Fr Paul Robinson, as we see, wrote a book The Realist Guide to Religion and Science.

Now I have read his book that tries to make 'modern science' Catholic, in and out between endless pages of typical philosophical waffle so that after reading some of it the reader does not know what is going on. If any problem arises with his Big Bang 18.5 billion years of evolution, he suggests that only God could have made that happen and therefore no atheist has a leg to stand on.

For a superbly substantial and thoroughly researched and docuмented critique of Fr. Robinson's book see Dr. Robert Sungenis' 575 page masterpiece, Scientific Heresies and their Effect on the Church: A Critical Analysis of "The Realist Guide to Science and Religion." It can be found at https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/new... 
See also https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/


On pp 1-2 of Robert Sungenis' new 564 page book Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church -- A Critical Analysis of: "The Realist Guide to "Religion and Sicence" we find this remarkable passage: "A good friend of mine who is a priest in the SSPX confided the following to me: 'Let me just note that being in the SSPX for over 35 years now, there have always been priests who did not accept 6-day Creation, and who would not even have considered geocentrism as an option , and who were open to certain forms of evolution.  The SSPX has always been a mix of ideas of everything that was still considered orthodox in the 1960s.  Those in authority have feared to accept new creationist and geocentric proofs which have come forth since the 60's, and have willed to keep a 60's - 70's mentality, despite new proofs, or have not been willing to consider as serious science anything which has come forth from geocentric or creationist arguments.  I know, however, several priests open to geocentrism, etc., in the SSPX.  You will also note that Father Robinson's book [The Realist Guide to "Religion and Sicence] was curiously published by Gracewing Publishers and not an SSPX publisher such as the Angelus Press.  Perhaps Father Robinson wanted a wider readership, at the same time Angelus Press might have realized that such a book would rock the boat among SSPX faithful."

In all seriousness, can anyone think of a worse (and more dangerous and more scandalous) book that has ever been officially sold by the SSPX in their entire history than The Realist Guide to Religion and Science by Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX?  Surely, this is one of the greatest testaments to how far astray the leadership in the SSPX has gone.  They need to be made aware in the strongest of terms that the book is outright modernism, plain and simple.

https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science


https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/fr-paul-robinson-v-robert-sungenis/


The Kolbe Center issues a thorough and well docuмented reply to Fr. Paul Robinson -- http://kolbecenter.org/scoffers-will-arise-in-the-last-days-a-reply-to-fr-paul-robinson-fsspx-2/

Old Earth Creationism is just dodging the main question I have for most who are suspect of Modernism.  How long have human beings been in existence?  Fr. Robinson probably simply holds that the Big Bang was touched off by God and labels that OEC.

Well said.  That is precisely what Fr. Robinson holds.

This is an excellent criticism of Fr. Robinson:
https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=1555

One of the most disturbing things I read was this quote from Fr. Robinson:

Anyone who starts such a project knows that they have to have a strong motivation to do so. In my case, I wanted to set the record straight on the Church’s teaching on science in relation to the Bible. I could see that what I was taught as a seminarian and what I was teaching as a seminary professor somehow was not being passed on to the faithful.

More and more we see the neo-SSPX showing their true colors.

I can assure you that if I were the rector of a Traditional Catholic seminary, Fr. Robinson would never have made it to clerical tonsure, much less priestly ordination.

And now he's getting the good word out to the next generation of Traditional Catholics (and probably the last, the way things are going):
https://ourladyhelpofchristians-academy.com/en/our-principal-our-lady-help-of-christians

The question of stellar distances and time is one that I recall Dr. Sugenis covering in one of his Geocentrism books;

Ha, the word stellar rings a bell.  As amazing and as seemingly unbelievable as it may seem, Fr. Robinson who promotes heliocentrism very strongly as if it is a scientific fact gives only one (only one!) "proof" of heliocentrism in his book: stellar parallax.  Only problem is stellar parallax has been totally debunked -- a long time ago.  No respectable scientist today would ever dream of using it as a proof of heliocentrism!

Ugh!  Oh, no!  Say it ain't true Father.  Seen at https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/18499280-fr-laisney-s-support-of-the-realist-guide

Simply stated Fr. Robinson's book is at grievous odds with the Oath Against Modernism!

Fr. Laisney's Support of The Realist Guide


Fr François Laisney, former District Superior of the United States and then of Australia, author of Archbishop Lefebvre And The Vatican and Is Feeneyism Catholic?, and current prior in New Zealand, has written a positive review of The Realist Guide on the Angelus website. Among other things, he says the following about the book:

I read the whole book, and truly consider its contribution to the defense of the Faith very important in our modern world… Note that Father Robinson does not support evolution. The big-bang theory, which Father shows as compatible with the faith, should rather be put in parallel with the growth of a baby in the womb: it starts very small (the primeval atom / the first cell) and unfolds in a most marvellous way, yet perfectly PLANNED by the Divine Intelligence. Both unfolding manifest in a beautiful way the Wisdom and the omnipotence of God as the Author of Nature. And that is much better than the notion of God as a fairy with a wand making all things on the spot as we see it today: this is imagination, and not theology.
 

Fr Laisney has also had occasion to defend the position that The Realist Guide takes on the question of The Great Flood. He has given permission for an excerpt from a letter he wrote on this subject to be published on The Realist Guide blog. Here follows the excerpt, which continues to the end of this page.

“You joined some thoughts about a sentence in Fr Paul Robinson’s excellent book The Realist Guide to Religion and Science, questioning what he writes ‘against a geographically universal flood.’ It is quite providential that your letter arrives so close after the feast of the Ascension. Indeed, the homily of St Gregory at Matins of that feast sheds light on that very matter. In the third reading of that homily, ninth lesson of Matins, St Gregory says:

When then, He had rebuked the hardness of their heart, what command did He give them? Let us hear. "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature." Was the Holy Gospel, then my brethren, to be preached to thing insensate, or to brute beasts, that the Lord said to His disciples: "Preach the Gospel to every creature"? Nay, but by the words "every creature" we must understand man, in whom are combined qualities of all creatures. Being he hath in common with stones, life in common with trees, feeling in common with beasts, understanding in common with angels. If, then, man hath something in common with every creature, man is to a certain extent every creature. The Gospel, then, if it be preached to man only, is preached to every creature.
 

Now let us reflect on what St Gregory teaches. Our Lord Jesus Christ said: ‘preach the Gospel to every creature.’ And St Gregory explains: it does not apply to every creature, but only to every man. Thus, we are not obliged to go onto the moon to preach to the stones there, nor to go to Mars or Venus, nor any other planet or star. We may stay on the earth and even there, we are not obliged to preach to every penguin in Antarctica: it is sufficient to preach to every man.

Similarly, when Moses says in the book of Genesis “And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered – opertique sunt omnes montes excelsi sub universo caelo” (Gen. 7:19), it is sufficient to say: it covered the whole heaven where men were living, so that all men were engulfed in the Flood, not necessarily the top of Mount Everest, because there was no one there, nor anywhere around, because men had not yet spread over the earth: it was before the tower of Babel.

Do you see the parallel of such interpretation with that of St Gregory? As St Gregory is not opposed to the truth of the Gospel when he applies the universality of the words of our Lord merely to all men, so is Fr Paul Robinson not opposed to the truth of Genesis when he applies the universality of the flood merely to all men. He does not say the Scriptures is wrong, he says its universality is that of all men (and women!). Such interpretation is not a denial of the inerrancy of the Scriptures, it is rather proposing the right interpretation of the Scriptures and is in perfect conformity with St Gregory according to the exegetical principles of St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine.

Please, do consider this: God does not say one thing to one and the opposite to the other. He is the Author of Nature, and one can consider Nature as a big book that speak to us about its Author. Every flower tells us: “God made me!” The Scripture itself tells us: “The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands” (Ps. 18:2). And that is true not only of the heavens, but also of the earth: every creature somehow speaks to us about its Creator.

Now when we study the book of nature, we find fossils that “tell” us that they are very old. Did God create dead fossils that appear to be so old, but in fact never lived? Were they created dead? Not a single Father of the Church ever claimed that! We should rather believe that God is as true in the Book of Nature as in the Scriptures! This is the teaching of the Fathers and of the Church. The important thing is to understand properly the one and the other. What Father Robinson teaches – and very well – is precisely that the conflicts between religion and science only comes when people do not understand properly one or the other or both. And the way to reach a proper understanding of both is precisely to adopt a realist philosophy, which is that of St Thomas Aquinas, and which the Church made her own.

So, similarly, when St Peter says: “the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” (2 Pet. 3:6), he does not mean that the whole universe perished, but only the inhabited world, it was everything that the men of the time had ever known, their world. Such interpretation is very much respectful of the truth of the Scriptures, and follows exactly St Gregory’s exegesis.

At the end of your reflections you mention the principle of uniformity. This principle states simply that the Laws of nature, as we know them today, have been the same since the beginning of creation and shall remain the same until the end of time. Such principle is most certainly not opposed to the faith. First of all, the very acknowledgement of natural laws evidently implies that the acknowledgement of the existence of a Lawmaker, i.e. God! Moreover, such principle is not against miracles: God is not limited by the very laws that He has set. He can produce an effect without its normal natural causes. Now the Flood is like the crossing of the red sea: both are miracles, and both signify Baptism. A miracle such as the Flood does not terminate the Laws of nature: they were true before and remain true after even though God bypassed them for the duration of that miracle.

Thus, the dogma of the flood is not opposed to the natural principle of uniformity.

I hope that these explanations can be of a help, to better understand the holy Scriptures and to appreciate the value of Father Paul Robinson’s excellent book.

Fr. Paul fell for the modern science explanations of an old earth: "Big Bang" theory, Carbon dating.

If he believes in an old earth theory he's in accord with the explanation of global distribution of geological changes such as seismicity, volcanism, continental drift, and mountain building in terms of the formation, destruction, movement, and interaction of the earth's lithospheric plates.
i.e., the earth's changes came about through plate tectonics.

A young earth, with seabed fossils on top of mountains, is best explained by deluge (flooding upheaval) geology.

That's only because we faithful who object to his Modernism are merely ignorant and he's out to set us all straight.

Which begs the question as to why the supposed "Big Bang" needed to occur in deep time, rather than only 6-10,000 years ago? I chock it up to disbelief in God being capable of instantaneous creation (something that Our Lord demonstrated repeatedly in the Gospels through His miracles; Lk. 18:42; Mt. 8:13; Mk. 2:9; etc). Which was something I would run into with NO conservative evolutionists who would say "Well, maybe God chose to do it that way?" as if it were an argument. When the evolutionary process itself serves as a sort of demiurge.

The question of stellar distances and time is one that I recall Dr. Sugenis covering in one of his Geocentrism books; where the stars may have been placed at absurd distances from the earth but have only the appearance of longevity as they were created in their prime like Adam. I reject this idea of stellar distances on the ground that I don't believe the stars are of the size modern science claims, nor even of the substance that they claim, so that eliminates the massive distances required between these bodies.

The heart of the issue here is modern cosmology itself and the presuppositions it draws from the data.

So this is where I can see Fr. Robinson erring into an OEC position: as he looks at what modern cosmologists are pumping out on the "age" of the cosmos, and tries to fit the Creation account into that framework. Possibly not realizing that by accepting such things he is also accepting the concept of stellar evolution, even though he rejects biological evolution.

In Genesis 22:17 and Hebrews 11:12, we find a comparison between the number of stars in the sky with the finite numbers of grains of sand by the seashore.

‘For which cause there sprung even from one (and him as good as dead) as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.’--- Douay Rheims, Epistle of St Paul to the Hebrews, 11:12.

Now who would like to venture a guess at the number of grains of sand in a teacup let alone by the sea shore? Such a contrast teaches us the omnipotence of God by star numbers and indeed by the space needed to accommodate these created bodies; as such numbers would need a universe of immeasurable distances for so many. In his book City of God (Vol. 1, Ch.23), St Augustine addressed this very revelation:

‘But as for their numbers, who sees not that the sands do far exceed the stars? Herein you may say they are not comparable in that they are both innumerable. For we cannot think that one can see all the stars, but the more earnestly he beholds them the more he sees: so that we may well suppose that there are some that deceive the sharpest eyes, besides those that arise in other horizons out of sight.’

Again, how often do we hear the apologists in the Church telling us that the Bible never meant to ‘teach’ us anything about the natural sciences, even quoting St Augustine accordingly? Yet, here above Saint Augustine adheres to the word of the Bible in which St Paul tells us there are stars we see and that there are many more that God created in His universe that are out of sight.

Again, this presupposes that stars are massive bodies of burning plasma millions of miles in diameter. If they aren't much bigger than, say, a car, with an intense luminosity, you don't need a seemingly endless expanse of void to fit them all.

All the grains of sand fit within the purported 24,000 miles of earth. You could certainly fit a comparable number of stars within a Firmament of, say, a million miles in circuмference.

By endless I meant finite Digital. Indeed here again, the stars do confirm the universe is not infinite. But only a geocentric universe proves the world is not infinite as it rotates daily, whereas a heliocentric universe, wherein the stars just remain out there, could be said to be infinite. Thus heliocentrism is open to another heresy