A Living Cell
First a NUCLEUS has to evolve in the ‘pre-bionic soup,’ that is the pot-puree of matter and chemicals. This is the control centre in the heart of the organism and operates the cell through complex molecules of NUCLEIC ACID (DNA) and the GENES that make up those molecules and act as the units of heredity. Each of these carries the code for some characteristic of its natural form. This code is spelled out by hundreds of smaller units called NUCLEOTIDES that are arranged in highly specific sequences within the gene. Now these genes are constructed in strings called CHROMOSOMES, and are strung in precise and specific sequences. In the human cell there are 46 chromosomes arranged in paired arms, twin arms. In the nucleus of any cell the chromosomes contain the coded blueprint for structuring the body. A MEMBRAIN encloses the cell, structured so as to allow certain chemicals only to pass through it. Inside this is a fluid called CYTOPLASM in which countless bodies carry on the life lasting business of the cell. An OUTER-MEMBRANE encloses and protects the cell; it in turn again allowing only certain materials to enter or leave by a method unknown to science. Inside the cell there is an ongoing production building new PROTEINS. Each type of protein is determined by a code in the gene. An ENZYME is triggered which examines the gene and builds an RNA-MOLECULE in the image of the blueprint, When this is completed it receives a signal to stop. This RNA brings this message into the CYTOPLASM where it is captured by one of thousands of RIBOSOMES, so complex as to defy understanding so far. These build up the protein by linking various AMINO ACIDS in the specific sequence of the blueprint. To do this, TRANSFER-RNA catches amino-acids, each using special enzymes. Each of the mechanisms of the cell would need a computer to regulate, and even the simplest cell contains several thousand kinds of proteins and many billions, yes billions, of each of those kinds. The information contained within any first cell at its emergence from the stew-pot would have to be equivalent to 1000 volumes of 500 pages, or the amount of information needed to monitor a city the size of New York.
Now it is one thing proposing such a unit as a cell evolved into existence from a mixture of biochemical matter, another to get it to operate itself, that is, acquire ‘vitalism’ or life. The source and cause of animation; be it of flora or fauna, lies outside the realm of human science. Try as they did, do and will, they will never breath life into anything for that ability belongs solely to God. As Pasteur showed, you can only get vitalism in something already living.
Now real science has long established that a cell does not have the ability to do more than it is designed to do. It cannot add to its function, becoming something more than itself. In other words, it cannot evolve into a more complicated cell structure as Darwinian evolution requires it to do. That is impossible. Nevertheless they proposed ‘mutation’ to achieve this ‘miracle’ and belief in evolution carried on. We are asked to believe a living cell evolved, multiplied itself at random and ended up as a functioning beautiful flower, insect, fish, animal, even a human being.
Now we can ask what stages of any creature evolved first? Can one essential part of a living creature exist without the other? By this we ask which evolved first in the evolution of animals and man? Was it the body, the head, the legs, or what? Which system evolved first, the circulatory system, the digestive system, the endocrine system, the respiratory system, the nervous system, the immune system, the lymphatic system, the muscular system, the skeletal system, the urinary system, the reproductive system or the senses. Could any creature function with an evolving endocrine system, an evolving digestive system, evolving senses etc? The answer is no, it is all or nothing.
Now let us consider design. First let us start with the Big Bang. If evolution had a beginning with the Big Bang and that a human being ended up by chance, we now have to give ‘chance’ ability on par with the almighty thinking God. Take for example an animal’s eye or a human eye, the ability of anything that sees to see. What an amazing organ, structured to take in images, light and darkness, pass on such images to the brain whereupon the creature can ‘see it.’ Did an eye evolve by chance? Did eyesight evolve by chance or by design? If anybody believes the ability of a creature to see came about by chance then they believe in natural magic. And that is what debating the subject of natural evolution is; absolute nonsense, an insult to human intelligence and reasoning. Yet, thanks to Copernicanism, they have managed to convince the vast bulk of the human race to believe it is all true, that science has evidence that it is true, that all evolved naturally. Then there are the theistic-evolutionists. To them the ‘theory’ meets a theological and philosophical brick-wall. Suffice to say that evolution never ends, which means that God never finished His Creation. This of course contradicts the Scriptures that clearly state God finished His creation ‘on the sixth day and rested on the seventh.’
Darwin claimed the fossil records would show billions of these evolving bit-things and that his theory would fall or be proven in time as they were found or not. As it has happened, contrary to propaganda that thousands of fossils giving evidence for evolution have been found, the truth is that apart from a coffin full of fraudulent transient fossils of would-be evolving bits, the billions of missing-links necessary for evolution to be a scientific plausibility are simply not in the fossil record. Our favourite ‘missing link’ is the humanoid skull on show in a museum that was recognised by a biologist as an elephant’s knee-cap. It quickly disappeared when exposed for the fraud it was. All fossils found are of complete kinds, just as God said He made them.
That men, without a single piece of confirming data, and in this we include those shams purporting to have created ‘the building blocks of life,’ could even postulate such a living mechanism evolved naturally from an inanimate pre-bionic soup of chemicals is beyond comprehension. That any intelligent human being could fall for such absurd nonsense is equally unbelievable, and that a compromise could be devised wherein God is supposed to have endowed nature with the ability to naturally evolve such working complexities is also to beggar belief, like stating God can give nature the ability to evolve square circles. Alas, many thousands of otherwise intelligent school and university professors, researchers, scientists, scholars, and theologians did believe, do believe, and indoctrinate millions of others with their nonsense.
Is this then the evolutionism Humani Generis stated could be discussed and taken seriously as though it had credibility within the Catholic Church? Alas, even to consider that evolution theory of macro-evolutionism worthy of discussion was a mistake in the light of the Pope’s duty to protect the flock from false-philosophy, let alone from the imbecilic heights of absurdity. But ever since the Galileo case, popes were compromised when it came to addressing matters of faith and science, faith and reason. No matter how absurd the ‘science,’ Rome has learned the lesson that it now has the same authority as the faith and cannot be dismissed lest another Galileo case arises from that dismissal. Accordingly, it could be said; this encyclical left as much confusion as it tried to avoid. Can Church teaching seriously be compatible with the idea Adam’s body came from monkeys as evolutionism teaches, as this encyclical seemed to be willing to accept for as long as men believe it did? Was Adam’s body a live body or a dead body? What about the body of Eve which doctrinally is derived from the body of Adam if he is to be the first parent of all? Where did her body come from in an evolutionary scenario? Surely one can see the chaos and contradictions to the Teaching Authority of the Church that Copernicanism had caused, and how it had driven so many theologians such as Henri de Lubac, Cardinal Mercier, Canon Henry de Dorlodot, the Jesuit Karl Rahner, Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger and of course the pantheist Teilhard de Chardin into evolutionary Modernism. Finally, what influence did Humani Generis have on the Modernists?
‘With the election of Karol Wojtyła as Pope John Paul II in 1978, there occurred an implicit re-evaluation of French Ressourcement Theology or the “new theology.” John Paul II, who had the highest esteem for Henri de Lubac, stopped during a major address in 1980 and acknowledged the presence of de Lubac, saying “I bow my head to Father Henri de Lubac.” When de Lubac became a cardinal in 1983, this elevation by itself rehabilitated his intellectual career, including, by implication, his spirited defense of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. In 1993, John Paul II issued an encyclical which “corrected” Aeterni Patris and Humani Generis. Though the thought of St. Thomas took precedence, the encyclical indicated that other avenues could be explored for the good of the Church. A genuine competition replaced the Leonine strategy of Aeterni Patris and, later, Humani Generis. Paragraph #29 of Splendor Veritatis stated: “Certainly the Church’s Magisterium does not intend to impose upon the faithful any particular theological system, still less a philosophical one.” --- Homiletic & Pastoral Review.
The courtship between Catholic faith and modern science reached a high point on November 22, 1951 when Pope Pius XII once again addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The title of the Pope’s address was ‘The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science.’ What followed was an endorsement of nearly every evolutionary theory on offer at the time, theories that (1) conflicted with the literal order of creation and the geocentric order of the universe held by the Church until 1741 at least, (2) Suggested theories that denied the biblical age of 6.000 years for the universe; theories that denied the global flood as recorded in Genesis and its effect on the topography as we find it today, and God knows what else. Here is some of Pope Pius XII’s speech:
‘44. It is undeniable that when a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge weighs this problem calmly, it feels drawn to break through the circle of completely independent or autochthonous matter, whether uncreated or self-created, and to ascend to a creating Spirit. With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty “Fiat” pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter bursting with energy. In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial “Fiat lux” uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.’
48. On the other hand, how different and much more faithful a reflection of limitless visions is the language of an outstanding modern scientist, Sir Edmund Whittaker, member of the Pontifical Academy of Science, when he speaks of the above-mentioned inquiries into the age of the world: “These different calculations point to the conclusion that there was a time, some nine or ten billion years ago, prior to which the cosmos, if it existed, existed in a form totally different from anything we know, and this form constitutes the very last limit of science. We refer to it perhaps not improperly as creation. It provides a unifying background, suggested by geological evidence, for that explanation of the world according to which every organism existing on the earth had a beginning in time. Were this conclusion to be confirmed by future research, it might well be considered as the most outstanding discovery of our times, since it represents a fundamental change in the scientific conception of the universe, similar to the one brought about four centuries ago by Copernicus.”
50. It has, besides, followed the course and the direction of cosmic developments, and, just as it was able to get a glimpse of the term toward which these developments were inexorably leading, so also has it pointed to their beginning in time some five billion years ago. Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, it has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the cosmos came forth from the hands of the Creator.’
Yes, admits Pope Pius XII, it all began with Copernicus. Not for the first time a pope has placed the creation act and order into the hands of science. But there are philosophical and theological consequences to placing the creative act of God at the mercy of science’s Big Bang theory.
‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith?
My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that [Big Bang] cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by [Big Bang] cosmology he should be at the mercy of [Big Bang] cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriously” [Big Bang] cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’ ---Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.
On the other hand, the above cannot be applied to revelation, the cosmology of God as revealed in Scripture, that is, the doctrine of geocentrism. It is not subjected to theories of any kind, simply upheld by the senses, so can never be falsified or refuted by true science. Try as they did, each time the experimental method failed to falsify a cosmology that could only have been created by God.
My, haven’t we come a long way since St Thomas Aquinas spelled out theology is the Queen of sciences:
‘The knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through divine revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore, it has no concern to prove principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science of theology must be condemned as false.’
On the PAS website today we find the following:
‘On occasion of numerous addresses and messages directed towards the Academy by five pontiffs, the Church has been able to re-propose the meaning of the relationship between faith and reason, between science and wisdom, and between love for truth and the search for God.’
By this they mean that with Copernicanism at the helm and the popes now subservient to the ‘science’ of U-turn since 1741 that has led to the Big Bang, uniformitarianism and evolutionism, it was a time of great readjustment of the truths of faith and reason. A favourite pope of the academy was Pope John Paul II. Like Pope Pius XII, he also sat in on as many meetings and seminars as possible; fascinated no doubt with the intellectual stimulation of it all. Following him was Pope Benedict XVI, who as a cardinal took a place in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 2003. Another professed evolutionist (See for example Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s: In the Beginning, 1986, a book that presents the Catholic faith based on man-evolving-from-monkeys-scenario), he gave support to the 86 academicians of his day, 30 of who are Nobel Prize winners, most of them not even Catholics, and all of who are Copernicans, evolutionists and relativists. If ever there was an institution that the Catholic Church did not need it was this collection of ‘experts,’ advising the hierarchy of the Church what the flock should believe and what it should not believe.
‘By confusing the mathematical outlook with the physical it is possible to arrive at all sorts of conclusions. It is not easy for an untrained mind to distinguish what is rightly proved from what is little more than speculation. Some of these conclusions are startling, and appeal to the popular imagination. It requires only a further step to apply them to the most obtrusive and sacred matters of philosophy and religion... They are not satisfied with expounding the facts of science, but they write them up so as to appeal to those who have received no scientific or critical training, conclusions which tend to undermine the great beliefs on which human life is founded, this is almost criminal.’ ---Fr Gill S.J.: Fact and Fiction in Modern Science, pp.70-71.
‘It is rather the second-class scientist, or vulgarisateur, who has the most frequent entrée into newspaper columns [publishing houses and television] and uses his opportunity to try to revive materialism. This is the greatest danger the popular mind has to face from these scientific symposia.’ ---Fr Henry V. Gill, S.J., M.A (Cantab.), M. Sc. (N.U.I.): Fact and Fiction in Modern Science, Gill and Son, Dublin, 1943, p.160.
Associated with the PAS now is the Templeton Foundation which provides it with money for meetings, seminars etc. In 1973, Wall Street investor and philanthropist Sir John Templeton set up a fund to foster a ‘harmony and reconciliation between faith and science.’ This fund now provides financial assistance to both sides of the evolutionary debate that is ongoing mainly in America. This would be in keeping with the masonic equilibrium, ensuring that the truth never prevails, an endless debate that has to give credibility to Big Bang evolutionism as long as man lives on earth. It is famous especially for its huge prize of one million dollars given annually to the one ‘who has shown originality in advancing ideas and institutions that promote [an evolutionary] understanding of God’. One who has won the Templeton prize was the popular Benedictine monk, professor of astrophysics and prolific author, Stanley Jacki (1924-2009) who was awarded the money in 1987 for his books on theistic evolutionism.