Kennedy Hall vs Evolution : Correct Side, Good Will, Some Things to Catch Up On ·
Kennedy Hall vs Bergoglio on Heaven and Hell
Catholic Church teaching on Evolution
The Kennedy Report, 5 April 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVhv7Q5mohw
5:08 Such adaptations you speak of now are
not micro-evolution, since they involve no
genetic change. Confusing the two is Lamarckism.
If you moved to a warm climate, your hair would remain relatively straight (actually "wavy" rather than technically "straight"). If a Nigerian moved to UK, not only did his hair remain curly, but he gave curly hair as part of the genetic heritage to Calvin Robinson.
Between Adam and us, some line must have gone from curly hair to straight, or from straight to curly. And within straight, from wavy to technically straight or from technically straight to wavy - unless both came from curly separately. That's a mutation, and whether it involved adaptation or not, it was selected for and offspring was produced.
5:54 I would say, speciation or change of species still would fall within micro-evolution.
Baraminologists have stated and I agree, the Biblical kinds are usually not species or even genus, but things as broad as families or subfamilies.
We have five genus of hedgehog that add up to seventeen species of hedgehog. I am fairly confident, there was one pair of hedgehogs on the Ark.
Possibly, gymnures too descend from it ... (hedgehogs are a subfamily, hedgehogs and gymnures together a family).
The exception would be man. Adam's descendants are not limited to species "Homo sapiens" but include some fossil species - but only of genus "Homo" ... three pre-Flood races or to anthropologists "species" are what we descend from today : "Homo sapiens, Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Denisovae" - I would go as far as to say that this also involves the Antecessor of Atapuerca (committing cannibalism "in the days of Noah" - confer Matthew 24, and yes, cannibalism is on the rise in crime records, even if it has fallen in missionary fields) and the Homo heidelbergensis,
since Antecessor and Heidelbergensis share the same morphology (Heidelbergensis has no genetic tests, apart from Antecessor), and Antecessor (or Heidelbergensis in Atapuerca, as some prefer) shares the specific genes with Denisovans.
I would say, Noah found some inlaws in Spain, where Denisovans (aka Antecessor) lived in Atapuerca, and Neanderthals in El Sidrón. I mean, daughters in law.
12:15 Taking a cue from already accepted Catholic Creationist Dominic Tassot, and elaborating as a more or less linguist - a person who had non-human progenitors would have a huge problem learning to speak.
Stating Adam was a baby and his progenitors weren't human, would make him a feral child.
Stating Adam was a baby, his parents were human too, would make him not the first man.
The one involves God being wantonly cruel to Adam before he sinned. The other involves God being wantonly cruel to us when we don't inherit original sin from a first parent.
I have challenged Jimmy Akin to provide the quotes from Osservatore Romano, sixties, where theologians pretended to have found ways around the restrictive parts of Humani Generis - he hasn't.
15:33 Penicilline works against some bacteria - garlic is more universal basically all bacteria, and virus too.
Penicilline is naturally present in blue cheese.
16:01 Two very notable examples:
a) no one has observed a beast kind or species of it evolve language comparable to human language, with infinite productivity of statements
b) no one has observed a new cell type evolve in the body of any creature.
Man has, on a low count, 111 different types of cells in the body.
Evolutionary theory requires man to have evolved from a one celled organism, which by definition has only one cell type in the body. New cell types are definitely not observed. An estimate is new cell types except nervous cells evolved at a rate of 1 every 3 million years. An event that happens once every three million years, nearly by definition is not an observed event.
Back to a) - all "fossil hominins from the ancestry of man" fall into three classes;
i) those that have human ears (or much more human than chimp ears), area of Broca (visible in the skull), human hyoid, human FOXP2 if genetically tested
ij) those that have half chimp ears, no area of Broca, ape hyoid
iij) those where the remains are indecisive on one or more points, perhaps all, permitting no firm conclusion
and exclude:
iv)
"those that clearly combine traits of i and ij" (non-extant group).
Meaning - you either have speech or "you" haven't.
21:59 No Church Father thought the world could even be 10 000 years old.
Origen mentioned that exact number, but specifically said "less than" - and given that at least all LXX based Biblical chronologies put Creation 5200 - 5500 before the birth of Our Lord and Saviour, he could not say "less than 5000 years" - and picked 10 000 years as next round number, which was
certainly too big.
24:30 He never uses in the relevant paragraph the word "believe" about Adam's non-human biological origin.
He never directly says "you may" about discussing.
He says "the magisterium does not forbid" which is simply a wavering of otherwise possibly applicable bans, not a lifting of them.
And the action the magisterium does not forbid is discussing.
Now, he specifically said "of both sides" but I think you misinterpret that in saying anyone speaking on the subject must teach both pros and cons and refrain from making up his mind, it actually means, he was (verbally and in that document, whatever his attitudes outside it) inviting to a debate like between you or me and Jimmy Akin (who is alas Evolutionist).
The qualification involved is being "expertus" in both science and Bible, whether that means each participant has to be it in both, or each side must involve both types of participants. However, "expertus" does not mean the noun "expert" which didn't exist. Romans have no general word for "expert" - they have specific words for specific types of what we would consider experts, but they do not have a habitual concept, enshrined in a separate word, for expertise as such.
One more important point. He never says that the deference to the judgement of the Church needs to be before a future such decision. In other words, at least verbally, he does not exclude the deference I claim to have for Patristic Unanimity as per Trent Session IV or Adam's individuality as per Trent Session V (he himself actually underlined the necessity for that one, by condemning polygenism).
24:56 We were languages and literature at university.
Karl Keating before getting full time into Catholic answers was a lawyer. Introibo, a sedevacantist, who supports old age creationism, and a separate creation of Adam, still is a lawyer.
Now, what lawyers are exposed to at university is necessarily modern. Yes, you have to study Roman law, but not as intensely as say, case law of the last 200 or even 100 years.
If Introibo had been in a Novus Ordo parish, the risks are, he would be as supportive of even polygenism as Karl Keating and Jimmy Akin.
For Jimmy Akin it could be an exaggerated repentance of his former Presbyterianism ... (and he's 15 years younger than Karl Keating).
"evolution is not Church teaching"
When I converted in 1988, while Mgr Lefebvre was still in Communion with "John Paul II" and Pope Michael hadn't been elected yet, it wasn't.
Unfortunately, early 90's (including § 283 of the CCC) has added a "Church teaching" in favour of "modern science" for those believing "John Paul II" was pope and effectively used papal powers. Other examples is replacing "5199" with "unknown centuries" and in US even "unknown ages" in the Christmas proclamation.
26:23 One
could imagine two Biblical scholars with no science background but different hunch about the value of "modern science" debating the Biblical side, while two Scientists debate the scientific side ("is evolution from lower life forms a proven?") ... but unfortunately this kind of programme was never actually implemented.
One could also imagine one and the same man on the same side filling in for both fields.
Note, as said, no word about the participants having to be university accredited experts in the fields, since that is not what "expertus" means in Classical Latin.
28:10 I am afraid, Pius XII de facto gave a blank check to people who advocated Adam's body being born from non-human progenitors.
In other words, he was on this point a lazy watchdog.
The other thing that overtly and certainly happened is, moral theologians who would not want to indict Pius XII for allowing heresy to be defended - even if that is what he in fact did, and this was about as bad as or worse than Pope Honorius - concluded from the document that:
a) it
must be licit to be for evolution
b) at least tentatively
c) hence, no either Biblical nor Scientific expertise could be allowed to contradict the licitness
This is why, as far as I know, the 50's and 60's saw no huge confrontation of expertise against evolution.
A secret judgement of God, concludable from what I know from Romans 1 and can conclude from news stories is, in the 40's, when some people were assuming Adam born of two anatomical Homo sapiens who were not really human yet, the one and only form of the challenge Pius XII had specifically allowed, some concluded God had committed to Adam the cruelty of creating him as offspring of non-humans, had justified this by paedagogic reasons, and, as the real God handed them over to their basest desires, they concluded pederasty could have a paedagogic function too.
It's in the 40's - not the 60's - that the stories from victims of child abuse start. I specifically checked when the report came out, if there had been victims in the 30's, they could be still surviving and claiming damages.
"favourable to evolution" in this paragraph is obviously referring to "favourable of an evolutionary origin of Adam's body" ....
30:07 "most recent authoritative"
I think Pius XII was about as authoritative as Pontius Pilate washing his hands ...
29:34 There has been no judgement of the Church subsequent to this, unless you consider John Paul II was Pope in the early 90's ...
Either way, there has been a judgement of the Church prior to this, it's called the Council of Trent. Both Sessions IV and V are relevant.
31:31 Jimmy Akin would obviously pretend that during the "pontificate" of "John Paul II" the new facts would have overturned this preliminary (and formulated as preliminary) caution.
I approve of your disapproval of Evolution. I have more issues with your whitewashing Pius XII being a good Pope and "John Paul II" being even a Pope at all ...
Pius XII unfortunately drew up some of the lines so that the subsequent apostasy was possible.
32:19 Star fusion is
not invoked to explain hydrogen.
However, hydrogen needs to be explained. If Hydrogen is all the time turning into Deuterium and Deuterium into Helium, or sometimes Deuterium + Hydrogen => Tritium, and Tritium + Hydrogen => Helium, any finite amount of Hydrogen would in infinite time be depleted an infinite time ago, and even assuming an infinite amount of Hydrogen but with finite density, the density of Hydrogen anywhere in stars would also already have become a density of Helium.
Eternal steady-state universe is out - Duns Scotus was right - and this makes for problems for an atheistic or evolution believing world view.
35:16 Chemicals do form amino acids in certain conditions.
The actual problem, handled better by CMI than by Kolbe Institute, is, the amino acids so formed come in both chiralities, there is no membrane, the chemicals in membranes are very different from the amino-acids formed in the Miller-Urey experiment, the chemical reactions do not provide useful information for the so formed amino-acids, I found one more myself if it is not just a miss on my part, some of the amino-acids actually needed in life are absent from what those processes form.
38:06 For radiocarbon, I differ.
It does not give absolute and correct values, but it gives values relatively in the right order.
For an object from the Flood to carbon date at 39 000 years ago, which I think is the correct value, based on the eruption of Campi Flegrei, dated by volcanic ash, organic things burning up by heat and falling down as ash with carbon residue, it needs to have started out with 1.625 pmC. The 1950's atmosphere had somewhat less than 100 pmC in the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12. This seems to have been reached (averaging on the value of 100 pmC), at the Fall of Troy. In the time from the Flood to the Fall of Troy, 1772 years, the medium production of carbon 14 was five times as fast as now.
This means that for these times, there are
two processes making sure that the older samples have less carbon 14 than the more recent ones.
a) as usual, the more time goes since a sample is cut off from carbon additions from the atmosphere (directly in green plants, indirectly in animals and saprophytes), the less is left of it;
b) but
also the more recent a sample is, the more carbon 14 it had to begin with.
Excepting exceptions, like nearby Uranium adding more neutrons, therefore more carbon 14 to a sample (even if it is closed off, neutrons spread inward), and therefore dating younger - or like animals ingesting old carbon dating older.
The painting from last century, stolen from an art class and carbon dated to 1200 years old, probably had acrylic paint. Acrylic paint is a petrol product, and petrol means carbon that cased breathing in an atmosphere with 1.625 pmC, not 100 pmC, 5000 years ago. It is therefore a radical example of this "reservoir effect" ...
After carbon 14 reaches 100 pmC (or therearound) we do have wiggles of varied original carbon 14 - leading to varied discrepancies between the raw carbon date and the actual age, whether it's accessible before carbon dating, as part of the calibration, or accessible after it, through the calibration.
All dates between 760 / 750 and 450 BC carbon date, with very few exceptions, as 550 BC.
This would explain why archaeologists pretend that Rome was founded 550 BC, they did their dating before the calibration was available, but it is arguably the greatest wiggle. Because it is the one used by a Creationist "against the reliability of carbon dating" ... and this would be clearly inferior to a radically higher production speed leading to the rise between Flood and Troy, faster between Flood and Babel than between Babel and Genesis 14, faster between Babel and Genesis 14 than between Genesis 14 and fall of Jericho (1470, carbon dated to 1550), and from then to Fall of Troy, we have no faster rise than compatible with later wiggles.
38:25 "influx of radiocarbon into earths atmosphere" - I'd like to know how that argument goes, I think this might be a bad argument, one not to use.
38:40 They missed out on the fact that land vertebrates when found as fossils are generally just one layer in each locality.
You find a pterodactyl in Ankerschlag, in Tyrol, I think Jurassic, well, you can't dig below it and find Permian land or sea creatures below it.
You find a whale in Linz, Upper Austria, you can't dig below it and find pterodactyls under it. Just for the record, Ankerschlag is about 300 km West of Linz (about same distance from Mount Judi to Göbekli Tepe, symbolically, since whales are air breathing creatures that survive in the sea, see Ark, and pteordactyls are monsters that soar upward, what Tower of Babel was meant to) ... and it is also far higher above sea level.
IF evolution were true, you would expect something like Grand Canyon (with several different layers, but only of sea creatures) to exist for land animals. If it exists, I haven't heard of it. And yes, I have scoured both wikipedia and google site palaeocritti for land vertebrate fossils found in layers above and below each other, has not happened.
