Genesis and Science I

Genesis and Science I · Genesis and Science II · III - Genesis and the Church

Q answered by me

How does the Catholic Church reconcile Genesis with modern science?
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-Catholic-Church-reconcile-Genesis-with-modern-science/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

6.XII.2022

St. Nicolas of Myra

You mean with electronics?

Where do the six days conflict with Ohm’s law?

You mean chemistry?

Do you have any place where the Psalms credit hydrogen with three valencies?

You mean linguistics?

Is there any indication that speech of a community would not “naturally” change over time? (Actually more fashions than nature, but it’s kind of natural to fallen man to be fashionable).

W a i t … were you supposing that The Synthetic Theory of Evolution, Big Bang, multiple galaxies, relative heliocentrism for each solar system, billions and millions of years, and the Genesis accounts being plagiarised on Enuma Elish or Gilgamesh constitute “science”? Was that what you meant by “modern science”?

Well, the late Pope Michael was not a fan of that narrative.

Alex Pismenny

6.XII.2022

St. Nicolas of Myra

So, what do we observe in a telescope?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6.XII.2022

St. Nicolas of Myra

Stars which if you ask me are one light day up.

Why one light day?

• 1. star light created on day 4 and shining from stars would reach earth not just in time for Adam and Eve on day 6, but also for some fish and especially birds orienting by starlight which were created on day 5;
• 2. if the radius of the stars is 1 light day, the circumference they make each day is 6.28 light days, giving a reason for 6 complete work days, and a seventh day when only little work can be accomplished.

Why not less?

Well, Voyager I and Voyager II are already more than 18 light hours up (it takes more than 36 hours for a signal to get from earth to them and back to earth).

Was there any more specific observation than “stars” (as in fix stars) actually existing you were referring to?

Alex Pismenny

6.XII.2022

St. Nicolas of Myra

Just curious. Thank you.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6.XII.2022

St. Nicolas of Myra

If you were, what about being more curious about the more specific arguments?

I gave you a cue, I’d be able to define and defend against c. 3 or 4 arguments for Heliocentrism, if that was where you were going, or through that to Distant Starlight …

Curiosity has, naturally speaking, a tendency to fuel discussions.

Was answered

after I had given answer II. So, peep down on it, and then up again.

Alex Pismenny

6.XII.2022

St. Nicolas of Myra

All “centrisms" are relative to the position of the observer.

To a human observer, Geocentrism and Heliocentrism are relevant. An astrophysicist may take a wider perspective. One doesn't contradict the other.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6.XII.2022

St. Nicolas of Myra

And astrophysics became a science when ….?

By Geocentrism, I mean the idea that what the human observer observes is what the Universe as such has. A centre, like the centre of the computer screen or a table or a rubber ball.

Relativism in the sense you promote is, like many aspects of astrophysics, a byproduct of (relative, within each solar system) Heliocentrism. Of believing that in actual physical geometry the Sun is the centre and the Earth the periphery of the yearly movement, and the Sun indifferent and unmoved, the Earth self-circling as to the daily movement.

Which is not what we observe.

Alex Pismenny

6.XII.2022

St. Nicolas of Myra

Astrophysics became science when the laws of mechanics were formulated, telescopes were available and calculus was discovered.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7.XII.2022

I think the answer presupposes anangelism.

Just as a denial of the universe rotating each day around earth presupposes atheism.

If you admit God exists and angels exist, you cannot prove anything even remotely like Heliocentrism.

Because, while laws of mechanics may very well be at work, actions of God or of angels obeying God cannot be excluded - by a Christian, that is.

An example. As a physicist, someone could obviously calculate at what speed a pen would hit the floor if I dropped it from shoulder height. BUT the calculation would be contingent on my not catching the pen with the other hand.

Now, bodies, in Catholic metaphysics, aka Thomism¹, can not only be moved by wills that use attached bodies (like me using hands) but also by wills that act directly on matter.

And telescopes have added no extra proof for the proposed materialist only physics of the astra.

¹ Thomism, Suarezism, Scotism … not stating that all of the 24 theses are peremptory against all non-Thomist schools, all of which historically admit the angelic movers.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6.XII.2022

St. Nicolas of Myra

W a i t … were you supposing Heliocentrism to be a directly observed fact?