Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy

[DustinsDad]

At least we know for a fact the first human couple and dinosaurs didn’t co-exist on a earth less than 10,000 years old and the basic scientific concepts still apply.

That’s what the current widely accepted theory seems to imply. I wouldn’t bet my eternal soul on it though. God’s outside of time - above it and all other “laws of science” as well. So what appears to us to be a 30 year old Adam might just be an Adam created that very day. You know - the ol’ analogy again.

Once again, the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation Defending Genesis from a Traditional Catholic Perspective has continually failed to meet the expectations of the Catholic Church in the 21st Century. They seem to me to continually misrepresent Vatican documents. And they like weird science which suites their own agenda. Look everyone! Read this article written by a scientist who really knows what he is talking about:

I’m not familiar with all the details of the Kolbe Center’s positions, but it seems the author posits solid counter arguments in the body of the article. I could do without the uncharitable ad hominem in the introduction. Seems this author doesn’t deal well with folks who disagree with him. Kind of cracks me up to see the Kolbe Center causing so many of the Enlightened Ones to blow a gasket.

Typical though. Scientists tend to go batty when religous folk dare to tread on the scientists “sacred ground” - but scientists have absolutely no problem pontificating on religious issues, Biblical interpretations, theology, etc.

But what’s good for the goose…

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[wildleafblower]

Seems this author doesn’t deal well with folks who disagree with him. Kind of cracks me up to see the Kolbe Center causing so many of the Enlightened Ones to blow a gasket.

Typical though. Scientists tend to go batty when religous folk dare to tread on the scientists “sacred ground” - but scientists have absolutely no problem pontificating on religious issues, Biblical interpretations, theology, etc.

But what’s good for the goose…

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Never heard of or been around the Jesuits of science, eh? They are a Christian religious order of the Catholic Church in direct service to the Pope. (1) Alec MacAndrew was taught by them. By the way, they have been teaching the theory of evolution for decades. In my opinion, Alec didn’t deserve your harsh, unchristian remarks.

1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuits

 

[ribozyme]

Alec, from reading this thread, I think you presenting a falsehood; science is compatible with the Catholic faith. You should be familiar with my argument though.

I, of course, am not a Catholic, and I accept the theory of evolution as a powerful mechanism that adequately explains the origin and characteristics of all life: archea, eubacteria, protista, fungi, plants, and animals. I do think you are being disingenuous for saying that evolution AND cosmology are compatible with the Catholic faith and the existence of a God that created the universe.

I think some interpretations of evolution are incompatible with the existence of the Christian deity, such as the interpretation of Gerald Joyce who says that evolution is the counterforce against disorder and the trend for the increasing entropy of the universe(dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(99)80318-2 open access). With that view, one can say that evolution displaces God’s creative acts as the one who brings order from disorder. Another contradictory view to Joyce’s view is advocated in Michael Denton’s book, Nature’s Destiny, as he argues that the laws of the universe allow biology and evolution to take place. He also thinks that some traits of organisms are predestined by the laws of nature and not a product of Darwinian evolution. Of course, I agree with Gerald Joyce, and he is a scientist that I have an ardent admiration for as I am familiar with some of his work. You can e-mail Professor Joyce and ask him if he believes in anything supernatural and my interpretation.

Cosmology is a different topic, and I think it is best to let YOU speak first:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13185&page=2&highlight=eternal+inflation

“There is more: Linde’s development of chaotic inflation has, as a consequence, a multiverse in which our universe is one bubble in a temporally and spatially infinite sea of bubbles. See for example Max Tegmark’s (Max Tegmark, by the way, has recently published powerful evidence based on observations from the Sloane Digtal Sky Survey that independently confirm findings from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe about the basic cosmological parameters) excellent article on multiverses here:
wintersteel.homestead.com/fil…multiverse.pdf

The fact is that, looking back in time, decoupling of radiation and matter occurs at 379,000 years after Big Bang which means that the universe is opaque to sight before that. Nevertheless, we can derive information about the earlier history of the universe from acoustic data condensed in the CMB anisotropy as a consequence of the early Sachs-Wolfe effect. However, at the Big Bang itself, space-time and the laws of physics break down at the singularity of the Big Bang, and, assuming that in future findings, the Big Bang remains a strict singularity, there is no way to probe beyond it. This does not logically lead to the need for a First Cause deity, because of the Hawking, Hartle, Linde and Guth hypotheses”

In these posts, I am not accusing you of being disingenuous (except by implying that Guth does not believe that the “universe” as a beginning.) See this paper: arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0404/0404546.pdf

Alan Guth:

“If the universe can be eternal into the future, is it possible that it is also eternal into the past? Here I will describe a recent theorem (Borde, Guth, & Vilenkin 2003) which shows, under plausible assumptions, that the answer to this question is no.∗

…

There is of course no conclusion that an eternally inflating model must have a unique beginning, and no conclusion that there is an upper bound on the length of all backwards-going geodesics from a given point. There may be models with regions of contraction embedded within the expanding region that could evade our theorem. Aguirre & Gratton (2002, 2003) have proposed a model that evades our theorem, in which the arrow of time reverses at the t = ∞hypersurface, so the universe “expands” in both halves of the full de Sitter space.

The theorem does show, however, that an eternally inflating model of the type usually assumed, which would lead to Hav > 0 for past-directed geodesics, cannot be complete. Some new physics (i.e., not inflation) would be needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region. One possibility would be some kind of quantum creation event.

One particular application of the theory is the cyclic ekpyrotic model of Steinhardt & Turok (2002). This model has Hav > 0 for null geodesics for a single cycle, and since every cycle is identical, Hav > 0 when averaged over all cycles. The cyclic model is therefore past-incomplete, and requires a boundary condition in the past.”

 

[ribozyme]

And more a more important aspect of inflation from the same paper:

Alan Guth:
“So for these reasons we think inflation is almost always eternal. I think the inevitability of eternal inflation in the context of new inflation is really unassailable — I do not see how it could possibly be avoided, assuming that the rolling of the scalar field off the top of the hill is slow enough to allow inflation to be successful. The argument in the case of chaotic inflation is less rigorous, but I still feel confident that it is essentially correct. For eternal inflation to set in, all one needs is that the probability for the field to increase in a given Hubble-sized volume during a Hubble time interval is larger than 1/20.

Thus, once inflation happens, it produces not just one universe, but an infinitenumber of universes.”

Face it; if inflation is correct, as many of its predictions have been confirmed by the cosmic background radiation, it is safe to say the multiverse IS a FACT, not an atheistic speculation to evade the conclusions of the fine-tuning argument.

Why would God create multiverses cannot that cannot be observed and appreciated by his creation? It seems superfluous for an anthropic universe.

Of course, the multiverse destroys the argument from design; it also destroys the notion of a God who created our universe to be special. Man is not the center of God’s creation. At best, it supports a deistic God. One can interpret the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem to support a deistic God, but not the Christian God. One can say Guth’s “quantum creation event” is when the deistic God performed creation. I must add that I am not a deist.

You believe in the multiverse right? How do you explain the anthropic coincidences if you don’t? Since you do not believe in God, you must believe in the multiverse. The anthropic coincidences exist, and they is superficial evidence for fine-tuning (see: home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/eft.htm )

What does the Magisterium have to say about multiverses?

“Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of “chance and necessity” are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.” - catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0060.html

I’ll leave you with two choices:

I. You have perform an abortion….an abortion on all the baby universes that inflation creates. You could do this by showing that inflation did not happen, or that inflation does not predict eternal inflation in a majority of inflationary models (let’s define majority as > 90%). But, I believe you are in no position to tell Alan Guth, the author of the idea, what inflation is or isn’t.

By doing this you will destroy my most powerful argument against the existence of a creator God that has created the universe; the argument from inflationary cosmology.

II. You can admit that inflationary cosmology, the dominant cosmological paradigm, actually undermines the Catholic faith and one cannot both be a Catholic and believe in inflation because of the eternal aspect of it.

Until then, I think we can grant PoG the freedom to say how physicists undermine the teachings of the Magisterium. Inflation is accepted by most physicists. Other versions of the multiverse, such as string landscape are speculative though.

 

[DustinsDad]

Never heard of or been around the Jesuits of science, eh?

Heard of the Jesuits. Never heard of the Jesuits of Science Order. Are they an order of Jesuits who can’t mention the “G” word (God)?

…Alec MacAndrew was taught by them.

And that’s supposed to mean, what? He can’t mention the “G” word either?

By the way, they have been teaching the theory of evolution for decades.

Which one?

And further, in the picture of the centuries, nay millinia history of the Church established by Christ - of what weight is a decades old scientific theory supposed to hold in regard to trumping the deposit of faith?

In my opinion, Alec didn’t deserve your harsh, unchristian remarks.

But of course. I have blasphemed an Enlighten One. Is there a scientific equivilant of the Sacrament of Confession - ah yes. I’ll make an appointment with a shrink ASAP.

But hey, I’m just trying to learn from the Christian remarks of the Enlightened Ones to the folks who disagree with them - you know, those enriching Christian charitable words like these:
“In the pantheon of bizarre anti-intellectual, anti-science, religiously inspired ideas even geocentrism (the idea that the earth is the unmoving centre of the universe) still exists. … its modern proponents are scientifically ignorant, religiously motivated cranks such as the self-appointed Roman Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis (1). (Robert Sungenis is also a Young Earth Creationist with all the science-denying obfuscating counter-Enlightenment baggage that goes along with that discredited notion). Sungenis’s geocentric nonsense is, I hasten to add, peculiarly his, and is not officially sanctioned by any institutional body of the Catholic Church. Indeed I get the impression that Sungenis is something of a embarrassment to the Church.”
Kind of leaves you with a warm fuzzy feeling for your fellow man, doesn’t it? I guess that’s why you keep promoting the wonderful words from this Enlightened One.

But in all seriousness - criticism is not unChristian…just depends on how you do it. I don’t think mine is harsh at all, especially when compared to the venom spewing forth from your side (see above). It amazes me that you don’t see the hypocricy of your “holier than thou” statement.

DustinsDad

 

[ribozyme]

But in all seriousness - criticism is not unChristian…just depends on how you do it. I don’t think mine is harsh at all, especially when compared to the venom spewing forth from your side (see above). It amazes me that you don’t see the hypocricy of your “holier than thou” statement.

DustinsDad

Well, it doesn’t matter, as I think Alec admitted in this thread that he is not a Catholic. Hey, Alec, want to give PoG a bibliography about eternal inflation?

We can give references to papers and books from Alexander Vilenkin, Alan Guth, and Andrei Linde who believe in the inflationary multiverse.

 

[PoG]

continued from post #264
FAITH & REASON
www.kolbecenter.org - articles section

Blatantly disregarding the weight of dogma, doctrine and tradition previously outlined in this essay, theistic evolutionists endeavor to argue from this one paragraph that it leaves open the possibility that the Special Creation of Adam refers only to his soul and not to his body. Yet in order to do so the theistic evolutionist must also ignore the consistent teaching of the Church concerning Adam and Eve. For instance, His Holiness Pope Pelagius writing to King Childebert I in 557 A.D:

For I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of man. [22]

Or His Holiness Pope Leo XIII, Arcane Divinae Sapientiae, 1880:

We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of Creation, having made man from the slime of the Earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated, and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. [23]

Following this line of erroneous reasoning, and disregard of the Magisterium, such people claim that Adam was originally a brute ape-like ancestor specially chosen by God to receive a soul, thereby choosing to separate himself from his previous animal kith and kin. With the Special Creation of Eve from Adam’s side (should they believe such a thing) a scientifically unknown process of mutation and natural selection made men what we are today and apes what they are. Such a concept is theologically, philosophically and biologically absurd.

Knowing what the Church has consistently taught on such matters, the question remains as to why His Holiness Pope Pius XII would allow calm and balanced discussion between experts in theology and the natural sciences regarding evolution. The answer may be found by considering the paragraph in question not in isolation, as many have done, but in its proper context. A footnote within the paragraph refers to his Allocution to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, November 30th, 1941, in which he affirmed that:

The numerous research works in the fields of paleontology, of biology as well as in morphology, on other problems concerning the origins of man have, to date, come up with nothing positively clear and certain. It behooves us, therefore, to leave to the future the answer to this question, if, perchance, science, enlightened and guided by Divine Revelation, is able to provide certain and definitive results (answers) on such an important question. [24]

In earlier paragraphs of *Humani Generis *we read that:

Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.

If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error. [25]

 

[PoG]

FAITH & REASON
continued from above

It would appear that on the one hand His Holiness wished to see the erroneous opinions presented by rationalist scientists defeated due to the application of new knowledge and true science - science that can not be at variance with the Faith - whilst at the same time wanting theologians to understand and follow the scientific debate in order to be better able to combat heresy within the Church. Catholics were supposed to have been presented with sound doctrine to prevent them from falling for the siren song of rationalism. That the theologians and many Catholic scientists themselves fell into the rationalist trap, and that Catholic scientists loyal to the Magisterium have generally been ignored, has meant that up until the present time no conclusion to this drawn out saga has been forthcoming. The situation was already such in 1950 that His Eminence Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini complained that:

Through several Catholic circles there has spread the impression that the question of man’s origin has recently received such encouraging results from paleo-anthropological research, that we are now obliged, for the sake of truth as well as of prudence, to cast aside our previous convictions based on the Bible, the doctrine of the Fathers of the Church, as well as the constant teaching of the Church. [26]

His Eminence knew the errors and stratagems of Modernism well, and watched in dismay as he witnessed it advance through the decades. He had published, during the 1940’s, a strong defense of the Catholic understanding of Creation and early history, and the current attack upon it, in a book entitled *The Theory of Evolution Judged by Reason and Faith. *

To these authorities - Holy Scripture, the Holy Fathers, major and minor theologians - we must add the Christian sense (sensus fidelium, the faithful echo of the Church’s teaching), so universal on this question and so certain that almost no member of the faithful would be free from surprise and scandal if he heard the teaching that Adam was born of beasts, that the blood in his veins was the blood of animals, that the human race, as regards the flesh, is related to the brute beasts. [27]

If it is true that the body of woman was formed directly by God and thus does not come by way of evolution, who will be persuaded that man’s body comes from the brute beast? What an absurdity! . . . If we wish to stand by Holy Scripture we must accept it in its entirety. . . . She gets the name Virago (ishah: woman) because she is taken from the vir (ish: man); likewise the man is called Adam (=homo) because, as Genesis says, he is taken from the adamah (=humus). Whenever Holy Scripture speaks of the origin of the human body, it always names the earth and only the earth. [28]

 

[wildleafblower]

Ribozyme msg. 283: Alec, from reading this thread, I think you presenting a falsehood; science is compatible with the Catholic faith.

Wildleafblower: If you notice after Alec’s signature he usually presents his website www.evolutionpages.com. I don’t think you’ve read Alec’s article supporting the viewpoint that science is compatible with Catholic faith.
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

Ribozyme msg. 286: [In response to DustinsDad’s quote mine which was directed to Wildleafblower msg. 282, “But in all seriousness - criticism is not unChristian…just depends on how you do it. I don’t think mine is harsh at all, especially when compared to the venom spewing forth from your side (see above). It amazes me that you don’t see the hypocricy of your “holier than thou” statement, “] Well, it doesn’t matter, as I think Alec admitted in this thread that he is not a Catholic.

Wildleafblower: Ribozyme, can you see the error of your comment? DustinsDad, was telling me not Alec, “ It amazes me that you don’t see the hypocricy of your “holier than thou” statement…” Futhermore, your comment is not suitable for my taste. It implies that non-practicing Catholics or non-believers of God aren’t charitable which isn’t true! Ribozyme, DustinsDad’s message in 285 is a good example of quote mining and cherry picking (typical of Intelligent Design advocates) my msg. 282 in response to his msg. 281.

*Dustins Dad msg. 281: Seems this author [Alec MacAndrew] doesn’t deal well with folks who disagree with him. Kind of cracks me up to see the Kolbe Center causing so many of the Enlightened Ones to blow a gasket. Typical though. Scientists tend to go batty when religous folk dare to tread on the scientists “sacred ground” - but scientists have absolutely no problem pontificating on religious issues, Biblical interpretations, theology, etc. But what’s good for the goose…Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

Wildleafblower msg. 282: Never heard of or been around the Jesuits of science, eh? They are a Christian religious order of the Catholic Church in direct service to the Pope. (1) Alec MacAndrew was taught by them. By the way, they have been teaching the theory of evolution for decades. In my opinion, Alec didn’t deserve your harsh, unchristian remarks.

1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuits*

Ribozyme look again at DustinsDad’s msg 285! He mocks the Jesuits and Alec by referring to Alec as one of the Enlightened Ones then quotes an excerpt from Alec’s website that I totally support which is against Geocentrism evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm. He goes onto state to me, “Kind of leaves you with a warm fuzzy feeling for your fellow man, doesn’t it? I guess that’s why you keep promoting the wonderful words from this Enlightened One.” Ribozyme, PhilVaz is a long term Catholic on Catholic.com with Alec’s article on his website bringyou.to/apologetics/p92.htm too. In my opinion, this implies he is also being unkind to Phil as well. I’m a Christian and a Catholic.

Look at my message #267! DustinsDad declares that Alec MacAndrew is blind and deceived. Ribozyne, I honestly don’t have a warm fuzzy feeling about JustinsDad twice slam dunking Alec who does use the word “God” and was baptized a Catholic though he is currently a non-believer of God. I do have hope that may change in the future but DustinsDad isn’t helping the matter any as far as I’m concerned.

 

[ribozyme]

I was challenging Alec to show inflationary cosmology is compatible with the Catholic faith, not evolution. Evolution is debatable, but you can read the link I provided to see if Gerald Joyce’s perception of evolution is compatible with Catholicism; I think it isn’t. But I hesitate to put words in Professor Joyce’s mouth. Also, there is no reason that is **supports ** Catholicism, as far as I am concerned. Professor Joyce has not conveyed any sense of religious belief, and I believe that he is an atheist or an agnostic.

But the main question concerns inflationary comsology. Inflationary cosmology is strongly supported through scientific inquiry. I argue that the eternal aspect of inflation destroys any precieved involvement of God interacting in the universe. Eternal inflation = an infinite number of multiverses.

In earlier threads, Alec advocated the ideas of inflation cosmologists, mainly Guth, Vilenkin, and Linde.

 

[wildleafblower]

ribozyme, I love cosmology! The same principles that apply to The Theory of Evolution also apply to Cosmology:

“One of the most important discoveries in modern astronomy was published in the Reviews of Modern Physics in 1957. Astronomers refer to the paper as simply B2FH, from the initials of the authors’ surnames. The first B refers to E. Margaret Burbidge. The scientific journal article opens with a quotation from Shakespeare: “It is the stars, the stars above us, govern our conditions.” The words, from King Lear, are certainly appropriate, Burbidge and her colleagues—Geoffrey Burbidge (her husband), William Fowler and Fred Hoyle—had provided a map of the routes by which elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are forged within the fiery bellies of the stars. The calcium in our bones, the iron in our blood and the oxygen we breathe all came from the ashes of ancient stars, which had either exploded as a supernovae or died slowly, releasing their matter into space.

“Margaret Burbidge’s colleagues worked on theory and laboratory experiements; she employed the telescope, seeking direct evidence from the heavens. Others had speculated about the origins of elements, but B2FH delivered the proof.” (Smithsonian Magazine, Special Anniversary Issue, “MARGARET BURBIDGE, Stars, quasars, supervovae, galaxies–if it’s out of this world, she has seen it”/ by Marcia Bartusiak, November 2005, P.34)

The above statement is evidence that SCIENCE PROVIDES proof and does relate to the arts! A wonderful article to read. Scientists obtain evidence by observation or data that delivers the proof that a theory is no longer a hypothesis.

I’ll look at your link. You like M-theory. Dimensions rolled up like a donut per Hawking works for me.

 

[ribozyme]

wildleafblower: M-theory is controversial and so is string “theory”. It hasn’t made any testable predictions yet, so why should we call it a theory? The same objection cannot be invoked against inflation though.

Just so I do not give Alec the wrong impression, I will say that I agree that evolution could be compatible with the Catholic faith, but I disagree with that. However, it is a tenable/ debatable position to say it is compatible with Catholicism. In order to support evolution being capable with Catholicsm, I want you to show Joyce’s perception of evolution is compatible with Catholicism. It does not disprove God’s existence, but a personal God is now displaced with the “Counterforce”. And indeed Darwinian evolution is a powerful counterforce, capable of generating catalysts with complex phenotypes starting with random sequences. For my favorite example, click on the figure in my signature. Figure 4 shows that ribozyme has notable catalytic prowess. Unfortunately, the ribozyme has to obey the laws of chemistry, and the Gibbs free energy change for hydrolysis is negative, thus hydrolysis of the phosphodiester bonds will be favored. Hydrolysis, catalyzed by Mg++ and a high pH buffer, decomposes the ribozyme in about 24 hours, so eventually disorder will prevail in the test tube. But the order is created during the mutation, amplification, and selection of the ribozyme polymerases.

I do think that Alec has performed some magnanimous deeds in this thread. I do agree with his assertion that a heliocentric planetary system and an old Earth is compatible with the Catholic faith, contrary to the assertions of the Kolbe center.

But I do not want to emphasize evolution in this thread: my issue is with inflationary cosmology.

The Big Bang cosmology supports theism; however, the Big Bang cosmology is now an obsolete cosmology like the Bohr model, and J.J. Thomson’s plum-pudding model of the atom.

Andrei Linde (stanford.edu/%7Ealinde/1032226.pdf):

“The situation with the very beginning is less certain. There is a chance that all parts of the universe were created simultaneously in an initial, big bang singularity. The necessity of this assumption, however, is no longer obvious.
Furthermore, the total number of inflationary bubbles on our “cosmic tree” grows exponentially in time. Therefore, most bubbles (including our own part of the universe) grow indefinitely far away from the trunk of this tree. Although this scenario makes the existence of the initial big bang almost irrelevant, for all practical purposes, one can consider the moment of formation of each inflationary bubble as a new “big bang.” From this perspective, inflation is not a part of the big bang theory, as we thought 15 years ago. On the contrary, the big bang is a part of the inflationary model.”

I am not a physicist, but in order for inflation to be compatible with the Catholic faith you have to show from peer-reviewed cosmology papers, that it is likely for all of the inflationary scalar field to decay and “reheat” the universe, and none of the this scalar field will go up the potential. This will destroy eternal inflation as the energy source that powers inflation is now depleted as it has decayed to reheat the universe.

I do not come to a conclusion and then find evidence for it. If my argument against the existence of God that utilizes eternal inflation is not on a scientifically firm foundation, I will not attempt to salvage it, and I will happily say “good riddence!”

I sincerely think inflationary cosmology undermines Catholicism.

 

[DustinsDad]

Wildleafblower,

I’ve just struggled through your post 289. Are you feeling better now? And is English your first language?

You’re a riot by the way

DustinsDad

 

[PoG]

continued from post #288
FAITH & REASON
www.kolbecenter.org - articles section

The situation regarding the Church’s position towards evolution since the publication of *Humani Generis *has remained one of confusion as far as many of Her human elements have been concerned. The letter addressed to the Pontifical Academy of Science, in 1996, on behalf of His Holiness John Paul II is oft quoted by theistic evolution propagandists to “prove” that Catholics are free to believe in biological macroevolution. In a similar vein the book, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, written by, as he was then, His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger is claimed to show the position of the Church concerning this matter. Likewise, the 2004 document from the International Theological Commission, entitled Communion and Stewardship, is often appealed to. That none of these documents are Magisterial, just private opinions, does not seem to matter in the quest to evolve. The PAS letter, whilst approved and presented on behalf of a reigning Pontiff, did not say anything new concerning evolution in regard to faith and morals. It is also interesting to note that, apparently, the letter was written on behalf of His Holiness by a member of the PAS, a secular orientated advisory body that has absolutely no Magisterial Authority within the Church. Knowing such information should help us to understand why obvious mistakes appear in the address. For example, the letter claimed in paragraph four that:

Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical *Humani Generis *treated the doctrine of “evolutionism” as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. [29]

Humani Generis, in fact, did no such thing. In *Humani Generis *His Holiness Pope Pius XII reaffirmed the Church’s condemnation of evolutionism. It was biological evolution that he allowed investigation into and furthermore His Holiness indicated in the encyclical, and other addresses, that rather than being a serious hypothesis such “conjectural opinions” must be treated with *“caution”. *Evolutionism is a philosophical view that denies the existence of any immutable essence and such ideas have always been condemned by the Church - the *Syllabus of Errors *of His Holiness Pope Pius IX, 1864, and that of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, 1907, for example. [30] [31]

In conclusion, the attempted rewriting of Sacred Scripture was by no means confined to Genesis but applied to much of Holy Writ. Even so, it certainly appears that Genesis bore, and still bears, the brunt of the Modernist attack on the Holy Bible. One favorite target of theistic evolutionists is Noah’s Flood. The fact that Our Blessed Lord, Himself, and Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles, both referred to the Deluge in connection with the Second Coming holds little weight with those infected by Modernist indoctrination. Ignoring the obvious fact of huge, sudden, sedimentary deposition all over the world, and the fossilized record of sudden death contained within it, the preposterous claim is made that the Deluge was a local flood somewhere in the region of the Black Sea. Yet, we read in the Bull, Unam Sanctum, of His Holiness Pope Boniface VIII, 1302, that:

There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed. [32]

 

[PoG]

continued from above

This partial summary of the historic battle conducted by the Church against evolutionary ideas may perhaps serve, by the grace of God, as a wake-up call to some of the faithful. But let the words of St. Peter, the rock upon whom the Church is built, and Christ the King Whom we serve, act as a warning to those precious, but wayward, souls who claim to be Roman Catholic but act as though they are infidel:

3 Knowing this first, that in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? For since the time that the Fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the Creation.
5 For this they are wilfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before, and the earth out of water, and through water, consisting by the word of God,
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgement and perdition of the ungodly men.
Second Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle, Chapter 3.

35 Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass.
36 But of that day and hour no one knoweth, no not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.
37 And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days before the Flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark,
39 And they knew not till the Flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be.
The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to St. Matthew

.

Notes and References.

1). Council of Trent, Session IV. April 8th, 1564. history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html

2). www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10prasc.htm

3). www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/bible/pbc.htm

4). www.kolbecenter.org/sungenis.wanderer2.htm

5). Henry Denzinger - Enchiridion Symbolorum - The Sources of Catholic Dogma (428)

6). Summary of Patristic and Mediaeval Thought on the Hexaemeron - Rev. Fr. W. A. Wallace, O.P., vol.10, Appx 7-10, The Blackfriars Summa, McGraw-Hill.

7). www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcomm03.htm

8). www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

9). Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis - Patrick O’Connell, (2nd. edition,1968, p.187) reprinted by TAN Books, Rockford, Illinois, 1993.

10). www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

11). ibid.

12). ibid.

13). www.victorianweb.org/science/edarwin.html

14). Early Vatican Responses to Evolutionist Theology - Rev. Fr. B. W. Harrison - www.rtforum.org/lt/lt93.html

15). www.newadvent.org/cathen/10407b.htm

16). www.kolbecenter.org/tassot_symp02.htm

17). The Story of Father Marie-Joseph Legrange: Founder of the Modern Catholic Bible Study - Rev. Fr. Bernard Montagnes, O.P., Paulist Press, 2006.

18). www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm

19). Discorsi i Radiomessagi di Sua Santità Pio XII, Editrice Vaticana, vol. 17, p. 212

20). www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/cdfchard.htm

21). www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

22). Henry Denzinger - Enchiridion Symbolorum - The Sources of Catholic Dogma (228a)

23). www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13cmr.htm

24). AAS, vol. XXIII, page 506.

25). www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

26). “Responsabilita dei Paleoantropologi Cattolici” - Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1950.

27). The Theory of Evolution Judged by Reason and Faith - Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini. 1959 English translation by Fr. Francis O’Hanlon, Melbourne, Australia. p.137.

28). Ibid., p.123. (Emphasis added.)

29). www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

30). www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

31). www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

32). www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

 

[steveandersen]

Ad hominem is to direct an attack upon a person to attempt to undermine their credibility instead of dealing with their argument.

Since the issue is one of technical expertise then attacking someone’s technical credibility on a subject is germane and therefore not an ad hominem.

I could have very strong opinions on heart surgery and you could either attack my arguments or point out that I’m not a physician and that my opinion doesn’t really matter.

Both would be appropriate and neither would be an ad hominem.

A real ad hominem against Giertych would be to base opposition to what he says on his political views rather than scientific merit for instance.

You stated that Professor Giertych was not a population geneticist.

His bio lists him as PhD tree physiologists both on his personal site and on third party sites. You are right that he has done work in Tree genetics but I’m not sure what branch of that particular science since I haven’t found the titles or abstracts of his papers.

He described himself as a population geneticist in his letter to Nature reproduced a few posts back. This is what he said:

Yes, I know what he said. But based on other things that he has said I’m not sure if I would just take his word for it.

Sometimes when you are the lone voice in the wilderness going against the general consensus you are a brave self-sacrificing visionary striving to change the status quo and open the eyes of others……but most of the times you’re just wrong.

He could also have added that after his Ph.D he received his habilitation degree - D.Sc (something I don’t think you have in America) for the study of tree genetics.

We have D.Sc here
Usually once you specialize enough to have a doctorate you don’t go and change that.
You may do further detailed work but generally you don’t make great leaps to another field.

He did his graduate work when genetics was in its infancy. Astounding advances have been made (particularly with regards to common origin) in the past 10 years. I don’t know what type of research work was done in the past in Poland. I do know that it appears that for the past 10 plus years he has been a political advisor and politician. So I’m not sure if he has kept up with the latest happenings in the field; from his statements it appears that he hasn’t.

…This is mistaken. His site lists a link to his publications which are offsite, but like most scientific papers you need special access or subscription to get there.

I clicked his publications link many times and it didn’t lead me anywhere that gave useful information.
Even the subscription sites will generally give a title, date, and abstract. (So that you know if it is worthwhile to subscribe)

 

[wildleafblower]

[msg. 222]steveandersen and hecd2,

I sympathise with your predicament. Perhaps you should get together and write a letter rebuking his biological statements, and get it published in Nature.

After all, he’s only a population geneticist and Academian. What does he know about it?

Prof. dr. Maciej Giertych has been rebuked:

**Kórnik, 20 November 2006
Prof. Maciej Giertych signed his letter (Nature 444: 16 November, 2006) concerning creationism versus evolution as an employee of the Institute of Dendrology, Polish Academy of Sciences. I would like to point out that while as the director of of the Institute I respect Prof. Giertych’s rights to express his views, they are not endorsed by our Institute. In my opinion creationism has no basis in science and should not be regarded as scientific.

Prof. Gabriela Lorenc-Plucińska
Director, Institute of Dendrology
Polish Academy of Sciences**
idpan.poznan.pl/Str-Int.%20wersja%20angielska.pdf

The pdf was located below the Institute of Dendrology’s logo.
Click on *Statement on Prof. Giertych’s letter published in Nature 444.
*idpan.poznan.pl/start_eng.html

Prof. Władysław Chałupka is head of the LABORATORY OF POPULATION GENETICS where Prof. dr. Maciej Giertych is a staff member.

idpan.poznan.pl/zakladyipracownie/genetyka/genetyka_eng.html

 

[hecd2]

Alec, from reading this thread, I think you presenting a falsehood: science is compatible with the Catholic faith. You should be familiar with my argument though…I do think you are being disingenuous for saying that evolution AND cosmology are compatible with the Catholic faith and the existence of a God that created the universe…Face it; if inflation is correct, as many of its predictions have been confirmed by the cosmic background radiation, it is safe to say the multiverse IS a FACT, not an atheistic speculation to evade the conclusions of the fine-tuning argument…Of course, the multiverse destroys the argument from design; it also destroys the notion of a God who created our universe to be special. Man is not the center of God’s creation…You believe in the multiverse right? How do you explain the anthropic coincidences if you don’t? Since you do not believe in God, you must believe in the multiverse…You can admit that inflationary cosmology, the dominant cosmological paradigm, actually undermines the Catholic faith and one cannot both be a Catholic and believe in inflation because of the eternal aspect of it.

No, no, I can’t accept much, if any, of this. Proving the non-existence of anything at all is quite difficult. Using scientific hypotheses or even well supported scientific theories to disprove the existence of God is a fool’s errand. One will never do it. The concept of a theistic God is not like some mathematical conjecture that we can prove or disprove in ten or a dozen pages of pure logic. It is too subtle and too big a concept for that. (I am as sceptical about claimed proofs FOR God’s existence as I am about proofs AGAINST His existence.)

It is extremely likely that there was an epoch of inflation in the early universe, and I say this because there is strong evidence for it, such as the gaussian, adiabatic and scale invariant nature of the anisotropies in the CMB. Whether that inevitably, in all cosmological models of inflation (of which there are many, many) leads to eternal inflation is moot, and if even if it does, it supports future-eternal scenarios more strongly than past-eternal scenarios. The point that I was making in the old posts that you quoted was that there is respectable theoretical physics (Guth, Linde, Hawking, Hartle) that is compatible with a no past-boundary condition cosmology - in other words I was pointing out that the Big Bang is not in itself *proof *for a Prime Mover. I think it is wrong to take the next step and suggest that eternal inflation and the speculative hypotheses of baby universes is proof for the non-existence of God.

You must know that the idea that the multiverse concept as a serious scientific hypothesis is very controversial amongst mainstream scientists - many criticise it for being untestable. In any case, I think it very unwise to base an argument against the existence of God solely on a hypothesis as speculative as the multiverse concept - Guth is far from convincing his fellow professional cosmologists, so we would be ill-advised to rely on his ideas for our world-view.

As for the fine tuning, it is a knotty problem given that physics is stuck with two incompatible theories, with discrepancies between them as large as factors of 120 orders of magnitude (!) and not the slightest idea why many of the basic building blocks of physics have the properties that they do. We can explain that by the weak anthropic principle and multiverses; by a designer; or by reconciling our physics and finding a fundamental rationale for why it as it is. I prefer to continue searching for natural explanations for the fine-tuning, but I don’t know whether that will be found in multiverses and the weak anthropic principle or in some as yet unknown physics or at all.

(BTW - I don’t *believe *in inflation - it’s not a matter of faith. I think that there is strong evidence for inflation in the early universe so its existence is highly probable - but I don’t *believe *in it)

Finally, contrary to what you say, it is possible to be a practising Catholic and an excellent physicist. They might be in a minority of theoretical physicists, but they exist (we can prove they exist), and they are quite likely to understand both inflationary physics and Catholic theology better than either of us. I give you, for a start, Stephen Barr and Michael Heller.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Thank the good Lord that they’re not holding to a mass population of non-humans getting that random cosmic ray mutation to humanhood at the exact same time. Not only would that violate the deposit of faith…it’s also rather silly .
DustinsDad

Good heavens!! You are right! That is amazingly silly. Uttely terminally silly! Sillier than a sack of monkeys. Sillier than an extremely silly thing drenched in hair mousse. You don’t actually know anyone who thinks things happened that way, do you? Do you? I don’t.

Good - we all agree that a mass population of non-humans getting a random cosmic ray mutation to humanhood at the exact same time is just plain cuckoo, but since we don’t know anyone who thinks that it happened that way we can forget it forever more.

Can’t we?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[ribozyme]

Alec, I thank you for your thoughtful response.

Do you think inflation happened, or you do not know? Inflation solves all of the major problems with the Big Bang, and as you stated the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation supports it.

Yes, inflation is not dogma, but a scientific hypothesis. Also evolution is too. Do you believe in evolution? As you pointed out that is a bad question to ask. I, too, do not believe in evolution. A better question would be “Do you think the evolution happened based on your evaluation of the evidence?” I ask that question to you, and the same question with “cosmic inflation” replacing “evolution”. Let’s just use the words “think” and “believe” interchangably in this case.

Regarding the objection that the multiverse is speculative. My argument against this is the fact that inflation is on a firm foundation. I doubt it will be displaced it a better hypothesis, and some hypotheses that compete with inflation are not compatible with a belief in a God who created the universe (e.g. cyclic model).

Ok, it seems to me that the father of inflation has convinced most cosmologists that inflation is eternal. I do not accept your assertion that Guth’s conclusions about future-eternal inflation are not well accepted. I expect you to provide resources from physicists who openly questions Guth’s arguments for future-eternal inflation. All I have now is your claim here. I read on wikipedia that “hybrid inflation” does not imply eternal inflation (supported with a reference to a Linde paper), but I think it is* ad hoc* to invoke additional scalar fields in addition to the inflaton field. Show us how the simplest models of inflation do not imply future-eternal inflation, contrary to Guth and other cosmologists who made major contributions to inflationary cosmology, from respectable sources, not your assertion here.

Right now my thoughts are:

If inflation then eternal inflation.

Show me how inflation does not imply eternal inflation. Yes, I know the multiverse can never be observed, and I even acknowledged it in this thread (with the statement: “Why would God create multiverses cannot that cannot be observed and appreciated by his creation? It seems superfluous for an anthropic universe.”). My argument is that inflation is indirect evidence for the multiverse.

I argue that one eternal inflation destroys the tradition concept of a God that cares for us… My argument that one cannot accept God and science is contingent on eternal inflation. You acknowleged that inflation is a strong scientific hypothesis. In you own words, “extremely likely”. If show that inflation does not imply eternal inflation, then I will retract this claim: " I think you presenting a falsehood; science is compatible with the Catholic faith. " My other argument is the incompatiblity of evolution with Catholicism, but my arguments are not fully articulated. But I will retract if you show some flaws with Linde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s reasoning, even if you did not address my (What’s to address? It is not posted here.) argument using evolution.

You choose the first option, but you did not cast serious doubt on eternal inflation.