Resuming with Pismenny

Alex Pismenny

Catholic Christian

shared on Catholic Apologetics, Feb 18, from

Faith, Nation, Beauty

Posted by Alex Pismenny, Feb 18

Catholic Views on Creation and Creationism

The Evolutionary Theory suggests that life developed randomly from DNA copying errors during reproduction. It doesn’t mean life forms (species) are random as their formation follows the logic of survival of the fittest. The copying errors are indeed random, but errors that reduce survivability of the mutant kill the mutant and the error doesn’t spread. Errors that enhance survivability, on the other hand, produce offspring and are no longer errors. This is, obviously, at odds with the Catholic understanding of life: God created all forms of dead matter and life following His purpose. Error and death of the unfit cannot be His building blocks, love is. God created species at once or nearly at once. In fact, we don’t have a scientific proof that one species came from another in the realm of advanced species. We only see evolution inside a certain genetic perimeter, e.g., we can find frogs that evolve separately because a single pond became separate ponds due to some geological event. We don’t see frogs becoming fish. We only see bacteria mutate and speciate. Maybe macroevolution is possible, but we haven’t observed it. It is tempting, however, to construct a theological hypothesis that invites the evolutionary theory into Catholic Theology. Indeed, the thinking goes, the scientific method is not antithetical to the teachings of the Church; it was, in fact, invented by the Church. I would like to examine the various claims at that synthesis closely and separate plausible claims from implausible. I’ll begin by offering this generic proposition. It is not a fact that we understand God and His purpose with any clarity. Rather the opposite is true. For example, often we hear that God must have been an evil killer for commanding the Israelites to wage brutal wars. It takes a careful examination of the purpose of Israel of old existing and culminating in the building of the Church in order to discern the Divine Purpose of love in the destruction of Paganism. So, perhaps, endless creature dying so that to give room for improved creatures, -- was a manifestation of Divine Love as well? We also see allusions to a complex and gradual process of creation in the account of the Creation in the first chapters of Genesis. The “days” of the creation generally follow the order as astrophysics and paleontology propose it, from electromagnetic fields to verdant farmland. Man is made not from nothing but “of the slime of the earth” (Genesis 2:7). While the Bible does not propose that species of animals were created one out of another, it is in keeping with the general style of the Books of Moses using simple language of farmers and herdsman to describe events a scientist would struggle to explain to a child today. Likewise, there is nothing in the text to suggest that the “days” of creation were 24-hour days. Much the opposite: a literal day is produced by the Earth’s rotation, but Moses starts counting “days” way before the luminaries and planets were made. This is, I think is commonly held Catholic view on the Creation is today: that random evolution through DNA copying errors and regulated only by the survival of the fitness cannot be discerned from observable facts any better than a process of gradual creation of astrophysical matter, plants, and animals by God, on His own schedule. Scientific discovery results in better understanding of the Divine works, never disproving it. Literal reading of the Old Testament ignores clear poetic patterns in many books, the complexity of the subject matter, and the inability of ancient men to comprehend modern astrophysics. The reader must discover points that the divine inspired writer is making underneath the limitation of primitive language and unschooled audience. For example, that the Universe is created from nothing but Man is created from the “slime of the Earth” is hardly an accident; that “light” and “firmament” precede the creation of the luminaries is something that only a modern reader who knows of electromagnetism can grasp, but there was something in Moses’ vision of the Creation that separated the generic matter of the early Cosmos from the astronomical order that we can observe. That, by the way, also shown that Moses was not composing a tale but rather he was given an insight into fundamental physics beyond his rational comprehension. Well, that compromise between the Evolutionary hypothesis and the account of Creation is, however, full of illogicalities that surround the creation of Man. Let’s postulate that the creation of inanimate matter, plants, and animals corresponds well with astrophysics and paleontology, given the leeway in interpreting ancient Hebrew texts written for Moses’ contemporaries. In other words, “days” are eons, the order in which life appears is really a process of one species evolving from another, apes appearing on the evolutionary scene and learn to use tools and communicate. Macroevolution, to be sure, has defects as a scientific hypothesis regardless of any true or imaginary divine revelation, but we want to proceed to the main focus of this essay, the Catholic Anthropology. We have several immutable theological facts that the Church teaches infallibly. Man, and shortly after, Woman are created from the “slime of the earth”. Seeing an evolutionary progression from primitive life to man here is a mistake: if animals had been the building blocks of human race, there was no need on day Six to go back to slime when apes were available. The evolution of animals could not have anything to do with the creation of man. Man is created in the image of God; animals aren’t. No matter how it is interpreted, -- usually, as the presence of rational soul and free will, -- again, if man came from apes, he would have born the image of an ape. The building material for man is purposely lacking an image as slime has none. Man is loved by God. The rest of the creation is pre-built to be man’s home. Man is called to subdue the creation made for him. Even when Adam and Eve sin, God protects them insofar that it is possible and, apparently, slaughters some animals to make them clothes. Later, God likes the sacrifice of Abel, wo is a shepherd, and condemns Cain who is a vegetarian. Animal life is evidently of no particular value to God. Death of an animal is a part of its existence, whereas Adam is sternly warned to avoid the forbidden fruit because disobedience will cause him to “die the death”, -- the death he was not to ever taste. Man is also given the “paradise of pleasure”, whereas the animals are merely provided so that “they may have to feed upon”. Man is master of all the animals as he is the one giving them names. Finally, God commands the animals to “be fruitful and multiply”, but the Book of Genesis does not explain how the animals are to do that. But man is given a woman that is his wife and partner and is a source of joy: “This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh”. Human reproduction is, therefore, cardinally distinct from animal reproduction. We have to conclude that, perhaps, some form of evolution pertains to the animal kingdom; we certainly know from observation that closely related species evolve, like dogs evolve from wolves. Also, primitive forms of life, such as viruses and bacteria mutate and evolve. The hypothesis that all species evolved from a single form of life is not provable of observable, but since the Bible is silent on whether the order of creation of animals also implies macroevolution, a Catholic should be free to believe either way. However, Man’s evolution from apes is wholly inacceptable. The Bible makes it clear that Man’s creation was a distinct act of God. The popular in modernity idea that at some point in evolution from Ape to Man God saw one particular couple of apes and made humans out of these two by giving them rational souls does not only contradicts the clear text of the Bible, it contradicts the entire Catholic anthropology of Man as the only creature elected for eternal life. Another area of encroachment of theology by science is cosmogony. The Catholic, and generally mainstream Christian understanding is that the universe was made for Man. We have already dealt with the evolutionary view of genesis of men and found it incompatible with the Christian understanding. In the spatial domain, likewise, the view of the universe being exceedingly vast, created by no one, without purpose, and containing the Earth at its periphery, possible one among many planets suitable for life, -- seems problematic. Let us discuss this aspect further. The Gentle Reader need not panic. I am not about to propose that in fact the world with its stars and galaxies rotates around the static Earth. I am merely pointing out that when discussing spatial phenomena, the choice of the reference point is determined by the nature of the phenomenon under consideration. As Galileo realized, the best reference point for the study of the movement of planets is the Sun. With modern astronomy, we probably should choose the centers of galaxies as reasonable reference points, etc. However, even a modern man uses left and right, up and down relative to himself when he is riding a bicycle. He was heliocentrist when he was looking for Venus in the sky, but he is egocentrist as he navigates a bike path. What coordinate system does a Christian believer use? His primary concern is his actions. What are my duties? Did I live my day right? What behaviors of mine require amendment? But man doesn't judge himself alone. God also judges, justifies, gives strength for the next day, and loves. That is a domain of heaven above. The fact that the Earth's atmosphere is a rotating ball of gasses enveloping the Earth has no bearing on that. Heaven is above, and it is a Kingdom. The Church Triumphant is up there. Heaven is as real as Andromeda Galaxy; it is just not accessible with telescopes. Then there is Hell. It is below us, again, no matter what rotates around what. It is useful to think of the Christian "above" and Christian "below" not as spatial directions but as measure of sanctity and of beauty. Angels are from above. Demons are from below. Angels are beautiful. Demons are ugly. And people are around us. They form the plain of our existence: those that we love, those that we are supposed to protect or to teach or to shun. Other people are the geography of our daily life. In antiquity, the spiritual view of the cosmos was also the scientific view because for the tasks the primitive man had to do, flat earth with rotating Sun and Moon was all the science he needed. Today, the spiritual view did not change, but the scientific view changed quite a bit. What are we to do? We are to recognize that these are unrelated views and switch between them as needed. There is nothing wrong with the spiritual view exactly as it was thousands of years ago, today. We still love the sky and fear crevices in the Earth. In our daily life, Flat Earth is the operational theory. But why is the world so big if it had been made for us? It seems, a section of the world with the Sun and the Moon and a few planets whirling around would be quite enough. There is no answer. We don't know the entire purpose of God. It is enough to know that the immenseness relates to the immense power of Creator God. To us as spiritual beings, all the stars and galaxies are Heaven, which has no dimensions. And it is very big. Similarly, another question comes up, why are we on a periphery even of our galaxy? And again, we are not on periphery of anything. We thrive on Earth where it is. Therefore, the location of the Earth is best for us. In general, the confusion that astrophysics bring is psychological and not real. We think that if we are so important to God, then we should be in the center of the universe. That is incorrect and childish psychology. Place God in that center and remember that you were made from mud. Not from gold, not from a diamond, -- from mud. I am grateful to Hans-Georg Lundahl, whose line of questioning inspired this essay. See his comments on Catholic Apologetics [better link : Catholic Apologetics [sharing] Catholic Views on Creation and Creationism

Comments

are on Catholic Apologetics, where he shared the answer.

Intro

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.II.2023

Quadragesima

Ah, found it - do you mind if I post several comments, for several threads, about different aspects?

Alex Pismenny

Quadragesima

Sure, and I will highlight on which share your comments are.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.II.2023

I have started out with three threads about the theory of Evolution. I’ll come back later on cosmology.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.II.2023

I "The Evolutionary Theory suggests that life developed randomly from DNA copying errors during reproduction."

Ambiguous.

• 1) "life developed" can refer to abiogenesis, which is an impossibility, you don't have reproduction before you have life and you don't have viable life before you have reproduction;
• 2) "all variety of life developed" would be more proper to the Synthetic Theory of Evolution - which says man and mice and mango trees had a common one celled ancestor, and developed from it by copying mistakes;
• 3) "each life form that is develops and so far developed" is fairly consistent with what Young Earth Creationists usually share of Evolutionary Biology. Please note, in related forms you can have not just locus mutations, but also chromosome mutations. In placental mammals, at least, trisomy exaggerated to tetrasomy is not a viable way to augment the number of chromosomes. However, Robertsonian fusion in the right moment is a viable way to reduce them.

"The copying errors are indeed random, but errors that reduce survivability of the mutant kill the mutant and the error doesn’t spread. Errors that enhance survivability, on the other hand, produce offspring and are no longer errors."

Functions cannot arise through one error - or at least not all can. A function usually (at least one of the ones I think of) involves a cell type, something we have never observed evolve, and it involves more than one specific gene producing more than one specific proteine. Each gene usually has hundreds of loci, hundreds of codons composed of three loci or base pairs. Assembling a new function codon by codon, gene by gene, from zero by copying mistakes is a structural impossibility.

"This is, obviously, at odds with the Catholic understanding of life: God created all forms of dead matter and life following His purpose. Error and death of the unfit cannot be His building blocks, love is. God created species at once or nearly at once."

While errors are indeed not what God started from, God can, after Adam's fall make use of them. And as the kinds of Genesis 1 need not the least be identic to the taxonomic level in Linnaean taxonomy called species, there is not even a problem in accepting that jackals and wolves / dogs, Atelerix and Hemiechinus, had common ancestors on the Ark. The hedgehogs on the Ark were arguably one couple, but since then there are five genera (two of which have been mentioned) and 17 species.

However, Atelerix algirus and Hemiechinus auritus having common ancestors, with each other and with other hedgehogs, or jackals having them with wolves does not involve new cell types, just minor differences of functionality within the ones existing. Perhaps loss of some. It is no proof that Atelerix and jackals (which very clearly have different functions and different cell types) ever had a common ancestor. Apart from that being against the Bible, it is also against common sense observations from the evidence.

Alex Pismenny

27.II.2023

I didn't want to go into specifics on what the Evolutionary Theory is. Thank you for the detailed comment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.II.2023

Do you not even want to go into specifics of what you meant?

How much is this like giving Donald Prothero or Stephen Jay Gould or Kenneth R. Miller a blank cheque?

Alex Pismenny

28.II.2023

Correct, I don't. It is interesting to do so but I don't want to dilute the main message: that God driven replacement of one species with another is permissible to a Catholic, and God creating whole species out of nothing is also permissible, but random evolution without Divine plan is not permissible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.II.2023

“God driven replacement of one species with another is permissible to a Catholic”

1. Not before Adam sinned
2. and what about checking whether there is any kind of scientific necessity rather than just presuming there is?

It sometimes gives me the very irksome impression that you consider me as having one theological scruple, no theological good case and also no scientific good case. And that you are very content with presuming this to be true without even checking.

Alex Pismenny

28.II.2023

1. Why is that? God was creating animals. Some of them went extinct. Then God created Man and led the animals to Adam to get named.
2. Yes, scientists should be good scientists and check for necessity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.II.2023

1. The animals that went extinct did so after Adam sinned and sometimes after the Flood
2. Why do you not live up to that?

Alex Pismenny

28.II.2023

That is acceptable position. Not the only acceptable though.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.III.2023

You were specifically challenged to provide an idea on how another one would be acceptable.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.II.2023

II "It is not a fact that we understand God and His purpose with any clarity. Rather the opposite is true."

This sounds more like Moses Maimonides than St. Thomas Aquinas.

But all these things they will do to you for my name's sake: because they know not him who sent me. / John 15:21

"For example, often we hear that God must have been an evil killer for commanding the Israelites to wage brutal wars. It takes a careful examination of the purpose of Israel of old existing and culminating in the building of the Church in order to discern the Divine Purpose of love in the destruction of Paganism."

Those wars were not just the destruction of Paganism in general, but destruction of a specific Paganism. Scipio also waged war against Canaanean Paganism, and Roman historians mentioned what they did to firstborn male infants, in times when "sacrifice" was needed.

"So, perhaps, endless creature dying so that to give room for improved creatures, -- was a manifestation of Divine Love as well?"

Before sin, there was no death.

"Man is called to subdue the creation made for him. Even when Adam and Eve sin, God protects them insofar that it is possible and, apparently, slaughters some animals to make them clothes. Later, God likes the sacrifice of Abel, wo is a shepherd, and condemns Cain who is a vegetarian. Animal life is evidently of no particular value to God. Death of an animal is a part of its existence, whereas Adam is sternly warned to avoid the forbidden fruit because disobedience will cause him to “die the death”, -- the death he was not to ever taste."

Stating that animal life is of no particular value to God makes the idea of animal sacrifice nonsensical.

The just regardeth the lives of his beasts: but the bowels of the wicked are cruel. - Prov 12:10

Whose beasts were the beasts before Adam was created? God's. Is God just? Yes. The one reason why beasts die is, Adam sinned. This is not common ground to all Church Fathers, but it is in early Church Fathers.

Please note, even if this argument were possible about the goodness of God to beasts, if you admit Adam was created directly, the idea that beasts died to make men come into existence is non-sense, and furthermore, if you don't, there are much more important questions about God's goodness to Adam before he sinned.

Alex Pismenny

27.II.2023

The one reason why beasts die is, Adam sinned.

Beasts didn't sin. It explicit in Genesis that beasts are to be used by man. One way to use an animal is to kill and eat it; another, to kill it and forego eating it in sacrifice to God. I think that animals were made that way, mortal and without a rational soul. The idea that animal death is a consequence of human son is, I think, pure speculation.

Of course, the goodness of animal and therefore its value consists in their usefulness to man, direct or indirect usefulness.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.II.2023

“The idea that animal death is a consequence of human son is, I think, pure speculation.”

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. - Romans 5:12

At least consistent with no animals dying before Adam sinned.

But do you know what? I saw Church Fathers a few decades ago, who did think carnivorousness would have existed even without Adam sinning. However, drawn out senseless suffering wouldn’t.

“It explicit in Genesis that beasts are to be used by man. One way to use an animal is to kill and eat it; another, to kill it and forego eating it in sacrifice to God.”

Both of those uses are posterior to Adam’s sin. Abel’s sacrifice is in Genesis 4, ordering carnivorousness is in Genesis 9. Both come after Genesis 3.

“Of course, the goodness of animal and therefore its value consists in their usefulness to man, direct or indirect usefulness.”

Since developing man from animals would at best have been only one option, and considering Adam’s language, even a non-option, this cuts out the possibility of animals living millions of years before man - they would not have been even indirectly useful to man.

Alex Pismenny

27.II.2023

Right, the Bible records even animal death only after the Fall, but it doesn't follow that it didn't occur. Certainly, plants were killed before the Fall since they were food.

I don't think God-driven evolution of animals is precluded by this. Surely, the Bible puts animal death in a different category that human death, directly linked to sin.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.II.2023

"plants were killed before the Fall since they were food."

In Hebrew terms, plants and invertebrates are not nephesh khaya (breath of life).

Other solution, grass blades and fruits are not whole organisms. The seeds that can grow, and which are, could have passed unhurt through the digestion tract to make a new plant. But either way, plants were eaten before the fall.

"Surely, the Bible puts animal death in a different category that human death, directly linked to sin."

Whatever the case about death of animals, wastefulness ("vanity") is linked to sin.

Romans 8:19-23
For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope: Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now. And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body.

The part on "every creature groaneth" cannot refer to every human creature, since right next verse it is added "and we too" - and another reason we can't use it of men only is, when Christ says to preach the Gospel to every creature, we Catholics think this applies to blessings of domestic animals and of salt, and Easter blessings on food. These being obviously non-human creatures.

If you had found me the place in St. Augustine where it says that animals would have been eaten by other animals before the fall, I would have shown you how he also states this would have happened in an ordered way and not a wasteful way.

You have not answered this challenge: Since developing man from animals would at best have been only one option, and considering Adam’s language, even a non-option, this cuts out the possibility of animals living millions of years before man - they would not have been even indirectly useful to man.

So, God killing animal after animal, over millions and millions of years, when He was able to and even had to (considering the Biblical statements about God and man) create man with no bestial ancestry, would have been a cruelty to animals, sth which God forbids men. Again:

The just regardeth the lives of his beasts: but the bowels of the wicked are cruel. - Prov. 12:10.

Proverbs isn't saying that beasts cannot be killed at all for a good purpose serving man. But he is saying that he cannot allow predators to serve themselves in his hen coop or among his sheep. Now, whose were the animals prior to Adam's creation? God's only. Is God just? Yes. Does He follow His own laws? He even stepped down to a manger and a cross to do so. Ergo, a Tyrannosaur with bone cancer can safely on this ground alone be dated to after when Adam fell.

Alex Pismenny

28.II.2023

Good point about plants.

Back to animals, I don’t know why God created so many animals that went extinct and some that did not. Same as I don’t know why there are so many galaxies. Somehow, it serves us.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.II.2023

Extinction of T Rex has served us very well since the fall of Adam made them a danger to us.

You do not know that there are “many galaxies” or even that there is one.

Alex Pismenny

28.II.2023

I don’t know why God allowed dinosaurs to go extinct, or when.

We’ve seen galaxies in telescopes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.III.2023

No.

You can see in telescopes that Andromeda, Hercules A and Maffei 1 exist.

You cannot see in telescopes that we have a Milky Way galaxy extending far beyond the Solar system, and you also cannot see in telescopes that Andromeda, Hercules A and Maffei 1 are parallels to the supposed Milky Way galaxy.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.II.2023

III "Let’s postulate that the creation of inanimate matter, plants, and animals corresponds well with astrophysics and paleontology, given the leeway in interpreting ancient Hebrew texts written for Moses’ contemporaries. In other words, “days” are eons, the order in which life appears is really a process of one species evolving from another, apes appearing on the evolutionary scene and learn to use tools and communicate."

Apart from the absurdities in the text, and the patronising attitude against Moses' contemporaries, you have a major even scientific impossibility in the last part of what you said.

"apes appearing on the evolutionary scene and learn to use tools and communicate."

Apes communicate. "Hello" - "How are you?" - "We're fine!" - "Enjoy your meal!" - "Let me have my meal!!!!!" - "You stop that nonsense!" and some more like that are perfectly fine to postulate about what apes already have. What they do not have is concepts. Without concepts to make truthful or false judgements about, communications are very much fewer. There is no need and therefore no reason to develop and also no known means to develop a language capable of expressing concepts and their combinations or separations. Language origin is as dead an end in research as abiogenesis.

In order to have infinitely more possible communications than apes have, men have:

• sentences composed by morphemes (it doesn't matter all that much whether a given sentence is a sentence word, combining the morphemes in one fixed order, like ид-у, or combines it into separate words where something may come between Я большой, я очень большой, or combines the procedures, like Я ид-у)
• morphemes composed by phonemes очень = о+ч+е+нь

In "ape," a sentence is more like a specific phoneme, perhaps with a specific intonation or rhythm.

No non-human, no being that is not the image of God, can have developed human speach from bestial communications.

If you hear anything about Language development, that's another issue. One language may develop into another, like a trouser that is worn and torn is repaired and re-repaired and ends up being a very different trouser than it was. One house may develop into another by constant reparations and other improvements to counter the degradations. But you don't make a house into a trouser or a trouser into a house by such a procedure.

This is the precise and adequate reason why Adam cannot have non-human ancestry without God having been cruel to him on some level before he sinned. His "immediate ancestry" (Pius XII rightly forbids to call non-humans "parents") could not have taught him to speak, so he would have grown up a feral child. Which is a handicap. This is not about God's goodness to beast lives, but about God's goodness to His own image. Feral children, very rarely, exist now. Don't think of the girl who got kidnapped and then rescued by monkeys when she was five - she had already learned how to speak. Not perfectly, but she knew the procedure. If she had been taken away from human company when she was between 6 months and 2 years, she could never have learned to speak. There are some cases like that too. Adam cannot have been one.

Alex Pismenny

27.II.2023

I didn't imply all that much into “communicate". I could have said “grunt and gesture".

I agree that Adam did not come from apes.

It is not patronizing to pour out that Moses' contemporaries could not understand astrophysics and did not need to.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.II.2023

A statement like “you see the sun move because we move” would definitely have been understandable in Moses and Joshua’s time.

Thank you for the agreement. As for human anatomies grunting and gesturing, that is definitely much less that we must credit beings for who were dated by carbon 14 to 40 000 BP or earlier. See more on the next comment, the dating question.

IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.II.2023

IV “However, Man’s evolution from apes is wholly inacceptable. The Bible makes it clear that Man’s creation was a distinct act of God. The popular in modernity idea that at some point in evolution from Ape to Man God saw one particular couple of apes and made humans out of these two by giving them rational souls does not only contradicts the clear text of the Bible, it contradicts the entire Catholic anthropology of Man as the only creature elected for eternal life.”

Very good.

This is Orthodox. However, does it fit with the ideas you call discoveries of modern science? Or that § 283 (of the CCC) call that?

Suppose you accept the Synthetic Theory of Evolution. Then you presumably accept the time scale. Then you presumably accept the carbon dates for Neanderthals or the Cro-Magnon population as given.

Where do you put Adam in this timescale?

Late? 10 000 - 6000 years ago?
Early? 600 000 to 40 000 years ago?

Don’t bother about in between since that will only combine the problems of each approach.

Early = Adam can be ancestor to all, including Neanderthals, but cannot have transmitted Genesis 3 the way Catholicism presupposes. I’ll quote the Haydock comment on Genesis 3, attached to the comment on verse 24 in it.

// Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H. //

With a LXX based chronology (Eastern Rite for Sept 1 or Roman martyrology for December 25), the distance is somewhat greater. On the other hand, I consider it probable already Abraham wrote it down, as a separate piece or along all of Genesis 2 - 11 (Genesis 1 and a few verses into 2 is a vision given Moses), and Moses collected such writings along with the vision he was given into one book. With an early placing of Adam, this is out.

Also, with an early date of Adam, you pretty blatantly contradict God’s care for mankind up to the time of Abraham. A point in Dei Verbum § 3.

So, you might be tempted to a late date. Would you be fine with that?

It is only:

• on such grounds unlikely that Adam is ancestor to all now living or even more that he was so when white people arrived to the four corners of the earth (where they are not indigenous)
• unexplained why we would have also in that case “ape” ancestry (Homo Sapiens older than Adam, and Neanderthals, and Denisovans not being image of God, hence apes)
• unexplained how “apes” could do things that would very clearly seem to require language.

The one scenario in which neither difficulty arises is, no man or manlike creature at all existed prior to Adam. By now, unlike 1950, before carbon dating was a thing, that is only feasible with a dismissal or recalibration of dating methods. Which is my position, but hardly that of § 283 of your CCC.

Alex Pismenny

27.II.2023

All I am saying is that man is not an evolutionary product of apes. Theological difficulties disappear. The Bible stands as written. Scientific difficulties remain and unanswered questions emerge, but at least the Ape-Man hypothesis is destroyed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.II.2023

Good to destroy that.

How about resolving the “difficulties” and “unanswered questions” even if it means ditching § 283?

Alex Pismenny

28.II.2023

I don’t mind Canon 283. Knowledge indeed is an increasing thing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.II.2023

Things are supposed to be increasing knowledge in it, which are incompatible with the data we agree on.

Do you insist, once again, to skirt away from the difficulties of your position?

Alex Pismenny

28.II.2023

Yes I do. I don’t see any difficulties and you did not highlight any.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.II.2023

You have basically forgotten all of the dilemmas I gave in the previous debate - is your memory selective?

Papal Divisions

Alex Pismenny

28.II.2023

I remember you presented what you saw as dilemmas, and that my time is valuable.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.III.2023

OK, dilemma in logic has a very specific meaning. Let me brief you on a sudoku, to help you out.

Imagine in column I, square iv from top could be 2, and square v from top could be 6. But you still cannot have 2 in sq iv and 6 in sq v, for instance because only possibilities in sq vi are 2 and 6, meaning you can’t have both 2 and 6 in other squares of the column.

Denying Adam from ape and affirming deep time would be like trying to have both sq iv as 2 and sq v as 6, when sq vi only allows 2 or 6.

If your time is valuable, set some aside to read though what I actually wrote, instead of taking 5 minute snippets you can just barely spare and then you make a total mess of your arguing skills.

My time is valuable too, you know.

I was challenging you for a scenario that could overcome the dilemmas in some at least tentative way, not a confessio fidei to prove you are really, truly, honestly fine both with an absolute necessity of theology and with § 283. You let me wait for weeks, and you absolutely didn’t provide it.

V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.II.2023

V "In general, the confusion that astrophysics bring is psychological and not real. We think that if we are so important to God, then we should be in the center of the universe. That is incorrect and childish psychology. Place God in that center and remember that you were made from mud."

You seem so painfully eager to be the adult and to tell the other guy what he really means and why that is childish psychology.

Your priest arguably did learn "psychology" as one of the subjects in seminary. It's been in vogue for quite a while now. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine didn't. Nor did Pope St. Pius X.

How about you forget about your priest and his trauma from seminary days? Freudians in France are willing to stamp one as having a childish psychology if at adult age one still enjoys the Chronicles of Narnia or anything by John Ronald Reuel Tolkien. That kind of nincompoop busibodies are the guys uncautious bishops and pseudopopes allowed to train your priest. When salt loses its savour ...

"It is useful to think of the Christian "above" and Christian "below" not as spatial directions but as measure of sanctity and of beauty. Angels are from above. Demons are from below. Angels are beautiful. Demons are ugly."

Sed contra est:

• a) spirits other than God are finite, and they are therefore in one place rather than in another, hence above or below us, in precisely spatial dimensions
• b) Heaven involves at least two human bodies - Our Lord's and Our Lady's. Probably it will also involve the risen bodies of the blessed. Therefore, Heaven is a specific place, where human bodies can survive.

"And people are around us. They form the plain of our existence: those that we love, those that we are supposed to protect or to teach or to shun. Other people are the geography of our daily life."

People who use psychology instead of argument, and speak of childish psychology as if it were an argument against a proposal or perceived relation, are among those I have a duty or at least interest to shun. Or argue strongly against in debate.

"In antiquity, the spiritual view of the cosmos was also the scientific view because for the tasks the primitive man had to do, flat earth with rotating Sun and Moon was all the science he needed."

This patronising of antiquity won't do. You are even conflating geocentrism with flat earth, which are two very different proposals. No Bible passage can be pinpointed as expressing a flat earth. Quite a few as expressing a usually rotating sun and moon, most notably Joshua 10:12-13.

Add to this that cosmic distances and sizes and implications from star light travel time only start off really with the Heliocentric scam:

New blog on the kid : Have you heard the expression "von Neumann chain"?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/08/have-you-heard-expression-von-neumann.html

Alex Pismenny

27.II.2023

I am not replacing physics with psychology at all. Man on a bike is adequate coordinate system when on a bike. Geocentrism is adequate coordinate system when praying.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.II.2023

Your reformulation is not an excuse for the initial statement “childish psychology” …

Before we do astrophysics, how about doing astro-geometry? It used to be called “planar astronomy” back in Laplace’ days, and it so happens, his transition from planar astronomy to the Heliocentrism of his “physical astronomy” was badly argued then, and if you don’t want to go on and on patronising me, talking down to me, it is about time you start arguing why you prefer a physical astronomy which puts either God’s throne room billions of light years away, or into the position of a space ship or in no place at all, contrary to Christ, who is bodily risen, being there, and Mary, who is assumed body and soul, being there.

Especially as billions of light years also make it awkward to have creation 7222 years ago, and far stars still visible.

For instance, you pretended that we observe “other galaxies” - that’s like saying we “observe parallax of alpha Centauri as 0.76 arc seconds” … has it occurred to you that other interpretations of Andromeda than being “a galaxy like our own” or even of the stars “of our own galaxy” being sth else than a galaxy? Has it occurred to you that an angel could with each star and exo-planet in the Centaur be performing a dance to the glory of God, which is also poking fun at astronomers analysing the movement as “aberration, parallax, proper movement”?

What would the consequences be if Andromeda were only one light day up? Which one of them would deny the kind of reality a Christian can live with? Obviously, angelic movers are outside what atheists accept, but you are not agreeing to be called an atheist, are you?

Jacques Arnould in Paris wrote a book in which he lauded the progress of science to where a Universe “has its centre everywhere and its periphery nowhere” … are you aware this is quoting a statement of Nicolas of Cusa about God? “God is a circle who has its centre everywhere and its periphery nowhere” …. if the universe is infinite, it is inheriting God’s attributes, as if God had died for good instead of rising on the Third Day. If, as it should, the universe has a periphery, it also has a geometric centre, not just the centre of a coordinate system.

Alex Pismenny

28.II.2023

God is not a galaxy, not on the physical throne anywhere. God is not a part of the creation.

When praying or contemplating God is it best to think of Him in heaven above. That is all.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.II.2023

“God is not a galaxy,”

I did not say He was.

“not on the physical throne anywhere.”

Do you deny that Jesus is true God and true Man and truly risen and living forever?