Wrong-Believing Franciscan, Second Part of His Video

Franciscan (Or Something) Wrong on Creation Evolution Issue · Wrong-Believing Franciscan, Second Part of His Video

We are still on this video:

Can a Christian Believe in Evolution?
22nd Oct. 2018 | Breaking In The Habit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXM5Qk_XsXk

I

4:30 In fact, all of Scripture needs the literal interpretation, while all or parts also need each of Allegoric, Moral and Anagogic. The famous quadriga Cassiani.

II

4:43 "both written in the style of myth"

You misrepresent mythology by taking "myth" as a style or genre.

Some of it, like much of Hesiod's Theogony is only and all of it is presented as "prophecy" - Hesiod meets the nine Muses.

But tragedies about Oedipus or epics about Ulysses (both Iliad and Odyssey include him) are presented as "history". Actions done by and to men, and visible to men surviving them and hence told.

Now, Genesis 2 is fairly obviously autobiography of Adam, hence history.

Genesis 1 is, most of it, Moses' vision of creation, hence prophecy.

BOTH involve creation of male and female and their vocation to fertility, and therefore both are consistent with as second is saying, man was created in one primordial couple. We need to take this as a historic and also dogmatic or dogmatically relevant datum.

4:53 If neither is scientific, both are historic.

Genesis 1 is history reached by prophecy, namely Moses' prophecy.

Genesis 2 is history directly accessible to a human observer, namely Adam.

Scientific or not is a red herring. Historic is the important point to keep in mind.

III

5:01 "allegorical in nature"

You are misrepresenting the historic Catholic reading of Genesis.

Sensus allegoricus is an extra on all of OT history, as prophetic about Our Lord, Our Lady, the Church, their enemies. The kind of thing Jesus exposed to Apostles during 40 days, after Resurrection, and which Bereans checked very carefully, if it fitted or showed a discrepancy.

The idea of Origen and St. Augustine of Hippo to not take the word "day" at face value was a minority position.

IV

5:12 I note your quotemining leaves out whether the problem to St. Augustine is, as you state, a literal reading or sth else.

V

5:56 "but saw no intrinsic conflict between the theory and Scripture"

I think you miss several important nuances. He didn't say there was no conflict, he also foresaw a debate (which people like you by misrepresenting Humani Generis have foreclosed) between both those seing a conflct and those not seeing it, both those defending the traditional position and those accepting evolution.

VI

6:06 Ratzinger's position was not held by Pius XII in Humani Generis.

He refrained from holding a position either favourable or unfavourable to evolution, and allowed the exact debate which you are still stifling. And antipope Ratzinger ignoring.

VII

6:48 Yes, indeed, God created. Past tense.

Challoner on Genesis 2:2 states:

[2] "He rested": That is, he ceased to make or create any new kinds of things. Though, as our Lord tells us, John 5. 17,"He still worketh", viz., by conserving and governing all things, and creating souls.

6:58 God is still upholding His work and He is still creating souls.

Even more, while God is inherently capable of creating, He is freely so, He is not inherently obliged to create.

He created us because He wanted to, not out of some kind of incontinence.

B U T suppose you had a point, God could if so be creating universe after universe, there could be a "wood between the worlds" and if you go up from the pool connected to our world, you can go down the one leading to Charn or to Narnia ... on the other hand, even that vision seems flawed, since the vision of Charn, with a sun hundreds of thousands of years old and therefore red, and a "Harmageddon" showdown between two evil and corrupt representatives of the Charn dynasty and the most evil of them destroying her own world, and the evil having lasted generations and generations with no counter-balancing good ... I can't see God having upheld that.

VIII

7:17 While the genetic code may not have existed before, or may have done so, it is not created out of nothing, but out of that of the two parents.

But the problem is, you are reducing the credenda to "God creates" - as opposed to believing also thereabout "in perfect goodness, omniscient wisdom, and He followed a certain order involving angels and men, some of the angels falling and soon after that man fallen, and man was promised a redeemer from the first year or the first few years of the universe."

IX

7:38 Karl Rahner - haven't read.

Teilhard de Chardin - famously said "before there was life, there was pre-life, before there was consciousness, there was pre-consciousness" and I forget whether it was C. S. Lewis or Rev. Bryan Houghton who replied in his books that one could parody it as "before there was light, there was pre-light" with the remark "which normal people call darkness".

Oh, by the way, Teilhard de Chardin also hailed the Piltdown man.

He was either incompetent as palaeontologist, or accomplice to this fraud.

X

7:54 "truth cannot contradict truth"

And the Bible, unlike the conclusions of philosophers, is guaranteed to be God's truth, so the choice between two contradictory options is easy.

And I do not find myself the least wading in waters of uncertainty on that one.

8:05 And what exactly did St. Augustine mean by empiric evidence in this context?

He actually meant evidence that was actually empiric.

"the earth is flat"
- Eratosthenes showed it was bent
"the stars are glued to the disc of heaven"
- at least those called planets, as well as sun and moon (also called planets back then) seem to move with some freedom against the zodiac.

You do NOT have anything remotely equal to such empiric certainties in the evolutionary reconstruction of a millions or billions of years long past.

"denying what the whole scientific community accepts"

He very obviously used no such words, because "the entire scientific community" didn't exist then. It only became a community through universities founded by Roman Catholics who were both Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric.

Besides, you do not even now have an entire scientific community accepting millions and billions of years, or heliocentric acentric Newton cum Big Bang cosmology.

All the team on CMI are Young Earth Creationist, and a majority of them are scientists. One friend of Robert Sungenis in Croatia is both physicist and Geocentric - I think his name is Luka Popov.

But even if you had, a consensus of all of a community concerning themselves with empiric evidence is not the equivalent of actually having such empiric evidence.