CathInfo.com

The first chapter of Genesis insists that the Earth came before the Light while the Big Bang claims that the Light came before the Earth.  Thus. this simple fact shows that Big Bang is utterly incompatible/irreconcilable with Sacred Scripture.

We find at the below link how Fr. Robinson would dismiss my powerful point above.  It is fairly amazing/shocking/scandalous to see what Fr. Robinson has written here.  On close and careful review it can be seen to simply does not wash with a traditional Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture.  A key point is that he wrongly uses St. Thomas Aquinas to support an untraditional exegesis of Sacred Scripture!  He would have us believe that since there is such solid evidence for the Big Bang (which in fact is just a theory) then Genesis must be interpreted in such a way so as to support the Big Bang.   In other words science the tail wags religion the dog.  Right -- I know -- Go figure! https://therealistguide.com/big-bang-theory-reactions.

 The latest on Fr Robinson's book:

---

Ask a Question
To ask Fr Robinson a question, just go to the contact us page.
Answers to Questions
Question: Can an argument be made from theology for a young age of the human race?
Answer: Chapter 3 of The Realist Guide covers the way that religions argue their dogmas. The main point is that theological arguments are essentially arguments of authority. This does not mean, however, that they are not based on reason. On the contrary, it is the duty of the branch of theology called apologetics to establish the reasonableness of the authorities being invoked.

So, if you wanted to argue a proposition like "The human race started no later than 10,000 years ago" as being part of the Catholic faith, you would try to build a case from the following authorities:   

• Sacred Scripture
• The writings of the Fathers
• Docuмents of the Magisterium

In addition, you would make an argument of reason, but, in the theological argument, the argument from reason alone would not hold as much weight as the arguments of authority.

According to the strength of the argument of authority, theologians give a grade of certainty to the conclusion being drawn. That grade can vary from a mere theological opinion (lowest) to a dogma of divine and Catholic faith (highest). In the case of the proposition mentioned above, I believe it would fall into the category of a theological opinion.

Question: If God could have created the world as explained in the Scriptures, why would he use the Big Bang? Wouldn't that mean that God was trying to hide the way He created things? It could seem that this wouldn't make sense, especially since this way of Creation is much more likely to give impression that the Earth is accidental than the literal Creation?
Answer: In my view, things are exactly the opposite of the way that you portray them. If God created everything fully formed, as described in Genesis, then, based on what we know about planets and stars, they would have the appearance of having been formed over millions of years, but the Bible would be telling us that they were formed in an instant. In other words, the reality that God has created would be telling us one thing and the Bible would be telling us another. That is, in fact, the Protestant position, as I explain in chapter 7 of The Realist Guide. Their idea of God is that He wanted to deceive our minds by creating a world in an instant that appears to have developed over long periods of time. Why would He do this? In order to convince us that the reason that He has given us is useless! I would argue that this is not the God that we worship as Catholics and not really a God that anyone would want to worship.

As for your last question above, no, a divinely-commenced  Big Bang, far from making the development of the Earth seem accidental, rather makes it seem extremely carefully choreographed. Look up "fine-tuning of the universe" and you will see what I am talking about. Or read chapter 9 of my book.

Question: Have you heard about Mr. Robert Sungenis? He is a Catholic who holds Geocentric position. He offers (or at least used to offer) prize of several thousand for anyone who would prove the Heliocentric system to him. If the Heliocentric system is proven, wouldn't anyone who knows about science win the award?
Answer: I criticize Robert Sungenis in chapter 7 of my book. First criticism: he does not interpret the Bible as a Catholic. He makes geocentrism a theological question; in the mind of the Church, it is purely a scientific question. Second criticism: he does not accept the very solid empirical evidence available in support of heliocentrism. Thus, for instance, he did not give Ken Cole the $1000 that he promised when Ken Cole refuted his position. Third criticism: he does not do science properly. He does not take empirical evidence and show how it supports geocentrism. Rather, he a) pokes holes in modern scientific theory; b) proposes that the geocentric model is plausible without providing real data to prove that the earth is actually at the center of the universe. In short, I don't trust Mr. Sungenis on the side of theology or on the side of science.

Question: Does your position represent the position of Society of St. Pius X?  
Answer: The SSPX does not hold official positions on science. The SSPX is a Catholic organization that holds to all of the teachings of the Catholic Church, full stop. But the Catholic Church has never mandated that Catholics hold to geocentrism or heliocentrism, or that they hold to the Big Bang Theory or any other theory. What I do in my book is try to indicate to Catholics what questions are theological and what questions are scientific. Then, on the scientific questions, I try to indicate what opinions correspond to realism and which do not. Heliocentrism and the Big Bang Theory (which allows for God and even points to God) correspond to realism and so a proper prudential intellectual judgment. Neo-Darwinian evolution, in large part, does not correspond to realism.

Question: What do you think of the position of the Kolbe Center on the Bible and science?
Answer: While I respect the good will of those at the Kolbe Center, I cannot but remark that they adopt the fundamentalist Protestant stance on the relation between the Bible and science. As I explain in great detail in chapter 7 of The Realist Guide, that exegetical stance has several terrible effects:

• It makes the Bible out to be an enemy of science.
• It makes religion out to be an enemy of reason.
• It makes God out to be an arbitrary ruler of the universe.

For these reasons, Catholics should adhere to the exegetical principles of the Scriptural encyclicals of Popes Leo XIII, Benedict XV, and Pius XII, which indicate that the Bible is not to be treated as a science book.

Question: Do you no longer believe in the creation story in Genesis?
Answer: I read Genesis in the way that the Catholic Church has directed her children to read it. The Church indicates that Genesis 1 is meant to teach us important dogmas of faith, but is not meant to teach us science. Here is a summary of what we are held to believe and what we are not held to believe. 
What Catholics are held to believe from Genesis 1-3

• There is one God, outside of the universe, who created that universe from nothing, such that it had a beginning in time.
• God created man directly and Eve was formed from Adam.
• Monogenism – the entire human race has a single set of first parents.
• Our first parents were created in a state of original justice, with gifts of integrity and immortality.
• They fell from that state by sin and the wound of their sin was communicated to the entire human race.  

What Catholics are not held to believe from Genesis 1-3

• the universe is a certain age, the Earth is a certain age, the human race is a certain age.
• the universe developed in a certain way 

This is why Cardinal Ruffini, a staunchly orthodox Cardinal at Vatican II, wrote the following in his book The Theory of Evolution Judged by Reason and Faith:
"God could very well reveal (and who doubts it?) in what order and in what time He made the various things appear in the world; but in His inscrutable wisdom He preferred to leave such questions to human research."