Dear Mr. Konkel-
You are an interesting peerson to me.
Kind of like a science project of sorts.
May I ask you some questions?
1) Are you an SSPX Catholic?
2) Are you sure that a so-called "modern science" which opposes the common understanding of most of the Church Fathers is really science so-called?
3) "Is there not even just a little bit of fear and trepidation" that most of the world's scientists who hold the "old earth" theory are not traditional Catholic (and that consequently, their work is not guided by the conclusions of faith)?
4) Does that last question secretly revolt and embarrass you (i.e., to think that the conclusions of faith should set parameters to scientific inquiry)?
5) Is there not just a little bit of fear and trepidation within you that the old earth argument -like the evolution hoax- is really a thinly veiled attack on the Faith, and that it is a necessary underpinning of evolution (i.e., no old earth, no evolution)?
6) Is there not just a little fear and trepidation within you that if the nearly universally anti-Christ, anti-Catholic "scientific" community can "err" (in parenthesis because it is usually a deliberate attack, not a good faith err) in the matter of evolution, it can err in the matter of the age of the earth?
7) Does it not fill you with at least a little bit of fear and trepidation that the global so-called scientific community accepts the legitimacy of evolution?
8 Does it not fill you with at least a little bit of fear and trepidation that if the so-called "scientific" community arrives at conclusions like evolution (which directly contradicts the doctrine of monogenism), that by the very logic of your argument, you ought to be conforming to that opinion (rather than dismissing it in favor of the faith)?
9) Do you accept evolution?
10) Has you faith been damaged, such that were you forced to accept the Patristic understanding of the 6,000 year-old earth, you would apostatize?
11) Is the old earth theory a dogma for you?
12) If the faith must conform itself to the latest so-called scientific findings, and those findings are constantly changing, are you not thereby endorsing (at least implicitly and unwittingly) doctrinal evolution?
13) Notice how evolution keeps popping up, in one context or another?
14) When "scientific" discoveries arise which contradict previously "discovered" principles, will you have to disavow all those you so revere today, admitting they erred, and you were wrong to have sided with the atheists and modernists against the Fathers of the Church?
15) Is there not even a little bit of fear and trepidation within you that many of those you revere as scientists offer arguments in favor of a young earth? Are such as those somehow nonobjective, uneducated, and biased embarrassments to science, despite their credentials?
16) Do articles like this one cause you not even a little fear and tredpidation, or are they somehow "unscientific" for having arrived at an undesirable conclusion: https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/
17) Is there not even a little fear and trepidation within you that you have been deceived, and may be on the way to eroding your faith to the tenets of rationalism and modernism (of the Fr. Jaki variety) if you don't reconsider some of the fundamental errors of your false principles (e.g., That we must accept the so-called scientific conclusions of atheistic or modernist "scientists," and conform the faith to their conclusions, which is already evolution)?
I will answer your questions but I would also be interested in hearing your response to issues I posed. You simply responded with your own questions but I do not see that you considered the points that I raised.
1. Yes, I teach philosophy at St. Marys College.
2. I do not think that science really opposes the Fathers properly understood. Do I think modern science is "science so-called"? I am not sure what you mean here. If you are asking whether I think the methods of modern science give us insight into the workings of the natural world then I would say yes. But we should also recognize that science is always in a process of revision and updating as knowledge and understanding develops. This is how science works.
3. It does not bother me in the least that scientists who hold to an old earth are not Traditional Catholics any more than I am worried about the fact that a modern scientist doing a differential equation might get his numbers wrong because he is or is not a Traditional Catholic. Please re-read the quote by Augustine.
4. No, the question does not "embarrass" me.
5. No, I do not think that the recognition of an old earth is a conspiracy against the Catholic faith.
6. Science and scientists can err and often do as I am sure any scientist would agree. But there are certain conclusions of science that are very well established.
7. It does not bother me in the least that the notion of evolution has been the primary principle of all of the life sciences for nearly 150 years now since I think it is true, properly understood.
8. I do hold to that opinion, so no, it does not bother me. I should note though that my argument was never that a theory is right because a certain number of people hold to it. Rather, I believe that nearly all biologists hold to evolution because they are well informed and the evidence for it is overwhelming.
9. By now you probably know the answer to this. Yes, properly understood.
10. No, I do not believe my faith has been damaged as you say. If all of a sudden the facts showed that the earth was very young, I would accept it. Also, if, for instance, the evidence from the geological record showed that organic types actually were present all at once in the beginning of earth's history I would reject the notion of evolution immediately. For the last 150 years though we have found over and over again that the contrary is true: more complex and diverse organic types appear later while simpler forms appear earlier.
11. Dogma pertains to Theology while the question of the age of the earth is a scientific one. No it is not a dogma for me.
12. No
13. Yes
14. If new scientific data corrects a current understanding I of course would accept that assuming I thought the evidence was good. I do not think it is a question of atheism and modernism vs the Fathers of the Church as though an old earth and evolution belong on the side of atheism and modernism. In fact, I think this way of seeing the question reveals an acceptance by young earth and anti evolution proponents of the same faulty premises of atheists and modernists that I think we both find fault with. It is really the young earth and anti evolutionists who are more akin in their thinking to the atheists and modernists.
15. I do not believe that there are "many" scientists who hold to young earth. If they do so, it is not qua scientist but rather qua creationists who hunt around for supposed "scientific" evidence for a young earth - there is none.
16. No, articles from fundamentalist Protestants who are absolutely deficient in philosophy, theology, and science do not worry me a bit.
These 6 Protestant Fundamentalist "evidences" are bogus. Let's look at the first one. Supposedly carbon dating of diamonds reveals an age of 55,000 years old. First off, this is a bit older than 10,000 years old. The real points though are the following: any scientist will tell you that carbon dating has a threshold of about 40-50,000 years. For dates older than that, carbon dating is not a good tool because after that period of time there is not enough C-14 left in order to do the dating. Further, the carbon dating of diamonds theory indicates a failure to understand how carbon dating actually works. Radiocarbon dating is based on a measurement of C14 decay of once living organisms (plants and animals that eat them). A living plant takes in carbon from the atmosphere. While it is alive it will have the same ratio of C14 and C12 (and C13) as that present in the atmosphere. C12 and C13 are stable while C14 is radioactive. When the plant (or animal that eats the plant) dies, the C14 will begin to decay and by measuring the amount of decay in comparison with the original ratio and the known decay rate, we can tell when the plant or animal died.
As you probably know, diamonds are not alive. They do not form from taking carbon from the atmosphere; they form deep in the earth. As mentioned, carbon dating is based on a measured ratio of C14 to C13 and C12 in the atmosphere. The original ratio of these isotopes in a newly created diamond are unknown and thus there is no way to measure the decay based on this unknown ratio. A shorter answer is that carbon dating measures how long it has been since a plant or animal has died. Diamonds do not die.
17. No, I do not fear becoming a rationalist or modernist. I do not recall stating as a principle that we must conform our thoughts to modernists and atheists.
Topic: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3) (Read 13474 times)