Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy

[PhilVaz]

PoG << His Holiness is not directly quoting from Holy Scripture where you might attempt to argue that a passage could have an allegorical meaning. These are his own clear and precise words >>

Yes, but he is indeed quoting directly from Scripture. Adam created “on the sixth day” and from the “slime of the earth” and that God “breathed into his face the breath of life” come directly from the Douay-Rheims translation of Genesis 1-2.

“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…”

Was Leo XIII a young-earther? I doubt it but I’d have to look into his other encyclicals or writings. You do understand that we’ve known the earth is very old for at least 200 years (well before Leo XIII, and well before Darwin). We’ve known since the 1950’s the precise age.

Phil P

 

[PoG]

Phil - You still haven’t answered my question about where exactly you think it ranks in the definitions of doctrine if you do not think it qualifies as de fide. That is an important question.

I do think that it’s de fide, not only because of the introductory words “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any…” but because at that time it was what the Church had always believed.

Please read the posts #109, #110 and #111 and tell us whether you think that by Vatican II’s “test” it qualifies as de fide.

 

[PhilVaz]

PoG << Phil - You still haven’t answered my question about where exactly you think it ranks in the definitions of doctrine if you do not think it qualifies as de fide. That is an important question. >>

Doesn’t matter. What is De Fide is “God created man” i.e. see here

The first man was created by God. (De Fide)

I accept that, again this is from Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. He knows Catholic dogma better than all of us and he says theistic evolution is fine with faith and De Fide dogma.

HOW God created man is not De Fide. You are saying HOW God created man, and WHEN God created man is De Fide?

Nope my position hasn’t changed since post #1 of this thread, I’ve read all the posts, and the other 4.5 billion creation-evolution threads with a million posts each.

PoG << I do think that it’s de fide >>

What is De Fide? The “sixth day” ? The “slime of the earth” ? The “breath of God” ? That God has a mouth and lungs? Which of these are De Fide? Be specific about which of Leo XIII’s words is De Fide and what we are required to believe about HOW (by what processes) man was created, and WHEN (how long ago).

My position is God created man is De Fide, HOW or WHEN is not. I would also suppose Leo XIII meant “God created man” not how and when, but I would have to check out all his encyclicals and writings. Takes time.

Phil P

 

[wildleafblower]

We await confirmation that PoG’s other claims about Berthault are correct… For example:

PoG claims that Dr Berthault holds the equivalent of three PhDs. So far we don’t have the slightest evidence to support that claim. (A PhD in France is as rigourous as elsewhere – it requires a minimum of four years and up to six years of training and research culminating in a thesis, which is published and which is filtered by peer review and then defended in person in front of a jury of established scientists) PoG would have us believe that Berthault has three of these. How does he know this? It should be easy to cite the three theses.

PoG claims that Berthault’s main interest in is in physics. Has he published a single paper in physics in a peer-reviewed journal? Not to my knowledge.

PoG claims that Berthault was recently invited to present his research to an important geological conference in Europe. What was that conference? We want to know.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

After an extensive search pertaining to your requests, I was able to retrieve the following documents which may provide the results you desired:

1. Guy Berthault Ph.D., Professor of sedimentology, is a Graduate of Ecole Polytechnique, France. He directed the program of sedimentology research at the State University of Colorado (Engineering Center) in the U.S.A.
   rae.org/darwinskeptics.html
2. An article Evolution Questioned by European Parliament Member

*Wednesday, October 11th was an historic day in the life of the European Parliament. Polish member of the European Parliament, Maciej Giertych, retired head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Science, and father of Polish Deputy Prime Minister, Roman Giertych, introduced a public seminar on the General Theory of Evolution to fellow MEP’s.
Professor Giertych questioned the value of teaching a continually falsified hypothesis - macroevolution - to students throughout Europe, as well as pointing out its lack of usefulness in regard to scientific endeavour.

Professor Giertych introduced the subject by relating how his children had returned home from school having been taught about the theory of evolution. They were told that the proof of macroevolution - the common ancestry of biological life - was to be found in the science of genetics. This was news to Professor Giertych who had spent his life working at the highest level of genetic research. He revealed to the meeting that such proof does not exist in genetics, only disproof.

This was reinforced by the speech of Professor Emeritus Joseph Mastropaolo who had travelled from the USA to participate in the Brussels hearing. He explained that the biological sciences offer no empirical proof of macroevolution, just insurmountable problems. The theory of evolution consists merely of interpretational evidences which by their very nature could be interpreted in many different ways. He told the audience that the theory, after more than 150 years, still lacked any empirical proof.

Dr. Hans Zillmer, a German Palaeontologist and member of the New York Academy of Sciences, told the meeting that the fossil record holds no proof for evolution theory either. Instead of showing gradual change from one species to another, as is often claimed in the classroom, it actually reveals the stasis and stability of life forms.*

(continued page 1 of 2)

 

[wildleafblower]

(page 2 of 2)
*Finally, Dr. Guy Berthault spoke to the audience about the results of his empirical research programmes concerning the deposition of sediments. Contrary to the established idea that the geologic column was formed slowly over millions of years, horizontal layer by layer, he revealed that his ongoing research proves empirically that the whole column could have been laid down in a matter of months. His research, which has been published in journals of the National Academy of Sciences in France, Russia and China, shows that continuous deposition of water borne sediments sort themselves mechanically and a simple change in current velocity cause strata to build upon each other whilst still progressing in the direction of flow.

In opposition to the existing notion of sediment deposition that is generally taught, Dr. Berthault revealed that his empirical experimental results clearly show that parts of undisturbed lower strata are actually younger than parts of higher strata laid down in a continuous flow.

This means that fossils can not be dated by the strata that they are found in, nor the rocks dated by the type of fossils found in them and makes nonsense of the geologic column as it is currently taught.

Amongst those helping to organise the historic seminar were Dr. Dominique Tassot, Director of Centre d’Etude et de Prospectives sur la Science (C.E.P). C.E.P. is an organisation consisting of 700 French speaking scientists, intellectuals and representatives of other professions, all of whom oppose evolutionary theory on scientific grounds.
Information: research conducted by Dr. G. Berthault
geology.ref.ac/berthault

Attachment for general information:
Recent interview with Dr. Tassot - August 22nd, 2006.*

216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-evolution_questioned_by_european.htm++Dr+Berthault
Shocking and sad news for me to have read.

 

[wildleafblower]

Nobel laureate and Pontifical Academy of Sciences ACADEMICIAN Christian DE DUVE (1) of Christian de Duve Institute of Cellular Pathology participated in The Cultural Values of Science, Plenary Session, 8-11 November 2002, Vatican City, 2003. His article **THE FACTS OF LIFE **begins on page 71 of this pfd:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/archivio/s.v.105_cultural_values/part2.pdf

Here are two excerpts from his article :

Pg. 75: * In recent years, opposition to the notion of a natural origin of life has been voiced by a very small but vocal minority of scientifically trained persons who, while subscribing to the notion of a LUCA appearing de novo on Earth and evolving into present-day living organisms, claim that these phenomena could not possibly have taken place by purely natural processes, but required the intervention of some nonmaterial guiding entity that forced the raw materials of life to interact so as to produce the first living cells and also, as will be mentioned later, directed the further course of evolution (Behe, 1996; Dembski, 1998; Denton, 1998). Known under the name of ‘intelligent design’, this theory, which is close to vitalism, has been magnified much beyond its merits because of its alleged philosophical and theological implications . I shall come back to it when discussing evolution. Let me simply state now that serious flaws have been detected in the scientific arguments brought forward in its support.*

Pg. 76: 5. The Theory of Evolution Is More than a Hypothesis- In those words, Pope John-Paul II, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in a solemn session, on 22 October 1996, expressed the acceptance of biological evolution by the Church. Considering the implications of this statement, the evidence that convinced the Pontiff must be truly decisive. And so it is. Actually, the Pope’s statement was overly cautious. **Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, implicit in the common descent of all living organisms and established with the same degree of certainty. **Thanks to the information provided by fossils and complemented by molecular phylogenies, we have a rough idea of the timing and manner in which evolution has proceeded. A schematic outline of its main steps is shown in Table 1. Bacteria were the sole representatives of life on Earth during more than one billion years. The first eukaryotes emerged around 2.2 billion years ago, probably as the outcome of a long evolutionary history of which no fossil trace has yet been found; they remained unicellular for more than another billion years. It is only after life had completed some three-fourths of its history on Earth that primitive multicellular plants, fungi, and animals first appeared, slowly giving rise to more complex forms.
I read on wikipedia “De Duve proposes that peroxisomes may have been the first endosymbionts, which allowed cells to withstand the growing amounts of free molecular oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere. Since peroxisomes have no DNA of their own, this proposal has much less evidence than the similar claims for mitochondria and chloroplasts.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_de_Duve

Dr. Alec MacAndrew wrote a splendid article **A different kind of transitional **which mentions endosymbionts! WOW! What a flash back in time for me.

evolutionpages.com/blog/2006_10_01_archive.html

P.s. Please note that George V. Coyne, S.J. (2) article MODERN COSMOLOGY AND LIFE’S MEANING appears on the above mentioned pdf which I located here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/rc_acdsci_doc_190999_publications_it.html

We love you Father Coyne! You are always in my prayers.

Peace, joy, and love to everyone ~

Wildleafblower

1. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/deduve.html

2)vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/coyne.html

I wanted to continue on with the topic presented in my message #89 after having located more information about Nobel laureate and Pontifical Academy of Sciences ACADEMICIAN Christian DE DUVE.

(continued page 1 of 2)

 

[wildleafblower]

(continued page 2 of 2)

Nobel laureate and Pontifical Academy of Sciences ACADEMICIAN Christian DE DUVE has written a new book entitled Singularities Here is an excerpt from the article:

*Why are the underlying mechanisms of life so similar?
The title of de Duve’s book refers to the many singularities that are consistent across the history of life. In the intoduction to the book, he details the possible mechanisms that could be responsible for such singularities.

First, there is deterministic necessity. It’s possible that “things could not have been otherwise, given the physical-chemical conditions that existed.” All of chemistry obeys this law.

Another possibility is that there may originally have been more diverse possibilities, but only one survived due to contemporary environmental conditions. This externally imposed “selective bottleneck” would explain singularities as the product of Darwinian selection. Alternatively, de Duve suggests that perhaps “internal constraints imposed, for example, by the structures of genomes or the existing body plans, funnel evolution through an increasingly narrow pathway that ends in a singularity.” He points out that in a related scheme, this funnel may also have simply occurred by natural attrition rather than selection over the ages. He calls this mechanism a “pseudo bottleneck.”

The other mechanisms of singularity considered by de Duve include, in the order of decreasing probability, a “frozen accident,” a possibility that existed among two or more of equal probability but could not be turned back once it was initiated by chance; and, finally, the “fantastic stroke of luck,” a highly improbable event that, by definition, can have happened only once. De Duve also mentions intelligent design as a mechanism, but only to dispute its scientific validity.*
nyas.org/publications/readersReport.asp?articleID=49

I’m not sure what a “pseudo bottleneck” means. Perhaps Alec might be able to explain it better to us? help

Don’t forget to read a chapter of the book !!! Awesome Singularities LANDMARKS ON THE PATHWAYS OF LIFE by CHRISTIAN DE DUVE

nyas.org/pdfs/RWEx56_deduve.pdf

Singularities! I’ve read about it elsewhere but for the life of me I’m lost for words where and when. Hummm.

Oh, before I forget, I thought you might like to know that Dr. DE DUVE graduated from the Catholic University of Louvain in 1934!!!
nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1974/duve-autobio.html

 

[PhilVaz]

wild << I wanted to continue on with the topic presented in my message #89 >>

Hey no fair quoting yourself. Appreciate how you can dig up those documents! OK, you are on the PhilVaz, (Hecd) Alec, SteveA, (Orogeny) Tim side vs. Buffalo / PoG / and a million others in here on the other side.

Phil P

 

[wildleafblower]

wild << I wanted to continue on with the topic presented in my message #89 >>

Hey no fair quoting yourself. Appreciate how you can dig up those documents! OK, you are on the PhilVaz, (Hecd) Alec, SteveA, (Orogeny) Tim side vs. Buffalo / PoG / and a million others in here on the other side.

Phil P

Haven’t you noticed that women tend to repeat the same thing over and over again

And thanks, I’m proud to stand with humble gratitude alongside the great masterminds of all time (PhilVaz, Alec, SteveA, (Orogeny) Tim, etc.)! May the Holy Spirit of God keep you alert, safe, and at peace with the world.

 

[buffalo]

show me which one of PhilVaz’s refferences that indicate Catholic dogma regarding YEC

show me a Kolbe Center claim that passes scientific muster.

I have not made this claim. But I still ask for a Dogma concerning heliocentrism. There is none. So don’t use that argument anymore.

I have continually argued that our understanding of scientific obeservations and theories must reconcile with the truth of Divine revelation, those dogma that I listed. You have failed to do so.

 

[buffalo]

wild << I wanted to continue on with the topic presented in my message #89 >>

Hey no fair quoting yourself. Appreciate how you can dig up those documents! OK, you are on the PhilVaz, (Hecd) Alec, SteveA, (Orogeny) Tim side vs. Buffalo / PoG / and a million others in here on the other side.

Phil P

What “side” do you think I am on? and why?

 

[Orogeny]

1. Guy Berthault Ph.D., Professor of sedimentology, is a Graduate of Ecole Polytechnique, France. He directed the program of sedimentology research at the State University of Colorado (Engineering Center) in the U.S.A.
   rae.org/darwinskeptics.html

Berthault was never a program director at CSU. In fact, my contact at CSU indicated that Berthault doesn’t hold a Ph.D. He did sponsor some research there back in the 1990’s.

Peace

Tim

 

[PoG]

This is my last post concerning Guy Berthault or anyone else because I want the thread to stay within the perimeters of Magisterial Teaching and actions concerning evolution.

But it seems to me that surprise at the holding of the equivalent of 3 Ph.D.'s is probably a misunderstanding of the French system and has led to some confusion. There is also confusion everywhere about Guy Berhault’s qualifications. The Kolbe Center - of who he is an advisor - don’t claim that he has a Ph.D (or three) but state that he is a Graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique.

I’ve checked the Ecole Polytechnique site and their system is different from the American system but leads to what they call a “Doctorat” which is the equivalent of Ph.D. status. The Graduate course takes someone up to the end of the first year of Ph.D study in the American system. Then there is a further two years to attain Doctorat status. So if we relate the French system to the American one a French Graduate has completed one year out of three in the American Ph.D system. Further, the American system specializes in one subject. The French system is multi-disciplinary training which may be where the equivalence of 3 “Ph.D.'s” compared to 1 comes in.

I also found that the Ecole Polytechnique is consistently considered the best scientific university in France and has a long history. It is rated by the Times Educational Supplement as no.10 in the world. A comparison and history is linked below
www.polytechnique.edu/page.php?MID=169&LID=1&PID=172
www.polytechnique.edu/page.php?MID=17

 

[PoG]

FAITH & REASON continued from post #62

Vatican Council I opened on December 8th, 1869 and its Third Session, April 1870, concentrated exclusively on matters pertaining to Creation, Revelation, faith and reason. Why it should do so at this particular time in Church history becomes obvious when we consider that just eleven years previously, in 1859, Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” was first published. Eleven years later the macroevolutionary notion posited in the General Theory had made an enormous impression upon the rationalist, intellectual class of Europe. Already, in 1860, the Provincial Council of Cologne had decreed in no uncertain terms that:

Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that the opinion of those who do not fear to assert that this human being, man, as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith. [9]

Although a Provincial Council Decree does not in itself carry the weight of a de fide teaching it is most certainly Magisterial and was approved by the Church. The famous German theologian Matthias Scheeben, in his Dogmatica, Book III, condemned the idea of human evolution as being heretical. Rev. Fr. B. Harrison informs us that, following the example of the Council of Cologne, a dogmatic decree defining the Special Creation of the bodies of Adam and Eve was expected to be proclaimed by the First Vatican Council but unfortunately the Council had not reached that point when it was forced to close, unfinished. But the Vatican Council, reflecting and reminding the Church Militant of Lateran IV’s dogmatic definition of Creation, did manage to state in its Dogmatic Constitution that:

This one true God, by His goodness and almighty power, not with the intention of increasing His happiness, nor indeed of obtaining happiness, but in order to manifest His perfection by the good things which He bestows on what He creates, by an absolutely free plan, together from the beginning of time brought into being from nothing the twofold created order, that is the spiritual and the bodily, the angelic and the earthly, and thereafter the human which is, in a way, common to both since it is composed of spirit and body. [10]

It’s Canons contain the following:

On God the Creator of all Things: V. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by His will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves Himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

On Faith: IV. If anyone says that all miracles are impossible, and that therefore all reports of them, even those contained in Sacred Scripture, are to be set aside as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the Divine origin of the Christian religion be proved from them: let him be anathema.

On Faith: VI. If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true Faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the Faith which they have already received from the teaching of the Church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema.

On Faith and Reason: I. If anyone says that in Divine Revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that all the dogmas of the Faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles: let him be anathema.

On Faith and Reason: II. If anyone says that human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to Divine Revelation, and that they may not be forbidden by the Church: let him be anathema.

On Faith and Reason: III. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema. [11]

The Canons of Session III finish with a stern and prophetic admonition:

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the Constitutions and Decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this Holy See. [12]

 

[hecd2]

PoG no longer wants to write about Guy Berthault. Let us be very clear about this. PoG was the person who introduced Monsieur Berthault to this thread in the first place. He linked us to an interview with the creationist metal processing engineer, Tassot, who goes on and on over three pages of the transcript of the interview treating the creationist Berthault as though he is an expert geologist who is just about to overturn the entire 250 years of scientific geology. PoG did so in support of his view that these ‘experts’ are persuading the current pope that the opinions of the Young Earth Creationist Kolbe Center are correct. When I pointed out that Berthault is a crank and that Ratzinger would display culpable gullibility to be influenced by him into condemning the Theory of Evolution, he sprang to Berthault’s defence. In my haste to point out Berthault’s true status in science, I made two false statements which I fully acknowledge. Meanwhile PoG in his attempt to puff Berthault up into some sort of authority has directly claimed or implied a number of things which at best he cannot or chooses not to support and at worst are plain untrue. PoG might find it convenient to drop the subject at this point, but I do not.

May the Good Lord …lead you back to His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which, I have to remind you, there is no salvation.

Poppycock. I will thank you not to preach gratuitously at me.

I did not claim this [that Berthault holds the equivalent of three PhDs] at all. I claimed that I had read somewhere or other that he held the equivalent of 3 Ph.D’s.

So you are to be exonerated from all blame by writing, in defence of Berthault, that you had read ‘somewhere or other’ that he has the equivalent of three PhDs rather than claiming it directly? Your clear implication was that Berthault is highly educated in science. Why, if you want our exchange to be open and honest, raise his putative PhDs in such a way, that, if challenged, you can run away behind the errors of the anonymous individual whose claim you read and reproduced here and who can bear the blame for their falsity like a nameless and threadbare scapegoat. That is not a worthy way to act. I don’t doubt that Berthault has one doctorate (although it may well turn out that he has none). In another post you continue to wriggle about this matter thus:

But it seems to me that surprise at the holding of the equivalent of 3 Ph.D.'s is probably a misunderstanding of the French system and has led to some confusion.

There is absolutely no confusion whatsoever on my part and I am not ‘surprised’ by this claim but rather utterly ‘sceptical’ of it. I am very clear about what is required to earn a PhD or a doctorat in the French system, whether it is at a university or a Grande Ecole. In every case the candidate has to do a minimum of three years research and write a published thesis that they defend in front of a jury. See here:
tinyurl.com/svp2z
and here:
ecoledoctorale.polytechnique.fr/va/formation/formation.html
Furthermore there is no way either a French bachelors degree or masters degree or indeed a doctorate is equivalent to three US or UK PhDs. In all three nations the doctorate requires a minimum of three years original research and the publication and defence of a thesis. I think it is disgraceful to attempt to wriggle out of one’s erroneous claims by accusing one’s audience of confusion. The Grande Ecole bachelor’s system is indeed multidisciplinary, but time is time and the French are not supermen, so breadth is paid for by compromises in depth. A French doctorat is exactly equivalent to a UK or US PhD, so to claim that Berthault has the equivalent of three PhDs is to claim he has three doctorats. It is insult to those who have worked like Trojans to gain a PhD from institutions equally or more prestigious than the Ecole Polytechnique to suggest that Berthault has three.

I also found that the Ecole Polytechnique is consistently considered the best scientific university in France and has a long history. It is rated by the Times Educational Supplement as no.10 in the world

That would be the Times Higher Educational Supplement, a different publication. I’m afraid the Ecole Polytechnique has plummeted in world ranking between 2005 and 2006. It was indeed number 10 in 2005 but the 2006 world rankings place it number 37. Don’t get me wrong – this is very good, but facts is facts. In Europe it is number nine after six UK institutions (Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, LSE, UCL and Edinburgh), another French grande ecole (Ecole Normale Superieure), and the Swiss ETH Zurich. But the key question isn’t whether Ecole Polytechnique is prestigious or not – of course it is – the question is whether Berthault has three or even one PhDs.

to be continued

 

[hecd2]

I’ve got no idea whether he’s been published in a physics journal either. But I wouldn’t be surprised.

So on what exactly did you base your statement that Berthault’s main interest was physics, another brick in your edifice of Berthault’s prestige and authority? You claimed his main interest was physics. Why? Did you have good reason for saying so? If so let’s hear it. Did you make it up?

** Posted by hecd2**
PoG claims that Berthault was recently invited to present his research to an important geological conference in Europe. What was that conference? We want to know.

I’m sure that you do want to know Alec, and I do know exactly what it was, but it’s not for me to make a public announcement about it. So you can believe it or not, until or unless it is announced. Sorry.

Bah! If this is so wonderfully confidential, why raise it in support of Berthault’s standing in the first place? Why are you in this confidence? What can possibly be so sensitive about someone being invited to give a paper at a scientific conference? This is utterly absurd. Just let’s get this right – you are defending Berthault’s reputation on the basis that he has been invited to present to a prestigious European conference on geology but that invitation is confidential and might or might not be announced. For heaven’s sake, pull the other one. Don’t you see how ridiculous you are making yourself?

Yes, this is the Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics. I did claim this and I am having doubts as to whether I heard this somewhere or whether it is a mistaken impression

What will you do in the event that we cannot get confirmation one way or the other? I know what I would do.

Look, I feely admit I was hasty and made an arse of myself by claiming that Berthault had never published in a mainstream French journal and that the low impact factor Russian journal was not connected to the RAS. You say your conscience is clear about what you have said to (unjustifiably) promote Berthault’s reputation. On the basis of what we see above, should you be so sanguine?

To conclude, Berthault is a crank. The fact of the matter is that his 21st century publications (the ones that make hubristic claims for his findings) are in obscure Chinese and Russian journals because high impact mainstream journals won’t touch his work with a barge pole. And the reason for that is because his ‘revolutionary’ geology is, frankly, nonsense. It can’t get through the first round of expert peer review.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Orogeny]

I don’t doubt that Berthault has one doctorate (although it may well turn out that he has none).

Actually, according to someone who worked very closely with Berthault at Colorado State University and who respects Berthault while completely disagreeing with his crank conclusions, Berthault does not possess a Ph.D…

Peace

Tim

 

[hecd2]

Here is the passage in question, again, so that we can remind ourselves of it.

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.

gottle of geer:

It’s impossible historically, quite apart from anything else, becase it takes for granted a much more recent earth, & a much younger race, than is in fact possible.

PoG:

Than is in fact, possible? Are you claiming that man possesses complete and infallible knowledge about history and natural processes. I had always thought that science reached tentative conclusions about its investigations - conclusions that change over time. Are you saying that Revealed Truth also changes over time or that tentative scientific conclusions contain more truth, are more accurate than Catholic doctrine?

Than is in fact possible. As long as you accept that man can reach truth through his own efforts and the exercise of reason, then it IMPOSSIBLE to accept a 6000 year old universe and a creation of six natural days. In fact to believe such a thing requires us to set aside all reason and to accept that the plain conclusions of our reason and our senses is in conflict with Tradition and Revelation and that Tradition and Revelation trump reason and sense data. Whatever happened to the teaching that reason and revelation should not be in conflict?

Of course we do not possess complete and infallible knowledge about history and natural processes. Of course not. No scientist could possibly believe such a thing - why, if he did he would give up science and agitate for the closure of the thousands of scientific journals that report new findings. Scientists accept that their conclusions are tentative.

But to accept the tentative nature of science is not to accept that all things are possible. We can be as confident about some scientific conclusions as about anything, **anything **in this mortal world. For example, we can be sure, utterly sure, that the force of gravity does not diminish as the cube of the distance between two bodies. We can be sure, utterly sure, that water does not have a molecular weight of 17u. We can be sure, utterly sure, that humans do not possess 48 chromosomes. I could go on indefinitely about things that we can be sure are not. These scientific counter-conclusions will not change over time. And some of these things that will not change include the impossibility of a 6000 year old universe, and the creation in six natural days (short of deceptive miracles, of course. Deceptive miracles trump everything, but then where would the teaching of the compatibility between reason and revelation be?). Your fallacy is to claim that the tentative nature of science is equivalent to accepting that anything goes. It just isn’t so.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

The RC Church does stand for truth. Again I ask you to zero in on not whether evolution is possible, but whether man himself evolved.

The Church has constantly taught that man was created by God,

I see no conflict with evolutionary science in that statement. Do you?

The Church has rejected polygenism.

If the Church has truly taught that in such a way that admits of no other interpretation but that all humans today are biological descendants of a single ancestral pair, and that humans have no other ancestors, then the Church is wrong and you, not I, will have to decide whether that invalidates all her doctrine.

Now I will pose the trickster question another way. Why would God through Divine Revelation try to trick us to believe that Adam and Eve were our first parents? Why would He try to decieve us into believing that Eve came directly from Adam? Why would He let this deception prevail for so long if the truth is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit?

That is not a question that I need to answer since, as you know I have no belief in Revelation or Authority. But if I put myself in the shoes of an enlightened believer, I would say to each generation his own, let each generation understand the deep meaning of scripture in the light of what that generation knows about the natural world. And in the case of the story of Adam and Eve, I see hugely significant parables about the loss of human innocence and the fall from a non-self-regarding state into self-realisation, and the consciousness of mortality and the will to plan and implement evil. But I do not accept a literal Adam and Eve 6,500 years ago. That cannot be.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

The proposed mechanism for the theory of evolution is not a fact either. It is a hypothesis.

Gosh - how appalling muddled.

Now then let’s untangle PoG’s cat’s cradle of nonsense. What PoG should have written is:

The Theory of Evolution is the proposed mechanism for the fact of evolution. It is a theory.

PoG - do you know what a scientific theory is? I’m sure you’ll look it up.

Alec
evolutionpages.com