” who started out to prove Genesis correct and admits as much. His interpretations of his experiments ignored the results he obtained. In fact, for his interpretation to be true, one needs to redefine up to sideways. I don’t know about you, but that alone qualifies him as a crank.

By the way, was that important geological conference a creationist conference? I asked his lackey Peter Wilders in another forum to please identify the conference but he ran away and refused to answer. You see, Berthault likes to hide behind Wilders and the two of them really boast about the conferences and papers Berthault has presented. In fact, one of their best products is a video about creationism. Interestingly, though, one of the main collaborators with Berthault rejects Berthault’s interpretations.

So Alec should not withdraw his remarks. After all, the truth hurts sometimes.

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
I don’t put much faith in anything from that site since it is a creationist apologetics site. Rather, I prefer to reference this paper: bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

I’ll take Cardinal Ratzinger (known by another name these days!) over anyone at kolbecenter.org.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
You confound me. I know you don’t like their science, but how do direct quotes from prior Popes and references to constant Catholic teaching cause you to speak so poorly of them?
 
hecd2 said:
If indeed Benedict is sceptical about the truth of evolution and common descent (a speculation on your part that seems rather unlikely given other statements by him) - but if he is indeed sceptical, then as a non-scientist non-biologist his opinion on the matter carries no scientific weight and is of no consequence whatsoever.

The Kolbe Center is a rank creationist propaganda organisation. The so called ‘scientific adviser’ (on the biological theory of evolution - ye gods!) is a mining engineer who has spent his career in metal processing plants, and Berthault, the lauded destroyer of modern geology is a crank whose work is rightly ignored by all professional geologists. If indeed Benedict has been influenced by him, which I doubt, but if he has, that says more about Benedict’s gullibility than about the known facts on the deposition of geological strata.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
Again, whenever confronted with controversy discredit the intelligence of a person. Don’t stoop so low. Make a reasonable argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top