Why do fundamentalists believe the world is 6000-10000 years old?

[itinerant1]

Itinerant:
You seem to have reconciled an old earth with a sincere religious (Catholic) belief. How? Do you have, or, do you know of anyone who has written anything of a “theory” that could help people, especially Catholics, keep their faiths yet walk firmly with paleontology as regards OE reality?

The current writers of apologetics on this seem to lean heavily toward YEC. This confusion makes it tough to walk the walk. I work with dinosaurs and extinct species. I have split apart the layers and happened upon the fossil remains, all older than 10,000 years. I have counted layers of varves. God did not cause varves to occur to trick us.

Can you say something about your understanding of it all?
jd

You should find the books in this list helpful. Let me know if you have any questions about the titles. I have most of them, except for a couple of the booklets.

1. Dictionary of the Bible by John L. Mckenzie, S.J.
This is one of the best reference resources for studying the bible.

2. Evolution and Creation: A Catholic Understanding by Father William Kramer
This is an excellent work written for the non-specialist.

"Published in 1986 by the Catholic editor “Our Sunday Visitor”, Evolution and Creation : A Catholic Understanding is a 155-page introduction to the Creation/ evolution debate whose non-scholarly approach is justified by its intended readership: “those parents who must react wisely when their children return from school and announce that `the Bible is wrong’.”

3. Origin of the Human Species by Dr. Dennis Bonnette

I fully agree with the following review of Origin of the Human Species from Amazon:
“Although there are hundreds of books dealing with evolutionary theory and human origins, the large majority falls into one of two categories:

"-conventional natural science that embrace either atheistic naturalism or theistic evolutionism that fails to support basic elements of Christian theology particularly the historicity of Adam and Eve and the reality of Original Sin.

"-young-Earth creationism whose scientific credentials are suspect.

“Origin of the Human Species differs in that is shows in great detail how conventional human evolutionary theory is entirely compatible with sound Scriptural interpretation and traditional theology. Dr. Bonnette explores the force of opposing views, but adds philosophical analysis that affirms the absolute need for God’s continuous creative presence in any metaphysically complete explanation of the world.”

4. The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes by Mortimer J. Adler

The late Dr. Adler was a leading 20th century philosopher and educator who possessed an extensive background in neurophysiology.

The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes is an indispensable resource for understanding the fundamental issues raised by science and philosophers in regard to man’s essential nature. Adler analyzes numerous critical problems in a profoundly objective manner, from the Aristotelian-Thomistic perspective.

If you are unfamiliar with Aristotelian philosophical concepts, then Adler’s book, Aristotle for Everybody is a good place to start.

5. Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith by Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn

6. Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo

“This book documents the proceedings of the remarkable conference on the topic of “Creation and Evolution” hosted by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 at the papal summer residence, Castel Gandolfo. It includes papers that were presented from the fields of natural science, philosophy and theology, and records the subsequent discussion, in which Pope Benedict XVI himself participated.”

Titles continued in the next post

 

[itinerant1]

Cont. from previous post.
(Regarding the links to RealView Books, you need to scroll down their page to find the title listed here.)

7. The Bible and Science by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki
Currently out of print. Used copies can be found.

“Theologian and renowned scientist Stanley Jaki carefully unfolds both negative and positive aspects of the relationship between the Bible and modern science. This book is a vindication of the human mind, created in the image of God. Both science and Scripture are given their full due.”

8. Genesis 1: Through the Ages by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki
At RealView Books, ISBN 1-892548-00-3

Fr. Jaki presents and informed and enlightening discussion concerning the interpretations of Genesis 1 from Judaism, through the middle ages, to the present.

“Serenely accepting that Genesis 1 is predicated on an obsolete vision of the world as a flat disk covered by the solid dome of the heavens and surrounded by the upper and lower waters, Jaki nonetheless manages to offer a non-mythical interpretation he considers “valid for all ages”, based on exegetical clues found in such books as Jeremiah and the Psalms”.

9. Questions on Science and Religion by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki
ISBN 1-892548-41-0

10. Angels, Apes and Men by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki
ISBN 0-9774826-3-4

“The view that man is a superior sort of animal found in Rousseau its major prophet and in Darwin its principal scientific advocate. A powerful corrective to these two extreme views arose through the scientific achievements of Einstein and in spite of Einstein’s emphatic claim that bodily death was the end of man.”

Booklets by Fr. Jaki selling for $3.00.

11. The Garden of Eden: Why? Where? When? How Long? by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki
ISBN 1-892539-10-6

12. Evolution for Believers by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki
ISBN 1-892548-35-6

13. Intelligent Design? by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki
ISBN 0-9774826-0-X

“On no account should they espouse the fallacy of the “biblical” doctrine of the special creation of each species. This notion flies in the face of sound exegesis and sane theology. The shortcomings, often very serious, of Darwinian theory cannot be remedied with Intelligent Design theory, which philosophically cannot cope with design and purpose. Moreover, it is a subtle rehash of the doctrine of special creation. Even worse, as it claims to be a “scientific” theory of evolution, it implies that design, insofar as it means purpose (and indeed divine purpose) can be the object of measurements, which is the touchstone of truth in science.”

14. Darwin’s Designs by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki
ISBN 0-9774826-5-0

 

[itinerant1]

Who does God owe this explanation to?

Since the universe was created billions of years ago, there is nothing for God to explain.

 

[itinerant1]

You have given many fine examples that prove the point that what we observe may in fact be not what is really true. We must strive to purify our reasoning and one way is to use Revelation to illuminate it.

Revelation does not pertain to the natural sciences. What is revealed is accepted on faith. Scientific knowledge, on the other hand, proceeds from the natural light of reason. Religion and science are separate domains that cannot be reduced one to the other.

Revelation does not, for instance, illuminate radiometric or other forms of dating. It is a crass misuse of reason to discount reliable conclusions of science, especially when such arbitrary dismissals of science are motivated by fundamentalist and sectarian misconstruals of Scripture.

 

[itinerant1]

Why? because we are limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time? You have to claim that that is all there is. I do not. I can be open to natural and supernatural possibilities. You cannot. You have painted yourself into a corner with no way out.

We do not have all the information. What we have is very limited. From this we draw these certain conclusions?

Again - what to make of the left footprints on the beach. Did the generator owe you an explanation? Was the generator a deceiver?

Right you are - and there was a doubting Thomas wasn’t there? And how did Christ respond? He invited him to explore His wounds.

I fail to see any valid point here that is relevant to the thrread topic.

Perhaps you are implying that you know the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old because you have an open mind and accept supernatural possibilities. If so, that would be a crass form of question begging, besides it being a plainly ludicrous position to hold. So far, you have shown that you don’t have a leg to stand on. With nothing to stand on, you cannot even make left footprints on the beach.

 

[Magnanimity]

itinerant1,

just wanted to say thanks for that extensive reading list there. many of those titles look very intriguing, and the book-explanations you provide are excellent!

I would add one which indirectly touches the debate, but which nevertheless explores many issues at the intersection of philosophy and science for the thoughtful Catholic reader: Etienne Gilson, From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again.

 

[itinerant1]

itinerant1,

just wanted to say thanks for that extensive reading list there. many of those titles look very intriguing, and the book-explanations you provide are excellent!

I would add one which indirectly touches the debate, but which nevertheless explores many issues at the intersection of philosophy and science for the thoughtful Catholic reader: Etienne Gilson, From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again.

You are correct. Gilson’s book is first rate. The new publication by Ignatius Press, as you know, has an excellent introduction by Cardinal Schonborn. The only reason I didn’t list that title is because I was not sure how much classical philosophy background certain people on CAF have. Nonetheless, anything Gilson has written is well worth reading!

 

[buffalo]

Well since God is truth, it would seem quite strange for Him to design the universe in such a way that one would reach a false conclusion by studying it- like if I drew a painting and signed it “Picasso.”

No - it would be more like a painting with such beauty and depth that we could not fully understand what was in His mind.

 

[buffalo]

Revelation does not pertain to the natural sciences. .

Wong! Wrong! Wrong! Revelation illuminates everything.

 

[spn82756]

No - it would be more like a painting with such beauty and depth that we could not fully understand what was in His mind.

So…we don’t know what is in His mind? I agree whole heartidly. That’s why God gave us the ability to think. To learn. To grow and expand upon knowledge laid out for us by those before us in science.

I would like to ask a question. If the Bible…and specifically Genesis…is meant to be taken as a science book…then why are there not the answers to curing diseases? Why? Because God left it to man to develop all the sciences. He created the laws and gave us the intelligence and curiousity to persue the scientific answers to our questions.

You cannot dissociate one science and say it’s covered in the Bible…while saying the others are not.

 

[buffalo]

I fail to see any valid point here that is relevant to the thrread topic.

Perhaps you are implying that you know the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old because you have an open mind and accept supernatural possibilities. If so, that would be a crass form of question begging, besides it being a plainly ludicrous position to hold. So far, you have shown that you don’t have a leg to stand on. With nothing to stand on, you cannot even make left footprints on the beach.

That was great!

A ludicrous position to hold?

There is a whole list in Catholicism that is ludicrous to hold.

The geneaologies inform us of the age. This was the constant teaching and understanding of the Church until recently.

What it comes down to is God gave us information in Revelation. We either understood that rightly or it is wrong. (talking about God deceiving us)

A great assumption is that time is/was linear. In addition Genesis 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective. Now if God is able to manage time and accelerated the filmstrip it certainly could appear to us that all this took eons to build. So was it a short time for God or not?

Long ago I started a thread Revelation vs Science are we looking deep enough? (or something like that) Since then I haven’t seen much posted to satisfy the question.

I think there is much more than meets the eye here.

 

[buffalo]

So…we don’t know what is in His mind? I agree whole heartidly. That’s why God gave us the ability to think. To learn. To grow and expand upon knowledge laid out for us by those before us in science.

I would like to ask a question. If the Bible…and specifically Genesis…is meant to be taken as a science book…then why are there not the answers to curing diseases? Why? Because God left it to man to develop all the sciences. He created the laws and gave us the intelligence and curiousity to persue the scientific answers to our questions.

You cannot dissociate one science and say it’s covered in the Bible…while saying the others are not.

I do not claim Genesis is meant to be a science textbook. I claim that natural science is only one part of total truth. When empirical science is properly done we can draw some reasonable conclusions. When it is done a priori or becomes a philosophy then it becomes a big problem for we are not really getting at the truth.

Right back at you. You and others claim that anything science has to be disassociated from the truth of revelation.

I like the painting analogy. It is all there in the painting. The artist God knows the painting, we can only see it from our perspective. God through Revelation gives us commentary to better appreciate and learn about it.

 

[cassini]

Ah, so the men who were on the Moon should have concluded that the moon was the center of the universe? After all, that’s what their sense told them.

Yes tjm, they could have. No matter where men go they will experience that relativity. But the earth is the globe full of life on which men live and which we speak of. Indeed, while I know you did not intend it you have demonstrated the reality that others will not. In other words the earth COULD BE the centre of the universe, physically, just as anywhere else could be the physical centre of the universe.

Now its up to the Copernicans to retract their fraud, that man has PROVEN heliocentricism.

Copernicanism was the first attack on the literal interpretation of Genesis. It was the hermeneutics arising out of this case that led to the attack on the young age of the earth as depicted in the Scriptures. If the Copernican fraud is admitted we can then move on to the other frauds.

 

[edwest2]

What would you say if you saw a man blind from birth instantly given sight? No technology was involved.

What about a man who said he could raise himself from the dead? This happened but one of his disciples said that unless he saw for himself he wouldn’t believe it. Pretty reasonable to not believe a man could rise from the dead. So what does he say when this man physically appears and tells him to put his fingers in his wounds? “My Lord and my God.”

Paul tells the people, if Christ is not risen then you, and me, We’ve got nothing.

I don’t think certain things God did are subject to an explanation that man can detect. Certainly not feeding 5,000 people with a few loaves and fishes, and having baskets with leftovers after.

I’m not saying don’t talk or think about it, but realize that a possible answer is that God did in fact do something beyond human understanding. Catholics believe that just as Jesus took bread and wine and said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” He wasn’t kidding. This does offend some people. I understand that. But God was here physically and died physically and rose physically for a purpose. That is the message of the Catholic Church.

I know that offends some people. It offends their intellect because they want to know how.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tjm190]

Yes tjm, they could have. No matter where men go they will experience that relativity. But the earth is the globe full of life on which men live and which we speak of. Indeed, while I know you did not intend it you have demonstrated the reality that others will not. In other words the earth COULD BE the centre of the universe, physically, just as anywhere else could be the physical centre of the universe.

Now its up to the Copernicans to retract their fraud, that man has PROVEN heliocentricism.

Copernicanism was the first attack on the literal interpretation of Genesis. It was the hermeneutics arising out of this case that led to the attack on the young age of the earth as depicted in the Scriptures. If the Copernican fraud is admitted we can then move on to the other frauds.

Copernicus proved that several observed phenomena work just as well without the Earth being at the center of the universe.

We use physics to discern the most likely actual positioning of celestial bodies- for the Earth to be at the center, every celestial body would have to be lined up 100% perfectly, lest we would be pulled one way harder than the other. Since these bodies are all in motion, this becomes infinitely complex and therefore infinitely unlikely. That’s called proving beyond reasonable doubt.
If I said “this is a fair coin” and flipped it 2 million times and didn’t get a single tails, you would probably say I was wrong about the coin being fair.

 

[greylorn]

EVERY fundamentalist I’ve seen and met has said that the earth is only 6000-10000 years old. Weren’t the dinosaurs here millions of years ago? Oh, wait, I’ve heard some of them deny they existed

To understand the beliefs of fundamentalists requires recognizing that each normal human has two physically distinct information processing mechanisms.

One is, of course, the brain.

The other is the entity which Catholics and lots of other believers call, the “soul.”

The brain is a brilliantly engineered information mechanism designed to gather (through the senses) retain, and process whatever data comes its way. It is good at associating various items of information, but that’s all it really does. It is not logical.

The brain does not discriminate between information except upon an emotional level. Only “soul” can do that, and it rarely starts waking up and taking charge until a person is in their 20’s. For most people, it never takes charge, but simply goes along for the ride.

Fundamentalists are simply people whose little brains were programmed as children to believe certain absurd concepts. They cannot unprogram their own brains because at the level of soul, they are barely conscious and have no ability to perform critical thinking.

All religious systems are aware of their ability to freely program the brains of children, and all take good advantage of it. But programming is not isolated to religion. Democrats are simply brain-dominated people whose parents were democrats. It is why brand names are important. Programming of the barely conscious human brain is most commonly carried out by the advertising industry, and politicians.

 

[greylorn]

Copernicus proved that several observed phenomena work just as well without the Earth being at the center of the universe.

We use physics to discern the most likely actual positioning of celestial bodies- for the Earth to be at the center, every celestial body would have to be lined up 100% perfectly, lest we would be pulled one way harder than the other. Since these bodies are all in motion, this becomes infinitely complex and therefore infinitely unlikely. That’s called proving beyond reasonable doubt.
If I said “this is a fair coin” and flipped it 2 million times and didn’t get a single tails, you would probably say I was wrong about the coin being fair.

Kindly forgive a few corrections. Copernicus did not prove anything. He simply proposed a solar-centric theory which stated that the planets moved in perfect circles around the sun, which is untrue. How then could he have proved it?

Your statement, “every celestial body would have to be lined up 100% perfectly, lest we would be pulled one way harder than the other,” is meaningless. Bowling balls can be lined up with respect to defined reference points, notably the bowling lane and pin pit. What, for example, does “lined up” mean in the context of a system of moving objects?

Your statement about reasonable doubt is not connected to anything you wrote prior thereto.

Were you trying to snow someone here? Why are you posting such drivel?

 

[pzona]

If the Bible contains such empirical “scientific” truths, wouldn’t it have made sense for early Christians to have proposed these truths to the scientific community? This could have lead to some earlier advances in science, and a greatly reduced tension between religion and science, assuming that these “truths” were actually correct.

To say that Revelation, or any other book, contains such information is simply not true. If it were, then the questions I proposed above require an answer.

It’s quite easy to take modern scientific information and interpret certain verses to fit. This seems to be an effort to claim that religion had the answers before science. Like I said before, if this were the case, why did early Christians not propose these ideas to scientists and allow them to verify them? Is it most likely that science was out to conspire against religion, that these “scientific” ideas in the Bible were being interpreted incorrectly, or that there is no scientific idea there in the first place?

I’ve started a discussion in the Social Justice subforum about the tension between religion and science, and I invite you all to share your thoughts about this, as it seems like the root of this discussion is very closely related to what I’ve said here. At the very least, take a look at this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=412562

 

[tjm190]

Kindly forgive a few corrections. Copernicus did not prove anything. He simply proposed a solar-centric theory which stated that the planets moved in perfect circles around the sun, which is untrue. How then could he have proved it?

What he proved was that we would still see the things we see if the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe.

Your statement, “every celestial body would have to be lined up 100% perfectly, lest we would be pulled one way harder than the other,” is meaningless. Bowling balls can be lined up with respect to defined reference points, notably the bowling lane and pin pit. What, for example, does “lined up” mean in the context of a system of moving objects?

Lined up meaning that the sum of the gravitational forces on Earth would have to zero. Everything in the universe exerts a force on everything else.

Your statement about reasonable doubt is not connected to anything you wrote prior thereto.

Were you trying to snow someone here? Why are you posting such drivel?

Do you accept that if we were being pulled harder in one direction than in the other, we would move in that direction?

 

[itinerant1]

That was great!
A ludicrous position to hold?

There is a whole list in Catholicism that is ludicrous to hold.

And what would those things be that are ludicrous?

The geneaologies inform us of the age. This was the constant teaching and understanding of the Church until recently.

The Church’s understanding of the Bible has made great strides. I can’t say the same for every individual Catholic.

On what grounds do you think you know better than the majority of biblical scholars? Are you learned in the history of biblical interpretation in Judaism from pre-rabbinic times to the present, and throughout two thousand years of Christianity?

And how is your biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek coming along? Are you fluent in these languages.

How well read are you in the Church Fathers? I see by your arguments, that you are not well read at all. If you had learned anything from St. Augustine’s *De doctrina christiana *you would not be saying most of the things you have said.

A great assumption is that time is/was linear. In addition Genesis 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective. Now if God is able to manage time and accelerated the filmstrip it certainly could appear to us that all this took eons to build. So was it a short time for God or not?

Very revealing of you. This is rank theology. That time is linear is not an assumption. It is the unique worldview of Christianity. Most, if not all ancient cultures believed that history is cyclical. The Incarnation itself testifies to the linear nature of history. Likewise the message of salvation, as a once and final event testifies to the linear nature of history.

Your accelerated filmstrip hypothesis is totally groundless speculation. There is no evidence for it in science or theology. In fact, all the evidence goes against it. If you had any background in classical philosophy and Catholic theology I would show how your argument degrades God’s Providence over creation.

Long ago I started a thread Revelation vs Science are we looking deep enough? (or something like that) Since then I haven’t seen much posted to satisfy the question.

I think there is much more than meets the eye here.

I don’t think you are looking deep at all. Your fundamentalist/creationism represents a superficial understanding of the Bible and science. The best you can offer is totally imaginative scenario of an accelerated filmstrip. Do you have any real arguments to support your position?