The Church's position on faith and science - any objections?

[Stephentlig]

buffalo;5240773:

These are the same arguments I hear over and over again. And again, the Kolbe Center is not the pope nor the Magisterium. I’m done with this.

Thunderballs75 when you have the decency to read this topic from the beggining then we can effectively address your posts, because the whole topic ended on page 13 so your floggin a dead horse.

Stephen<3

 

[Luke65]

In fact, the Church father St. Augustine felt that Genesis should not be interpreted literally.

Do you mean St. Augustine, the Father and Doctor who wrote the two volume tome, The Literal Meaning of Genesis?

Does the theory that the earth is billions of years old contradict the Word of God? Yes.

St. Augustine: “Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been… But they say what they think, not what they know. They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.” (The City of God, 12, 10)

Does the theory of evolution contradict the Word of God? Yes.

St. Augustine: “But if we should suppose that God now makes a creature without having implanted its kind (genus) in His original creation, we should flatly contradict Sacred Scripture, which says that on the sixth day God finished all His works. For it is obvious that in accordance with those kinds of creatures which He first made, God makes many new things which He did not make then. But we cannot believe that He establishes a new kind, since He finished all His works on the sixth day.” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 5, 41)

And what should we do with theories that contradict the Word of God?

St. Augustine: “When they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture. But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. And we will cling to our Mediator, “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” [Colossians 2:3], that we will not be led astray by the glib talk of false philosophy or frightened by the superstition of false religion.” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1, 41)

So let the world believe what they want about the history of the world, we can know the truth, because we have the Word of the only One who was there - God!

 

[edwest2]

buffalo;5240729:

Yeah. Too bad that modern evolutionary theory supports monogenism. Oh yes, thank you for reminding me of this great encyclical.

“…the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter…” Mind you that this is in the 50’s when there was a lot less proof.

So evolutionary theory is not necessarily in contradiction with the Church. In fact, we are free to study it. And it certainly hasn’t been directly stated to be false, as you would like. This is also an authoritative statement, because in the same encyclical, Pius XII states that that encyclicals are sufficiently authoritative.

So if you go based on Humani Generis, the teaching of the Magisterium has been at most neutral. This is of course, leaving out all of the pro-evolution statements by the more recent popes and scientists. So your idea that the Church’s teaching has “constantly been anti-evolution” is very much false.

Please read this article:

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

thunderballs75;5240736:

Please read this article:

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

Peace,
Ed

Ed, this is not my quote.

 

[edwest2]

buffalo;5240729:

Yeah. Too bad that modern evolutionary theory supports monogenism. Oh yes, thank you for reminding me of this great encyclical.

“…the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter…” Mind you that this is in the 50’s when there was a lot less proof.

So evolutionary theory is not necessarily in contradiction with the Church. In fact, we are free to study it. And it certainly hasn’t been directly stated to be false, as you would like. This is also an authoritative statement, because in the same encyclical, Pius XII states that that encyclicals are sufficiently authoritative.

So if you go based on Humani Generis, the teaching of the Magisterium has been at most neutral. This is of course, leaving out all of the pro-evolution statements by the more recent popes and scientists. So your idea that the Church’s teaching has “constantly been anti-evolution” is very much false.

Please read this:

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

edwest2;5240973:

Ed, this is not my quote.

Sorry about that.

Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

thunderballs75;5240715:

The Church has been fighting evolution from the very beginning. The constant belief and teaching of the church has been anti-evolution. Humani Generis teaching against polygenism is as recent as the 50’s. That is the constant teaching and belief of the Magisterium.

Not true, Buffalo. As Mariano Artigas demonstrated in Negotiating Darwin (2006) there was no Vatican campaign against evolution. Of the six authors denounced to the Sacred Congregation of the Index, the reason in only four cases was evolution, and none of these were brought to trial.

 

[alacoque]

Of course its still a theory – so is gravity. You need to understand the relationship between “theory” and “fact.” Facts are what we observe; theories are the epistemologically higher-level constructions we use to explain them. The fact is that things fall down; the theory we use to explain this is gravity. The fact is that things show paleontological and genetic evidence of being related; the theory we we use to explain this is that they share a common evolutionary descent.

StAnastasia

St A: Your very erudite response/explanation in regard to the quoted section of my posting notwithstanding, I believe there is a difference between the term/meaning of ‘theory’ as it regards gravity and as it relates to evolution. Furthermore, I believe you know exactly what I was getting at and chose to further muddy the discussion by going off on a technical definition of terms. I’ll just say that the very first thing one has to determine, in even talking about this subject, is the definition of ‘evolution’. (and I think it’s something virtually everyone partaking in this discussion has so far failed to do). So we have people on all sides, all belief systems and all world views using the same word - evolution - when they, in fact, mean very different things.

Regarding gravity, I believe the universally predictable and repeatable results we have achieved in the sheer number and decades of observations, measurements and experiments designed to prove there IS gravity, can be said to have led us, with all but “absolute” cognitive certainty, to the sure conclusion that gravity does exist. (No, we cannot see it, because it is a force and we cannot see forces, only their affects). We do not have anything even remotely similar or certain, in science, that exists for evolution (as defined by the theory that man, as he is today, is totally and naturally evolved from lower primates. We have no missing link, no concrete or complete fossil evidence, nothing even close to making that link or connection as it relates to homo sapiens.

However, as you well know, the above is only one definition of evolution; only one meaning, among several, that people put to that term. My comments here are more about the manner in which you replied to my post (as if you’re teaching me something I don’t know) and to all of us using the term ‘evolution’ w/out anyone defining it - or defining ‘man’ for that matter. NB: There are those who define man as body/soul, material and spiritual, and those who define him only in a series of physical characteristics.)

As for myself, I can only say that none of this argument, whatever would ultimately be proven to be the outcome, would affect my faith, relationship with God or my salvation in any way. (so, in that sense, I kind of wonder what all the hoopla is about anyway…except that people enjoy discussing things just for the fun of discussing).

None of my Faith as a Catholic Christian is affected in the least by any manner in which creation (whether its origin OR its sustained condition) was or is accomplished. My faith and spiritual life would also not be affected in the least if an extra-terrestrial landed in my backyard tomorrow. To me, God is either the God of ALL, or He doesn’t exist at all. Nor is God one reality among other realities, but is the pre-condition of reality itself. So, either He is not real at all or ALL that is, is His, and comes from Him, has its source and existence in Him and disappears without His sustaining it in existence.

None of this is affected at all by how we mere (and quite limited) mortals wrangle on about ‘how He did it all’. We could all use a lot more humility and inquisitiveness and a lot less arrogance and pride in our so-called knowledge.

 

[Stephentlig]

buffalo;5240729:

Not true, Buffalo. As Mariano Artigas demonstrated in Negotiating Darwin

(2006) there was no Vatican campaign against evolution. Of the six authors denounced to the Sacred Congregation of the Index, the reason in only four cases was evolution, and none of these were brought to trial.
St.ana, these are the** infallible** pronouncements of the church, there has always been opposition of evoltuion from the church, you may have priests and even people in the vatican who have their thoughts, but just because they are in favour doesnt mean their thoughts are infallible and that it changes the infallible pronouncement of the church. This debate is no doubt favour of our Lord and his precious church. so ana just give up your job, buy a pair of sandals and a donkey, and come on home hug because Evolution was indeed brought to trial a long time ago and infallibly condemned. the last infallible pronouncement being 1950.

1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual” (no. 23). “Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, and Benedict XV in the Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu” (no. 24). The pope also broached the theory of evolution with caution by stating that the Church “does not forbid research and discussions…with regard to evolution,” but warns that “divine revelation demands the greatest moderation and caution” when so discussing, and says we must ultimately “submit to the judgment of the Church” (no. 36). The pope further condemned “polygenism,” the heretical belief that the human race is not the product of a single set of parents (Adam and Eve), but multiple parents, as evolutionary theory maintains.

In 1870, Vatican Council I issued an infallible dogmatic statement with an accompanying anathema: “If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema.” Once again, the Church infallibly proclaims that “the world and all things” in it are the product of an ex nihilo creation.

In addition, the Church, for the first time, adds the phrase “as regards their whole substance.” This phrase essentially prevents anyone from advancing the theory of evolution (that is, arguing that God made some parts, but evolution contributed to the other parts). Moreover, the Church affirms Lateran Council IV that both the “spiritual and material” were made out of nothing. Spiritual refers to the creation of angels, and no one has argued that angels were created by an evolutionary process. There is never any distinction between how God created the angels (instantaneously, out of nothing) and how God created humans (instantaneously, out of nothing). Pope Leo XIII affirmed the same in his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae. John Paul II has never (and could never) contradict this infallible teaching. Statements from the Pontifical Academy of Science (made up primarily of non-Catholic agnostics) have absolutely no authority.
*Catholic Apologist John salza *www.scripturecatholic.com:whackadoo:

 

[buffalo]

buffalo;5240729:

Not true, Buffalo. As Mariano Artigas demonstrated in Negotiating Darwin

(2006) there was no Vatican campaign against evolution. Of the six authors denounced to the Sacred Congregation of the Index, the reason in only four cases was evolution, and none of these were brought to trial.

The Church defended creation from the Greeks early on. The Stoics, the Epicurians to name a few all preached evolutionary origins. St Paul defended creation. Evolution goes back to before 200 BC.

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia;5244896:

The Church defended creation from the Greeks early on. The Stoics, the Epicurians to name a few all preached evolutionary origins. St Paul defended creation. Evolution goes back to before 200 BC.

Of course the Church defends creation, as do I – it is a fundamental doctrine, not just of Christianity but of Judaism and Islam as well. “Creation” as a doctrine is no more opposed to “evolution” than “squareness” is to “yellow.”

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia;5244896:

St.ana, these are the** infallible**

pronouncements of the church, there has always been opposition of evoltuion from the church, you may have priests and even people in the vatican who have their thoughts, but just because they are in favour doesnt mean their thoughts are infallible and that it changes the infallible pronouncement of the church. This debate is no doubt favour of our Lord and his precious church. so ana just give up your job, buy a pair of sandals and a donkey, and come on home hug because Evolution was indeed brought to trial a long time ago and infallibly condemned. the last infallible pronouncement being 1950.

The Church’s theological opinions are irrelevant on scientific matters. If the Church were officially to condemn the theory of gravity it would be irrelevant. What a pope or a council says about the genetic relationship between species matters not one whit. Scientists will continue to teach and to work and to publish results as if the Church doesn’t even exist.

And quite frankly, while I find mindless opposition to science tiresome, it is irrelevant. Most Catholic theologians are no more interested in opposing evolutionary biology than they are in opposing Big Bang physics. A great deal of creative work is being done on interpreting theology as if science matters.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

As for myself, I can only say that none of this argument, whatever would ultimately be proven to be the outcome, would affect my faith, relationship with God or my salvation in any way. (so, in that sense, I kind of wonder what all the hoopla is about anyway…except that people enjoy discussing things just for the fun of discussing).

I agree – how God creates is God’s decision, and the scientific evidence supports the idea of an ancient, dynamic, and evolving universe.

If you can find a reputable philosopher of science who argues that gravity is indeed a fact, please let me know. The people I read and with whom I talk at conferences refer to gravity as the theory that best explains the fact of things falling down, just as evolution is the theory that best explains why all life on earth is genetically related.

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

Stephentlig;5245358:

The Church’s theological opinions are irrelevant on scientific matters. If the Church were officially to condemn the theory of gravity it would be irrelevant. What a pope or a council says about the genetic relationship between species matters not one whit. Scientists will continue to teach and to work and to publish results as if the Church doesn’t even exist.

And quite frankly, while I find mindless opposition to science tiresome, it is irrelevant. Most Catholic theologians are no more interested in opposing evolutionary biology than they are in opposing Big Bang physics. A great deal of creative work is being done on interpreting theology as if science matters.

StAnastasia

Irrelevant? Not so. As your own posts demonstrate. The issue of man supposedly having some non-human ancestor is highly relevant to all Christians. Obedience to Church teaching is highly relevant.

The word evolution is not the whole of science. The two words are not interchangeable and should not be used interchangably.

There is no creative work being done to reinterpret the true origin of man and woman. It appears that “science matters” when it concerns theology, but only in establishing heretical ideas. I encourage all Catholics to be obedient to Church teaching which comes from God, not men.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Stephentlig]

StAnastasia;5246397:

Irrelevant? Not so. As your own posts demonstrate. The issue of man supposedly having some non-human ancestor is highly relevant to all Christians. Obedience to Church teaching is highly relevant.

The word evolution is not the whole of science. The two words are not interchangeable and should not be used interchangably.

There is no creative work being done to reinterpret the true origin of man and woman. It appears that “science matters” when it concerns theology, but only in establishing heretical ideas. I encourage all Catholics to be obedient to Church teaching which comes from God, not men.

Peace,
Ed

singing I’m so excited and I just cant hide it

:whackadoo::whackadoo::whackadoo::whackadoo::whackadoo::whackadoo::choocho::choocho::choocho:

 

[StAnastasia]

Irrelevant? Not so. As your own posts demonstrate. The issue of man supposedly having some non-human ancestor is highly relevant to all Christians.Peace,
Ed

That’s no doubt why Pope Benedict accepts common descent.

 

[StAnastasia]

[There is no creative work being done to reinterpret the true origin of man and woman. It appears that “science matters” when it concerns theology, but only in establishing heretical ideas. I encourage all Catholics to be obedient to Church teaching which comes from God, not men.Peace,Ed

On the contrary, there is a lot of creative work being done. Do you ever read the journal Theology and Science?
[/quote]

 

[geoformeo]

Your problem is that you look at the Holy Scriptures and you believe that the literal interpretation of the six days of Creation is “untenable”; but then you look at the scientific evidence and you can only see one way to interpret it - and its infallible! Did you know that the Pre-Cambrian strata, which dates by radioactive decay at billions of years old, has been dated by helium diffusion at about 6,000 years old? Quite a coincidence, don’t you think? Did you know that Dr. Russell Humphreys accurately predicted the strength of the magnetic fields of Neptune and Uranus based on a 6,000 year old solar system, while mainstream science’s prediction was off by 100,000 times?! Did you know that diamonds, which are supposedly billions of years old, have been carbon-dated in the 50-80 thousand year old range? And that the whole fossil record carbon-dates younger than that, even though its supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old? Did you know that “mitochondrial Eve” was estimated to have lived about 6,000 years ago?

Really, Luke65, did you want to go there and bring this stuff up? Do you know how fraudulent the YEC “Creation science” work is? How about you check out what true, honest Christian scientists say about the age of the Earth and radiometric dating techniques at asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm. Do you think that scientists from around the globe went to a hidden meeting and said, “We have to make up this technique called radiometric dating that will allow us to quantify an old Earth and make it irrational to reject evolution,” and that every scientist the world over is trying to feed this lie to everyone? You are walking on very thin ice when you start telling scientists they don’t know how to do their job, or that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

Did you know that I could go on and on?

It would be in your best interests if you did not.

But I ask you, which of these methods is the infallible one?! Answer: the ones that agree with the Word of God can be accepted, the others must be reinterpreted in the light of divine revelation.

Your ignorance on radiometric dating techniques is revealing, my friend. We can only use radiocarbon dating for extremely young materials (geologically speaking), as the half-life is 5730 years, and so is only effective for dating materials younger than at most 75,000 years (anything older than that will have gone through so many half-lives that the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes will be too small to quantify with certainty). Very, very little in the fossil record (or diamonds) can be used by this method. Which is why there are many more techniques with much older half-lives that, coincidentally, validate one another (as opposed to relying on one technique) on much older dates.

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

You should read that whole section (and so should Rossum!)

And if you notice the language written there, the literal sense is the meaning of Scripture and discovered by exegesis. If Moses were here today, do you think he would say that when he wrote that the sun was created on the 4th day (Gen. 1:16), that he meant that three 24-hour days had already passed, and that he was meaning to write historically when vegetation (which relies on the sun, as do most other living organisms) was created before the sun (Gen. 1:11)? Give the sacred writer a little bit of credit, he was no dummy, but your acceptance of the extreme literal interpretation makes him look a fool. When Jesus taught in parables, it was clear His meaning was the underlying truth conveyed by thoughtful reflection on the parable, not the factuality of the stories themselves. To interpret Scripture in the literal sense does not always mean taking it at face value.

Whoa! Its a question. Jesus asked it as a question. And I understand when not to go beyond what is written. But the answer for many is that they apostatize; others compartmentalize, like I did. I believed what Jesus said, but not what Moses wrote. But that crack in the foundation of my faith, the foundation of the Word of God - Genesis - led me into a life of sin. I didn’t take the Word of God seriously, so I didn’t take the Church seriously. And that disease has infected millions of Catholics. If you want Catholics to come home, you’d better get them to believe that God means what He says.

I would agree that not taking the Word of God seriously is a “disease,” but so is misinterpreting it. The root of both problems is poor catechesis, not some apparent conflict with science, because there isn’t any conflict. It is precisely when you teach a conflict between faith and science (poor catechesis) that people don’t take the Word of God seriously.

 

[geoformeo]

Oh, the hypocrisy! Talk about a wooden, literal interpretation! Here’s a little secret about Scripture interpretation: if that was all the passage means, it wouldn’t have been recorded in the Bible. The last thing we need is another passage about the incredulity of the Pharisees. Let me give you another example because its an excellent evangelical tool. Jesus told the Jews to obey the Pharisees, even if they’re wicked, because they “sit in the seat of Moses” (Matthew 23:2). But this wasn’t recorded in the New Testament to tell the Jews to obey the Pharisees! Jesus is telling us to obey the pope and the bishops because they sit in the seat of Peter and the Apostles. So in the same way, Jesus is rebuking us for our incredulity in what Moses wrote, since we believe that Moses accurately foretold the future - including the coming of Christ - but we don’t believe that he could accurately tell us the past.

I like your exegesis, but again, context is key. Jesus is exhorting His disciples (and us) in plain language in that verse. He did not use parable, or poetry, or apocalyptic language to convey that message, because what was spoken at face value was what He meant.

And notice, I am not denying the literal interpretation - it happened - but I am building the spiritual meaning on the sure foundation of the literal meaning. That’s called good exegesis.

Thank you for your exegetical insight.

How can you possibly say that? Oh yeah, I forgot, you’re an evolutionist, you have to make the Bible fit the theory, regardless of what the Church has taught for 2,000 years. Why is Seth called “the son of Adam” in that same verse? Because he got his spirit from Adam? No! Because he got his body from Adam (and Eve). And Adam is called “the son of God” because he got his body from God.

Do you not yet understand that everything that we have comes from God, whether supernaturally or naturally given to us? I’m sure you thank God for each new day, yet new days result from physical processes (governed by God). You may thank Him for your health, which comes by way of innumerable natural processes occurring in your body all the time. So what right do you have to criticize or ignore another one of God’s processes that He is using to complete His will? Our bodies ultimately come from God, through evolution.

Okay, I will comment: Jesus, the Son of an “ape-like animal”, is a different Jesus, a different Gospel then the one we received.

Does Jesus having a human body, the product of 4.6 billion years of biological evolution, make Him any less God? Does it change the Truth He spoke? Does it deny the Resurrection? Does it eliminate the forgiveness of sins? Does it make Him any less of our Lord and Savior? Of course not! Our faith in Christ is in no way invalidated by believing that the human body is the result of a natural process (under God’s control, of course). Let’s not forget that we are not gods, and needn’t be putting ourselves on a pedestal. Remember that it was God who lowered Himself to become pitiful man, not the other way around.

"I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge [Latin: *scientia

]. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way." (2 Corinthians 11:6)

But you say that St. Paul was completely clueless about 4.6 billion years of history.

“I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool.” (2 Corinthians 11:16)

Evolutionists do the same thing the gnostics did, they think they have “secret knowledge” that the Apostles didn’t know about. But St. Paul was no fool, he knew:

“They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.” (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)

That is not metaphorical.

Your haphazard citation of Scripture does not plead your case very well. Do you think that St. Paul was referring to his knowledge of the natural world when he said he had knowledge? Yes, he was clueless to 4.6 billion years of Earth’s history, as was everybody else at the time. But did he care about that? No, nor did his ignorance of it stop him from being an incredible evangelist. But you can’t honestly think that that is what he was referring to when he said “let no one take me for a fool.” I have no doubt about the chastisement in your final quote from 2 Thessalonians not being metaphorical, but Paul was speaking in reference to those “who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.” Yes, I am a theistic evolutionist, but I believe in Jesus (the Truth) and do not delight in wickedness. Explain to me how this quote refers directly to evolution and an old Earth, instead of one’s moral actions and the state of one’s soul with regard to their belief in Jesus?

I hope everyone has a blessed day.

 

[StAnastasia]

Does Jesus having a human body, the product of 4.6 billion years of biological evolution, make Him any less God? Does it change the Truth He spoke? Does it deny the Resurrection? Does it eliminate the forgiveness of sins? Does it make Him any less of our Lord and Savior? Of course not! Our faith in Christ is in no way invalidated by believing that the human body is the result of a natural process (under God’s control, of course). Let’s not forget that we are not gods, and needn’t be putting ourselves on a pedestal. Remember that it was God who lowered Himself to become pitiful man, not the other way around.

geoformo, Karl Rahner has written some profound theology on the Incarnation as God taking on the entire evolutionary order:

“In our context it is especially worthy of note that the point at which God in a final self-communication irrevocably and definitively lays hold on the totality of the reality created by him is characterized not as spirit but as flesh. It is this which authorizes the Christian to integrate the history of salvation into the history of the cosmos, even when myriad questions remain unanswered.”

	― *Natural Science and Reasonable Faith

StAnastasia