1 2 3 4 5 6

End of Part Three of Seven Parts

Footnotes

1) Mivart was a creationist early on, and later, while teaching at the University of Louvain, he became a theistic evolutionist. Mivart's thesis was that the statement in Genesis 1"according to their kinds" referred to "species" in biological science. Theistic evolutionists were not accepted by the secular world, however. T. H. Huxley, for example, refuted Mivart's attempt at coinciding Genesis and evolution, as well as contesting Mivart's view that various Church Fathers and Scholastics, notably Francisco Suarez, could be interpreted as teaching the concept of evolution wherein one species gives rise to another. Huxley's motivation was to sever religion completely from science. At one point he stated that religion "could never lay its hands, could never touch, even with the tip of its finger, that dream with which our little life is rounded" (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 503).

 

2) Messenger also translated Canon Henri de Dorlodot's book into English in 1922 under the title Darwinism and Catholic Thought. Also in this genre is Enrico Zoffoli's book Cristianesimo: corso di teologia cattolica (Udine: Edizioni Segno, 1994).

3) The Church refused to allow de Chardin to publish his book during his lifetime. In short, de Chardin ascribes all present turmoil in the world to the crisis or "phenomenon" which comes before every new mutation. He sees God as the Primal Impulse manifested in matter. From the Big Bang explosion he believed occurred 15 billion years ago, de Chardin asserted that the primal Creator went pressing into all matter generating an ever greater spiritual consciousness, the final destiny being the Omega Point in which the divine impulse is perfectly manifested in all humanity.

4) The Wisdom of Evolution (Doubleday, 1963), p. 66. "Creationism becomes increasingly more untenable, the more deeply one looks into the fossil record."

5) For Catholic proponents of theistic evolution, see Science of Today and the Problem of Genesis (Hawthorne, CA: Christian Book Club, 1969) by Patrick O'Connell, pages 61-81 for an overview.

6) Geological Society of France, 1993, and Julien Lan and Guy Berthault, "Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures," CEN Technical Journal 8 (1):3750, 1994; Guy Berthault, "Experiments on lamination of sediments," CEN Technical Journal 3:2529, 1988.

7) Gould, Stephen Jay. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (New York: Ballentine Publishing Group, 1999), p. 5.

8) "Evolution as Fact and Theory" Discover magazine, May 1981.

9) Ibid., p. 17.

10) Archbishop Barbarito's comment contained in correspondence to G. J. Keane, 8-1-83 author of Creation Rediscovered (p. 202).

11) Origin of Species, Penguin Books, London, 1968, pp 309-310.

12) Hen's Teeth and Horse Toes, Norton, NY, 1983, p. x.

13) Francis Crick, now 86, recently stated that "The God hypothesis is rather discredited....Archbishop Ussher claimed the world was created in 4004 B.C. Now we know it is 4.5 billion old. It's astonishing to me that people continue to accept religious claims. People like myself get along perfectly well with no religious views." James Watson, 74, another atheist, stated that religious explanations are "myths from the past....Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely. Only with the discovery of the double helix and the ensuing genetic revolution have we had grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours" (London Daily Telegraph, cited in The Washington Times, 3-24-2003).

14) Correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in Darwin's Enigma, 1988, p. 89.

15) Intermediair 44, 1988.

16) Quoted from ICR's Acts and Facts, August 5, 1976.

17) Quoted from George Sim Johnston's, Did Darwin Get it Right?, p. 31.

18) Op. cit., p. 217.

19) The Triumph of Evolution and The Failure of Creationism (NY: W.H. Freeman and Co, 2000), p. 31.

20) Nature Vol. 123.

21) The Triumph of Evolution and The Failure of Creationism, p. 154.

22) The Triumph of Evolution and The Failure of Creationism, p. 63.

23) "Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, pp. 28, 31.

24) Carl Winterstein. Bible-Science Newsletter, June 1976, p. 8. Cited in Paula Haigh's Thirty Theses Against Theistic Evolution, Theses 13 (home.earthlink.net/~origins1/creation/30theses.htm).

25) Cited in Genesis 1 Through the Ages, p. x.

26) The Hexameron, Homily 1, NPNF II, vol. 8, p. 53.

27) The Refutation of All Heresies, Ch. X: Leucippus and His Atomic Theory. Hippolytus also critiques Thales, Founder of Greek Astronomy; Pythagoras on his Cosmogony and the Transmigration of Souls; Empedocles on Causality; Heraclitus on his Theory of Flux; Anaximenes on the idea of "Infinite Air"; Anaxagoras on his Theory of Mind and Efficient Cause; Parmenides on his Theory of Unity, and other Greek philosophic and scientific ideas.

28) Ibid.

29) The Hexameron, Homily 3, 2.

30) Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution, pp. 16-18. (Paulist Press, 2001).

31) Chief among these recent books is Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Simon and Schuster, 1998).

32) Bible and Science, p. 45.

33) Genesis 1 Through the Ages, pp 25-26.

34) Genesis 1 Through the Ages, p. 168.

35) Providentissimus Deus, II, C, d.

36) Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 252.

37) Einstein's biographer writes: "The problem which now faced science [after the Michelson-Morley experiment] was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable" (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 110). Einstein, as we all know, did not accept that alternative, rather, he chose to make light constant rather than to make the earth constant. He admits, however, that "If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then relativity is wrong" (Ibid, p. 107). It is well known, however, that Michelson-Morely was wrong, or at the least, misinterpreted, since further experiments, all of which Einstein ignored quite deliberately, all showed that the supposed "null" result of Michelson-Morely was actually a positive result. Experiments performed by Trouton-Nobel (1903), Sagnac (1913), Michelson-Gale-Pearson (1925), Kennedy-Thorndike (1930), Michelson-Miller (1933), Joos (1930), O'Rahilly (1965), Marinov (1974) all show that Einstein's interpretation of the data is wrong. We will cover this topic more in depth in the coming articles of the Catholic Family News.

38) Genesis 1 Through the Ages, pp. 145-146.

39) Bible and Science, p. 148. Jaki's footnote on this incident reads: "For instance, N. Eldridge, curator of the Natural History Museum of the City of New York."

40) Did Darwin Get it Right: Catholics and the Theory of Evolution, pp. 12, 14, 17, 113, 90 (in sequence with my ellipses).

41) Angels, Apes and Men, p. 71.

42) Did Darwin Get it Right? p. 119.

43) Constitution: Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof..."; Declaration of Independence: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

44) Did Darwin Get it Right?, p. 122.

45) Basil (Hexameron, 2, 8); Gregory of Nyssa (Hexameron, PG 44:68); Ambrose (Hexameron 1:37; 1:20; 6:75); Victorinus (Creation of the World, NPNF1, v. 1, p. 343); Ephraem the Syrian (Comm. on Genesis 1:1); Theophilus (Autolucus 2, 12); Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 5:28:3); Lactantius (Institutes, 7, 14); Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, Bk 6, Ch 16); Epiphanius (Panarion 1:1); Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 3:5; 12:5); Hippolytus (Refutation of All Heresies, Bk 6, Ch 9); Chrysostom (Homily 3); Athanasius (Discourse Against the Arians, 2, 48), The only one that departed from this was Augustine, opting to see the six days as one day, but this was due to his misinterpretation of Ecclus 18:1 since Augustine did not know Greek, and his indecision as to where to place the angels in the creation story.

46) Confessions, Bk 2, Ch 9.

47) The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Bk 1, Ch. 19, No. 39.

48) Genesis 1 through the ages, pp. 90-91; 141; 174. Johnston says much the same: "Catholic also have to avoid the trap of biblical concordism, which is the attempt to fit the finding of modern science into the creation narrative of Genesis 1" (Did Darwin Get it Right?, p. 152).

49) Those who elaborate on this point are Basil in The Hexameron, Homily II, 7;Victorinus in On the Creation of the World. Leo the Great, Sermon XXVII. Gregory of Nyssa (Hexameron, PG 44, 66-118); Ephrem the Syrian (Genesim et in Exodum commentarii, in CSCO, v. 152, p. 9); Chrysostom (Homilies on Genesis (PG 53, 57-58); Aquinas Summa Theologica, 1, Qs. 67, Art. 4, Re. 2; Bk 1, Ques. 67, Art. 1). Honorius of Autun (Hexameron PL 172, 257); Peter Lombard (Lombardi opera omnia, PL 192, 651); Colonna, aka Aegidius Romanus (Opus Hexaemeron); Nicholas of Lyra (Postillae perpetuae); Cajetan (Commentarii de Genesis 1); as well as Mendelssohn (Commentary on Genesis) Petavius (Dogmata theologica) et al.

50) Genesis 1 Through the Ages, p. 169.

51) The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Bk 2, Ch. 5, No 9.

52) Bible and Science, p. 95.

53) Genesis 1 Through the Ages, p. 64.

54) Genesis 1 Through the Ages, pp. 21, 61, 72, 95, 132, 156.

55) Answer to Eunomius' Second Book.

56) Against the Pelagians, Bk 1, 16.

57) S. H. Knowles, et al, in "Spectra, Variability, Size, and Polarization of H2O Microwave Emission Sources in the Galaxy," Science, March 7, 1969, pp. 1055, 1057 reveal evidence of water clouds in deep space the size of our solar system. NASA's Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) mission, between Nov. 1995 to June 1998, states "In the Orion nebula, for instance, ISO found enough water to fill the earth's oceans thousands of time over."

58) Princeton professor John A. Wheeler was the first (1957) to describe what is popularly called "spacetime foam," which is the concept that space is filled with extremely dense particles which pop into existence and pop back out. Stephen Hawking, who is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, confirmed Wheeler's thesis stating that on extremely small scales space is packed with turbid random activity and gargantuan masses. Physicists Redmount and Suen in Physical Review D, 3rd series, vol. 47, No. 6, March 1993 speak of "Quantum Spacetime Foam." J. P. Vigier, in the article "De Broglie Waves on Dirac Aether" speaks of a "nonempty vacuum" in space (Lettere Al Nuovo Cimento, vol. 29, No. 14, Dec. 1980).

59) Physicist M. A. Markov in The Very Early Universe (Cambridge University Press, 1983) writes of infintesimal particles he calls maximons possessing a density of 3.6 x 10^-93g/cm3 (pp. 359-361). Robert Moon, professor emeritus in physics at University of Chicago, in the journal 21st Century, states in Space Must Be Quantizied,: "According to accepted theory, free space is a vacuum. If this is so, how can it exhibit impedance. But it does. The answer, of course, is that there is no such thing as a vacuum, and what we call free space has structure...The impedance equals 376+ ohms" (May-June, 1988, p. 26ff).

60) Discover, May 2003, p. 13.

61) J. P. Vigier, in the article, "Causal Superluminal Interpretation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox," describes the existence of faster-than-light interactions in an "underlying deterministic substructure," which is the same as Markov's maximons or Hawking's "spacetime foam." Vigier points to the experiments by Aspect which confirms the results (Physical Review Letters, vol. 49, No. 2, July 12, 1982.

62) Did Darwin Get it Right? p. 17.

63) New Oxford Review, April 2003, p. 31.

64) Man and Woman in Christ, p. 350.

65) Origins, May 7, 1981, p. 739. Fr. Brown also calls his Catholic critics "fundamentalists," and has some very harsh words for those who criticize his methodology of biblical hermeneutics. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (c. 1990) is edited by Fr. Raymond Brown, along with Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer and Fr. Roland Murphy. Brown deceased in 1998, but probably remains the most notorious and influential liberal Catholic scholar of the past fifty years. In another of his works Fr. Brown writes: "In the last hundred years we have moved from an understanding wherein inspiration guaranteed that the Bible was totally inerrant to an understanding wherein inerrancy is limited to the Bible's teaching of 'that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writing for the sake of our salvation'" (The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, pp. 8-9). Not surprisingly, Fr. Brown not only calls into question the traditional reading of Genesis, but he also raises doubts about the resurrection of Christ: ("Are we thereby perpetually committed to the notion held in times past of the biological how of that exaltation, namely a bodily resurrection?," Ibid. p. 12); and infallibility: ("If biblical criticism has qualified the notion of the inerrancy of the Bible, does modern historical study imply that the Roman Catholic notion of the infallibility of Church teaching also has to be qualified?," Ibid., p. 35); In fact, in his books and articles, Fr. Brown questions a majority of beliefs held as dogma in the Catholic Church, e.g., Mary's Perpetual Virginity; the monarchial episcopate (i.e., papacy); the function and identity of apostles, bishops and priests; apostolic succession; the barring of women from ordination; the Eucharist as a sacrifice; the value and authority of Tradition, etc.

66) Did Darwin Get it Right: Catholics and the Theory of Evolution, pp. 12, 14, 17, 113, 90 (in sequence with my ellipses).

67) Genesis 1 Through the Ages, pp. 4-5. The two passages state: "Go up to the forest and cut down" (Joshua 17:15-18) and "The company will stone them...and cut them down" (Ezekiel 23:47). It is interesting to note that Jaki seems to have acquiesced this notion from atheistic evolutionist T. H. Huxley. Jaki writes: "...Huxley threw a red herring. He did so by arguing that the bible did not contain the doctrine of creation out of nothing, because the word bara could only mean the shaping of something from something already existing" (Bible and Science, p. 5; taken from Huxley's "Mr. Gladstone and Genesis" in Science and Hebrew Tradition, p. 187).

68) Genesis 1 Through the Ages, p. 3.

69) The Piel is merely the intensive form of the Qal; the Nifil is the reflexive form of Qal; the Hifil the causative form of the Qal, etc.

70) Badal is in the Hebrew perfect tense in the Qal form in Gen 1:4. Used 38x in the OT, always refers to God's creative acts (Dt 32:4; Ps 51:10; Is 40:26; 65:18; Jr 31:22), not matter evolving by divine force. If "splitting" were in view baqah could also be used (cf., Gen. 22:3; Num 16:31).

71) New Oxford Review, April 2003, p. 32.

72) 1917 paper titled: "Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity."

73) H = 100 kilometers per second per mega-parsec in distance.

74) Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 113. Hubble's paragraph means that if the redshift interpretation is minimized it would equal a 3-4 billion year old earth. If the redshift interpretation is maximized, it would translate into a universe much older than 3-4 billion years.

75) Times of India, July 30, 1994.

76) www.newtonphysics.on.ca

77) A Doppler shift, as it is known in sound mechanics, is the expansion of sound's wavelength as the source of the sound recedes from you (or contraction as the source approaches you). We hear a rapid change in pitch, for example, when a speeding train blowing its whistle either approaches us or recedes from us. Many scientists today claim that the same thing happens to light when it travels, that is, those who believe light is a wave say that the waves expand as the source of light recedes from the observer. As we have noted previously, however, this ignores the fact that light should reduce in energy as it travels; it ignores that light is supposed to be constant in speed whereas sound is not; and it ignores that the source of light has little to do with the speed of light if light is constant and the source is obliterated.

78) "Velocity-Distance Relation Among Extra-Gallactic Nebulae," 1931, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 74. See also "The Apparent Radial Velocities of 100 Extra-Galactic Nebulae," 1936, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 83. Even Hubble, while he tried to be the darling of the scientific community, had his doubts. As astrophysicist A. Sandage reports: "We now come to one of the most remarkable episodes in all of science. Hubble's detailed analysis...is a most fascinating study of how an interpretation, without caution concerning possible systematic errors, led to a conclusion that the systematic redshift effect is probably not due to a true Friedmann-Lemaitre expansion, but rather to an unknown, then as now, unidentified principle of nature. Indeed, even in the abstract to this 1936 paper on the Effects of Redshift on the Distribution of Nebulae Hubble concluded: 'The high density suggests that the expanding models are a forced interpretation of the data.' His belief that the expansion probably is not real persisted even into his final 1953 paper which was the Darwin lecture of the RAS, given in May of the year he died in September." Yet in a later paragraph Sandage states: "...Hubble maintained these views concerning the reality of the expansion until the end..." http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sandage2/Sandage2_3.html.

79) A "mega-parsec" equals 3.3 x 10^6 light years. A "light year" is the distance light travels in a year, at 300,000 kilometers per second, which equals 3 x 10^19 kilometers.

80) A gigaparsec is 1000 megaparsecs. 50 gigaparsecs equals 1.5 x 10^11 light years, as opposed to one megaparsec which equals 3.3 x 10^6 light years.

81) As we saw in an earlier references, for example, science is well aware of the Planck particles, and other cosmic particles, that pervade the universe. Robert Moon, professor emeritus in physics at University of Chicago, in the journal 21st Century, stated that space had an impedence of 376+ ohms (May-June, 1988, p. 26ff).

82) Discover, May 2003.

1 2 3 4 5 6