PRAYERS TO OUR LADY

Belief in evolution negates belief in the inerrant Word of God

Pope Francis Basically Just Admitted There May Not Be a God

Chez Pazienza on October 28, 2014

I’m beginning to think that Pope Francis has a lot in common with Norville Barnes, the main character in the Coen Brothers’ 1994 comedy The Hudsucker Proxy. You get the impression that the powers that be saw him as a rube they could elevate to a figurehead position then push around, but what they wound up with was somebody who by accident or through sheer force of goodwill stumbled into completely revolutionizing the company.

Up until now Francis’s acts as pope could have been written off as being either ineffectual or simply personal quirks: he extended a hand to gays and atheists while not actually changing church policy on the inherent sinfulness of the gay and atheist lifestyle; he spoke out against priest sex abuse and met with victims but there are those who are still suspicious, calling it PR stagecraft; he regularly sneaks out of the Vatican to feed the homeless and he seems to truly care about people. But something he just said during an address at the Museum of Unbelievable Irony, otherwise known as the “Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” is truly worth raising an eyebrow or two over.

When talking about how the Big Bang and evolution square within the circle of Christian dogma, he made the remarkable statement that not only are these concepts consistent with bible teachings, they’re actually critical to understanding God. “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything — but that is not so,” the pope said, no doubt to a room full of carnage created by all those exploding heads. He essentially was — and is — claiming that creationists are wrong and those who espouse evolution may very well be right. “God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” the pope said to the few remaining heads left. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

While I’m sure he would argue with me on the outcome, let’s run his statements through the religion-to-reason translator and see what we get: “It’s entirely possible that there is no God, at least not the God described in the Bible.”

Think about the Bible as the very source of Christianity, the supposed word of almighty God. Now think about what it says about God, how he is in fact a “divine being” and what we would by all accounts describe as an omnipotent magician able to simply stretch out his ethereal arms and create the cosmos in a single breath. Think about what the Bible says about creation, how the world was spun out of nothingness in six days and man evolved not from a lesser creature over time but instantly from the dust and clay because that’s what God decreed. Now think about what Pope Francis — the head of the Catholic church and an allegedly infallible presence who also speaks for God here on earth — just said with regard to all of that. He contradicted it all. He rewrote the Bible.

The point here is one that atheists have argued for centuries: If the word of the Bible can be interpreted to fit personal religious biases then how can it be the word of God, and if it can be manipulated on a whim or to account for the march of human progress then what good is it? Why is it necessary at all? (This, by the way, is the backbone of my colleague Mike Luciano’s issues with Islam: there’s simply no need to acknowledge or pay deference to a belief system that at its core espouses illiberal values and is immune to criticism or progress when that belief system is ludicrous by modern standards and therefore unnecessary.) Pope Francis is basically arguing that an ancient, fantastical text whose sole reason for existence is to act as the Christian rule book can accommodate proven realities that are diametrically opposed to its teachings. And if that’s the case, then why is there any need for a belief in the ancient, fantastical text at all?

The answer: there isn’t.

I'm appalled that Rorate-Caeli posted this as a kudos to the inventor of the phony anti-Thomistic 'big-bang' lie, Mgr. Georges Lamaitre. Pope St. Pius X warned Catholics to be vigilant and guard against false science or they would lose their faith.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mark Lecomber on November 1, 2014 at 8:15pm

This might upset a few people but...

The first thing to note about this article (after the obvious anti-Christian bias) is that it has been written from within a Protestant culture. Therefore, the author thinks that, by undermining the Bible, Christianity can be completely written off and consigned to history. What the author is ignorant of is that Catholic Christianity is not based (solely) on the Bible but on the person of Jesus Christ. For that reason almost all of the criticisms that the author presents are irrelevant to his argument and simply demonstrate his ignorance.

He also demonstrates both his anti-Catholic bias and his ignorance again by suggesting that the Church is anti-science. Anyone who knows anything about the Church (rather than listening to silly stereotypes) knows that the Church has been at the vanguard of scientific advance for centuries (the true history of Galileo shows this).

Now for Lemaitre... we have to remember that all science is is a description of Creation. The Church has never declared on whether we should believe in the big bang or evolution or not. So we are free to believe them or not.

The Church declares that the way we should read the Bible is to understand the meaning of the text as the straightforward literal meaning unless there is reason not to. So, for example, when Christ says, 'I am the vine' he is not saying that he is a plant: it's metaphorical. So when we look at the biblical account of Creation we should ask ourselves if a snake actually spoke and examine the text further. The word translated 'day' in the creation story could equally be translated 'epoch' or 'era', therefore it is not necessary (and counterintuitive) to understand the 'days' in the account as 24-hour periods. Also, have you ever noticed that the Bible never states that the 7th day comes to an end? The other six days come to an end but not the seventh. If we read it literally it means that the seventh day hasn't ended yet - it's still ongoing: also supporting the interpretation that the 'days' of creation aren't 24-hours periods.

The most convincing reason for me, though, to support the Big Band and evolution is that the science behind the study of the universe provides such compelling evidence IN SUPPORT OF God as creator. Father Robert Spitzer, SJ did a series on EWTN, has written books and runs various apostolates (including websites like the Magis Centre) in which he describes how the universe is so utterly, incredibly, unbelievably precise that it must have been created by a 'super intelligent being' - and that doesn't leave a lot of room for anything other than God as Creator. We should be embracing this science that virtually PROVES God is the Creator rather than trying to argue against a very well established scientific theory which in turn makes us look like we are arguing against logic for the sake of faith when the opposite is true: there is no conflict between faith and reason, they are perfectly in tune with one another.

I am not saying that God was not able to create the entire universe in six days. In a way we could take the scriptural truth that, 'to God a day is a thousand years and a thousand years are a day' and say that BOTH views are true. After all it is Protestantism that sets up false dichotmoies of either/or (e.g. faith and works) where the Catholic view is best represented as both/and.

These two theories also leave huge gaps where science hasn't found the answers (which we can exploit when talking to atheists). For example: Big Bang: scientists can describe what happened but they don't know why. They also have to admit that there was a 'first cause' (a something) that made the big bang happen. We can say that what they call the 'first cause' we know, personally, as God AND we can also answer the question of why regarding Creation that science can't.

As for evolution, there is a huge gap so well known and accepted that scientists have a name for it, "the missing link". This means that the complaint often voiced about evolution that 'Adam was descended from a monkey' is not something we need to worry about. The very bit of evolution that doesn't make sense to scientists is the bit where the line of increasingly intelligent monkey made a sudden "jump" and became human. Again, faith plugs this gap and provides not only the 'how' but also the 'why'. How did humans suddenly appear and were far more intelligent than former 'life forms'? Because God made man and 'breathed life into him'. Why? Science has no clue, but faith knows why, we don't even need to think about it.

These 'scientific' things are not affronts to our faith and, further still, do not disprove our faith. Bad science (and bad scientists) THINK that science disproves faith, but the opposite is true, and it has to be because, since faith and reason work hand in hand, science supports our faith. Just like when we encounter a Protestant (or a catholic from the 'Church of Nice') our knowledge of Catholicism and the Bible will help us counter their arguments we MUST educate ourselves about science to refute scientists and atheists.

Anyone who says that evolution and the big band are anti-Catholic either doesn't understand the Church (and it's teaching) or doesn't understand the science behind these theories.

Now to explain Pope Francis: I think this is beyond faith and reason!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sue K on November 2, 2014 at 11:10am

From Big Bang Theory

Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."⁴ Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American,October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.

Thanks, but I'll stick with the Church Father St. Basil the Great Hexaemeron and St Robert Bellarmine's condemnation of Galileo. The Church Scholastics all refuted the materialist atomic 'theory' through philosophy. The modernists ascribe God to their materialis theories.

Thanks also to Robert Sungenis.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Lecomber on November 2, 2014 at 4:03pm

Thanks, Sue. I think the Big bang theory (as well as evolution) provide us with good ways to engage atheists and scientists. Even if the philosophical outlook is wrong the logical conclusion of these theories is a creator God (and by extension the One True Church).

However, I will look at the references you provided. The question of philosophy sounds interesting and i must admit that it is an area that i need to learn more about. I've never thought that my framework of beliefs is set within a philosophy of modernism but what i know of the Church and the world it wouldn't surprise me at all. As a convert i am aware that most of my life has been spent within another culture so this does make sense.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sue K on November 2, 2014 at 9:51pm

Hi, Mark, I'm sorry I don't really have time to follow up your remarks; I'm getting ready for a 7 week trip.
I know a little about all this through my husband, who is, truly, a scholar; his expertise is philosophy, theology and the natural sciences. He wanted to be able to refute modern errors of science (most of which actually have their beginnings in the Greek 'philosophers') to defend the faith.
Robert Sungenis does a great job refuting heliocentric 'theory'. You can find him on the web. Solange Hertz has a good paper on that topic, also.

The Catechism on Modernism is a super little book explaining Pascendi Dominici Gregis. Here is an example of the errors of modernist theologians:

A. Around this primitive formula secondary formulas, as We have already indicated, gradually  come to be formed, and   these subsequently grouped  into one body, or one doctrinal construction, and  further sanctioned by the public magisterium as  responding to the common consciousness, are called  dogma.   Q. Do the Modernists distinguish dogma from theo  logical speculations ?   A. Dogma is to be carefully distinguished from  the speculations of theologians.

Q. Of what use are these theological speculations ? A. Although not alive with the life of dogma, these are not without their utility as serving both to harmonize religion with science and to remove opposition between them, and to illumine and defend religion from without, and it may be even to prepare the matter for future dogma.

Where would the devil have been in the context of human history if man wasn't created  for thousands of years after he the devil's fall?  Adam gave names to all the animals, but evolutionists say they weren't what they are today at the moment they were created.  As St. Paul said, Faith is acknowledging the Flood and Noe, etc.  Science ain't gonna help anyone with that, or the Resurrection, or the Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation, Original Sin,or even the existence of the soul.   Etc.
And, ask the so-called christian evolutionist, who were Adam and Eve's parents?  Very weird.
Congratulations on your conversion! God bless you with lots of good books and a good priest.  Our priest mentioned today, the Eternal Day, perhaps that is why there is no end to the 7th day of creation.   God be with you.