... and continued

1) ... on "Catholic" Anti-Creationism · 2) ... continued · 3) ... and continued · 4) ... on "Catholic" Anti-Creationism - end of video

Continued from previous remark

"That is in and of itself a scientific question, and that is not an area where a theologian need enter".

Wellll ... what about scientific questions that have implications on theological questions?

Like "qui locutus est per prophetas".

Cush had earlier in the video to say God inspired the prophets to speak according to their own understanding ... letting one suspect this might have been one inadequate as to modern science.

But the words are not "qui prophetas loqui fecit." As Pope Leo XIII said, God is author of every word in the Bible (autograph of each book at least). And there is only so much wiggle room for scribal errors in that.

A scribal error can affect one version of the manuscript tradition, not all of them.

19:25 But what if Darwin went from Heretic (which Anglicans are) to Apostate?

On another occasion he wrote, ‘I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age’.16 He turned 40 in 1849. Commenting on this, Darwin’s biographer, James Moore, says, ‘… just as his clerical career had died a slow "natural death," so his faith had withered gradually’.17

CMI ... Darwin’s slippery slide into unbelief
by John M. Brentnall and Russell M. Grigg
http://creation.com/charles-darwins-slippery-slide-into-unbelief

Gives the references:

• 16) Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, Michael Joseph, London, 1991, p. 658.
• 17) James Moore, The Darwin Legend, Baker Books, Michigan, 1994, p. 46.

I don't think they would just lie about that. Especially since people can check (even if I can't) these references.

20:09 Cush, have you read Humani Generis lately? I had the impression from certain key passages Pius XII was permitting an academic defense from BOTH sides of the issue. You seem very set on exposing only one side of it.

"For these reasons 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 – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith."

Cited by me here: MSN Group Antimodernism in memoriam : One group member promoted Hutchison
http://antimodernisminmemoriam.blogspot.com/2014/03/one-group-member-promoted-hutchison.html

However, there is something eery and mousetrappish about the suggestion that a Creationist would need to submit to any pro-Evolution (man coming from simpler life forms!) decision, since such a decision could have no basis in faith and deposit of faith. On the other hand, there is an underhand notion that the question COULD after all be one of the deposit - which would (and rightly) condemn evolutionism.

20:40 Strynkowski and Ruiz are VERY sure an evolution from previous species and from simpler life forms happened. Obviously Neanderthals are not "a simpler life form" (like the supposed latest invertebrate ancestor of all vertebrates), but are they a previous species?

Are Heidelbergenses (from which some evolutionists say both we and Neanderthals developed separately) a previous species? Or do they descend from Adam and Eve, like we do? Or have you ditched a literal Adam and Eve too?

To St Thomas Aquinas, the Virgin birth of Christ is one of THREE exceptions to having both father and mother biologically. Adam had neither. Eve was not exactly a daughter of Adam, or daughter at all, since not born, but she was of a man only, not of any woman. THEN came Christ, of a woman but not of a man (a muliere, non a viro - He is of course filius Hominis by his Blessed Mother). If you ditch the textual literal sense of Genesis 2, you make the Virgin Birth a TOTAL exception, kind of a contradiction against nature.

The process of evolution is supposed to reflect on God's marvellous wisdom ... what about His goodness? How many Heidelbergenses had to suffer and die, on your view, so man could be an even better receptacle for a rational soul? On my view, Heidelberg man and Neanderthal man are rather recent descendants of Adam. Not VERY recent, not fakes, but magnitudes more recent than the conventional dating.

20:58 So Father James Wiseman finds "humans are related to ALL forms of life" OK (which it is, if understood as "related by a common Creator"), but "man developed from apes" offensive? But that is what evolutionists are saying, except recently they have started saying instead "man evolved from OTHER apes, from which came also chimps".

If these are offensive, is truth offensive, or are these not true?

21:17 So Strynkowski says:

• our spirit comes from God;
• we developed from other species not having that spirit, who simply had bodies coming ultimately from God but via evolution;
• but on ONE point (I suppose! if you are logic) man was there with such a spirit.

Was Adam orphaned after parents who had no spirit, like Tarzan was supposed to FEEL LIKE? Did Cain and Seth marry beings anatomically human, not descending from Adam and who got their rational spirit on completing marriage? Wouldn't that pose some problems about consent, for one thing?

21:53 Cush, was Wojtyla (see Cum ex Apostolatus!) saying that as a purely sociological and history of mentalities observation? Or was he - by using we - implying it was kind of normative in the Church as well?

Or was that kind of distinction abolished to him by the first paragraph of Gaudium et Spes saying we share all the concerns (not stating "only well founded ones") with the world?

22:02 Scientists keep discovering new aspects of evolution and of cosmos ... do ever creationists do so?

Or is "scientist" exclusive both of amateurs (like me) and of dissenters (also like me)?

Or can a creationist actually discover a SCIENTIFIC objection to evolution, like number of chromosomes problem:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

Like a solution to problem of rapid C14 rise:

Creation vs. Evolution : Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/09/radioactive-methods-revisited.html

Like an alternative explanation of faunas labelled Permian, Cretaceous etc?

Creation vs. Evolution : Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html

22:19 Most scientists, like the Church, do not find a conflict between their faith and their science? If you are speaking mainly of Catholic scientists, are you aware how little they know about the Four Meanings and Patristics? Mostly from recent, pro-Evolutionist, secondary sources.