8.21.2012

Scientific Proofs of Creation/Young Earth


I promised "Johnny" some links to scientific proofs of creationism a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the vast majority, if not all, of the English-language resources in this area come from Protestant sources. In my view, this is due to the Catholic Churchmen's surrender to liberalism and the world at Vatican II, such that Catholic scientists seem to assume -- along most of the "mainstream" -- that evolution, the big bang, and other theories are tantamount to gospel truth. I've discussed my issues with such thinking here.

It's really a matter of doing Google searches to find sites like http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htmhttp://www.creationism.org/heinze/index.htm or http://www.icr.org/

The Transapline Redemptorists of Papa Stronsay (as they then were -- they now go by the name "Congregation of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer") at one time ran a series of articles in their newspaper "CATHOLIC" refuting evolution. This would have been back in 2004-2006 when I used to subscribe to that publication.

2 comments:

Anthony Tardiff said...

It was well before Vatican II that the Jesuit priest Georges Lemaitre posited the theory that became known as the Big Bang.

Catholics are not typically young earth creationists not because of Vatican II, but because we have Thomas Aquinas: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sc0035.html

The problem is not evolution per se, but the philosophical idea of Darwinism, which denies teleology and reduces everything to mindless chance. But in fact, evolution itself is problematic for Darwinism, since it is inherently teleological — it is like a giant arrow from lesser to greater complexity.

And the Big Bang is hugely problematic, since it implies a beginning, which the previous steady-state Newtonian theory didn't. A beginning implies something outside of the universe causing the universe. Atheists are still desperately trying to get around this, by positing things like an infinite series of banging and collapsing universes.

Unfortunately, when Darwin first presented evolution he presented it with this philosophy of mindless chance, and it was met by an answering protestant philosophy of strict biblical literalism. This resulted in a false dichotomy: either God or evolution. But Catholics have always said, "Maybe both." Evolution actually fits very well with God's causative power. After all, when He creates a tree, He does not create it whole and complete. The tree comes into being and grows by entirely natural processes, but we Catholics know that despite being entirely natural, it still relies on God at every moment for its existence and for these very natural processes. Why should the universe itself be any different?

Because we've all grown up in a world in which this false dichotomy is accepted as fact, when we come up against smug atheists and their quasi-religious reverence for evolution, we react defensively. We say, "But evolution isn't true! See, this selectively chosen evidence says that the universe is only six thousand years old, just like the bible says!"

What we SHOULD be saying is, "So what? Tell me how evolution gets you out of the problem of everything that comes into existence being contingent on something else for its existence. And then tell me how you've removed the need for God."

We need to challenge their erroneous philosophy, not their science. The science is not the issue, and challenging it plays right into their hands. We need to get to the heart of the issue, and make them realize that all their scientific theories have not done a thing to remove the necessity of God.

If we do this, we may find that they become less dogmatic about evolution. When Fred Hoyle became a theist, he was able to see the holes in current evolutionary theory. But as long evolution is seen as dispelling the need for God, it will never be looked at as less than Gospel truth.

Sophia's Favorite said...

Aquinas nothing, Augustine was scandalized by Christians saying the world was younger than the science of his day said it was, based on a literal reading of Genesis.

Also, RE: evolution, as the particle physicist Stephen Barr has been known to point out, the universe pre-exists life by 10 billion years, so Darwin (or Intelligent Design) have very little bearing on the question of its creation. And even if there were no universe at all, and no laws of physics, math and logic would still need an explanation for their existence.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...