Press "Enter" to skip to content

What’s Wrong with Evolution AND Creation Science

This transcript was generated by

This is William C., Michael, of the Classical Liberal Arts Academy. And today is Thursday, September 23, 2021. Today, what I’m going to spend time reflecting on or discussing is the question of evolution. I received the request yesterday, from a friend who asked that I might take up the topic of evolution because he has several Catholic friends who argue that evolution, the theory of evolution, is compatible with Catholic theology and can therefore be embraced and promoted by Catholics as a plausible explanation for how God created the world. So I’d like to think out loud on this question today. Because I think that I can offer something helpful. I’ll try to be brief because this could easily extend into a multiple-hour discussion. And I try to keep these talks under two hours, usually, I can get it done in less than an hour and a half, which is my goal. And this is a challenging question. This question of evolution. And the reason why it’s challenging is that several confusing factors mislead us. The first factor that we all have to honestly acknowledge is that almost everyone who discusses this question, almost everyone, Catholics included, has had nothing but a modern science-based education. And so this is a giant echo chamber. In this discussion, you’ve got an entire population that has been educated according to the ideas of one school of philosophy, namely, that of the modern inductive philosophers is the scientific method. promoters. I didn’t say practitioners, because they don’t practice the scientific method, they simply talk about it. And everyone who I’m talking to everyone who listens to this talk, everyone involved in this discussion has been educated within the boundaries of the same school of philosophy, which dominates all modern schools. And so this discussion is not one where opposing views are developed, and discussed, it’s a fake discussion within a box. So the first challenge in this discussion is that everyone involved has already been educated, according to the philosophical principles on which evolution is based, and it’s very difficult for them, to separate themselves from those principles and think, beyond them to imagine any alternative. And even those who attempt to speak against evolution, seek to do so from the same principles. And we’re going to find that, because this dilemma is much deeper, and goes back much further than this discussion is ever taken. Because let’s be honest, in modern education, and culture, there’s no time to get into these discussions outside of the normal sound bites, that everyone passes around. So the first obstacle in this discussion is that everyone has a modern scientific education. The second problem is that Christians, mostly Christians have stood up, sensing that something is wrong about evolution, or simply believing that something is wrong about education. Christians have stood up and prematurely responded. And they’ve responded with an alternative to evolution. That is, I’m going to argue not true, either. And so they’ve presented one false alternative to the theory of evolution. And this has made the case of promoting evolution, that much easier. Because the alternative that’s raised against it, the argument that’s raised against it is easy to destroy, and it causes evolution to appear even more probable. What’s been proposed in opposition to evolution is the modern idea of creationism. creationism is basically an attempt to explain or to reconcile the content of Sacred Scripture with evidence that’s available through scientific research, archaeology, and so on. The first problem is that the men who are responsible the leaders of this Creation Science movement are usually fundamental Protestants, who don’t even represent true Christian philosophy. They’re men who themselves and this is what I mentioned before. These are men who themselves has been educated within the modern fishbowl, as it were, and their own religions, their interpretation of Christianity is influenced by this modern philosophy, which originated in the 1600s, around the same time that the Protestant Reformation arose because they, they arose the scientific mindset. And the Protestant mindset arose from the same principles, the same principles. And so they’re, they’re like brothers or cousins, Protestantism, and this modern scientific thinking. And so we’ve got these two false options arguing with each other. And what this creates is a situation that’s called a false dilemma, where we feel that we have to choose one or the other, and both are actually false. The false dilemma, however, is what has allowed evolution to become so easily accepted in schools because of the two positions. The Creation Science argument is inferior and is partly responsible for the popularity and spread of evolution theory. So these are the two great obstacles to this discussion of evolution. First, that everyone involved in the discussion has the same education and has never proven that they’re able to think outside of that same box or fishbowl. And secondly, there’s a false dilemma that exists when we discuss this question that requires us to either embrace evolution or embrace a false representation of what might be considered the divinely revealed alternative, which is founded primarily in Protestantism. If you search creation, science, almost everything you find is going to be Protestant. You’re going to see names like Duane Gish, Ken Ham, and others and you’ll find that they’re all part of The fundamentalist Protestant tradition. So those are two great obstacles that we have to overcome. When we get into the history of thought on this topic, we’re going to find that it’s it requires us to admit a third option into the discussion, which no one talks about. And it’s this third option that I will argue, is the true option. And to require requires subtlety of thought. It requires that we be quiet, and we study. And we think before we try to go and run and talk ignorantly and give an opponent an easy victory because of our laziness and lack of preparation. So take the advice of the Scriptures, which tells us to be slow to speak, and quick to listen. What I’d like to do, I think what would be helpful is first, to discuss some of the ancient ideas that need to be understood to understand this modern dilemma. And then talk about the problems of the attempt to argue evolution from modern science. But let’s, let’s spend the majority of our time talking about ancient thought that relates to this subject. Because as I said, most people discussing this subject don’t know this stuff. And that’s part of the problem with the attempt for Christians to respond to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution, as we talk about it, in modern circles is largely traced back to Charles Darwin, who lived in wrote in the second half of the 1800s. So let’s say between 1850 and 1870, the significant or most significant work of Charles Darwin was done where some of the real efforts, to argue or prove a theory of evolution were published. We have his work, the origin of species, and so on. So we’re looking at the late 1850s 1860s. We have to ask the question out Now, let me just say this, most people imagine that this theory of evolution began when Charles Darwin proposed it in the late 1800s. But this is not true. The idea of evolution is an ancient philosophy. It’s an ancient interpretation of natural philosophy. It’s an ancient idea. It is not a modern idea that was discovered by science. It is the resurrection of an ancient idea that was proposed by ancient philosophers and refuted by ancient philosophers. The reason why no one believed in the theory of education at any point in Christian history, is because it was presented as a philosophy and destroyed as a philosophy. It’s not that no one ever thought of it, it’s that it was presented and rejected. If we go back into ancient philosophy, and you can learn this if you study classical physics, you can study it in the Classical Liberal Arts Academy. Aristotle published a book titled physics and this is where these issues are discussed because the very first question that Aristotle asked In his work on physics is what are the principles? Or elements of the natural world? What are the elements of the natural world? And if you’re familiar with classical physics or classical philosophy, you’ll know that Aristotle argued that there are four elements for principle bodies that exist in the natural world. And he argued that they were fire, air, water, and earth. And now you can imagine, say, Well, look at how much more we know today, modern scientists have discovered over 100, quote, unquote, elements, but the definition of elements is not the same in these two cases. And so no modern science has not proven Aristotle wrong. Modern science has redefined what an element is, and just talking about something different. It’s not talking about the same thing that Aristotle is talking about. And the first question that Aristotle addresses in his work on physics, is how many elements exist in the world. And you can’t possibly imagine that when Aristotle named these four elements, fire, air, water, and earth that he didn’t understand, or no other philosopher could understand that what was called Earth was composed of different substances. You can’t imagine that when Aristotle saw the black remains of a burnt piece of wood, and compared that to red clay, or black, fertile soil, that he couldn’t see that there was a difference between those different substances. And yet, he referred to them generally as a combination of fire, air, water, and Earth. So you’ve either got to assume that Aristotle is just ridiculous and blind, or the conversation is more complex. Then modern people want to make it appear where they, they simply scoff at Aristotle, as if he didn’t have eyes, and couldn’t see that there were different kinds of substances all included, within what he called Earth. So if you make Aristotle ridiculous, then you can be sure that you’re not actually considering what he was teaching. You’re just pretending to have studied and considered the doctrine of Aristotle. But the reason I raised this point is that the very first issue he deals with in his work on natural philosophy, the physics is how many elements what are the elements out of which bodies physical living things are composed and he argues that there are four, four elementary or principal bodies, out of which living things are composed. Now, he takes up a discussion of the history of answers to that question. So he looks at what different philosophers have said he looks at what the different possibilities or options are, in answering this question. He asks, for example, are the elements of the natural world one for many, and he proves that it cannot be one. So it must be many. And then once he establishes that it must be many, the question is, is there a certain number? Or is it infinite? And he goes on to prove that it cannot be infinite, there must be a certain number. And then he goes on and asks, well, if there is a certain number of elements, what is that number? And he establishes the number at the four elements. And he provides all of the arguments and proofs for this all of the reasoning. It’s all provided in the physics. He doesn’t just come up with this out of nowhere. Like some ignorant goofball, and propose this idea that there are four elements, and and say this even though the common sight of of any peasant standing on the street can can easily see that he’s wrong. This is a carefully worked out argument from arguably history’s most intelligent man to ever live. And he addresses all of the other options in the opening chapters of the physics. And one of the options that he deals with is the option that’s known as atom ism. atomism. atomism is the belief that the entire natural world everything in the natural world is composed of indivisible particles, known as atoms. This is not a modern scientific theory. This is an ancient answer to a philosophical question. This is an ancient answer to the question of how many elements there are in the natural world. atomism suggests that everything every physical thing is simply a combination of indivisible, indivisible particles called atoms and this is atomism. This is the philosophical foundation of ancient atheism. And this becomes the philosophical position of the School of philosophy known as epicureanism. So the epicureans were atomists. The epicureans rejected Aristotle’s teaching on natural philosophy, the epicureans rejected the concept of the four elements of the natural world, and they embraced the doctrine of atom ism that the entire world was composed of indivisible particles known as atoms. This is not a modern idea, this is an ancient idea. If you want to read Epicurean philosophy, I recommend you find an online copy of an English translation of a work by an Epicurean philosopher named lucretius, Liu c, r e t, r u s, Lu Christus lucretius compose the work titled on the nature of things on the nature of things by lucretius this book, and I’m talking the first few pages so you can get right into it. This book explains the Epicurean view of the origin of the world. And this Epicurean view of the origin of the world is exactly the same as the modern, evolutionary scientific, so called view of the world. Modern evolution ism is simply a revival of ancient epicureanism. As far as philosophy goes, What lucretius objects to which is very significant for Christians. lucretius argues that nothing can come from nothing. This is a fundamental principle that lucretius proposes as an axiom, or a self evident truth that he then uses to argue for his natural philosophy. Nothing can come from nothing. Now as Christians, it’s popular to say that God created the world x Niccolo out of nothing, God created the world out of nothing. And so this Epicurean idea appears to be a direct contradiction to Christian teaching on the origin of the world, Christianity teaches that God created the world out of nothing. epicureanism argues that nothing can come from nothing. And this becomes the real crux of the issue. Of course, I think it’s not accurate for Christians to say that God created the world out of nothing. That’s not really true. When we read the book of Genesis, we find that God created the world, he created the world out of his own divine power. The mode of his creation, as far as Genesis reveals to us is simply speaking things into existence. He speaks them into existence, he wills them into existence, he says, Let there be light. And the Scripture tells us and there was light. In other words, creation was instantaneous. It was eternal. I mean, it was it was infinite. It was miraculous. It was an act of infinite divine power. God said, Let there be and there was immediate, or instantaneous, miraculous, from a human perspective, creation of physical bodies of all different kinds. So there is a disagreement between the content of divine revelation and epicureanism. And this is the real division that exists today. However, as I said before, creationism is not the answer. creationism, or Creation Science, as it’s called, does not accurately represent the content of divine revelation. And I’d like to explain this a little bit. If you get into these discussions of evolution, and creation, you will find that there are many Christians, especially Catholics, who argue that evolution is compatible with Catholic theology. Before that the theory of evolution is compatible with the content of Sacred Scripture. They have no positive proof that it’s true. And there are a number of reasons why their argument is, is really ridiculous. But one argument that they raise is that St. Augustine warned against the quote unquote, literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Again, the argument is that St. Agustin warned against reading Genesis, literally. And this teaching from St. Augustine is presented as the door through which evolutionary theory is brought into Catholic circles. You can tell me if I’m wrong, if that that is not always presented as the door for evolution. To enter into Catholic discussion. St. Agustin said Genesis should not be read, literally. Now. The problem with what’s said here is that it’s true. St. Agustin did say or did warn that the Bible Genesis should not be read literally. In other words, sainted Gustin warned about Creation Science. He warned about creationism. This popular, largely Protestant reading and interpretation of the book of Genesis, St. Augustine warned about the ideas that are present in creationism. And he told us that they are not true. This is why I said creationism is not the true alternative to evolution theory. creationism is largely a modern Protestant interpretation of the book of Genesis. The idea that you’re going to fight fire with fire you’re going to disprove science with science is simply the manifestation of the problem that both sides of this discussion actually belong to the same philosophical camp. The creationists simply live in a state of denial, imagining that they represent some ancient theology and philosophy. When they don’t, they are scientifically minded people who wrongly attempt to read their scientific modern ideas into the book of Genesis, and then imagine that that produces a necessary interpretation of the book of Genesis. But this is what Augustine warned about. At the same time, Santa Gustin in no way would allow for evolutionary theory instead, Santa Gustin by warning that Genesis should not be read literally is in no way suggesting that an Epicurean idea of atomism or naturalism is a plausible alternative. What happens when people who want for some reason and this is another discussion for some reason, they’re motivated to embrace evolution. When they read augustan warning against the literal interpretation that’s made by creationists today. They use that because only two options are presented in the modern debate. They use that as a support for the other side, which is evolution. And the Creation Science people have no answer, because Augustine clearly warns against the literal interpretation of Sacred Scripture, or of the book of Genesis. And because these modern creation, Christians have no knowledge of ancient philosophy, and have no idea what Augustine is actually talking about, they have to surrender on this point, or just try to explain it away with a typical Protestant idea that well, the church fathers aren’t infallible, maybe a Gustin was wrong about this. And again, they just slide into Protestantism. The problem, however, is that St. Augustine is revealing that these Creation Science Christians don’t represent true philosophy. He warns that the book of Genesis should not be read, literally. And the reason why it should not be read literally is not because God created the world by means of evolution by means of quote unquote natural laws. St. Augustine is not tipping his hat to ancient atomism, and naturalism. But he’s going even further away from evolution. Then Creation Science. Proponents are willing to go he’s going even further. And this is where Creation Science fails. As I said, creation scientists and evolutionary scientists are both members of the same school of philosophy. sainted Gustin does not belong to their school of philosophy. He’s not a creation scientist, because he’s not a scientist. nor is he an evolutionary scientist. He rejects both species of this scientific interpretation of natural philosophy. He rejects them both, because he knows that they’re both rooted in this ancient Epicurean atheist view of the natural world. What St. Agustin is actually teaching, when he warns against a literal reading of the book of Genesis. What he’s actually teaching is that God did not create the world in seven or six literal days. He’s warning that God did not create the world in six literal days, and evolutionists bring up this ridiculous attempt for creation scientists to explain that the days of creation are literal 24 hour days. And Creation Science responds with failing arguments. For example, the 24 hour days are established by the creation of the sun, moon and stars, which happens in the middle of the week of creation. And so it would make no sense for God to say, on the first day, God did this Oh, and by the way, on the third or fourth day, God finally got around to creating the sun and the moon, which were designed to be signs for times and days and seasons. So we’re talking about time, on the first days of creation, and then it’s as if God forgot to create the sun in the moon, without which there’s no conception of time. This objection is raised by evolutionists, and the Creation Science people, rather than seeing it as a sign that something’s wrong, simply scramble to explain it away. But it makes no sense. What a Gustin is warning about is that God is not talking in literal terms. When he speaks of the days of creation. He’s not speaking with reference to time. And that’s why these days can be understood without sun or moon or stars. What Augustine argues, is that the creation of the world did not happen by evolution over millions or billions of years. It also did not happen in six literal days. What Augustine argues, is that the creation of the world was miraculous, and instantaneous, as far as we’re concerned, as far as we’re concerned, the creation of the world was an instant act of miraculous divine power, where God said, Let there be and all things were made. There was no sun, no moon, no stars, no time. God created the world instantaneously. In all its parts A Complete Whole, instantaneously, an act of divine power, and this is what we refer to as creation. This is how God creates, God creates instantaneously. And there are examples of this in Sacred Scripture. For example, in the life of our Lord, when he heals people, the healings are creative. And they take no time. For example, we find Jesus approaching a man who has been crippled from birth. And forgive me if I get any of the specific details wrong, I’m speaking of these things off the top of my head. But Jesus will deal with a man who is crippled from birth, he’s a paralytic, he’s shriveled up on a mat, laying on the ground. And the gospel writers will tell us that this man was crippled for 40 years or from his birth. And Jesus comes to the man and heals the man and the man immediately leaps to his feet. And what’s important to notice about this is that this is a man who has never walked. This is a man who has no muscle composition. This is a man who has who has not used his legs, you’ve ever seen a crippled person, all of the muscles of unused body parts atrophy, and basically disappear. And for this man, to immediately leap up, he not only needs to be healed of some diseases if some cause of disease is removed. But all of his muscles would need to be redone, redeveloped. And this would take months and months and months of therapy, in a natural setting. To rebuild those muscles to redevelop the tendons, the bones would be weak, the man would be uncoordinated, he wouldn’t even be able to walk, he would need to go through months and months of therapy, just to retrain himself in the use of those body parts that had been paralyzed. And yet, when when the healing is described, it’s described as instantaneous and complete. It’s a miracle. It’s an act of divine power. It’s not natural. You see, here’s what a natural healing would work like this. There was a man who had a disease. And let’s say the disease was cancer. And this is how we normally talk about healings. A person has cancer, the cancer produces all kinds of negative effects in the body. The cancer is understood to be the cause of the disease, which is the abnormal activity of the body, the the influence or cause that is taking away health or normal function of the body, it’s caused by this disease. Normally, when we speak of healing within this scientific fishbowl, we’ll say something like God took away the cancer. So the cause of the disease is removed. And then the body is able to return to health by the removal of the cause of the disease. To give an even clearer illustration, let’s say that a child’s body is covered with a terrible rash that’s become infected. And this rash is all over the child’s body. And the doctor examines the child and finds that there are microscopic parasites in the child’s skin that are causing all of this inflammation and discomfort and infection. And so the doctor proposes that a certain medicine be used to kill these parasites. And so then the medicine is applied, and the parasites are killed. And then what happens is because the destruction or the cause of the disease is removed, the body is able to return Naturally back to health back to its natural state, because the cause of the disease was removed. And that recovery takes time. It takes time for the body to return to normal after the cause of the disease is removed. And many times when people speak of healing. What they mean is that God takes away the cause of the disease, and then the recovery would take time and be natural. And the person would credit God with taking away the disease. But still, the recovery would be normal, it would take time it would take therapy, and so on. But when we read of the miracles in Scripture, we don’t find any recovery, we don’t find a natural return to normal function, we don’t refine in a natural redevelopment of health, we find an instantaneous return to full function that is impossible for us to comprehend. If you if you think about the details of what would have to happen, for a paralyzed man who had never walked to instantaneously leap up off the ground. It’s impossible to comprehend what happened. It’s not a matter of taking away the cause of a disease. There’s an instant restoration or instant creation of health, coordination, strength, etc. And it’s impossible for us to comprehend what could have happened, the people who watched could not have comprehended how that could happen. If the man was suddenly freed from a cause of disease, and then over the next few months, recovered, and was able to stand up, it would be comprehensible. But what happened when Jesus heals a paralytic is impossible to comprehend. Because it’s supernatural. It’s an act of divine power, it’s creative, instantaneous. It’s not a development of parts, to establish a whole, it’s the instant formation of the hole with all of its parts in place. And that’s the mark of divine power. When Jesus comes to see it’s an act of divine power when he converts water into wine. It’s an act of divine power. The natural process is not present. Because for God, there’s no such thing as a natural process. There’s a natural, there may be a natural process for us. But for God, there’s no natural process. The wine is instantaneously formed out of water, without any presence of grapes. There’s no fermentation period, it’s just immediately made wine. It’s an act of divine power. That’s what makes it a miracle. God doesn’t just fast forward the fermentation process. He doesn’t like to magician caused grapes to magically appear, and then create the wine and then instantly fermented as the people watch. And they say, oh, my goodness, a process that would have taken months. Jesus just accomplished in 18 seconds. No, that’s not what happens. It’s the instantaneous formation of the whole and the presence of all of its parts by an act of creation. And what saina Gustin is teaching is that when God makes the world, the world is created instantaneously in completion. It’s perfect. Everything is good. Everything is perfect. Perfect the hole with all of its parts in a way that is completely incomprehensible to man. The same kind of creative action that we see in the miracles of Jesus. God does not work through natural means he does not work through human limitations. When God acts, he can create the whole with all of the parts present, he can create the chicken without an egg. There is no dilemma, which came first the chicken or the egg, the chicken, because God created the chicken with all of its parts complete instantaneously. He made the chicken to produce eggs. The chicken was created instantaneously, as an egg laying bird, with all of its parts complete at creation. We don’t read that God made Adam a baby. We read the God made a man. He made Adam as a man as a perfect human. And by perfect I mean complete. A complete adult man God made man. He didn’t make a baby and then raise him. for 25 years. He made a man and he made a woman he made a man we’re told out of the dust of the earth. So was man created x Niccolo? No man was not created out of nothing. Man was created. Out of the dirt out of the earth, one of the four elements. woman was created out of the rib of a man, not ex nihilo out of the out of the man. That’s what the name woman means. But all of this creative work was instantaneous. That’s what Augustine or a Gustin is teaching. He’s teaching that creation was instantaneous, immediate, complete, perfect, without any time, an act of divine power. And he warns us that when we read the book of Genesis, we not read it, as if it’s a literal explanation of the process by which God made the world as if God was subject to the steps of Genesis one. But rather, what a Gustin is explaining is that in Genesis one, the order of creation is taught or revealed to men. Now, again, if we don’t study philosophy, we have no idea what Augustine is talking about. But if we do study philosophy, we understand exactly what a Gustin is talking about. And this is explained by Thomas Aquinas in his commentaries on Aristotle’s philosophical works, which again, no one’s studies, and it’s no surprise that we spend our lives in confusion. When we haven’t studied Catholic thought, and pretend to be Catholic apologists. St. Thomas says that a wise man seeks to no order or seeks to order. A wise man seeks order. That’s what wisdom is. So when I look at the natural world here I am, I live on a farm. When I look at my farm, I asked myself, how is this farm to be ordered? How is it supposed to work? How is it supposed to be arranged? How are things supposed to be set up? according to God’s will and purpose? What is the order to be and I seek to understand the order that exists in the natural world because I’m the custodian of That order, that’s the role of man, with respect to nature. It’s my job, to fulfill a role and discover, through philosophical investigation, the order of creation, and then to maintain that order, on the land, in my control. That’s what Adam was created to do. That order of the natural world is what we study in natural philosophy. Order, my own emotions, my own will, my affections, my actions, my choices, the order of those choices, actions, and of my will, is the object of the study of moral philosophy. I seek wisdom with respect to morals, I seek to know the order of moral issues, so that I can order my own will and affections and actions. A wise man seeks to no order. So when, man, a reasoning creature, made in the image and likeness of God looks at the natural world, he seeks by his own nature, to know the order that exists in the world. And in the opening chapters of the book of Genesis, God reveals to us what we need to know, to know the order of the natural world. He’s not giving us a step by step scientific explanation of the mechanical, natural processes, that he used to form all things, because he’s God, he doesn’t have to operate by any mechanical procedures, there are no natural laws to which God is subject. He created the world instantaneously by his infinite power, and wisdom. But man, who was a creature, with the faculty of reason, needs to understand the order of creation, needs to know the order, for the sake of his own wisdom and happiness. And in the book of Genesis God created, God communicates to his creatures, what they need to know, to understand the order of creation, not an order in any kind of natural time or development, but a philosophical order of the natural world. The question is not how did God create the world? The question that’s answered in Genesis is not how did God create the world. And therefore, it’s neither an explanation of Creation Science, nor is it suggesting any kind of evolutionary science. It’s neither, it has nothing to do with this scientific mindset. It has nothing to do with this naturalism of the modern mind. It’s not explaining how God made the world. What it’s explaining, is why God made the world. Genesis is an explanation of why things are the way they are, why God made the world. It’s an explanation of the order of the world so that man can understand his place in it, and his duty in it. What Genesis teaches us is why God created the world and why things are as they are. God answers the question, what is the end of man? What is the purpose of man in this world? And the answer to that question is that we read write in the book of Genesis, man was created in the image and likeness of God. He was created to be the keeper, or the governor of the natural world. He was created by God and placed in a paradise of pleasure. And he was told to tend the ground and keep it. He was set in dominion over all the creatures, man had the authority given to him by the Creator, to name the creatures. Man was the chief creature for whom all other things were created. Why were the sun, moon and stars created, so that when man, using the senses that God created in him, looks up to the heavens, can see these symbols that mark days and years and seasons, man reads, The stars, our calendars and clocks are based upon what’s going on in the heavens. what goes on in the heavens was created for our benefit, and use the Zodiac for example, which marks the months, the rising and setting of the sun, which marks the days, the phases of the moon, which marks the months, these things were created, the entire heavens of celestial bodies were created for us. That’s what Genesis one teaches us. The animals, the birds, the fish, the plants, they were created by God, for man, and man was given dominion over them, to 10 them, and to keep them for God. Man was given reason, so that he could understand God’s will for all things, and do the work of governing them, for God. That’s what Genesis one teaches us. It doesn’t teach us how God created the world. That’s that’s not even rational, how God created those two ideas of creation, and how don’t go together. The whole point of creation, is that there is no understanding of that how it’s incomprehensible. It was an act of miraculous power, that is beyond all human comprehension. we ourselves are subject or we are I should say, we are objects of that creative power. We are not capable of understanding that creative power, we ourselves are produced by that creative power. We received that knowledge through faith. We don’t understand it. We don’t ask how we ask, why. Our desire when when St. Paul prays, he says, Do not be conformed to this world. but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. So that you may know not how God created the world. That’s just idle, modern, scientific, curious nonsense. He says, be transformed. So that you may know what is the will of God in other words, so that you may know why. So that you can obey and do God’s will in your life, which is the only thing that should concern us. When when Solomon finishes his discussion in the book of Ecclesiastes, he says, the end of all is this. Fear God and keep His commandments for this is the whole duty of man. Here God and keep His commandments. We’re supposed to be concerned with obedience. We’re concerned with doing God’s will. Genesis tells us what we need to know about creation, to allow us to do our job. It tells us why things are the way they are, what God’s plan is, in nature, what God’s design is, why everything is the way it is. So that we could do our job of governing, dispersed, and ordering it maintaining the order of nature, in the service of God. The how of creation is the same as the how of Jesus’s healing of the paralytic, the how of Jesus is walking on water, the how of Jesus is entering into a room where the doors are locked? the how of converting water into wine, the same answer for how Jesus said 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish? The answer how is the same by a miracle, by divine power, by incomprehensible infinite power and wisdom. These things were done. That’s the whole point. God doesn’t simply fast forward, natural processes. That’s important to understand. Miracles are not simply speeding up natural processes or God, acting like a doctor and doing what a doctor should do. For example, if I get a splinter in my toe, I don’t pray for God to take the splinter out of my toe, because that’s within my own power. I get a pair of tweezers and I take the splinter out of my toe, I don’t pray for healing when the problem is within my power, likewise, if there’s a human sickness that has a knowable, natural cause, and it’s within our power to remove the cause, for example, lung cancer is caused by smoking. We don’t smoke and pray that God saves us from lung cancer. That’s contrary to our nature as creatures with reason. It’s immoral to pray that God would heal us from lung cancer, as we suck carcinogenic smoke into our lungs, and we know that we’re doing so. That’s not prayer. That’s insanity. And much of modern religion is nothing more than insanity. we prevent cancer, by not smoking. We don’t ask God to take the cancer out of our lungs, as we smoke. That’s not how divine power works. The miracles in the Bible are instantaneous acts of incomprehensible, divine power. That’s the whole point of a miracle. It’s it’s impossible to comprehend. If you if you try to think about how Jesus in a human body that weighs, let’s say, 170 pounds, walks upon water. It’s impossible to comprehend. It’s impossible. And that’s the whole point of the miracle is to show divine power. The power to do anything without regard for any natural processes without any limitations of human understanding or strength, without any limitations of time. Infinite divine power and what Augustine is explaining to us is that God created the world by an act of infinite instantaneous divine power. Everything was created instantaneously. It was created perfect, it was complete and whole. And it’s presented to us, as Aristotle explains, in the physics, it’s presented to us, this natural world is presented to us as a confused, composite, whole, made up of all kinds of different parts. And man seeks to know the order of this whole. And in order to understand the order of the hall, the hall needs to be analyzed, or divided into its parts, and broken down into its elements, so that it can be understood according to its nature. So that we can understand the natural world, not as it is known to us through our senses, where we look upon completed composite, confused holes. But when we gain wisdom, we look at the natural world, and we see it through the analysis of its parts and understand it. And then in our minds, we synthesize it, we reassemble the parts, to again see the hole, but with wisdom, understanding the order that exists in the hole, again, to clarify that. When we’re born into the world, our senses reveal to us the finished, confused holes that exist in the natural world, we see an animal, we point to an animal and we say, that is a squirrel. A child has no idea what the parts are within that squirrels body or how the body functions. A child has no idea when he looks out into the pasture and sees a cow that that cows parts are not like a human’s parts. But it’s different. Through analysis, through the study of natural philosophy, we take the cow apart, to understand its parts, to understand its form and function. And then to reassemble the whole as it were, to understand the cow. In the same way that God designed and understands the cow, we want to understand the natural world, according to the mind of God. That’s what God reveals to us. In Genesis one, he reveals to us the order of the natural world, so that we can understand why each thing exists. And we can do our job to maintain the order of the natural world. God explains to us the design, the plan, the order of the natural world, in Genesis, chapter one, the method of how God created the world is instant, miraculous divine power. It is not a process of seven days. That’s why a Gustin warned about reading Genesis, literally, that’s not the purpose to give you some naturalistic, scientific, mechanical explanation of the process of how God created. It’s to reveal to you an obedient, rational creature, the order that you are to maintain through your life’s work, in obedience to God’s will. That’s the purpose of Genesis one, not to entertain idle scientists, whether Christian or not, not to provide us with curious, interesting, idle conversations about how the world was created. That’s none of our business and it’s unnecessary. If you’re not willing to believe that God created the world, by the word of his power, as an act of His Divine Will, infinite in power, incomprehensible if you’re not willing to accept that you’re just digging idly into Things that are not revealed that you can’t even comprehend and don’t need to comprehend instead of doing your job. It’s just idleness. And idle Christians, with their Creation Science, are just as guilty of this as idle non Christians, or idle evolutionary Christians digging into these questions, which are none of their business. This is to discover the mechanism by which the world was created is not the duty of man. This whole foundation on which scientific exploration is based, is disobedience. It’s none of our business to explore outer space, it’s none of our business. To know what is inside the earth at the earth’s core, it’s none of our business. We don’t need to know how many stars are in the sky. We don’t need to know if there are aliens in outer space. We were created by God as his creatures subject to do His will. Anyone who has that right disposition, can read Genesis one and get the message. It’s a moral message. We don’t worship animals, for example, because they were not created for us to worship. They’re not the source of any of our happiness. They were created as inferior creatures to us dependent on our care. Man was set over the animals. That’s why the worship of animals is evil. Genesis reveals to us the order of creation, we are not dependent for our happiness on the sun or the moon as ancient people thought. Genesis reveals to us that the sun, moon and stars are for us. Signs of seasons and times, to shed light upon the earth. That’s their function. They are not spiritual powers that control our lives that we need to try and propitiate in order to be happy and safe. Genesis teaches us why idolatry is wrong. Because what different people say about nature is false. God did not create the birds to reveal to us Secrets of the world as omens. That’s not what birds are for. And therefore Christians can ignore all that talk. Genesis one teaches us how we’re to live where to fear God and keep His commandments because he is we only being superior to us in this world. He created us as the chief of his creatures, subject to no one. But God. That’s what Genesis one teaches us. The animals have their proper places and functions and man is to see that they’re allowed to do their natural work. The work for which God created them, man is to keep them in their place and not ruin that order with his own inventions and plans. Man’s to keep the original order of creation. So we see the false dilemma of creation, science and evolution. Evolution is simply a reincarnation of ancient epicureanism atomism naturalism, the denial of all supernatural power, which is ancient. There’s nothing new to it. There’s nothing interesting to it. It’s just a revival of an ancient rejected philosophy that has been able to revive because men have abandoned the study of philosophy. And we’ve allowed this chained monster to be loosed again So now we’ve got this monster running through the world that no one can figure out how to deal with, because the wisdom that will put that monster down is not present. When we look at the Christian Schools, we see and I’m just going to be blunt, we see these stupid schools, focusing the children on science and math on natural science and math, talking about things like natural laws, teaching these ideas to Christian children, raising them to have the same philosophy as the atheists. But pretending that if we make these subtle distinctions here and there, we now are Christians, when we’ve imbibed the whole Epicurean philosophy, because the teachers, the principals of the schools, the professors at the universities have no idea what they’re actually teaching to the children. They’re raising, not Christians. They’re raising epicureans. They’re raising naturalists who are taught that there are natural laws that explain why things happen the way they do. And just as the law is said, to be the king, in American culture, which is a Protestant idea. In the same way, these natural laws are understood to rule over God Himself, so that God has to explain to us how he does things by means of these natural laws. And this is the mindset that’s being installed, and has been installed in the minds of Christians. For centuries now. Modern Christians can’t even comprehend what St. Augustine is talking about. When he comments on Genesis. Modern Christians are atheists. Modern Christians are epicureans. They think of the world as atheists think of the world they think of the world, as epicureans thought of the world not as Aristotle thought of the world, not as St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Agustin or any of the Church Fathers ever thought of the world. Modern Christians think of the world and think of themselves and of their bodies, and of sickness and disease and health, and every other natural topic, in the same way that false philosophers did in the ancient world. And this is why when we look at Christian society in the 21st century, we see in it no advantages over the lives of unbelievers. We see Christians plagued by the same problems, confused by the same questions, struggling with the same issues. Because they are Christians in name. But philosophically, they’re not Christians. You can go through the motions of the sacramental life, you can go through the motions of liturgical celebrations. But if the core of your soul, and your mind and your worldview are not Christian, something is going to be terribly wrong with how you think and live, and that’s what we see. In modern society. There’s no Christian culture, just ceremony. There’s no Christian philosophy, no Christian education, just copying and imitating what the world does, and trying to pretend that if we change the spices, we’re actually creating something that’s essentially different. Which is actually the same thing. And so this whole evolution creation debate in modern circles is just a classic, embarrassing example of a false dilemma. And the Christians with no self awareness, ignorant of the history of Christian thought, ignorant of philosophy, just have no clue what they’re even talking about. They’re wrapped up in a scientific mind that has nothing to do with Christianity, trying to read this scientific thinking into the book of Genesis as if that’s what it means to be a faithful Christian. Always trying to explain the miracles in scientific terms as if, as if that’s the duty of Christians to study science, to study chemistry, and physics and biology, and to use that scientific knowledge to explain things like what it means when Jesus’s sweat was like drops of blood in the garden of gift 70. Or to explain exactly how Jesus died on the cross. You know, that’s what Christians need to work on to understand the natural mechanical processes of these things that are just know that that’s just worldly naturalist, nonsense, idleness. That’s not Christian thinking. Is there a place for the investigation of the natural world? in Christian culture? Yes, there always has been. It’s called natural philosophy. But it’s not according to the scientific method. The scientific method is not a Christian idea. And I know that you can find quotes from Christians here and there who say that it is, but you can find quotes from Christians in history to say anything you want. Go and read Francis Bacon’s novum organum, if you’re serious, if you’re serious, go and read Francis Bacon’s novum organum, where he explains the scientific method, go read that and tell me if that is pro or anti christian. If you’re not going to go and read Francis Bacon and actually study the origin of the scientific method in its modern manifestation, if you’re not willing to actually go and study it, then don’t waste our time telling us what’s Christian and what’s not Christian, because you’re not even serious. The scientific method was consciously promoted in the 1600s, as an alternative to Aristotelian philosophy, which is and was the official philosophy of Catholicism. The scientific method was not some innocent. And again, you have to assume that ancient people, we’re all stupid dopes to think that the scientific method simply means that if we want to know what’s under a rock, we’re going to pick up the rock and look to imagine that that’s what the scientific method is. to imagine that it’s that simple. And that Don’t be that if I want to know what’s on top of Mount Olympus, the scientific method tells me I should go up on Mount Olympus and look, and the ancient world didn’t understand that the ancient philosophers didn’t understand that they thought you should stand at the bottom of the mountain. And just guess what’s at the top of the mountain? If you believe that, that’s what the scientific method is that people in the 1600s at the same time of the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation, people just randomly decided, you know, what, I think we should start actually looking at things to figure out how the world works. And no one did that before. You’ve got to be kidding yourself. You’ve got to be crazy to think that that’s what the scientific method actually is. A commitment to observing and being honest about what we observe in the natural world, as if everyone before that was a superstitious liar. Because that’s what modern science tells us. Everyone who lived before the 16th, and 1700s, was just a crazy, lazy, superstitious storyteller. And then in the 1600s 100, plus years after Christopher Columbus sailed across the Atlantic Ocean, using the stars to navigate all of a sudden Men decided to start looking at the natural world. And using experiments to figure out how the if you honestly believe that 100 plus years after Columbus sailed across the Atlantic Ocean, people had this new idea to, to keep records of their observations. And you think that that’s what the scientific method actually is, rather than a revival of an ancient false philosophy that denies the existence of God and reduces him to the creator of the laws of nature, which is what deism teach teaches. If you believe that the scientific method is honestly just the beginning of experimentation, then you’re crazy. If you think Columbus could sail across the ocean, without any scientific observation in the past, before Francis Bacon was even born, that technology and knowledge of the natural world was sufficient to sail across an ocean, or that the Portuguese were able to create ships and sail around the entire southern coast of Africa. But that none of them understood the need for scientific observation. And that that’s what the scientific method introduced to the world. You’re crazy. If you think that that’s what the scientific method is, the scientific method was proposed in the 1600s, as a complete abandonment of all theology and philosophy. The scientific method was proposed, so that nothing would be admitted. That could not be demonstrated by natural observation. It’s simply a return to Epicurean naturalism, the denial of the supernatural, and the demand that nothing be called the true which cannot be observed and demonstrated, physically, sensibly. That’s what the scientific method is. And that’s the mindset of modern Christians. They try to live this life where they play around with math and science and devote their whole education to a naturalist Epicurean education, and then wonder why they can never reconcile their religion and the rest of their life. Because their whole life is Epicurean. Everything they think the way they look at the world, the way they look at themselves, is not Christian. And yet, for some weird reason, they try to cling to Christian theology. And try to make it jive in some way with this anti christian philosophy that dominates and direct their whole life. And that’s what leads us to Creation Science. That’s not what the Church Fathers taught. It’s not what Christian philosophy teaches. It’s what modern naturally minded men are forced to try and read into Sacred Scripture, when their minds cannot and will not admit supernatural power. When men instead of serving the mission of the church, which is to go into the world and make disciples to lead men to the knowledge of salvation. They instead spend their time curiously digging up rocks, and flying around in outer space, imagining that they’re doing something for God and pretending that science and these things are for God, when God never asks us to do these things while we neglect all the things that God does ask us to do is just modern delusion. And it’s why we get these ignorant Froot Loops And ultimately failing, fake disputations of evolution by people who can’t refute evolution, and are fighting Goliath with a sword just getting butchered. on every side, the creation scientists are not winning, just look around. Evolution dominates every institution, Christians and Catholics are afraid to speak against it because they know they can’t refute it. But they don’t understand what the problem actually is. After all, they don’t have access to the telescopes, they don’t have access to the microscopes, they don’t have access to the research, and therefore, the Christians have to admit that they can’t assert anything about the natural world. Isn’t that beautiful? Isn’t it interesting that the Christians, especially the clergy, the hierarchy of the church, has been separated from the community of those who know. Is that just a coincidence? of the scientific method? Or could that possibly be the whole point of the scientific method? Yesterday, I had a woman comment on one of my posts and say that she sees nothing in Scripture to contradict, evolution or atomic theory. And what I asked her was, if atomic theory is something new, which she assumes it is because she doesn’t know philosophy. How do we know that there’s not a new theory coming? That will further and no, I shouldn’t say further, I should say, will finally tell us the truth, and will allow us to understand the scriptures. If the interpretation of Scripture is dependent on scientific theories and investigation, then we can never know what the Scriptures say, or mean. The church is not then the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, but the scientists, the whole world would have to wait on secular scientists to reveal to us the truth of the natural world, so that we could then finally, rightly interpret divine revelation. How obviously false is that divine revelation is given to us as the most certain source of knowledge. And the interpretation of the Divine scriptures was given not to scientists or universities or research institutions, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture was given to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. That should be all the proof that you need to know that the understanding of Scripture is not based on scientific research and theory or the scientific method, which is conducted outside of the hierarchy of the church. The fact that the clergy is afraid to talk about these things, reveals the real problem that they don’t understand the nature of this issue. If we want to know what the meaning of the Scriptures is, we don’t go to a university. We don’t go to scientists. That, by the way, is what’s called modernism, that it’s through scholarship and the scientific method that we’re going to learn the truth rather than the hierarchy of the church. We don’t go to the scientists and to the new discoveries in science to figure out what the truth is. We go to the doctors of the church, we go to the magisterium of the church. We go to the Fathers of the Church. The truth was delivered to us. by divine revelation, there will be no new revelation. If we’re dependent on scientific research to know the truth, then there would be new revelation and it would be revealed through And to scientists, who don’t even need to be Christians. The understanding of the Scriptures would be dependent on future revelation made through the natural world, to scientists, and scientists would be the true hierarchy of the church. The magisterium would reside not with the Pope, and bishops, but with the researchers, and scholars. That’s modernism. That’s not the truth. And when we find ourselves, waiting for science, to tell us the truth, to tell us what we can believe or what we should believe, we should know that we’ve been led out of the path of Catholic faith. St. Agustin warned us of this because it was an ancient problem. Men are always inclined to naturalism, because of concupiscence in sin. naturalism is always a temptation. atheism is always a temptation, trying to explain things, and naturally is always a temptation. And therefore, naturalism is a timeless, evil, a timeless, false philosophy that the church formerly had dealt with. But the revival of this Epicurean philosophy, under the disguise of science in the scientific method, has introduced all of this new confusion to the world. And that’s why we stand as Catholics trembling in the presence of evolution, and a million other scientific ideas, with nothing to say. Because we can’t even diagnose the real problem with these ideas. Now, we could get into a technical discussion of evolution, all of its actual details, we could get into what scientists have actually discovered and what they know. But I’m telling you that if you get into those details, and I do study them, I’m very open minded in the sense that I, I like to know what the arguments are. But I can tell you, there are no strong arguments for evolution. There’s no argument that I read and I say, Wow, that’s a pretty good argument. And I and I can assert before God that I seek those arguments, and I read sources with an open mind. But I don’t find any even slightly persuasive arguments. In order for them to be persuasive, you have to already accept 1000 other or you have to grant 1000 other theories, and pretend that they’re all true. And then something that’s said, can appear to be probable or possible. But it’s all based on granted assumptions. It’s not based on evidence, or it’s not demonstrated. It’s simply assumed. And you’ve got to assume and assume and assume and concede and concede and concede. In order for anything that’s proposed to even appear to be possible. And there’s no justification for all of those concessions. There’s no justification for those concessions. And so evolution, and this attempt to build some kind of scientific Christianity is a house built on sand. The sand is unjustified concessions made by Christians, to theories and assumptions that are proposed with no evidence and then used to explain what’s observed. If you deny those assumptions, there’s nothing there. There’s no demonstrative evidence. There’s nothing to even talk about. And we’re really just left with a philosophical movement that’s trying to reestablish epicureanism and naturalism, atomism and so on in the modern world. After they had been removed by wise men and Christian philosophers from the ancient world. And we’ve simply unraveled all of the philosophical achievements of the philosophers and doctors of the church. And that’s what we have in modern Christian society, confusion, timidity, uncertainty, the agnosticism that’s produced by human attempts to understand the world outside of faith and divine revelation, the confusion and uncertainty, which is agnosticism. And that’s where Christians are going to end up, they’re going to be scandalized. They’re going to be devoid of all confidence in Christian faith, they’re going to be confused. They’re never going to know God’s will. They’re not going to know what they should do with their lives, what their purpose is in the world. And, again, this is why there’s no religious vocations. We’re never going to raise kids to think like scientists who then choose to enter into a religious vocation or contemplative life. They’ve been taught their whole life, that the truth is sought through scientific investigation, not through contemplation and prayer and meditation. Why would they possibly choose religious life when they’ve been taught that the scientific method is how we learn what’s true? They’re raised, not to be religious. And to pretend that, to give countenance to evolutionary theory is clever when it’s just a sign of cluelessness, and ignorance, so we’re almost two hours. Now I’m going to cut this talk off. But what I want you to see is, the real problem is both creationists and evolutionists are members of the same school of philosophy. That’s the problem with this discussion. It’s a false dilemma. St. Augustine is used to contradict the creation scientists, and rightly so, because he does contradict the creation scientists. But sorry, there’s a neighbor shooting. Scientists, I’m sorry. Augustine is used to refute the Christian scientists rightly so. What a Gustin is teaching, however, is not that God created the world by means of evolution. But rather that God created the world by instantaneous, miraculous power, which not even the creation, scientists will grant that they are wrong. And the evolutionists are even further from the truth, not closer to it. I recommend that you read lucretius is on the nature of things. The Latin title of the book is de Ray room, not toora de rerum Natura tura. On the nature of things, that’s a good book to read to see this Epicurean mindset. And as I said, it’s explained in the opening pages, so you don’t have to read 500 pages to get into is right in the opening pages. And if you want to really get into this and recover Christian, natural philosophy, study, classical physics with me in the classical Liberal Arts Academy, we can even read the commentaries of St. Thomas Aquinas on Aristotle’s physics. You can read St. Thomas Aquinas explaining the truth of Aristotle’s teaching on natural philosophy. This is Catholic philosophy. And if you’d like to get into it and have some help, some help with assessment and and support. Join me in the classical Liberal Arts Academy and study classical physics. I hope that’s helpful. As I said this, the question was requested from a friend yesterday. I hope that you find this helpful and remember, this is a walk talk. This isn’t a prepared scholarly lecture or anything like that. This is extemporaneous. talking out loud, as it were. I hope that it gets you thinking and starts some new discussions raises some new issues and I ask that you share them with me. If you’d like to keep the discussion going. You can contact me on the forums at classical liberal arts comm backslash forums, or just email me at mail at classical liberal arts calm. God bless

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Be First to Comment

    Leave a Reply

    Mission News Theme by Compete Themes.