I don't think that's what Fr. Robinson was saying.

 
On the other thread, there's a direct quote of him saying exactly that verbatim.

You're interpreting what he said in that quote. Perhaps your interpretation is right, but it's not the only interpretation.

There was nothing to interpret.  He said that Church tells us we can't oppose various scientific theories on theological grounds but only on scientific.  He's a Modernist.

If you disagree with Fr. Robinson, the "science guy" who holds only a Masters degree

His masters degree is in "Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science". To me, that sounds like mostly computer science, and probably only the basic science expected of an engineer. And his philosophy and theology training was at an SSPX seminary. So his credentials are not great.

That said, do any of those criticizing him here have better credentials in science, philosophy or theology?

His masters degree is in "Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science". To me, that sounds like mostly computer science, and probably only the basic science expected of an engineer. And his philosophy and theology training was at an SSPX seminary. So his credentials are not great.

That said, do any of those criticizing him here have better credentials in science, philosophy or theology?

I wouldn't criticize him on account of the degree.  In fact, the higher the degree, the more likely it is that they've sold out.

Dr Sungenis does.
Agree.  Just 4-year college engineering stuff.

I asked if any of those criticizing him here have better credentials. Sungenis is not participating here, correct? (And to the best of my knowledge, Sungenis has no science credentials.)

Quote from Ladislaus:
I wouldn't criticize him on account of the degree.  In fact, the higher the degree, the more likely it is that they've sold out.

Says the person who is ABD? Are you saying that studying a topic for several years, having your work peer reviewed by several experts, gives a person less expertise? 

My ABD was in Greek and Latin.  Not much "selling out" required there.  Same holds of Computer Science.  I was saying that, in my book, I consider it better that he does NOT have a degree in science.  Those with degrees in science have often sold out.    So you took my comment the complete opposite of what I intended.  I considered his lack of science degree a plus.

Well, you're implying that having a science degree is a minus. That's what I was addressing.

Just my experience, but I've found a lot of militant progressives in computer science, who even when learning, wrote software supporting leftist causes. Study of physics or engineering doesn't generally lend itself so easily to such causes. (Physics and "physical" engineering more often has military applications, but that's something different.)

And I know good people in medieval and Latin studies (mostly in linguistics), but there are also feminists, and the feminists seem more often promoted in that field. I'm sure you can think of issues in Greek studies as well.

That's not even close to what the Modernist said.  He did not say that there were no theological grounds to oppose a particular theory.  He said that we cannot argue against science with theology, nay, more, that the Church tells us this.

So you agree he said the Church tells us not to argue this on theology. The Church directs.

You could say this is an error of fact (ie - the Church doesn't say this), but it doesn't look to me like he is saying that theology is subservient to science. Not in general, and not even in this particular case. That's your interpretation of what he said.

And to the best of my knowledge, Sungenis has no science credentials.

This really gets tiresome to hear.  Hoping to counterbalance this I've included some links to some of the greats, scientific or otherwise, who didn't have "scientific credentials" or simply no credentials, whatsoever.

There are people who in spite of all his accomplishments still don't even wish to allow Robert Sungenis, the most preeminent geocentrist in the world, a place at the table because it is claimed he doesn't have "science credentials."  (It's best to judge people by what they do, not by their credentials.)

https://jamesaconrad.com/TK/famous-scientists-who-never-had-a-science-degree.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_19248_6-uneducated-amateurs-whose-genius-changed-world.html

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/many-top-scientists-did-not-have-first-says-study#survey-answer

Anyone who follows the scientific method could be, in theory, a scientist.  Evolutionists, on the other hand, no matter how many degrees they have, don't follow their own methods and offer up theory as facts.  LIARS!