Here is more of Fr Robinson's indoctrination.

'Moreover, Pope Leo made clear that Catholics are not in any way obliged to follow the opinions of the Fathers on questions of science. In those matters, the Fathers had freedom; in those matters, we have freedom (emphasis mine):
The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith—what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are," according to the saying of St. Thomas.'

The above only applies to differences between the Fathers. The Council of Trent made it clear when ALL the Fathers UNANIMOUSLY agree on a particular interpretation then that is infallible and cannot be changed.
Now what has been ABANDONED AS INCORRECT? Why a geocentric reading of the Bible of course. ABANDONED AS INCORRECT by WHO? Did Pope Leo XIII believe Galileo, Lyell, voltaire and Darwin had more knowledge than the Bible, but by his time the whole of Genesis history had been ABANDONED AS INCORRECT, thanks to the papal U-turn on the teaching of their predecessors.. All based on Galileo's false science that is. Remember now, the popes also had a DUTY to protect the FLOCK FROM FALSE PHILOSOPHY. Once they failed to defend the Church of 1616 and 1633 they plunged the Flock into philosophical error. So Fr Robinson's plea to Leo XIII is where the Church is at at the moment.

‘The Vulgate Editions of the Bible is Accepted and the Method Prescribed for the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, etc. ^[1]


The literal orbiting sun of Scripture was held by ALL the Fathers. So Fr Robinson's ROCK heliocentrism and its evolution, is the heresy upon which Fr Robinson's 'Catholic science' is built.

Now anything that has a heretical foundation cannot be Catholic truth.

Introduction
In The Realist Guide to Religion and Science, I make a series of criticisms against what is unfortunately and misleadingly called “creationism”. As I explain in the book (p. 234), the term is not used to indicate a belief that the world was created by God. It is rather used to indicate a certain way of interpreting the Bible. In the view of this creationism, the Bible is authoritative over all other sources of knowledge, including science, reason, and especially the Catholic Church. Thus, the creationist position does not allow for any flexibility in the interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis. The literal sense of those chapters is the immovable point, to which everything else must conform. In this sense, “biblicism” is a much better term than “creationism” and one that I will use frequently in this article (the title of chapter 7 of The Realist Guide is “Protestant Biblicism”).


Was it not the Catholic Church that authored and therefore "is
authoritative over'  the Bible rather than the reverse as is advocated
in this the 4th sentence of the Chapter headed Introduction?

I have no problem being called a 'creationist' and for me it means God created all instantly or over seven days, end of story. That is the only logical explanation of Genesis, and Catholic teaching that tells us the ex nihilo creative act was not a series of miracles, but a once off act of God.
Fr Robinson wants his cake and eat it, he want to show the world how the creative act can comply with evolutionary nonsense. The clever SSPX priest tries to paint all 'creationists' as little more than Protestants, hoping that will persuade his readers to go down the 'Catholic' route and feel superior intellectually to those silly Protestants who do not know theirt science.

In order to facilitate a closer examination of Fr. Robinson's email response to me of two days ago in which I had asked him two questions, I have pasted below what you would find at Amazon under Father's book were you to look for the review (as of today one of 13 reviews seen there) of Father's book by an individual going by the name "Christian" along with the exchange between Father and "Christian" included in the comments pertaining to that particular review.  This can all be seen under the asterisks below.

For your convenience, I repeat here what my two questions to Fr. Robinson were in the above referenced email and his answer in the reply email the next day:

My first question was this -- I asked him which of the following he believed in.
1) Progressive creationism -- where God uses His divine power intermittently to help the creation develop over billions of years

2)  Theistic evolution -- where God built into the creation the power, by itself, to develop over billions of years

3)  Secular evolution  -- where matter created itself and developed over billions of years

4)  Six day creation by divine fiat

My second question was where exactly in the book would I be able to find his belief expressed.

Fr. Robinson's reply was quite brief: "If you do read my book, you will find my position on this question expressed on pages 252-253. You can also find my position expressed on the book's website and in my Amazon exchange with Christian."
********************************************************************************************************************************************
Review by Christian


[Updated Aug. 8] - Fr. Robinson promotes the idea of replacing atheistic evolution with a form of “theistic evolution”, i.e., God created the Big Bang and then directed the evolution of the universe towards intelligent design through secondary causes over billions of years, by the “fine-tuning of the universe necessary for stars, galaxies and planets to form.” (p. 456). As Fr. Michael Chaberek, O.P. says: Theistic evolution "affirms the divine origin of the world—that in the first moment of creation, the world was brought forth out of nothingness. However, this approach further assumes that the world had been programmed in such a way that it progressed to its current form by virtue of its own laws and capacities (secondary causes). Evolution—cosmic, chemical, and biological—has developed the world we live in today, along with all living organisms, which share a single common ancestor." (See “Catholicism and Evolution: A History from Darwin to Pope Francis,” pp. 59-60). Fr. Robinson supports the theory of Intelligent Design, but also promotes a form of theistic evolution with regard to cosmic and chemical evolution.

Fr. Robinson makes some good points to refute the false arguments of atheists who say that blind, non-intelligent forces produced the intricate order and intelligent design we see in the universe (p. 415). He also makes good arguments against macro evolution of one life form into another (p. 456, p. 466). However, along with his promotion of the Big Bang theory (pp. 366-67) and cosmic theistic evolution (Ch. 9), he accuses scientific Creationists (p. 292) of creating “a new notion of God, a God Who cannot be found in the Bible,” simply because they oppose the Big Bang Theory, they believe in a young universe and earth, and they believe in a geographically universal flood of Noah.

In reality, however, cosmic theistic evolution is not possible. For as Fr. Robinson himself explains, God moves and directs all secondary causes according to their natural mode of operation, i.e., according to the natural forces given to them by God (p. 263). But the secondary causes of the universe, or matter and energy, e.g. atoms, the elements, gases, gravity, magnetism, electricity, wind, heat, etc., are non-intelligent and blind forces. Their actions and interactions with other forces are governed by their intrinsic properties and by the Laws of Physics. Furthermore, according to scientific evidence, they are not predetermined or pre-programmed to organize and develop themselves into the complex intelligent design we see in the universe.

Consequently, even though these secondary causes can produce various effects with beauty and simple design (e.g., the formation of mountains, landscapes, oceans, lakes and rivers, waterfalls, the Grand Canyon, etc.), they cannot become organized and develop into the intricate order and intelligent design of stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets without the direct and supernatural intervention of God. This supernatural action of God is precisely His “six-day” work of creation and formation of all things in the universe – including biological life – as revealed in Genesis and explained by St. Thomas Aquinas and the Fathers of the Church. Thus, the intelligent design of the universe cannot be the result of the evolution (natural or theistic) of secondary causes of the "Big Bang” working over 13.7 billion years.

Many modern Thomists and some recent popes (e.g., Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis) have promoted various forms of theistic evolution, but this is a result of the poison of Modernism which has been trying to subvert traditional Catholic teaching for over 100 years. And even if Pope Pius XII allowed the discussion of evolution in his encyclical "Humani Generis" (Aug. 12, 1950), it was most likely due to the hoax of the Piltdown Man and false information about the Peking Man, and it was before the scientific findings of the Law of Genetics, i.e., the "genetic blueprint" (DNA) of plants and animals, which may allow for great variation within a species, but does not allow the evolution or spontaneous generation of one life form into another. (Note: Also, we shouldn't forget that Pope Pius XII’s confessor and advisor was the modernist Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea. And another famous modernist Jesuit, Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, actually participated in the investigations surrounding the Piltdown Man and the Peking Man).

Theistic evolutionists don’t realize that it is a pantheistic idea to propose that non-intelligent, blind secondary causes/forces of the universe can act in an intelligent manner unto the production of complex order and design by their sole natural forces, without the additional need of God's supernatural or direct intervention. For this would logically mean that the universe is evolving intelligently and with purpose by some kind of natural union with God’s intelligence and action, which is a form of pantheism - and is similar in some ways to the evolutionist "Omega Point" theory of Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., (1881-1955).

Perhaps evolutionists will say that plants and animals, which are non-intelligent, do evolve from seeds/embryos into fully developed plants and animals. However, the difference is that God, the Intelligent Designer, already placed determined or "programmed" potentialities (e.g., DNA codes) in their forms when He created them, so that their so-called "evolution" is simply their natural development from potentiality to actuality by means of secondary causes (e.g., sunshine, air, food, water, etc.). This kind of process, however, cannot apply to the universe, since the universe does not have a determined substantial life form.

According to Fr. Robinson and theistic evolutionists, since the galaxies, stars and planets of the universe have the appearance of being formed over millions/billions of years, God could not have created them as described in Genesis, otherwise He would be intentionally deceiving us by making the universe look old when it is actually very young, thereby "preventing His rational creatures from using their reason to understand what He had created” (p. 263). This opinion is also taught by Protestant "old-earth creationists" such as Hugh Ross and Rich Deem. However, this kind of thinking is not correct, for not only does it deny God’s right to give supernatural formation to His creation without the need of long periods of time, it also goes contrary to the reality that God did bring into existence many creatures already formed and developed. For example, Adam and Eve were created in their adult state without the need of 25-30 years to grow into adults. Also, God created all the animals in their adult state, since infant animals cannot be born and survive without their adult "parents."

Fr. Robinson doesn't realize that his opinion about "God intentionally deceiving us" can be used the other way around, because Christians could say that God has been deceiving them for almost 2000 years by allowing His Church to promote a false interpretation of Genesis, only to be corrected by the scientists of the Big Bang theory (many of whom are atheistic evolutionists), who have finally discovered the “evidence” for the right interpretation of Genesis. This would be much worse, for it would promote the idea, especially among high school/college students, that since the Bible and Church got it wrong about the history of the universe and creation, then maybe they are also wrong about God and Religion.

With regard to Young Earth Creationism, St. Thomas Aquinas gives the reason why God can create the universe in a highly developed condition without the need of long periods of time to develop into stars, galaxies and planets. He says: “God produces being in act out of nothing, and can, therefore, produce a perfect thing in an instant, according to the greatness of His power” (STh, I,66,1,2). This principle applies to all being, whether organic or inorganic. Thus, if God created the universe this way, then even though it would have the physical perfection of an ancient universe, it would actually be very young. For example, the light produced by stars and galaxies would have extended great distances quickly across the universe without the need of millions/billions of years. Similarly, the human body of Adam and Eve, along with the formation and development of the brain, vital organs, etc., did not need the normal 25-30 years necessary for development from an embryo to adulthood. Then, once God’s work of creation was finished and He rested on the “seventh day,” the universe - with its cosmic, chemical and biological perfection - would simply continue in its existence and operation according to the normal laws of physics established by God.

It is disturbing to see Fr. Robinson's attempt to discredit the work of some highly qualified creation scientists, especially Dr. Walter Brown, who received his Ph.D. from MIT and was a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy. In his online book “In The Beginning” – which everyone should be encouraged to read – he uses clear scientific evidence from all over the earth to support the theory of a young earth/universe as well as the global Flood of Noah. Many of his scientific predictions, based on his “Hydroplate Theory,” have already been verified by recent scientific discoveries (docuмented in his book). Dr. Brown was actually an evolutionist for much of his life, and then, after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation science and a global flood. Some of his debates against atheists and evolutionists are available on YouTube.

It is true that the Catholic Church, the Fathers of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas. etc., teach that Christians should not promote interpretations of Sacred Scripture which are contrary to scientific fact. For this reason, on June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission states that the Hebrew word “Yom” used in the first chapter of Genesis may be understood as either a natural 24-hour day or longer periods of time (8th decree). Most Catholics who believe in a young universe/earth probably realize that the "days" of creation were more likely longer periods of time. (For example, on the "sixth day," God created all the animals; then He created Adam; then He had Adam give a name to each animal; then He created Eve. All these things seem to point to a very long "sixth day"). But the Biblical Commission never said that these six "periods of time" should be understood as millions or billions of years, or that God did not exercise His supernatural causality in the formation of the universe during that time. The Big Bang theory is not a scientific fact, but only a theory. And many modern scientific explanations of the universe are not facts, but only theories and opinions. Recent scientific discoveries, such as galaxies and nebulae, only point to their "existence," not to their "evolution" over millions/billions of years. Therefore, the traditional Christian interpretation of Genesis should be maintained. As the 4th Lateran Council (1215) teaches: “From the beginning of time, [God] made at once out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then the human creature.”

[Update: Aug. 8] Fr. Robinson, like most modern scientists, subscribes to the Big Bang theory. However, this theory, which says that the universe formed and developed over 13.7 billion of years solely by natural causes and the Laws of Physics, is actually contrary to scientific evidence. For scientists themselves admit that, according to the Laws of Physics and the scientific evidence they have, there is no way that galaxies, nebulae, stars and planets could have formed and developed in the universe. In fact, they have found that the known Laws of Physics cannot account for the way the universe actually works, because there is simply not enough matter in the universe to have provided the gravitational forces and effects necessary to produce galaxies, stars and planets. Scientists say that the universe would need 80% more matter to produce sufficient gravity – but this matter is missing. It’s not there.
--- In their attempt to solve this dilemma, modern scientists have invented the theory/hypothesis of Dark Matter, i.e., matter that must be there, but is invisible, undetectable and cannot be found. It’s an unknown substance which emits no light, heat, radio waves, nor any other kind of radiation. Scientists say that the presence of Dark Matter can be “inferred” from the gravitational pull it exerts on visible matter. But when you ask them to prove how this undetectable Dark Matter is exercising these gravitational effects, they say that the explanations about Dark Matter, Dark Energy and the Big Bang can’t be tested and proved or disproved but must be taken on faith. Well, this is not true science, because true science is based on clear evidence, not faith.
--- At least these scientists recognize that the universe cannot be explained without recourse to an incredibly powerful cause. The problem is that they have no scientific evidence to support the existence of the powerful cause they believe in, i.e., Dark Matter. However, for creationists, the answer is clear--and revealed in the book of Genesis, i.e., God is the Cause of the creation and formation of the universe, with all its galaxies, nebulae, stars and planets, and all forms of life.

Fr. Robinson also seems to make contradictory statements. First of all, he says that it is metaphysically impossible for blind forces to produce intricate order, and that “the earth is a result of such complex causes that it is most likely the only habitable planet in the universe” (p. 415). But then he says: “but we grant that our planet could have formed by merely natural processes without a direct intervention by God or an intelligent agent. The theory has reputable, mathematical models behind it.” However, even Isaac Newton shows opposition to this opinion in his Principia Mathematica: “Though these bodies [planets] may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws… This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

Secondly, Fr. Robinson states that natural selection cannot produce macro evolution, i.e., one life form evolving into another (p. 456). But in another place he says: “Once God has created, for instance, animals with all five senses, like dolphins, then secondary causes—such as dolphins, natural selection, humans, and even good and bad angels—can modify dolphins to make other animals that are new to some degree” (p. 405); and he also says: “Once a biologist admits the existence of formal causes outside the mind, he can then propose a coherent naturalistic evolutionary process for one life form changing into another” (p. 449). These statements are ambiguous and need to be clarified.

Consequently, I would not recommend Fr. Robinson's book because of its promotion of cosmic theistic evolution, its contradictory statements, some of which seem to promote evolutionist ideas, and because of his opposition to all creation science, which is supported by many examples of scientific evidence and is more in line with the traditional Catholic understanding of the book of Genesis.
*****************************

---

Hi, Christian,
Thanks for your thoughts on my book. I am happy to see that you made it to the end and I am glad that you enjoyed the critiques of atheistic science and macroevolution. On the other hand, I am sorry to see that the parts of the book that you agreed with were not enough, in your eyes, to merit at least two or three stars. I suppose you found that the critique of creationism outweighed all other considerations. I realize how important the creationist position can be in the minds of some Catholics, and this was the first motivation I had in writing the book.

That being said, I hope you don’t mind if I clarify some of the points that you made in the review. The first and most important point is that you seem to confuse the Big Bang Theory with Evolutionary Theory, when in reality they are quite different. I am always pointing this out at book launches (like the one I did yesterday). Evolution, in common parlance, refers to a theory about biology; the Big Bang Theory, on the other hand, refers to a theory about physics. A theistic evolutionist, therefore, is one who believes that God designed the created order such that it is able to produce more complex living things from less complex living things by purely natural processes. A Big Bang theorist, on the other hand, holds that the certain chemical processes led to the development of stars and galaxies over long periods of time, after the universe began with an initial burst of energy 13.7 billion years ago.

Thus, the label of “theistic evolutionist” would not apply to someone, such as myself, who believes in the Big Bang Theory but not in macroevolution. The members of the Intelligent Design movement, for instance, typically accept the Big Bang Theory, but they constantly attack theistic evolution.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that I accuse creationists making a new notion of God solely on the basis of their strictly literal interpretation of Genesis. But, really, my main basis for making that accusation in the book is that they think of God as being inconsistent in His design of the universe, a God who is periodically changing the laws of the universe and so making it inaccessible to scientific discovery (see p. 272). This God, as I point out, is a voluntarist God, whose will need not conform to the principles of reason. That God-idea had its origin with Catholic philosophers like William of Occam, at the time of scholastic decadence, and found its full flourishing in the theologies of Luther and Calvin. It is a God that has more of an affinity with the Allah of Islam than the God of the Bible. That is why the Church has always fought against such a God-idea and really any God-idea that would undermine the power of reason to understand God’s reality.

You mention St. Thomas and the Fathers as supporting the creationist view of Biblical exegesis. This is a common misperception and I am at pains in chapter 7 to show that neither the Magisterium, nor St. Thomas, nor the Fathers, nor pre-Vatican II Scripture manualists interpreted the Bible as modern Protestant creationists do. Rather, they all held that the Bible is to be interpreted in agreement with scientific fact and not against it. St. Thomas, relying on St. Augustine explains this best when he says (quoted on p. 250):
Two things must be observed in questions of this sort, as Augustine teaches. First, one must hold unshakably that Scripture is true. Second, since Sacred Scripture can be interpreted in many ways, one must not hold to a given interpretation so firmly that, once that interpretation is clearly shown to be false, he presume to assert that the false interpretation is Scripture’s meaning, lest, by doing so, he expose Scripture to ridicule by non-believers, and close off for them the path to belief.

As far as contradiction in my book goes, you probably realize, Christian, that the gravest accusation that can be made against an author is that he falls into contradiction. It is even a more serious accusation than that he has fallen into error. If a man falls into error in this or that fact, you may readily excuse him, for ‘to err is human’. But if a man contradicts himself, you may rightly wonder whether anything at all that he says is trustworthy. A man who is not consistent with himself can be trusted to hit on the truth in the same way that a blind man may be trusted to hit a target when shooting an arrow. (Consider, in this light, how important it is that we see God as being consistent!)

You will not be surprised, then, that I find your perception of my inconsistency to rest on a misunderstanding. For instance, I do say that it is metaphysically impossible for blind forces to produce intricate order on p. 415. But I am speaking there about *life*, which, as I explain in the book, is massively more ordered and complex than anything found in the *inanimate* world (see p. 410). It is quite plausible that planets have formed from merely natural processes, but that is not the case with plankton. Thus, I do not fall into contradiction saying that natural forces can produce the non-intricate order of stars and galaxies, but cannot produce the intricate order of life. Accusing me of contradiction in that context would be somewhat like saying, “It is a contradiction to say in one place that you cannot throw a ball into outer space, but in another to say that you can throw a ball into the air.”

But even if we were to say that stars and galaxies have *some* degree of order, it would not be pantheistic to say that God designed matter to develop into stars and galaxies. The reason is that God can give matter a certain nature by which it is able to act on its own. As I mention in the book (p. 62), God gives beings to things and then creatures are able to use their being. Even humans are able to do this to a certain degree. For instance, a computer programmer can write a program and then execute it. The program executes the instructions of the programmer in an ordered way, to modify things on the computer. When this happens, we do not infer that the programmer is actually inside the computer, because the non-intelligent, blind computer is acting intelligently unto the production of complex order. Similarly, God can pre-load or fine-tune the universe such that it will develop in an ordered way, merely by means of creatures acting in the way that God made them to act and without Him having to intervene directly. This does not imply that He and the universe are one.

As far as the second apparent contradiction goes, I think we would all admit that some variation is possible in the biological world. I mention the famous example of the Galapagos finches on p. 439. We can also think of animal breeders, who manage to “create” new breeds by means of selective breeding. This sort of microevolution is all that I am referring to on pages 456 and 405, which you reference; I am not accepting the possibility of macroevolution on those pages. And, in the citation from p.449, I am just saying that if someone wants to even attempt to make a case for macroevolution, he has to accept the existence of formal causes.

I hope that this helps clear up some misunderstandings, Christian. While I don’t expect to have dissuaded you from creationist views, I hope at least that you understand where I am coming from in not finding them compelling myself.
God bless,

Fr. Robinson
**************************

---

Fr. Robinson,
After reading your comments, I have made some updates in my review to clarify some of the points I made. For example, you can see the quote from Fr. Chaberek, O.P., that theistic evolution can refer not only to biological evolution, but also to chemical and cosmic evolution. Also, I think your statements that seem to be contradictory need to be clarified, so that it's clear that you are referring to "variation" within a species rather than macroevolution. Additionally, since there's no such thing as a coherent scientific theory that contradicts the principles of reason, I think it's not possible to say: “Once a biologist admits the existence of formal causes outside the mind, he can then propose a coherent naturalistic evolutionary process for one life form changing into another.” Also, it seems that you forget that the Big Bang theory is not a scientific fact, but only a theory, and that many modern scientific explanations of the universe are not facts, but only theories and opinions. As you know, the literal interpretation of Genesis was commonly held by a great number of Church Fathers and early Apologists. Surely, they can't be accused of having the wrong idea about God because they believed in the six-day creation, a young earth and universe, and a geographically universal flood of Noah.
**************************


Hi, Christian,
Thank you for the clarifications in your review, and also for mentioning the excellent work of Fr Chaberek, which I quote in The Realist Guide and highly recommend. Since you accept the authority of Fr. Chaberek on this question, I thought I might refer more to his work than my work in this reply.

With regards to terminology, Fr. Chaberek makes clear, in the section of Catholicism and Evolution which you cite, that my view would be referred to as “progressive creationism” and not “theistic evolutionism”. Here is how he defines “progressive creationism” on page 61:
“This concept assumes that both the universe and different species, including man, were created by means of special operations performed directly by God rather than in the course of natural processes or as a result of secondary causes. this view adopts the scientific concept of deep time (old age of the universe), currently estimated at about 13.7 billion years.”

Fr. Chaberek himself is a progressive creationist and accepts the Big Bang Theory. He also holds that the human race may have begun as long ago as 2 million years. Yet he is not a theistic evolutionist.
With regard to the Fathers and Young Earth Creationism, I think that it is important to note, with Fr. Chaberek, that YEC “has its roots in 17th century Protestantism” (p. 63). It is a particular way of interpreting the Bible in contradiction to solid scientific evidence, something that the Fathers never did and something that is contrary to the Catholic spirit of exegesis. As Father points out, the young earth views of Catholic theologians prior to the 17th century “were not put forward in opposition to scientific data, but rather stemmed from the poor scientific knowledge of the time” (Ibid.).

Meanwhile, “progressive creationists interpret Genesis in such a way that, while preserving the literal and historical sense, they leave room for justified criticism of the text, and acknowledge true scientific discoveries (e.g., old age of the universe, heliocentrism, multitude of galaxies)” (p. 62). This position is actually more in line with the spirit of the Fathers, who did not want to interpret the Bible in contradiction with the science of their times. If the Fathers had thought that science showed that the earth was old and yet the Bible taught that the earth was young, they would then be entangled in the problem of having a voluntarist, Allah-like God on their hands. But they did not fall into this error, as modern-day creationists have.

Finally, Christian, I just wanted to provide a more detailed clarification of this sentence from The Realist Guide: “Once a biologist admits the existence of formal causes outside the mind, he can then propose a coherent naturalistic evolutionary process for one life form changing into another.” Consider if I met someone who had the idea that pigs fly, but also the idea that pigs don’t exist. To such a person, I would say, “Before you can propose a coherent theory for pigs flying, you must first admit that they exist.” Similarly, empiricist Darwinians claim that species evolve, while seeming to deny the very existence of species. This is why I say to them, “You must first admit that species or formal causes actually exist outside the mind before you can propose a coherent theory about those species evolving.” Once an evolutionist admits that species actually exist, then he can proceed to speculate coherently about how they might evolve.

In my view, as expressed in my book, such speculation should lead to the conclusion that they do not, in fact, evolve. But the sentence to which you refer is only meant to say that the evolutionist is caught in a contradiction before he even begins to speculate – as the person who does not believe in pigs is caught in a contradiction before he even begins to speculate about whether or not they can fly. I do not mean to suggest that evolutionary theory is viable given the actual evidence. Nor do I believe that it is viable even on philosophical grounds. The sentence was merely intended to highlight one glaring contradiction which places the evolutionist in a state of incoherency even before he begins to speculate.

I hope that this helps clear some things up, Christian.

God bless,
Fr. Robinson
****************************


Hi, Fr. Robinson,
I understand your points about progressive creationism and theistic evolution. However, I think if you support the theory of progressive creationism, you should have explained that clearly in your book, for then the reader would understand that your idea of God “fine-tuning and pre-programming” the universe actually refers to His direct and supernatural causality on secondary causes to enable them to produce the universe’s intelligent design.

You claim that, since the universe has the appearance of being formed over millions/billions of years, God could not have created it as described in Genesis, otherwise He would be intentionally deceiving us by making the universe look old when it is actually very young. But the same argument can be used the other way around, because Christians could say that God has been deceiving them for almost 2000 years by allowing His Church to promote a false interpretation of Genesis, only to be corrected by the Big Bang theory of modern scientists (many of whom are atheistic evolutionists), who have finally discovered the “evidence” for the right interpretation of Genesis. I think this is much worse, for it promotes an idea among the people, especially among high school/college students, that since the Bible and Church are wrong about the universe and the history of creation, then maybe they are also wrong about God and Religion.

With regard to Young Earth Creationism, St. Thomas Aquinas gives the reason why God can create the universe in a highly developed condition without the need of long periods of time to develop into stars, galaxies and planets. He says: “God produces being in act out of nothing, and can, therefore, produce a perfect thing in an instant, according to the greatness of His power” (STh, I,66,1,2). This principle applies to all being, whether organic or inorganic. Thus, if God created the universe in this way, then even though it would have the physical perfection of an ancient universe, it would actually be very young. For example, the light produced by stars and galaxies would have extended great distances quickly across the universe without the need of millions/billions of years. Similarly, the human body of Adam and Eve, along with the formation and development of the brain, vital organs, etc., did not need the normal 25-30 years necessary for development from an embryo to adulthood. Then, once God’s work of creation was finished and He rested on the “seventh day,” the universe - with its cosmic, chemical and biological perfection - would simply continue in its existence and operation according to the normal laws of physics established by God.

In his outline of the main theories of Creationism, Fr. Chaberek also explains Young Earth Creationism. In his explanation, he cites certain Catholic scientists who support this theory, such as J.W.G. Johnson (who wrote “The Crumbling theory of Evolution” and “Evolution?”) and Rev. Victor P. Warkulwiz. However, he does not accuse these scientists, or other Catholics who support this theory, of being Protestant Fundamentalists; he does not accuse them of harming the work of conversion to the Catholic Religion; and he does not accuse them of promoting a false idea about God. I think we must remember that the Church Herself allows Catholics to believe in Young Earth Creationism according to the common teaching of the Church Fathers.

I was also disappointed to see your attempt to discredit the work of some highly qualified creation scientists, especially Dr. Walter Brown, who received his Ph.D. from MIT and was a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy. In his online book “In The Beginning” – which everyone should be encouraged to read – he uses clear scientific evidence from all over the earth to support the theory of a young earth/universe as well as the global Flood of Noah. Many of his scientific predictions, based on his “Hydroplate Theory,” have already been verified by recent scientific discoveries (docuмented in his book). Dr. Brown was actually an evolutionist for much of his life, and then, after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation science and a global flood. Some of his debates against atheists and evolutionists are available on YouTube.

Lastly, I’ve been thinking about your analogy between the universe and a computer programmer, but I don’t think it really works. For in a computer, there is both software and hardware, and it is the computer processor (intel/AMD) that is the efficient cause continuously executing the “intelligent program” in the computer. But what is the universe’s external efficient cause executing God’s pre-programmed intelligent blueprint on the elements and secondary causes? The elements/secondary causes cannot be this efficient cause, since being non-intelligent and blind forces themselves, they would require an external efficient cause – above and beyond their natural power – to move and direct them in an organized and harmonious manner. But wouldn’t this efficient cause be God in His supernatural/special work of creation and formation of the universe?

I'd like to see where he addresses the infallible teaching of St. Paul, for example, that death entered into the world at the time of original sin, and that before Adam sinned, the animals (and man for that matter) did not die. So how could there have been vast ages, as in millions (or billions!) of years with many generations of animals and plant life, when there was no death?

I like you, Neil, but I have to say I think this is a rather poor argument. In the state of original justice before the Fall, people and animals ate food, right? Eating any living thing, including plants, would require those things to die.

The death referred to by St. Paul can be human death as the punishment for Adam's sin. 

I now see even the ARK is getting its new 'Catholic' interpretation. What is not noted is that catastrophism, the present topography of the Earth depends on the global flood being correct.

Jordan Peterson, Noah's Ark
August 14, 2018 (National Catholic Register) – Having previously looked at his understanding of Adam and Eve as well as Cain and Abel, we turn now to Jordan Peterson's interpretation of the story of Noah and the Flood.
While acknowledging reports of an ancient flood present in many different cultures, Peterson, the Canadian clinical psychologist and author of the influential best-seller, [/url], focuses on what the story of Noah means for us today.[/font]
In offering an interpretation that goes beyond the historical, Peterson follows in the footsteps of Jerome, Origen and Cyprian.
[/font][/size][/color]

St. Augustine once said, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: 'I will send you the Holy Spirit who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.' For he willed to make them Christians, not astronomers." [Now the helios use this quote to dismiss the Church's right in 1616 to make a fixed sun dogma. But it confirms the sun moves, it doesn't tell us in what shape that oerbit is, it took man to discover that.]


The purpose of the story of Noah is not to make us historians of ancient rainfall patterns.
So, what can we learn from Noah and the Flood?
The story begins with a claim as fresh as this morning's news — "the wickedness of man was great in the earth" (Genesis 6:5). In considering the Soviet gulags and the nαzι cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs, it is hard to deny the existence of human wickedness. Nor do we not have to look to Soviet communists or nαzι brownshirts to find deep depravity. Sooner or later, notes Peterson, "You'll tangle with someone who's malevolent right to the core, and maybe it'll be you that is malevolent."
The story continues, "And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them'" (Genesis 6:7-8).
God goes from delighting in creation earlier in Genesis to sorrowing over creation. Does God really change? Peterson does not take up this question, but let us consider it.
Classic Christian theology holds that God's love is unchangingly faithful. The love of God is like the heat of the sun. The heat of the sun feels heavenly when we are beside the pool, sipping a 7-Up on the Fourth of July. The heat of the sun feels hellish when we have to walk 20 miles to the nearest gas station along an abandoned desert road. The heat of the sun does not change. But we do change, and therefore our relationship to the sun's heat changes.
In a similar way, God's love is unchangingly faithful. Our relationship with the God who is Truth feels heavenly or hellish depending on our spiritual condition. As Augustine noted, "They love Truth when it enlightens them. They hate Truth when it accuses them." The unjust perceive God as an angry enemy.
Not everyone, however, viewed God as an enemy.
"Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God" (Genesis 6:9).    What does it mean to walk with God? Peterson describes Christ's Sermon on the Mount as "the closest thing we have to a fully articulated description of what it would mean to walk with God, so that you're in the ark when the flood comes."
To be merciful, to be pure of heart, to be a peacemaker is to walk with God. To imitate Christ daily, according to Peterson, is to build an ark as to save ourselves, our family and the goodness of creation.
But whether we are like Noah or his corrupt contemporaries, Peterson highlights an undeniable reality – "There are floods coming. You can bloody well be sure of that." The downpour of diseases, disasters and deaths will surely afflict us all. Our suffering is a certainty.
To obey conscience is to prepare for the flood. Peterson suggests, "This is a form of prayer. Sit on your bed one day and ask yourself, what remarkably stupid things am I doing on a regular basis to absolutely screw up my life?" When we honestly ask what we can do better, we quickly find out that we are not living according to our highest and best ideals.
"To build an ark" is to live in accordance with our highest and best ideals.
"Every day is judgment day," in Peterson's view. "The part of you that's equivalent to the logos, the part of you that's your own ideal, sits in eternal judgment on your iniquity." In this, Peterson echoes the thought of John Henry Newman, who said, "Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ."
The story continues, "The Lord said to Moses, 'For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights'" (Genesis 7:4).
The chaos emerging from disharmony with the Creator is poetically represented by the primordial waters falling from the sky.
The story of the Flood, in other words, is not a tale of God becoming frustrated and lashing out at human beings.
The flood represents the consequences of disharmony with God. In acting out of harmony with Divine Love, we cause primordial chaos within ourselves. When we act against our ideals, we create within ourselves an inner schizophrenia. We pit the best of ourselves against the rest of ourselves.
This inner chaos spills out. As Eleonore Stump points out in her magisterial book [/url], self-alienation undermines our relationships with other people. When we are self-divided, we are double-minded and mixed in motive. We cannot wholeheartedly love others, since our heart is itself divided. Our inner division afflicts the ones we love, causing "floods" in their lives and ours. And even when our actions do not directly cause the flood, our actions (including our failure to prepare) can make the inevitable floods of life much worse.[/font]
According to Genesis, the rains and the flood do not last forever.
Fellow psychologist Martin Seligman's work on learned helplessness develops Peterson's interpretation. When encountering the floods of life, some people believe that their troubles will last forever, that the rains will ruin everything, and that there is nothing they can do about it.
A person with Christian hope has a remedy for learned helplessness. No rain lasts forever, since no earthly suffering continues after death. Nor can any flood undermine the hope of eternal life.
And finally, there is always something that we can do about the chaotic waters of life. God helps his people to build an ark, to make the best of the worst.
After 40 days, the rain stops, and the flood recedes. God says to Noah, "Go forth from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons' wives with you" (Genesis 16:8).
By obeying conscience, by building an ark, Noah saves himself, his family and the created order. Peterson says, "If you walk properly, aim properly, act properly, and act with God in the manner that we've been discussing, perhaps that isn't only for you. Perhaps it's also the thing that will save your family. And then, by implication, perhaps it will also save society."
The good that we do has ramifications beyond our calculations.
Published with permission from the National Catholic Register.[/font][/size][/color]

A friend sent me this about Robinson's book.

"I suspect that with this hormonal sweep of history Robinson is aiming
for the worldly 'Templeton prize' that established the
dumping-on-the-world-credentials of his mentor Stanley Jaki.

He's a bit over-awed by Philosophers who seem to care only about how
to frame questions rather than how to answer them.

To a guilt-ridden conciliar-catholic who can now - in the wake of JP-2
having shared his pathology on Galileo - openly express embarrassment
about the church supposedly 'loosing' a round to science, this
apparent championing of 'reason' will be psychological soothing
fertilizer to furrow the way into the NWO.

The book will make good ammunition for churning up so-called
traditionalists who still believe they lost that round to science on
the subject of Galileo.

If Robinson was living in the time of his Spiritual ancestor
Pythagoras he would not have had too much remorse about Hippasus being
supposedly bumped off by the Pythagoreans for having given oxygen to
the realism that root-2 was irrational!

As a medium for sharing his feelings about realism I'd say 'Let him at it'

If Sherlock Holmes studied the matter, "The Case of The 6 day creation", he would undoubtedly conclude that the Genesis account of a 6 day creation is true, from the simple fact that all other theories have yet to be proven and have many logical inconsistencies.  As Sherlock famously said:  "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

.
To be historically accurate, Sherlock Holmes was a fictitious character made up by Arthur Conan Doyle, the author, and Doyle's source has been speculatively identified as a real life physician and professor who had the uncanny ability to deduce a man's historical past merely by observing his personal appearance, actions and speech. The principle or proposition you quote, above, is one Doyle learned from his mentor. 

To be historically accurate, Sherlock Holmes was a fictitious character made up by Arthur Conan Doyle, the author, and Doyle's source has been speculatively identified as a real life physician and professor who had the uncanny ability to deduce a man's historical past merely by observing his personal appearance, actions and speech. The principle or proposition you quote, above, is one Doyle learned from his mentor. 

Precisely, Dr Watson!