So, how far do we take this ? What principles should govern the use of that type of objection so that it works as an intelligent argument ?
So arguments from the example of Jesus have to be used with care, if they are not to be absurd. That Jesus had nothing to say about Australia, does not make Australia unfit for mention by all later generations of his followers. And the same applies to evolution; for if it is a fact, then it is a fact, as much so as Australia, even though - on the evidence available - Jesus was as silent about Australia as about evolution.
You distorted my argument and ignored the premise: evolutionism is a cosmogeny and as such leaves the domain of the natural sciences and trespasses into philosophy and theology. Your version of evolutionism changes revelation which is forbidden.
Jesus upholds Moses and Genesis and you know this. But modernists in order to pursue their own perverse wills and doctrines subscribe to evolutionism as a means for introducing evolving dogmas:
St. Pius X thunders against them in *Pascendi Dominici Gregis *with this prophetic exhortation:
- To finish with this whole question of faith and its shoots, it remains to be seen, Venerable Brethren, what the Modernists have to say about their development. First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must change, and in this way they pass to what may be said to be, among the chief of their doctrines, that of Evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject - dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself, and the penalty of disobedience is death. The enunciation of this principle will not astonish anybody who bears in mind what the Modernists have had to say about each of these subjects. Having laid down this law of evolution, the Modernists themselves teach us how it works out. And first with regard to faith. The primitive form of faith, they tell us, was rudimentary and common to all men alike, for it had its origin in human nature and human life. Vital evolution brought with it progress, not by the accretion of new and purely adventitious forms from without, but by an increasing penetration of the religious sentiment in the conscience.
The modernist also flippantly shoves our Blessed Redeemer Jesus Christ to the side and attempts to deconstruct Genesis on his own philosophical terms. Jesus upholds Mosaic authorship and St. Basil the Great in his glorious
Hexameron makes this the primary consideration when treating Genesis: Moses spoke with God ‘face to face.’
Do not attempt to steal St. Thomas Aquinas in support of your errors, modernists. It is the Angelic Doctor who tells us in
Summa:
“Christ’s human intellect is enriched with the fullness of infused knowledge. For, by reason of the hypostatic union, the human faculties of our Lord are as perfect as such faculties can possibly be; and to have infused knowledge is a perfection of the human mind. By divinely infused knowledge, Christ as a man knows all that any or all human minds can learn by the rational power (for instance, Christ perfectly knows all human sciences); he also knows all revealed truths, and all truths made known to the human mind by the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the gratuitous graces.”
Your absurd arguments do not address the thesis. Jesus, the God-man, reveals the Father to the world. His knowledge is perfect, even about science as St. Thomas demonstrates above. If evolutionism, which changes revelation and destroys dogmas were really true, Jesus would have revealed it to us. But our Blessed Redeemer knows nothing of multiple Adams evolving over millions of years through processes of death, disease, mutations and extinctions. He teaches that the words of Moses cannot fail, not a single jot or tittle.
“If the light that is in you is darkness, how great then is that darkness!”
fficial&hs=MFF&sa=X&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=VUcUS4SEDdHvlAe1maixAg&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CDcQ5wIwCg
(In some trepidation of your expected response to my interpretation of the facts)
So, we are again agreed to disagree. Bless your heart.