vendredi 28 février 2014

The Abiogenesis Problem

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Abiogenesis and Evolutionist Ideology, 2) Creation vs. Evolution : The Abiogenesis Problem, 3) Provisional Caveat to Previous

I recently said that abiogenesis is part of the same ideology as the one which says life evolved from simple cells to very complex organisms, like us or other mammals or like birds and fish and reptiles and the rest and which also says that earth "evolved" from part of the gas cloud that "evolved" into the sun. As well as is orbitting around it each year and rotating around itself each day. As well as that the gas cloud behind the solar system came from Big Bang.

How does abiogenesis tie together with Evolution properly speaking and Evolutionist theory of how Earth came to be?

You can imagine biological life had always been there, but in that case it would be more natural to assume it had always been there in roughly the same kind of complexity as we see now. To imagine it had always - very literally always without any beginning at all - been there in the form of very simple cells but somehow started to develop to life as we know it only some billions of years ago is frankly not very credible.

So, Evolution theory has hardly any case without Abiogenesis being at least possible. At the best life could be going in circles and the start of manycelled life in Cambrian explosion or before would only have been the start of a new cycle.

And if you believe the cosmogony and cosmology of Big Bang, then you cannot have anything like eternal life as it is, nor even life going eternally in cycles. So, to this set of ideas, which do form a whole, abiogenesis is somewhat crucial.

This can be formulated as "Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it does not have." This is listed as Creationist "Claim CB090"* in the Talkorigins list of refuted creationist claims. It gives for this particular formulation the source: Mastropaolo, J., 1998 (2 Nov.). Re: The evolutionist: liar, believer in miracles, king of criminals.*

I might have formulated it otherwise than Mastropaolo, like:

  • Evolution from a single cell presupposes a single cell did arise from non-living matter, and if that is impossible, evolution scenario cannot possibly be true.

    And adding

  • Earth arising purely naturally from Big Bang (via gas clouds forming solar system etc) presupposes that life later arose from non-living matter, and if that is impossible, Earth cannot have arisen after non-being without a creator before that either.

However, the Talkorigins site gives us Mastropaolo's formulation and pretends to refute it like this:

  • 1. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

  • 2. Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.

To which I answer:

  • 1. Umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology allowing for rain to exist. The theory need not be conscious, but a conscious theory that says "rain does not exist" or from which good logic could conclude "rain does not exist" is incompatible with umbrellas. The problem in the quip is that rain is observed and working umbrellas are observed, abiogenesis is not oberved and evolution from one celled mature organisms to life on a visible level is not observed "while it happens".

  • 2. Abiogenesis does not usually refer to life arising through a creator creating it, but in any context outside this quip it refers to life arising from exclusively non-living matter without any conscious intervention behind itself. And that is not a fact. Evolutionists do not have that. They may think they can prove that indirectly through the subsequent story being true (but I have shown elsewhere on this blog they not only cannot prove that but the opposite can be proven. Or they may think they can prove that from modern cosmological theories of how earth arose, but they cannot prove those either. They have, as far as I am concerned not even proven Heliocentrism is either a fact or likely to work without divine intervention.

This leads to their claims that abiogenesis functions and to the claims on our side it doesn't.

Complex organic molecules, such as the bases in RNA, are very fragile and unstable, except at low temperatures. They would not hold together long enough to serve as the first self-replicating proto-life.

Here I totally second the formulation given by Talkorigins (in Claim CB030) and extracted from Jerry Bergman and Harun Yahya.**

I will now give the four replies** with my replies to them:

The source Bergman cites for the fragility of RNA bases (Levy and Miller 1998) disputes abiogenesis only at high temperatures, around 100 degrees Celsius. They also conclude, "At 0 degrees C, A, U, G, and T appear to be sufficiently stable (t1/2 greater than or equal to 106 yr) to be involved in a low-temperature origin of life." They also say that cytosine is unstable enough at 0 degrees Celsius (half life of 17,000 years) that it may not have been involved in the first genetic material. The discovery of a ribozyme without C-G bases shows that genetic material without cytosine is plausible (Reader and Joyce 2002).
But what about the chemicals like ammonia and similar that would have destroyed them?
Talkorigins (a)
If synthesis of nucleo-bases is catalyzed and hydrolysis is not, we expect the nucleo-bases to accumulate. Formamide, which can form under prebiotic conditions, has been found to catalyze the formation of nucleo-bases (Saladino et al. 2001; Saladino et al. 2003).
But what about the chemicals like ammonia and similar that would have destroyed them?
Talkorigins (b)
RNA degrades quickly today because there are enzymes (RNAses) to chew it up.
We concede that RNA would not have degraded quickly because of these enzymes in a pre-biotic scenario. But what about the chemicals like ammonia and similar that would have destroyed them?
Talkorigins (c)
Those enzymes would not have evolved if RNA degraded quickly on its own. If complex organic molecules were so fragile, life itself would be impossible.
We reply that they are so fragile and that life is possible by creation only, or (disconsidering other factors) in a steady state universe, but not by abiogenesis plus evolution.
Talkorigins (d)
In fact, life exists even in boiling temperatures or at very high acidity.
But not exposing RNA directly to it without protection.
Life need not have begun with highly stable molecules. Eigen and Schuster developed a notion of chemical hypercycles, in which many chemical components coexist; each component of the reaction leads to other components, which eventually reform the original one (Eigen and Schuster 1977). Chemicals involved in such a cycle need not persist longer than the duration of the hypercycle itself.
Their isolation from other chemicals which would have led elsewhere than to next part of cycle would however need to persist as long as any series of hypercycles lasts.
Organic molecules may have grown in association with stabilizing templates, such as clay templates (Ertem and Ferris 1996), or parts of the hypercycles mentioned above.
Clay templates would not have given sufficient complexity. Plus we still have the problem of how the organic molecules are protected while growing - if such a thing happened at all before life as an ongoing concern (in which the molecules are adequately protected in the cases they survive).

I heard one theory that such molecules were likely protected by vesicles of lipids or proteines. Proteine vesicles presuppose life has formed already, since proteines are synthesised in living organisms. Lipid vesicles give us that same problem, except my opponent claimed that it had been shown that lipids could form with rocks acting as catalysts. This I had not previously heard, and my immediate source gave no source for it. It was actually a few turns later in the dialogue that he gave the links to Talkorigins on Abiogenesis.

None of them adressed the problem of lipids for cell membranes, even in the form of very simple vesicles.

However, Don Batten on CMI does adress it:***

Lipids (‘fats’) are essential for the formation of a cell membrane that contains the cell contents, as well as for other cell functions. The cell membrane, comprised of several different complex lipids, is an essential part of a free-living cell that can reproduce itself.

Lipids have much higher energy density than sugars or amino acids, so their formation in any chemical soup is a problem for origin of life scenarios (high energy compounds are thermodynamically much less likely to form than lower energy compounds).

The fatty acids that are the primary component of all cell membranes have been very difficult to produce, even assuming the absence of oxygen (a ‘reducing’ atmosphere). Even if such molecules were produced, ions such as magnesium and calcium, which are themselves necessary for life and have two charges per atom (++, i.e. divalent), would combine with the fatty acids, and precipitate them, making them unavailable.9 This process likewise hinders soap (essentially a fatty acid salt) from being useful for washing in hard water—the same precipitation reaction forms the ‘scum’.

Some popularisers of abiogenesis like to draw diagrams showing a simple hollow sphere of lipid (a ‘vesicle’) that can form under certain conditions in a test-tube. However, such a ‘membrane’ could never lead to a living cell because the cell needs to get things through the cell membrane, in both directions. ...


In the 1920s the idea that life began with soapy bubbles (fat globules) was popular (Oparin’s ‘coacervate’ hypothesis) but this pre-dated any knowledge of what life entailed in terms of DNA and protein synthesis, or what membranes have to do. The ideas were naïve in the extreme, but they still get an airing today in YouTube videos showing bubbles of lipid, even dividing, as if this were relevant to explaining the origin of life.

It irritates me that neither Niels Steigenga nor Don Batten have shown anything about a link as to under what conditions lipids form vesicles in test tubes. The little research I have been able to do on my own over wiki does not give any clue as to abiotic formation of lipids. So, since Don Batten links to a feedback article by J. Sarfati,° and since he links to a no longer existing article on NASA ... well, finally it links to (reserving surprise for those curious enough to read the footnote).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Hilary

* Claim CB090

It refers to:

Mastropaolo, J., 1998 (2 Nov.). Re: The evolutionist: liar, believer in miracles, king of criminals.

** Claim CB030

It refers to:

Bergman, Jerry. 2000. Why abiogenesis is impossible. Creation Research Society Quarterly 36(4)

Yahya, Harun. 2003. The secrets of DNA

*** CMI, Origin of life
An explanation of what is needed for abiogenesis
by Don Batten
Published: 26 November 2013 (GMT+10)
First section after intro, Getting all the right ingredients, d. Lipids

Note 9 links to this reference:

Chadwick, A.V., Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis, 2005;

° CMI Feedback archive → Feedback 2001 Self-made cells? Of course not!

Sarfati cites in note 1) "The original paper is Dworkin, J., Deamer, D., Sandford, S., and Allamandola, L., Self-assembling amphiphilic molecules: Synthesis in simulated interstellar/precometary ices, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 98(3):815–819, 30 January 2001; see online overview." But the link under online overview is no longer functional. I also found it on the following page (also in note 2 by Sarfati):

News Release: 01-06AR NASA Scientists Find Clues That Life Began in Deep Space

Here is what happens with the nonfunctional link (present not just on CMI but also on previous by NASA! "Further information about this research is available at"):

While trying to retrieve the URL:

The following error was encountered:

Unable to determine IP address from host name for

The dnsserver returned:

Name Error: The domain name does not exist.

This means that:

The cache was not able to resolve the hostname presented in the URL.
Check if the address is correct.

Your cache administrator is webmaster.

The first substance mentioned on - as yet - functioning link by NASA is "Figure 1 and 2. Pyranene dye encapsulated in various sizes of vesicles made from a room temperature residue from the above described simulations." But Pyranene may be a typo for also mentioned encapsulated pyranine. Which is used to make hair blonde, and which is irritating (Reizend, XI) ... it is an organic compound, but if it were present in early atmosphere (no real knowledge as to how it forms) it would be likelier to destroy any budding proto-life than to be membranes for it. It is very clearly not a lipid.

Sarfati also linked to one other similarily non-existant page and to one which gave a 404 Error ("The page you're looking for isn't here") on its site./HGL

samedi 15 février 2014

CMI on Allegorical Method - Answered

1) Creation vs. Evolution : If some pseudo-orthodox thinks Patristic and Literal interpretation of Genesis are incompatible ..., 2) CMI on Allegorical Method - Answered, 3) Literal Sense vs Literalistic Approach, Allegoric Sense vs Figurative Approach, 4) Great Bishop of Geneva! : Congratulating Lita Cosner on agreeing basically with StThomas Aquinas, 5) Mark Shea's Understanding of Scripture, 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Neither Sungenis nor Palm is totally right on Psalm 18 (Sungenis is less off)

As one on CMI stated correctly on the case of St Augustine and his take on six days, he believed in the allegorical method and this is not a denial of the historicity of the Old Testament texts*, since - here I add to their take - unlike an allegory by a human author who adapts his fictional story to what he is trying to expose (Fred Clark made on about a man claiming "Gospel of St Matthew denies there is an Ohio"), God can adapt real events to be prophecies about what He wants to reveal further on.

They seem critical of the allegorical method as if it meant "wanting to extract further information beyond the history", when in fact it is rather a checking of matches. Like the one Our Lord made between Hades and the whale of the grave and the whale or Jonah and Himself.

Now, it is basics that Adam allegorises Christ (it is also Biblical, he is called "the last Adam"), and Eve variously the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Church. I just found another matching item. It is of course well known that as Adam slept and God created Eve of a wound (temporary) in his side, so also Christ slept on the Cross and God created the Church out of His opened side, denoting by the water and blood the principal two of the Seven Sacraments that constitute the Church.

However, Adam named the animals before he slept. One Hovind video, Kent is making a little charade on this as if it had said directly that God let him choose his bride (it can be an indication thereof that it says he found no suitable help). "The hamster - too small, the giraffe - too big ..." and the list went on in Eden if Kent Hovind got this right (and we know that a list with probably Hebrew words for hamster and for giraffe was pronounced on Day Six - that is on the First Friday which corresponds to Good Friday). But did Christ in any sense name the animals on Good Friday?

Well, he implied Judaism - the guys taunting him and being about to found the wrongful and apostate Jewish religion - was "the bulls of Bashan". At least they understood His hint, since they fell silent as soon as He cited the first words of the Psalm. It includes lines like taunters taunting King David in very similar words and also the line "the Bulls of Bashan surround me".

Would "bulls of Bashan" not apply better to Samaritan religion than to Jewish one? No. The Samaritan religion was referred to as "cows of Bashan" by Amos. Cows and bulls, whether from Bashan or elsewhere, are not same gender, though same kind.

So, yes, I retain confidence in the Allegoric Method. Use the traces already given in Tradition (or for some items even Holy Bible itself) and follow the clues, you will find more and more support. It is not like trying to see images in shadows cast by a fire, since the support you find can be communicated and judged by others. Others in the Church, alive or already in the Fatherland above ... and if noone else is there, you can also directly confide in God's judgement.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Sigfrid of Wexio
St Onesimus

PS, if someone does not enjoy the designation "bulls of Bashan" being applicable to himself and his family in the eyes of God, St Peter told how to no longer be such. Acts, chapter 2, verses 14 to 40. Fuller comment on same in Haydock.

* "Miller’s inconsistent thinking comes through in many other ways. Like a compromising evangelical, he misrepresents Augustine and Basil (p. 255), and states that the Days in Genesis were supposed to be understood as long periods of time. But Augustine thought that Creation was instantaneous, and so he erred in the diametrically opposite direction. He was a member of the Alexandrian school that fancifully allegorized almost all Scripture (which did not necessarily deny its historicity but tried to seek additional meanings), and was not a Hebrew scholar."

From: Mutilating Miller*
by John Woodmorappe and Jonathan Sarfati
A review of Finding Darwin’s God
by Kenneth R. Miller
Cliff Street Books, New York, 2000

As to not being a Hebrew scholar, if this were a handicap we would not be able to trust most Church Fathers - which on the contrary we do, whether they were or were not Hebrew scholars or whether we do not know if they were.

lundi 10 février 2014

Why a Literalist should be a Papist and not a Barnesist

1) Creation vs. Evolution : Why a Literalist should be a Papist and not a Barnesist, 2) New blog on the kid : Whose Reading of the Bible is Illiterate, Now?

Barnes on the fourth day:
Since the word “day” is a key to the explanation of the first day‘s work, so is the word “year” to the interpretation of that of the fourth. Since the cause of the distinction of day and night is the diurnal rotation of the earth on its axis in conjunction with a fixed source of light, which streamed in on the scene of creation as soon as the natural hinderance was removed, so the vicissitudes of the year are owing, along with these two conditions, to the annual revolution of the earth in its orbit round the sun, together with the obliquity of the ecliptic. To the phenomena so occasioned are to be added incidental variations arising from the revolution of the moon round the earth, and the small modifications caused by the various other bodies of the solar system. All these celestial phenomena come out from the artless simplicity of the sacred narrative as observable facts on the fourth day of that new creation. From the beginning of the solar system the earth must, from the nature of things, have revolved around the sun. But whether the rate of velocity was ever changed, or the obliquity of the ecliptic was now commenced or altered, we do not learn from this record.
Barnes on tohu wa bohu:
After the undefined lapse of time from the first grand act of creation, the present verse describes the state of things on the land immediately antecedent to the creation of a new system of vegetable and animal life, and, in particular, of man, the intelligent inhabitant, for whom this fair scene was now to be prepared and replenished.

Here “the earth” is put first in the order of words, and therefore, according to the genius of the Hebrew language, set forth prominently as the subject of the sentence; whence we conclude that the subsequent narrative refers to the land - the skies from this time forward coming in only incidentally, as they bear upon its history. The disorder and desolation, we are to remember, are limited in their range to the land, and do not extend to the skies; and the scene of the creation now remaining to be described is confined to the land, and its superincumbent matter in point of space, and to its present geological condition in point of time.

We have further to bear in mind that the land among the antediluvians, and down far below the time of Moses, meant so much of the surface of our globe as was known by observation, along with an unknown and undetermined region beyond; and observation was not then so extensive as to enable people to ascertain its spherical form or even the curvature of its surface. To their eye it presented merely an irregular surface bounded by the horizon. Hence, it appears that, so far as the current significance of this leading term is concerned, the scene of the six days‘ creation cannot be affirmed on scriptural authority alone to have extended beyond the surface known to man. Nothing can be inferred from the mere words of Scripture concerning America, Australia, the islands of the Pacific, or even the remote parts of Asia, Africa, or Europe, that were yet unexplored by the race of man. We are going beyond the warrant of the sacred narrative, on a flight of imagination, whenever we advance a single step beyond the sober limits of the usage of the day in which it was written.

Along with the sky and its conspicuous objects the land then known to the primeval man formed the sum total of the observable universe. It was as competent to him with his limited information, as it is to us with our more extensive but still limited knowledge, to express the all by a periphrasis consisting of two terms that have not even yet arrived at their full complement of meaning: and it was not the object or the effect of divine revelation to anticipate science on these points.

Passing now from the subject to the verb in this sentence, we observe it is in the perfect state, and therefore denotes that the condition of confusion and emptiness was not in progress, but had run its course and become a settled thing, at least at the time of the next recorded event. If the verb had been absent in Hebrew, the sentence would have been still complete, and the meaning as follows: “And the land was waste and void.” With the verb present, therefore, it must denote something more. The verb היה hāyâh “be” has here, we conceive, the meaning “become;” and the import of the sentence is this: “And the land had become waste and void.” This affords the presumption that the part at least of the surface of our globe which fell within the cognizance of primeval man, and first received the name of land, may not have been always a scene of desolation or a sea of turbid waters, but may have met with some catastrophe by which its order and fruitfulness had been marred or prevented.

This sentence, therefore, does not necessarily describe the state of the land when first created, but merely intimates a change that may have taken place since it was called into existence. What its previous condition was, or what interval of time elapsed, between the absolute creation and the present state of things, is not revealed. How many transformations it may have undergone, and what purpose it may have heretofore served, are questions that did not essentially concern the moral well-being of man, and are therefore to be asked of some other interpreter of nature than the written word.
My comment:
OK, do I see any reference to gap theory here, inconsistent with Marc 10:6 as well as with no death before Adam?
Barnes on Joshua 10:
Verses 12-15
These four verses seem to be a fragment or extract taken from some other and independent source and inserted into the thread of the narrative after it had been completed, and inserted most probably by another hand than that of the author of the Book of Joshua.

It is probable that Joshua 10:12 and the first half of Joshua 10:13 alone belong to the Book of Jasher and are poetical, and that the rest of this passage is prose.

The writer of this fragment seems to have understood the words of the ancient song literally, and believed that an astronomical miracle really took place, by which the motion of the heavenly bodies was for some hours suspended. (Compare also Judges 5:20 and Psalm 18:9-15 are passages which no one construes as describing actual occurrences: they set forth only internal, although most sincere and, in a spiritual sense, real and true convictions. This explanation is now adopted by theologians whose orthodoxy upon the plenary inspiration and authority of holy Scripture is well known and undoubted.
Joshua 10:13
Book of Jasher - i. e. as margin, “of the upright” or “righteous,” a poetical appellation of the covenant-people (compare “Jeshurun” in Deuteronomy 32:15, and note; and compare Numbers 23:10, Numbers 23:21; Psalm 111:1). This book was probably a collection of national odes celebrating the heroes of the theocracy and their achievements, and is referred to again (marginal reference) as containing the dirge composed by David over Saul and Jonathan.

About a whole day - i. e. about twelve hours; the average space between sunrise and sunset.
Joshua 10:15
Joshua‘s return (compare Joshua 10:43) to Gilgal was not until after he had, by the storm and capture of the principal cities of south Canaan, completed the conquest of which the victory at Gibeon was only the beginning.

This verse is evidently the close of the extract from an older work, which connected the rescue of Gibeon immediately with the return to Gilgal, and omitted the encampment at Makkedah Joshua 10:21, and also the details given in Joshua 10:28-42.
Verse 16
The thread of the narrative, broken by the four intermediate verses, Joshua 10:12-15, is now resumed from Joshua 10:11.
My comment
OK ... was anyone saying that a Literalist might very well accept Heliocentrism because Barnes did so?

Well, I would say a Literalist had better go to St Thomas Aquinas or St Robert Bellarmine than to Barnes. I e, he had better be a Papist than a "lukewarm Calvinist".

If you can swallow this but not accept that Genesis 1 "is poetry", then you are sifting midge and swallowing camels. And he does not believe in a global Flood either:
Genesis 7:19
Upon the land. - The land is to be understood of the portion of the earth‘s surface known to man. This, with an unknown margin beyond it, was covered with the waters. But this is all that Scripture warrants us to assert. Concerning the distant parts of Europe, the continents of Africa, America, or Australia, we can say nothing. “All the high hills were covered.” Not a hill was above water within the horizon of the spectator or of man. There were ten generations from Adam to Noah inclusive. We cannot tell what the rate of increase was. But, supposing each couple to have ten children, and therefore the common ratio to be five, the whole number of births would be about five million, and the population in the time of Noah less than four million. It is probable that they did not scatter further than the necessities and conveniences of life demanded. In a fertile region, an area equal to that of the British Isles would be amply sufficient for four million men, women, and children.

Let us suppose, then, a circle of five hundred miles in diameter inhabited by man. Let this occupy the central region of a concentric circle of eight hundred miles in diameter. With a center a little southwest of Mosul, this larger circle would reach fifty miles into the Mediterranean, the Euxine, and the Caspian, and would probably have touched the Persian Gulf at the time of the deluge. If this region were covered with water, it is obvious that no land or mountain would be visible to a spectator within the inner circle of five hundred miles in diameter. “Fifteen cubits upward.” This was half the depth of the ark. It may have taken this draught of water to float it. If so, its grounding on a hill under water would indicate the depth of water on its summit. The gradual rise of the waters was accomplished by the depression of the land, aided, possibly, by a simultaneous elevation of the bed of the ocean. The water, by the mere necessity of finding its level, overflowed the former dry land. The extent of this oscillation of the solid crust of the earth is paralleled by the changes of level which geology indicates, the last of which took place at the time of the six days‘ creation. It is possible that most of the land that was then raised was now again temporarily submerged in the returning waters; while distant continents may have all along existed, which never came within the ken of antediluvian man. The sobriety and historical veracity of the narrative are strikingly exhibited in the moderate height to which the waters are said to have risen above the ancient hills.

If you want a Bible commentary in English without these tares, I counsel you to take, not Barnes, but Haydock. And Kent Hovind has been known to agree with commentators cited in Haydock.

Now, Haydock is not exactly the only commentator in his Bible comment, but in the passage about Joshua he is the only one who even puts in a doubt in between Heliocentric or Geocentric interpretation of the passage in Joshua. And he does not dream of denying Globality of Flood or literal miracle of Joshua.

Now, when Jonathan Sarfati comments on Psalm 93, he is using Barnes notes, unless he just happens to agree. I think we can see why he is not using Barnes notes on Joshua. He is in fact not giving a close reading of Joshua at all. Here he cites the Psalm but not Joshua, as Russell Grigg here, while another essay on Galileo, by Schirrmacher puts it down to Galileo's Asperger case or something (well, at least extreme social clumsiness). Joshua's Long Day by Russell Grigg (again) does not mention the Galileo trial and only very summarily its relevance for Geocentrism:

Joshua’s command to the sun to stand still does not support geocentrism, i.e. the idea that the sun moves around the Earth. The Bible uses the language of appearance and observation. [footnoting to] In this connection, Henry Morris writes, ‘All motion is relative motion, and the sun is no more “fixed” in space than the Earth is. … The scientifically correct way to specify motions, therefore, is to select an arbitrary point of assumed zero velocities and then to measure all velocities relative to that point. The proper point to use is the one which is most convenient to the observer for the purposes of his particular calculations. In the case of movements of the heavenly bodies, normally the most suitable point is the Earth ‘s surface at the latitude and longitude of the observer, and this therefore is the most “scientific” point to use. David [Psalm 19:6] and Joshua are more scientific than their critics in adopting such a convention for their narratives.’—Henry Morris with Henry Morris III, Many Infallible Proofs: Practical and Useful Evidences for the Christian Faith, Master Books, Arizona, 1996, p. 253.

In other words, the CMI never mentions Joshua's long day when it comes to Geocentric actual historical controversy, and never mentions that actual controversy with its Bible reference to Joshua's long day.

Let us go to Haydock comment for the corresponding passages:

Haydock commenters on Fourth Day
Ver. 14. For signs. Not to countenance the delusive observations of astrologers, but to give notice of rain, of the proper seasons for sowing, &c. (Menochius)

If the sun was made on the first day, as some assert, there is nothing new created on this fourth day. By specifying the use and creation of these heavenly bodies, Moses shows the folly of the Gentiles, who adored them as gods, and the impiety of those who pretend that human affairs are under the fatal influence of the planets. See St. Augustine, Confessions iv. 3. The Hebrew term mohadim, which is here rendered seasons, may signify either months, or the times for assembling to worship God; (Calmet) a practice, no doubt, established from the beginning every week, and probably also the first day of the new moon, a day which the Jews afterwards religiously observed. Plato calls the sun and planets the organs of time, of which, independently of their stated revolutions, man could have formed no conception. The day is completed in twenty-four hours, during which space the earth moves round its axis, and express successively different parts of its surface to the sun. It goes at a rate of fifty-eight thousand miles an hour, and completes its orbit in the course of a year. (Haydock)

Ver. 16. Two great lights. God created on the first day light, which being moved from east to west, by its rising and setting made morning and evening. But on the fourth day he ordered and distributed this light, and made the sun, moon, and stars. The moon, though much less than the stars, is here called a great light, from its giving a far greater light to earth than any of them. (Challoner)

To rule and adorn, for nothing appears so glorious as the sun and moon. (Menochius)

Many have represented the stars, as well as the sun and moon, to be animated. Ecclesiastes xvi[i. 6?], speaking of the sun says, the spirit goeth forward surveying all places: and in Esdras[2 Esdras?] ix. 6, the Levites address God, Thou hast made heaven and all the host thereof; and thou givest life to all these things, and the host of heaven adoreth thee. St. Augustine Ench. and others, consider this question as not pertaining to faith. See Spencer in Origen, contra Cels. v. (Calmet)

Whether the stars be the suns of other worlds, and whether the moon, &c. be inhabited, philosophers dispute, without being able to come to any certain conclusion: for God has delivered the world to their consideration for dispute, so that man cannot find out the work which God hath made from the beginning to the end, Ecclesiastes iii. 11. If we must frequently confess our ignorance concerning the things which surround us, how shall we pretend to dive into the designs of God, or subject the mysteries of faith to our feeble reason? If we think the Scriptures really contradict the systems of philosophers, ought we to pay greater deference to the latter, than to the unerring word of God? But we must remember, that the sacred writings were given to instruct us in the way to heaven, and not to unfold to us the systems of natural history; and hence God generally addresses us in a manner best suited to our conceptions, and speaks of nature as it appears to the generality of mankind. At the same time, we may confidently assert, that the Scriptures never assert what is false. If we judge, with the vulgar, that the sun, moon, and stars are no larger than they appear to our naked eye, we shall still have sufficient reason to admire the works of God; but, if we are enabled to discover that the sun's diameter, for example, is 763 thousand miles, and its distance from our earth about 95 million miles, and the fixed stars (as they are called, though probably all in motion) much more remote, what astonishment must fill our breast! Our understanding is bewildered in the unfathomable abyss, in the unbounded expanse, even of the visible creation.

Sirius, the nearest to us of all the fixed stars, is supposed to be 400,000 times the distance from the sun that our earth is, or 38 millions of millions of miles. Light, passing at the rate of twelve millions of miles every minute, would be nearly 3,000 years in coming to us from the remotest star in our stratum, beyond which are others immensely distant, which it would require about 40,000 years to reach, even with the same velocity. Who shall not then admire thy works and fear thee, O King of ages! (Walker.)

Geog. justly remarks, "we are lost in wonder when we attempt to comprehend either the vastness or minuteness of creation. Philosophers think it possible for the universe to be reduced to the smallest size, to an atom, merely by filling up the pores;" and the reason they allege is, "because we know not the real structure of bodies." Shall any one then pretend to wisdom, and still call in question the mysteries of faith, transubstantiation, &c., when the most learned confess they cannot fully comprehend the nature even of a grain of sand? While on the one hand some assert, that all the world may be reduced to this compass; others say, a grain of sand may be divided in infinitum! (Haydock)
While the comment on verse 14 indeed is Heliocentric at one point, it is so by the latest commenter only, i e Haydock. The earlier ones he cites - for this verse 14 Menochius and Calmet - said no such thing.
Haydock commenters on tohu wa bohu
Ver. 1. Beginning. As St. Matthew begins his Gospel with the same title as this work, the Book of the Generation, or Genesis, so St. John adopts the first words of Moses, in the beginning; but he considers a much higher order of things, even the consubstantial Son of God, the same with God from all eternity, forming the universe, in the beginning of time, in conjunction with the other two Divine Persons, by the word of his power; for all things were made by Him, the Undivided Deity. (Haydock)

Elohim, the Judges or Gods, denoting plurality, is joined with a verb singular, he created, whence many, after Peter Lombard, have inferred, that in this first verse of Genesis the adorable mystery of the Blessed Trinity is insinuated, as they also gather from various other passages of the Old Testament, though it was not clearly revealed till our Saviour came himself to be the finisher of our faith. (Calmet)

The Jews being a carnal people and prone to idolatry, might have been in danger of misapplying this great mystery, and therefore an explicit belief of it was not required of them in general. See Collet. &c. (Haydock)

The word bara, created, is here determined by tradition and by reason to mean a production out of nothing, though it be used also to signify the forming of a thing out of pre-existing matter. (ver. 21, 27.) (Calmet)

The first cause of all things must be God, who, in a moment, spoke, and heaven and earth were made, heaven with all the Angels; and the whole mass of the elements, in a state of confusion, and blended together, out of which the beautiful order, which was afterwards so admirable, arose in the space of six days: thus God was pleased to manifest his free choice in opposition to those Pagans who attributed all to blind chance or fate. Heaven is here placed first, and is not declared empty and dark like the earth; that we may learn to raise our minds and hearts above this land of trial, to that our true country, where we may enjoy God for ever. (Haydock)

Ver. 2. Spirit of God, giving life, vigour, and motion to things, and preparing the waters for the sacred office of baptism, in which, by the institution of Jesus Christ, we must be born again; and, like spiritual fishes, swim amid the tempestuous billows of this world. (v. Tert.[See Tertullian?], &c.) (Worthington) (Haydock)

This Spirit is what the Pagan philosophers styled the Soul of the World. (Calmet)

If we compare their writings with the books of Moses and the prophets, we shall find that they agree in many points. See Grotius. (Haydock)
Heaven is declared as created before the earth and despite not yet containing sun moon and stars it is not tohu wa bohu, and in verse 2 earth does not become so after unknown ages, but only this is describing its original state.
Haydock Commenters on Joshua's long day
Ver. 12. Them. This may be considered as a canticle of victory, containing a fervent prayer, which was presently followed with the desired effect.

Aialon. Hebrew, "Sun, in Gabaon, be silent; (move not) and thou, moon, in the valley of Aialon," or "of the wood," which was probably not far from Gabaon. Josue had pursued the enemy at mid-day, to the west of that city, when turning round, he addressed this wonderful command to the sun. It is supposed that the moon appeared at the same time. But the meaning may only be, that the sun and the course of the stars should be interrupted for a time. (Calmet)

The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, Hebrews iii. 11. (Menochius)

Many have called in question this miracle, with Maimonides, or have devised various means to explain it away, by having recourse to a parhelion or reflection of the sun by a cloud, or to a light which was reverberated by the mountains, after the sun was set, &c. (Prœdam iv. 6.; Spinosa; Grotius; Le Clerc)

But if these authors believe the Scriptures, they may spare themselves the trouble of devising such improbable explanations, as this fact is constantly represented as a most striking miracle. If St. Paul (Hebrews xi. 30,) make no mention of it, he did not engage to specify every miracle that had occurred. He does not so much as mention Josue, nor the passage of the Jordan, &c., so that it is a matter of surprise that Grotius should adduce this negative argument, to disprove the reality of the miracle. (Calmet)

The pretended impossibility of it, or the inconvenience arising to the fatigued soldiers from the long continuance of the day, will make but small impression upon those who consider, that God was the chief agent; and that he who made all out of nothing, might easily stop the whole machinery of the world for a time, and afterwards put it in motion again, without causing any derangement in the different parts. (Calmet)

It is not material whether the sun turn round the earth, or the contrary. (Haydock)

The Hebrews generally supposed that the earth was immovable; and on this idea Josue addresses the sun. Philosophers have devised various intricate systems: but the Scripture is expressed in words suitable to the conceptions of the people. The exterior effect would be the same, whether the sun or the earth stood still. Pagan authors have not mentioned this miracle, because none of the works of that age have come down to us. We find, however, that they acknowledged a power in magic capable of effecting such a change.

Cessavere vices rerum dilataque longâ,
Hæsit nocte dies: legi non paruit æther,
Torpuit & præceps audito carmine mundus. (Lucan, Phars. vi.)

See Homer, Odyssey xii. 382., and xxiii. 242.

This miracle would not render Josue superior to Moses, as some have argued. For all miracles are equally impossible to man, and equally easy to God: the greatness of a miracle is not a proof of greater sanctity. (Calmet)

Aialon lay to the south-west of Gabaon. (Haydock)

Josue ordered the moon to stop, as a necessary consequence of the sun's standing still. God condescended to grant his request. (Worthington)

Ver. 13. The book of the just. In Hebrew Sepher hayashar; an ancient book long since lost. (Challoner)

It was probably of the same nature with that of the wars of the Lord, (Numbers xxi. 4,) containing an account of the most memorable occurrences which concerned the people of Israel, the just, or Ischuron, Deuteronomy xxxiii. 5. Josephus ([Antiquities?] v. 2,) says, such "records were kept in the archives of the temple." They were drawn up by people of character. The quotations inserted are in a poetical style, as the book might contain various canticles, though the rest was written in prose. See 2 Kings i. 18. It might appear unnecessary for Josue to appeal to this work, as the fact in question was known to all. (Calmet)

But too great precaution could not be taken to prevent the danger of people calling in question the reality of the miracle. If the book of the just was a more detailed history of facts, out of which this work of Josue has been compiled, as Theodoret supposes, the author might very well remit the more inquisitive reader to that authentic source. (Haydock)

Midst. It was then almost noon. (Calmet)

Josue was nevertheless afraid lest the day should not allow them time to destroy their fleeing enemies completely. (Haydock)

If the evening had been at hand, he would have said, return sun towards Gabaon, as it would have been on the west of his army. The battle had begun early in the morning, and the pursuit had lasted perhaps four or five hours. (Calmet)

Day. Hebrew, "about a whole day." Many think that a day here comprises 24 hours; and as the sun had been above the horizon six hours, and continued other six, it must have been visible for the space of 36 hours, as the Jews believe, and as it is specified in St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho. The author of Ecclesiasticus xlvi. 5, says, Was not the sun stopped in his anger, and one day made as two? that is, 24 hour long, allowing 12 unequal ones to form a day, according to the reckoning of those times. Others suppose that the day of Josue might consist of 18 (Calmet) or of 48 hours. But how would the soldiers be able to support such a fatigue? They had been marching all the preceding night from Galgal. (Haydock)

If they had stopped to take refreshment, their enemies would have escaped. Hence some of the Fathers imagine, that God enabled his people to pursue them without taking any food. (St. Jerome, contra Jov. ii.) They might, however, take some along with them, as it was then customary; and eat as they pursued, whenever they could find an opportunity. Josue had given no prohibition; and Jonathan observed that his father, Saul, had troubled Israel, by following a different plan, 1 Kings xiv. 24. (Calmet)

Ver. 14. Long. This word is not found in Hebrew, "and there was no day like that, before it, or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto," &c. But God had often wrought miracles before, at the prayer of his servants. The difference between this day and all others, must be therefore in the length, or in the stopping of the heavenly bodies. (Haydock)

The long day which the prayer of Ezechias procured, (4 Kings xx., and Isaias xxxviii.) consisted of 32 hours; or, supposing that the retrograde motion of the sun was instantaneous on the dial, it might only be 22 hours in length. (Calmet)

But if the day of Ezechias had been even longer, the words of this text may be verified, that neither in times past, nor while the author lived, had any such day been known. See Amama, p. 383. (Haydock)

Obeying. God is ready to grant the requests of his servants, Isaias lviii. 9. "We remark something still stronger, in the power which he has given to priests, to consecrate the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the eucharist." (Calmet)

Ver. 15. Galgal. Masius supposes, that here the quotation from the book of the just terminates. The Roman and Alexandrian Septuagint place this verse at the end of the chapter. (Calmet)

Grabe has it in both places with a star, to shew that it is taken from Theodotion. (Haydock)

In effect, Josue did not return to his camp till he had completed the business of the day, by destroying the five kings. After which, he proceeded to conquer that part of the country. He might have designed to return, (Calmet) and even have begun his march, (Du Hamel) when he was diverted from proceeding, by the news that the kings had been discovered. So we often say, that a person does what he is on the point of doing. See Genesis xxxvii. 21., and Numbers xxxiv. 25.
The parallel to Hebrews where Sun and Moon stood still "in their habitations" (not earth in its or they in earth's!) seems to give Scriptural evidence against any Heliocentric interpretation of this miracle. As was mentioned by St Robert Bellarmine in the Galileo trial and as was repeated by Sungenis and Salza talking about this. Haydock comments does not so conclude but at least gives the parallel.

Though Heliocentric explanation (with moon stopping as part of earth's rotation stopping, perhaps) is alluded to as possible, it is not given an absolute priority.

It is not material whether the sun turn round the earth, or the contrary. (Haydock)

The Hebrews generally supposed that the earth was immovable; and on this idea Josue addresses the sun. Philosophers have devised various intricate systems: but the Scripture is expressed in words suitable to the conceptions of the people. The exterior effect would be the same, whether the sun or the earth stood still. Pagan authors have not mentioned this miracle, because none of the works of that age have come down to us. We find, however, that they acknowledged a power in magic capable of effecting such a change. [Comment continuing past the quote to the signature attributing it to Calmet? Or comment ended before quotation by Haydock unsigned?]

And Worthington is cited as stating the opposite: "Josue ordered the moon to stop, as a necessary consequence of the sun's standing still. God condescended to grant his request." - Specifically Geocentric. As to necessary consequence, it would be so only in respect of saving lunar month from disrupted faces of the Moon, and only if the addition was shorter than 24 hours, however Joshua may not have known to begin with how much was to be added. Noone is suggesting any author is using any compilation of old hymns (though Joshua's words may have been a victory hymn) and on top of that mistaking the words of a hymn for a factual account.

By the way, Calmet is wrong in saying no Pagan account has come down to us, since in the comment to the other OT Sun Miracle a reference to Egyptian astronomical tables is given
On Flood, and first was it miraculous and global:
The systems of those pretended philosophers, who would represent this flood as only partial, affecting the countries which were then inhabited, are all refuted by the plain narration of Moses. What part of the world could have been secure, when the waters prevailed fifteen cubits above the highest mountains? To give a natural cause only for this miraculous effect, would be nugatory: but as waters covered the earth at first, so they surely might again, by the power of God. (Haydock) ... Fountains and flood-gates. These are the two natural causes which Moses assigns for the deluge, the waters below, and those above in the sky or firmament. Heaven is said to be shut when it does not rain, (Luke iv. 25.) so it is here opened, and flood-gates, or torrents of rain, pour down incessantly. But God attributes not the deluge to these causes alone; he sufficiently intimates that it would be miraculous, (ver. 4, I will rain,) and still more emphatically, chap. vi. 17, Behold I. Hebrew, "I, even I myself, do bring on a flood of waters."
Full comment for chapter 7:
Ver. 2. Of all clean. The distinction of clean and unclean beasts, appears to have been made before the law of Moses, which was not promulgated till the year of the world 2514. (Challoner).

Clean: not according to the law of Moses, which was not yet given, but such as tradition had described --- fit for sacrifice; (Menochius) though they might be of the same species as were deemed clean in the law, which ratified the ancient institution. --- And seven: (Hebrew) simply seven, three couple and an odd male, for sacrifice after the deluge: one couple was to breed, the other two perhaps for food. (Haydock)

Some imagine, that there were fourteen unclean and four clean animals, of every species, in the ark, because the Samaritan, Septuagint, and Vulgate read, "seven and seven." (Origen, &c.)

But our Saviour, sending the Disciples to preach two and two, did not appoint a company of four to go together, but only of two, as is generally allowed, Mark vi. 7. (Calmet)

Ver. 11. Seventeenth day. On the tenth, God had given the last warning to the wretched and obstinate sinners, to whom Noe had been preaching, both by word and by building the ark, for 120 years; all in vain. This second month is, by some, supposed to be the month of May; by others, that of November. Usher makes Noe enter the ark on the 18th December [in the year of the world] 1656. The waters decreased May 17, mountains appear July 31, he sends out the raven September 8, and leaves the ark December 29, after having remained in it a year and ten days, according to the antediluvian computation, or a full year of 365 days. The systems of those pretended philosophers, who would represent this flood as only partial, affecting the countries which were then inhabited, are all refuted by the plain narration of Moses. What part of the world could have been secure, when the waters prevailed fifteen cubits above the highest mountains? To give a natural cause only for this miraculous effect, would be nugatory: but as waters covered the earth at first, so they surely might again, by the power of God. (Haydock)

Fountains and flood-gates. These are the two natural causes which Moses assigns for the deluge, the waters below, and those above in the sky or firmament. Heaven is said to be shut when it does not rain, (Luke iv. 25.) so it is here opened, and flood-gates, or torrents of rain, pour down incessantly. But God attributes not the deluge to these causes alone; he sufficiently intimates that it would be miraculous, (ver. 4, I will rain,) and still more emphatically, chap. vi. 17, Behold I. Hebrew, "I, even I myself, do bring on a flood of waters." The idea which Moses give of the flood, corresponds with that which he before gave of chaos, when earth and water were undistinguished in one confused mass, chap. i. 6. The Hebrews look upon it as a continual miracle, that the earth is not always deluged, being founded, as they represent it, on the waters, Jeremias v. 22. Calmet and others have proved, both from Scripture and from philosophical arguments, the universality of the deluge, against Isaac Vossius, &c. (Haydock)

Ver. 16. The Lord shut him in, by an angel besmearing the door with pitch, to prevent the waters from penetrating, while Noe did the like in the inside. (Calmet)

Thus God supplies our wants when we are not able to provide for ourselves, and though he could do all by himself, yet he requires us to co-operate with him, and often makes use of secondary causes. (Worthington)

Ver. 24. Days: counting from the end of the forty days, when the deluge was at its height. (Calmet)

In all the histories of past ages, there is nothing so terrible as this event. What became of all those myriads of human beings who perished on this occasion? We know not. Some have charitably supposed, that, although the far greater part perished everlastingly, a few who had been incredulous while Noe preached, opened their eyes at last, when it was too late to save their bodies, and by sincere repentance rescued their souls from the flames, and were consigned to do penance, for a time, in the other world. These heard the preaching of Jesus Christ, or believed in his redemption, while they were yet living, and so deserved to partake of his mercies, and joyfully beheld his sacred person when he came to visit them in their prison of purgatory. 1 Peter iii. 19, He came and preached to those spirits that were in prison: which had been sometime incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is eight souls, were saved from drowning by water. Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saves you also, &c. See F. S. Bellarmine, &c. In these last words of St. Peter, we may also notice, that the ark was a figure of baptism, which is so necessary, that without its reception, or desire of it at least, no man can be saved. It is also a figure of the cross, and of the one true Church, as the Fathers remark, with St. Augustine, City of God xv. i; Menochius &c.; St. Gregory, hom. 12 in Ezech. &c.

This is so striking that it deserves to be seriously considered. It was only one, though God could have ordered many smaller vessels to be made ready, perhaps with less inconvenience to Noe, that we might reflect, out of the Church the obstinate will surely perish. St. Jerome, ep. ad Dam.: In this ark all that were truly holy, and some imperfect, like Cham, were contained, clean beasts and unclean dwelt together, that we need not wonder if some Catholics be a disgrace to their name. The ark had different partitions, to remind us of the various orders of Clergy and Laity in the Church, with one chief governor, the Pope, like Noe in the ark. It was strong, visible, &c., and pitched all over with the durable cement, bitumen, and riding triumphant amid the storms, the envy of all who were out of it, till at last it settled upon a rock. So the Church is built on a rock, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail: she is not less obvious to the sincere seeker, than a city built on the top of the highest mountain, &c. We might here take a retrospective view of the chief occurrences and personages of the former world; we should observe the same order of the things from the beginning, --- the conflict of virtue and vice, the preservation of the true faith and worship of God among a few chosen souls, who preferred to be persecuted by worldlings, rather than to offend God. They contended earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints, to Adam and Eve, once innocent, and afterwards penitent. We behold original sin, and the promised remedy for mankind; while the rebel angels are abandoned, without redress. There was kept up a communion of saints: sacrifice to the one God was performed generally by the heads of families, who were priests in the law of nature. Even Cain, though a bad man, through hypocrisy, chose to offer sacrifice before he had quite broken off from the society of the faithful, and resolved to become the father of all excommunicated persons, and of all seceders. (Chap. iv. 16.) He was admonished by God that he had free will, and might merit a reward by a different conduct. His sentence, as well as that pronounced upon Adam, and upon all mankind, before the flood, reminds us of the particular and general judgment; as the translation of Henoch sets before us the happy state of the blessed, and the immortality, of which it was an earnest. See Douay Bible, where the chief mysteries of faith are pointed out as the creed of the Antediluvians. Even the Blessed Trinity was insinuated, or shewn to them, at a distance, in various texts: the unity and indissolubility of marriage were clearly expressed; the true Church continued in Noe, while the chain of schismatics and heretics was broken, and Cain's progeny destroyed. In this period of time, we may discover what the ancients so often describe respecting the four ages: --- the golden age is most perfectly found in Paradise; but only for a few days, or perhaps only a few hours, during which our first parents preserved their innocence. The silver age may have lasted rather longer, till the murder of Abel, or 128 years, when Cain began to disturb the peace of the world. From that time, till the giants make their appearance, we may reckon the age of brass. But that of iron had continued for many years before the flood. The like deterioration of morals we may discover after the deluge, and again after the renovation of the world, by the preaching of the gospel. For some time after these two great events, things bore a pleasing aspect; Noe was busy in offering sacrifice to God, Christians were all one heart and one soul, enjoying all things in common, and God gave a blessing to the earth, and confirmed his covenant with men. Then Cham, Nemrod, and Babel appear, heresies in the new law break forth, and disturb the lovely harmony of mankind: but still a sufficient number preserve their integrity, till about the days of Abraham and Arius, in their respective periods, and may be said to have lived in the silver age, when compared with the brazen insolence of the great majority of those who came after. The iron age of these two periods, may be dated from the persecution of Epiphanes against the Jews, when so many apostatized from the faith, and from that much more terrible persecution which will be raised against Christians by Antichrist, the man of sin, (of which the former was a type) when the charity of many shall grow cold, and Christ will hardly find faith upon the earth. To that age may justly be applied, those strong expressions of disapprobation which God made use of before the flood, chap. vi. 3, 6, 12. He will punish the crimes of that age with a deluge of fire, and say, The end of all flesh is come before me, &c., ver. 13. Time shall be no longer, Apocalypse x. 6. (Haydock)
On second solar miracle
IV Kings 20:8 And Ezechias had said to Isaias: What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up to the temple of the Lord the third day?

9 And Isaias said to him: This shall be the sign from the Lord, that the Lord will do the word which he hath spoken: Wilt thou that the shadow go forward ten lines, or that it go back so many degrees?

10 And Ezechias said: It is an easy matter for the shadow to go forward ten lines: and I do not desire that this be done, but let it return back ten degrees.

11 And Isaias, the prophet called upon the Lord, and he brought the shadow ten degrees backwards by the lines, by which it had already gone down on the dial of Achaz.

Ver. 8. Sign. He is not incredulous, but gives the prophet an occasion of declaring by what authority he spoke thus. (Haydock)

Ver. 10. Lines, according to the usual course of the sun. An instantaneous motion of this kind would, in reality, be as difficult, as the retrogradation. But it might not strike the people so much. (Haydock)

Some take the lines to designate hours. But the sun is never up twenty hours in that country; and it must have been at such a height, as that it might appear visibly to recede, or to go forward, ten lines. We may therefore suppose, that they consisted only of half hours, (Tirinus) or less. (Calmet)

If the retrograde motion were instantaneous, as Cajetan believes, the day would only be five hours longer than usual; (Menochius) but if otherwise, it would be ten; as the sun would occupy five hours in going back, and as many to regain its former station. (Tirinus)

Usher supposes that the night was as much shortened, that so astronomical observations may still be verified without any confusion. But that would introduce a fresh miracle. Some assert that only the shadow went back, without any derangement in the heavenly bodies. Spinosa laughs at the ignorance of those people, who mistook the effects of a parhelion for a miracle. This author may boast of his superior knowledge. But how came the sages of Babylon (ver. 12.) to be unacquainted with such a natural cause? How came it so opportunely (Calmet) at the time appointed by the prophet? What improbable explanations are not those forced to admit, who deny to the Almighty the power of changing his own works! (Haydock)

The silence of profane historians respecting this miracle, is of little consequence. Herodotus (ii. 142.) seems to hint at it, as well as at that under Josue; (x.) being informed "by the Egyptians, that during 10340 years, the sun had risen four times in an extraordinary manner. It had risen twice where it ought naturally to set, and had set as often where it should rise." He might have said more simply, that the sun had twice gone back. See Solin, 45. (Calmet)

St. Dion. Areop. ep. 7. ad Polycarp. --- This last author thinks that this day was twenty hours longer than usual, supposing that the lines designate so many hours, and that the sun kept going back for ten hours. (Worthington)

Ver. 11. Dial. Hebrew also, "steps." St. Jerome confesses that he followed Symmachus in Isaias xxxviii. 7. Whether this dial resembled one of ours, (Grotius) or was made in the form of steps, (St. Cyril, hom. 3, in Isaias, &c.) or rather of a half globe, (Calmet) after the Babylonian fashion, (Vitruvius ix. 9.) is not clear. Some have asserted that hours were not known to the Hebrews, before the captivity. (Usher, the year of the world 3291.)

But Toby[Tobias], (xii. 22.) who wrote at Nineve, under the reign of Manasses, clearly speaks of them. The Egyptians pretend that they invented water hour-glasses. But the invention of dials is attributed to the Chaldeans, from whom Anaximander introduced them among the Greeks, under the reign of Cyrus. He died in the year of the world 3457.

Achaz had much to do with Theglathphalasar; (chap. xvii. 8.) and probably obtained this curiosity from the same country. In more ancient times, people measured time by the length of their shadow, and were invited to a feast at such a foot, in the same manner as we should invite for such an hour. (Palladius, Rustic. xii.) (Calmet)

Till the year of Rome 595, when Nasica dedicated the first water hour-glass, the Romans knew not how the time passed on cloudy days. (Pliny, [Natural History?] vii. 60.) (Vitruvius ix. 9.)

Grotius supposes that the dial of Achaz was a concave semicircular gnomon, in which a globe was placed, the shadow of which fell on twenty-eight lines. (Du Hamel)
Reference to Pagan record highlighted:
The silence of profane historians respecting this miracle, is of little consequence. Herodotus (ii. 142.) seems to hint at it, as well as at that under Josue; (x.) being informed "by the Egyptians, that during 10340 years, the sun had risen four times in an extraordinary manner. It had risen twice where it ought naturally to set, and had set as often where it should rise." He might have said more simply, that the sun had twice gone back. See Solin, 45. (Calmet)
For the earlier miracle, I could add Iliad:
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Where did Agamemnon Come Up with That?

I will allow myself to through out a suggestion that the Solar Miracles of Joshua and Ezechias might be one cause why Pagan historians earlier than the latter are lacking in continuity and why chronologies of old history have to be pieced together. Precisely as Solar Miracle of Calvary may be one major cause why Pagan records directly from year 33 are non-existent.

somewhere else : 1st C Historians, Wikipedia Category

But what does Barnes say about Ezechias' Solar Miracle?

II Kings 20:Verse 8

And Hezekiah said - Previous to the actual recovery, Hezekiah, who at first may have felt himself no better, asked for a “sign” that he would indeed be restored to health.

Asking for a sign is a pious or a wicked act according to the spirit in which it is done. No blame is attached to the requests of Gideon Judges 6:17, Judges 6:37, Judges 6:39, or to this of Hezekiah, because they were real wishes of the heart expressed humbly. The “evil generation” that “sought for a sign” in our Lord‘s days did not really want one, but made the demand captiously, neither expecting nor wishing that it should be granted.

Verse 9

Ten degrees - literally, “ten steps.” It is not, perhaps, altogether certain whether the “dial of Ahaz” 2 Kings 20:11 was really a dial with a gnomon in the center, and “degrees” marked round it, or a construction fur marking time by means of “steps.” Sundials proper had been invented by the Babylonians before the time of Herodotus; but the instrument here was probably an instrument consisting of a set of steps, or stairs, with an obelisk at the top, the shadow of which descended or ascended the steps according as the sun rose higher in the heavens or declined.

The question as to the mode whereby the return of the shadow was produced is one on which many opinions have been held. Recently, it has been urged that the true cause of the phenomenon was a solar eclipse, in which the moon obscured the entire upper limb of the sun; and it has been clearly shown that if such an occurrence took place a little before mid-day, it would have had the effect described as having taken place - i. e., during the obscuration of the sun‘s upper limb shadows would be sensibly lengthened, and that of the obelisk would descend the stairs; as the obscuration passed off the reverse would take place, shadows would shorten, and that of the obelisk would once more retire up the steps. If this be the true account, the miracle would consist in Isaiah‘s supernatural foreknowledge of an event which the astronomy of the age was quite incapable of predicting, and in the providential guidance of Hezekiah‘s will, so that he chose the “sign” which in the natural course of things was about to be manifested.

Verse 10

It is a light thing - It seemed to Hezekiah comparatively easy that the shadow, which had already begun to lengthen, should merely make a sudden jump in the same direction; but, wholly contrary to all experience that it should change its direction, advancing up the steps again when it had once begun to descend them.

Oh, a Solar Eclipse? And God guiding Hezekiah's will so that no real miracle was needed?

Weeeellll ... no thank you, Barney!

Haydock rejects it too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Scholastica
sister of St Bennett

samedi 8 février 2014

Origen also made a Commentary on Romans, including of course 1:19 and 1:20

1) Romans 1:20 and Dawkins, Richard, 2) Origen also made a Commentary on Romans, including of course 1:19 and 1:20

He is not contradicting St Thomas. He is not saying the Philosophy of the Philosophers was their folly, but rather the fact that in spite of their Philosophy they continued to practise idolatry to please the idolaters in the people (while the convinced such may have been fewer than the Philosophers and anonymous such supposed). And though Origen in the passages I read does not mention what Josephus said about Abraham, they were unlike him, since he by a Philosophical reasoning very like to theirs turned away from idolatry completely and was prepared to suffer persecution for it.

So, the fault of the Philosophers was not Philosophising, but keeping their Philosophy a kind of Masonic little secret. All the while adapting outwardly to the wisdom received by the contemporary idolatrous world. Which means that their Philosophical books are not the dirt about them, not what St Paul was condemning.

Other thing.

Gregory Palamas and "Constantinople Five (ter)" say even the blessed in Heaven do not see God's nature, only His energies. Rome condemns precisely this point and perhaps one or two more, leaving a lot of other points in Palamas perfectly licit from a Catholic perspective, but yes, this point Rome condemned. Origen is neutral or rather slightly in favour of Rome:

Ignotum autem Dei intelligendum est ratione substantiae eius uel naturae ; cuius quae sit proprietas puto non solum nos homines sed et omnem lateat creaturam; The unknown thing of God is however to be understood by reason of His Substance or Nature ; the propriety whereof, which it be, I consider to be hidden not only to us men but also to all creature;
aut si aliquando tantus erit naturae rationabili profectus in hanc quoque possit peruenire notitiam est nosse. or else it is to be known1 whether at any time such a great progress shall belong to the nature endowed with reason [that]2 it shall be able to come to the knowledge thereof.
Tale enim aliquid mihi sperandum uidetur ex his quae a saluatore dicuntur quia For suchlike a something seems to me to be hoped out of these which are said by the Saviour, that3
filium nemo nouit nisi pater ; neque patrem quis nouit nisi filius et cui uoluerit filius reuelare. Noone knoweth the Son, excepting the Father ; and noone knoweth the Father excepting the Son and to whom the Son shall have willed to reveal [Him].4
Non enim addidisset : cui uoluerit filius reuelare ; nisi sciret esse aliquos quibus reuelare uelit. For not would he have added : and to whom the Son shall have willed to reveal [Him]4 ; if He had not known there are some to whom He would want to reveal [Him].4
From Book I, chapter 19, § 6, Latin text by Rufinus.

Origène, Commentaire sur l'Épître aux Romains, Tome I, Livres I - II, 532 Sources Chrétiennes, p. 242

The English translation is mine. I might have looked for an extant translation especially for the Gospel quote, but I wanted to illustrate what kind of difficulty translation from Latin involves and that it does not make for an impossible task. I gave a very oldfashioned English, more or less pre-Enlightenment and learned, since that prose is often molded on literal translations of Latin or Greek texts, that is precisely what I am giving too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St John of Matha


1 it is to be known = est nosse

2 [that] = supplied, I see a text lacking any word for it, but sometimes "ut" is left out, like in Seneca

3 quia = that (like οτι and unlike Classical Latin)

4 [Him] = object is in Latin text supplied as identical to "patrem" through context, but English in such a case wants a word to express it, as a kind of placeholder, which is superfluous in Latin.

vendredi 7 février 2014

Is Flat Earth Belief Heretical?

1) Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four, 2) Mark Shea Recommended David Palm Who Misconstrues Bible Commission of 1909, 3) Would GKC have Agreed with MkSh that KH was a Bible Idolater?, 4) Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : With Jonathan Sarfati PhD on Fall and Inquisition, 5) New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term, 5b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering Bill Nye, the Science Guy on a few points, 5c) New blog on the kid : Phil Provaznik/Dalrymple on Potassium-Argon and on Principle, more on Fission Track and Isochrons (a debunking of...), 6) [Back to Creation vs. Evolution :] Scenario impossible, 7) Karl Keating Out of His Depth?, 8) Three Kinds of Proposition, 9) Is Flat Earth Belief Heretical?, 10) HGL's F.B. writings : Between Palm and Sungenis, 11a) HGL's F.B. writings : On Helios in Christian Geocentrism, 11b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Rivers Clapping Hands, Anaximander, Greek Philosophy at time of Ecclesiasticus ... , 12) Assorted retorts : ... on Geocentrism with Raymond Doetjes and "Imdor"

It would seem to be the case that no. It is not. Neither is believing the correct position, that it is round, as a globe and not as a round disk.

Here is where Talkorigins detail partial Patristic Support for a flat earth:*

Claim CA662:
It is not true that the church used to teach that the Earth was flat. Only two Christian theologians (Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes) taught it, and they were largely ignored and uninfluential. The flat earth myth is a product of Darwinism meant to make it look like religion was the enemy of science when it was not so.

Wells, Jonathan, 1999 (Oct. 20). "Evolution: Teaching the Controversy", debate at Burlington-Edison High School, sponsored by Skagit Parents for Scientific Truth in Education.


1. Wells, who has a PhD in theology, is ignorant of Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim Syrus, Athanasius of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, and Severianus of Gabala. It is true that flat Earthism was never a majority or official position of the early church, and that it became practically nonexistent among the educated during and after the Middle Ages, but many of the early Fathers were flat Earthers (Schadewald, 1999).

2. One need not manufacture myths to show a hostility of religion towards science. The church's reaction to heliocentrism is another well known example, as is Wells himself.

Let me highlight a very important passage:

It is true that flat Earthism was never a majority or official position of the early church, and that it became practically nonexistent among the educated during and after the Middle Ages, but many of the early Fathers were flat Earthers (Schadewald, 1999).

What is mythical is not saying there were Christian Theologians and even Church Fathers supporting a flat earth. I have not checked all of the mentioned, but I googled this because I wanted to check if the St Cyril I had heard of was the one of Jerusalem or the one of Alexandria (since there are two Saint Cyrils among the CHurch Fathers).

Of course, some of the cited Church Fathers might not have been taking a position for the flat earth.

But nevertheless they may well have thought it correct and the opposite incorrect, if they had heard of it.

St Cyril thought that it was against the Bible to believe in a round Earth. St Augustine of Hippo was against this and said it was not, while St Basil in Hexameron declared neutrality and that the Bible had no information supporting one or other side sufficiently.

We need to agree with the Church Fathers where all of them agree. Even Luther - as I heard from a convert to Catholicism - appealed to Patristic consensus in favour of the True Presence. If Christ had meant his words purely symbolically, "at least one Church Father among so many" would have dropped even just one word about it. Thus he rejected Zwingli. And in that respect he was closer to Catholic truth than the other reformers of 1517. In that respect the Council of Trent as well as the Councils of Iasi and Jerusalem confirmed a truth taught by Martin Luther. But they also confirmed as a general principle what he used for one purpose.

Now, unlike the Rabbis of Judaism after they rejected Christ and also Hellenistic Jewry and Septuagint, the Church Fathers had both positions as well as neutrality about earth being round or flat.

But they did not have both positions about Earth being still. Indeed, Palm cites one Church Father who in one passage does cite such a Pagan astronomer as having "discovered that the Earth moves around the sun". But the context in the Church Father is not Cosmology as in Genesis, it is rather a book about Mathematics as in general cultural history.

Nor did they have two minds about earth having been created between five and six thousand years before Christ, and the rest of the Universe along with it.

It has been cited as St Augustine's position that one must be prepared to prove a passage of the Bible not in conflict despite appearances of wording to the contrary, with a clear scientific or as he said philosophical discovery. But it must also be taken into account that this was not his general theory about exegesis, it was his comment on one problematic passage. It must also be held in consideration that he equally insisted that a defender of the faith must be rpepared to prove a philosophic, that is scientific, discovery or theorem ill founded if it has been clearly shown in conflict with the Bible. But furthermore, it must be held that St Cyril advocated only that part of the matter.

Catholic Heliocentrics and Millions-of-Yearsists claim to be agreeing with St Augustine's principle, even if disagreeing with his concrete assessment. But they are then disagreeing with St Cyril even in principle and not just in his assessment.

A Catholic Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric, on the other hand, agrees with St Augustine or St Cyril or both in principle, but also with both and with all of them in the assessment of place and duration of earth (still within and contemporary to the rest of the universe) and at least with some - like St Augustine if not St Cyril - as to its shape.

That is why, as I find agreement with Church Fathers obligatory, I am indeed a Round Earthist, but also a Young Earthist and a Still Earthist. I agree with some Church Fathers in principle, and if I appear to be more on St Cyril's side, I may feel myself as being more on Saint Augustine's side. That for principle, but as for assessment in connexions like exegesis of Fourth Day, I am with all of them.

Now, some might point to Papal Infallibility as deciding over the Church Fathers. Not so. Bible and CHurch Fathers are sources for the Magisterium, which can only decide what is unclear about them. Not go against what is clear and has been so for all centuries about them.

Now, the site Talkorigins may feel the position shows hostility to science. But in reality it shows hostility to three things, which though mistaken for scientific attitude are really not so:

  • 1) posing science over the Bible. Science is a manmade attempt at getting to know truth, often successful, but not infallibly so. The Bible is, as Pope Leo XIII and the Council of Trent (it condemned Socinianism as much as Lutheranism, or more) the Inerrant Word of God as to original manuscripts and as to agreement of all extant manuscripts, and infallible as to doctrine when it comes to the version commonly used by the Church. It is not hostility to science to say that science cannot trump thus. It is not science to say it can.

  • 2) posing Uniformitarianism as last word in science. When it comes to effects of causalities not directly wielded by wills, yes, there is pretty good uniformity in growth of plants or falls of stones. But there is no such thing as uniformity in handwriting between all men who can write, not even a uniformity of words in every written message by the same writer. And Christianity claims God is to the Universe and to its story not just as the most general principle or cause of all unconscious causes, but also as a very conscious writer and himself a cause not unconscious, though he uses such.

  • 3) posing Secondary Causes or Natural Causes or generally speaking Non-Divine and even Non-Spiritual causes for all observed phenomena at all levels observable or even reachable by reflection. A very visible effect may have for a very immediate cause no natural one, but only God himself.

So no, Christianity is not inimical to science, but it is inimical to posing science over the Bible, to posing Uniformitarianism as last word in science and to posing Secondary Causes as the only ones one need consider for any effect observable to us as a phenomenon.

CMI will contend that Evolutionism is based on these mistakes, but Heliocentrism is not. I make the contention that Heliocentrism also makes that selfsame mistake about these matters, that the daily round of universe around earth has God for immediate cause and once you accept this "mechanism" as possible for the daily round of the universe around earth there is no way you can disprove it on purely phenomenal grounds. I thus contend that both the latter cases differ from considering the earth flat, and we would even have Patristic authorisation for joining flat earth society if we liked. As - thank you, Talkorigins! - has been shown.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Romwald

* The Talkorigins Archive : Index to Creationist Claims,
edited by Mark Isaak,
Copyright © 2004
Claim CA662

lundi 3 février 2014

Romans 1:20 and Dawkins, Richard

1) Romans 1:20 and Dawkins, Richard, 2) Origen also made a Commentary on Romans, including of course 1:19 and 1:20

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition. : ROMANS - Chapter 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, against all impiety and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice.

19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it to them.

20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made: his eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Ver. 18. For the wrath of God is revealed, &c. He begins to speak of the heathens, and of the wicked world, whose sins God punisheth from time to time with visible chastisements of plagues, famines, wars, &c. and that because they detain the truth of God in injustice, or in iniquity, that is, because they have not honoured God, even according to the knowledge which he has given them of him, especially their philosophers. (Witham)

Ver. 19-20. That which is known of God. Or may be easily known of God, is manifest in them. The light of reason demonstrates to them the existence of one God, the maker and preserver of all things. This is made known to them from the creation of the world, or from the creatures in the world: the Creator may be discovered by the creatures, and as St. Chrysostom here says, every Scythian, every barbarian, may come to the knowledge of God by the wonderful harmony[3] of all things, which proclaims the existence of God louder than any trumpet: but having known him, they did not glorify him; they acted contrary to their knowledge, abandoning themselves to idolatry, and the vain worship of many gods, and to all manner of vices and abominations against the light of reason. (Witham)

Richard Dawkins (in an obvious though indirect admission of the Five Ways, as I will explain):

Nobody has actually seen evolution take place over a long period but they have seen th after effects, and the after effects are massively supported. It is like a case in a court of law where nobody can actually stand up and say I saw the murder happen and yet you have got millions and millions of pieces of evidence which no reasonable person can possibly dispute.

The Genius of Charles Darwin (Episode 3): Richard Dawkins,
Channel 4 (UK), Monday 18th August 2008

Cited at 08:16 on:

CMIcreationstation : Why does the evidence always point to evolution? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 3-05)

Well, what have these two texts in common? Obviously the idea of visible evidence pointing to unobserved causes. And of doing so in so clear a manner as to leave the disputers no excuse for denial or ignorance.

Now, there is one thing about the Biblical text. Although it is not mentioned in the quote Haydock made from Witham, this clear evidence for God - or actually even more directly of God being angry with immorality - is supposed to be revealed from heaven. Now, let us look what St Thomas Aquinas has to say about this passage:

Corpus Thomisticum
Commentaria in Romanus caput 1, lectio 6

Deinde cum dicit quia quod notum est, manifestat propositum, ordine tamen retrogrado. Next, when saying "that which is known", he manifests the meaning, but in reverse order.
Primo enim consentit quod sapientes gentilium de Deo cognoverunt veritatem; secundo, ostendit quod in eis impietas et iniustitia fuerit, ibi ita ut sint inexcusabiles; tertio quod iram Dei incurrerunt, ibi qui cum iustitiam Dei.  For first he agrees that the wise of the geintiles knew the truth about God; next he shows that there was impiety and injustice in them, in that place "so that they were inexcusable"; thirdly that they incurred the wrath of God in that place* "who, having [known] the justice of God" [verse 32 - verses were not yet made for the Bible.]
Circa primum tria facit.  About the first thing he does three things.
Primo, quid de Deo cognoverunt; secundo, ostendit a quo huiusmodi cognitionem acceperunt, ibi Deus enim illis; tertio, ostendit per quem modum, ibi invisibilia enim.  First what they knew of God; then, he shows from whom they received suchlike knowledge, in that place "For God hath manifested it to them" (v. 19); thirdly, he shows in what manner, in that place "For the invisible things of him" (v. 20).
Dicit ergo primo: recte dico quod veritatem Dei detinuerunt, fuit enim in eis, quantum ad aliquid, vera Dei cognitio, quia quod notum est Dei, id est quod cognoscibile est de Deo ab homine per rationem, manifestum est in illis, id est manifestum est eis ex eo quod in illis est, id est ex lumine intrinseco.  Thus he first states: I am right to say that they have detained the truth of God, for there was in them, in respect to something, a true knowledge of God in them, "Because that which is known of God" (v. 19), that is what is knowable about God by man by reason, "is manifest in them" (v. 19), that is it is manifest to them from what is in them, that is from their interior light.
Sciendum est ergo quod aliquid circa Deum est omnino ignotum homini in hac vita, scilicet quid est Deus.  Thus one must know that something is totally unknown about God of man in this life, namely what God is.
Unde et Paulus invenit Athenis aram inscriptam: ignoto Deo.  For which reason Paul in Athens found an altar with the inscription: to the unknown God. (Acts 17:23).
Et hoc ideo quia cognitio hominis incipit ab his quae sunt ei connaturalia, scilicet sensibilibus creaturis, quae non sunt proportionata ad repraesentandam divinam essentiam.  And this because the knowledge of man begins from these things that are connatural to him, that is from creatures that can be sensed, which are not propoortioned to represent the Divine Essence.
Potest tamen homo, ex huiusmodi creaturis, Deum tripliciter cognoscere, ut Dionysius dicit in libro de divinis nominibus.  Nevertheless man can, from suchlike creatures, know God in three ways, as Denys says in the book On the Names of God.
Uno quidem modo per causalitatem.  One way is by causality.
Quia enim huiusmodi creaturae sunt defectibiles et mutabiles, necesse est eas reducere ad aliquod principium immobile et perfectum.  For because suchlike creatures are defective and mutable, it is necessary to reduce them to something immobile and perfect.
Et secundum hoc cognoscitur de Deo an est.  And according to this it if known of God "whether" [=that!] He is.
Secundo per viam excellentiae.  Next by the way of excellence.
Non enim reducuntur omnia in primum principium, sicut in propriam causam et univocam, prout homo hominem generat, sed sicut in causam communem et excedentem.  For all things are not reduced to their first principle as to their own and univocal cause, like when a man engenders a man, but as to their common cause exceeding them.
Et ex hoc cognoscitur quod est super omnia.  And from this it is known that He is above all.
Tertio per viam negationis.  Thirdly by the way of negation.
Quia si est causa excedens, nihil eorum quae sunt in creaturis potest ei competere, sicut etiam neque corpus caeleste proprie dicitur grave vel leve aut calidum aut frigidum.  Since of a cause exceeds [its effects], nothing of what is in the creatures can "compete with Him" / "be competently affirmed of Him", like neither a heavenly body is properly speaking either heavy or light or hot or cold.
Et secundum hoc dicimus Deum immobilem et infinitum et si quid aliud huiusmodi dicitur.  And according to this we call God immobile and infinite even if something else is called suchlike. [Acc. to this = namely not in the literal same sense.]
Huiusmodi autem cognitionem habuerunt per lumen rationis inditum.  But suchlike knowledge they had by the ingiven light of reason.
Ps. IV, 6: multi dicunt quis ostendit nobis bona? Signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui domine. Ps. IV, 6: many say, Who sheweth us good things? The light of thy countenance O Lord, is signed upon us.
Deinde cum dicit Deus illis manifestavit, ostendit a quo auctore huiusmodi cognitio eis fuerit manifestata, et dicit quod Deus illis manifestavit, secundum illud Iob c. XXXV, 11: docet nos super iumenta terrae.  Then, as he says "For God hath manifested it unto them." (v. 19), he shows by what author(-ship, -ity) suchlike knowledge was manifested to them and say that God manifested it to them, according to that Job XXXV,11: "[Who] teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth".
Ubi considerandum est quod unus homo alteri manifestat explicando conceptum suum per aliqua signa exteriora, puta per vocem vel Scripturam, Deus autem dupliciter aliquid homini manifestat.  Where it is to be considered that one man manifests to another man explaining his meaning by some external signs, as by voice or Writing, but God in two manner manifests something to a man.
Uno modo, infundendo lumen interius, per quod homo cognoscit, Ps. XLII, 3: emitte lucem tuam et veritatem tuam.  One way, infusing light from within, by which man comes to know, Ps. XLII, 3: Send forth thy light and thy truth.
Alio modo, proponendo suae sapientiae signa exteriora, scilicet sensibiles creaturas.  In another way, by proposing of His Wisdom exterior signs, that is creatures that can be sensed.
Eccli. I, 10: effudit illam, scilicet sapientiam, super omnia opera sua.  Ecclesiasticus I, 10: "And he poured her" - that is wisdom - "out upon all his works."
Sic ergo Deus illis manifestavit vel interius infundendo lumen, vel exterius proponendo visibiles creaturas, in quibus, sicut in quodam libro, Dei cognitio legeretur.  Thus in such manner did God manifest to them either infusing light from within, or from without proposing visible creatures, in which, as in a kind of book, the knowledge of God is to be read.
Deinde cum dicit invisibilia enim ipsius a creatura mundi, etc., ostendit per quem modum huiusmodi cognitionem acceperunt.  Next when he says "For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world" etc. (v. 20), he shows by what manner they received suchlike knowledge.
Ubi, primo considerandum est quae sunt ista, quae de Deo cognoverunt.  Where, first we must consider what those things are, which they knew of God.
Et ponit tria.  And he posits there were three of them.
Primo quidem invisibilia ipsius, per quae intelligitur Dei essentia, quae, sicut dictum est a nobis videri non potest.  First of all "the invisible things of him" (v. 20), by which is understood the essence of God, which, as we have said, cannot be seen.
Io. I, 18: Deum nemo vidit unquam, scilicet per essentiam, vita mortali vivens.  John I, 18: "No man hath seen God at any time" namely by His essence, and living in the mortal life.
I Tim. c. I, 17: regi saeculorum immortali, invisibili.  I Tim. ch. I, 17: Now to the king of ages, immortal, invisible.
Dicit autem pluraliter invisibilia quia Dei essentia non est nobis cognita secundum illud quod est, scilicet prout in se est una.  But he says in the plural "the invisible things" since the essence of God is not known to us according to that which it is, namely as in itself it is one.
Sic erit nobis in patria cognita, et tunc erit dominus unus et nomen eius unum, ut dicitur Zac. ult.  Thus it will be known to us in the Fatherland, and in that day there shall be one Lord, and his name shall be one, as is said in "Last of Zachariah"**.
Est autem manifesta nobis per quasdam similitudines in creaturis repertas, quae id quod in Deo unum est, multipliciter participant, et secundum hoc intellectus noster considerat unitatem divinae essentiae sub ratione bonitatis, sapientiae, virtutis et huiusmodi, quae in Deo unum sunt.  But it [the unity of God] is manifest to us by certain likenesses to be found in creatures, which participate in many ways in that which in God is one, and according to this our intellect considers the unity of divine essense under the concept of goodness, of wisdom, of power, and suchlike, which in God are just one thing.
Haec ergo invisibilia Dei dixit, quia illud unum quod his nominibus, seu rationibus, in Deo respondet, non videtur a nobis.  So, he calls these things the invisible things of God, since that which in God corresponds to these names or concepts is not seen by us.
Hebr. XI, 3: ut ex invisibilibus invisibilia fierent.  Hebr. XI, 3: that from invisible things visible ! things might be made. [Quoted as "that from invisible things invisible things might be made".]***
Aliud autem quod de Deo cognoscitur est virtus ipsius, secundum quam res ab eo procedunt, sicut a principio; Ps. CXLVI, 5: magnus dominus et magna virtus eius.  Another thing which is made known about God is His power, according to which things proceed from Him as from their principle; Ps. CXLVI, 5: Great is our Lord, and great is his power.
Hanc autem virtutem philosophi perpetuam esse cognoverunt, unde dicitur sempiterna quoque virtus eius.  But this power the philosophers knew to be perpetual, wherefore it is also called His sempiternal (or everlasting) power.° (Still in v. 20)
Tertium cognitum est quod dicit et divinitas, ad quod pertinet quod cognoverunt Deum sicut ultimum finem, in quem omnia tendunt.  The third known thing is what he calls "and divinity" (v. 20), to which pertains that they knew God as the ultimate goal to which everything tends.
Divinum enim bonum dicitur bonum commune quod ab omnibus participatur; propter hoc potius dixit divinitatem, quae participationem significat, quam deitatem, quae significat essentiam Dei.  For a divine good one calls the common good which is shared by all; wherefore he rather called this "divinity", which denotes a share in God, than "deity" which denotes the essence of God.
Col. II, 9: et in ipso habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis.  Col II, 9: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [corporeally]. [Last word of Bible verse not quoted.]
Haec autem tria referuntur ad tres modos cognoscendi supradictos.  Now, these three things are related to the three abovesaid modes of acquiring knowledge.
Nam invisibilia Dei cognoscuntur per viam negationis; sempiterna virtus, per viam causalitatis; divinitas, per viam excellentiae.  For the invisible things of God are known by the way of negation, the everlasting power, by the way of causality°°; the divinity, by the way of excellence.
Secundo, considerandum est per quod medium illa cognoverunt, quod designatur cum dicit per ea quae facta sunt.  Secondly, one has to consider by what means they knew those things, which is designated when he says "by the things that are made" (v. 20).
Sicut enim ars manifestatur per artificis opera, ita et Dei sapientia manifestatur per creaturas.  For just as knowhow is manifested by the expert's works, so also God's wisdom is manifested in creatures.
Sap. XIII, 5: a magnitudine enim speciei et creaturae cognoscibiliter poterit creator horum videri.  Wisdom XIII, 5: For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby. °°°
Tertio, ostendit quomodo per ista cognoscatur Deus, cum dicit intellecta conspiciuntur.  Thirdly, he shows how by these God is known, when he says "are clearly seen, being understood" (v. 20).
Intellectu enim cognosci potest Deus, non sensu vel imaginatione, quae corporalia non transcendunt; Deus autem spiritus est, ut Io. c. IV, 24 dicitur; Is. LII, 13: ecce intelliget servus meus.  For by understanding God can be known, not by sense or visualisation power*° which do not transcend corporeal things; but "God is a spirit", as is stated in John chapter IV, 24; Is. LII, 13: "Behold my servant shall understand". [He cites first, relevant, half of the verse.]
Quarto, potest designari a qua, per hunc modum, Deus cognoscatur, cum dicitur a creatura mundi.  Fourthly, it may be designated from what, in this way, God is understood, when it is stated "from the creation of the world" (v. 20).
Per quod, uno modo, potest intelligi homo, Mc. ult.: praedicate Evangelium omni creaturae, vel propter excellentiam hominis, qui ordine naturae minor est Angelis sed excellit inter inferiores creaturas, secundum illud Ps. VIII, 6: minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis, omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius, oves et boves, etc., vel quia communicat cum omni creatura: habet enim esse cum lapidibus, vivere cum arboribus, sentire cum animalibus, intelligere cum Angelis, ut Gregorius dicit.  By which, in one way, man may be understood, "Last of Mark"**: "preach the gospel to every creature", either because of the excellence of man, who in order of nature is lesser than Angels but excels among lesser creatures, according to this [verse in] Ps. VIII [namely v. 6] "Thou hast made him a little less than the angels ... Thou hast subjected all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen: etc." or because he has something in common with all creature: he has being with stones, life with trees, sense with animals, understanding with angels, as Gregory says.
Alio modo potest intelligi de universali creatura.  In another way it can be understood of creature in general.
Nulla enim creatura, ex propriis naturalibus, potest Dei essentiam in seipsa videre.  For no creature, of its own natural powers, can see God's essence in itself.
Unde et de Seraphim dicitur Is. VI, 2 quod duabus alis velabant caput.  Wherefore also it is said the the Seraphim, Is. VI, 2, that they were veiling their head with two wings.
Sed, sicut homo intelligit Deum per creaturas visibiles, ita Angelus per hoc quod intelligit propriam essentiam.  But, as man understands God**°° by visible creatures, so the angel by the fact of understanding its own essence.***°°°
Potest autem aliter intelligi per creaturam mundi, non ipsa res creata sed rerum creatio, ac si diceretur: a creatione mundi.  But "by the creation/creature of the world" can be understood in another maner, not the created thing itself but the creation of the thing, as if it were staed: from the creation of the world. [Which - both his Latin and my English is the actual text in current editions of Vulgate and Douay Rheims]
Et tunc potest dupliciter ordinari.  And then it can be ordered in two ways.
Uno modo quod intelligatur quod invisibilia Dei intelliguntur per ea quae facta sunt a creatione mundi, non solum per ea quae facta sunt tempore gratiae.  In one way that it may be understood that the invisible things of God are understood by the things that have been made# since the creation of the world, not only by those that have been made during the time of grace.##
Alio modo quod intelligatur quod a creatione mundi homines incoeperunt Deum cognoscere per ea quae facta sunt.  In another way that it may be understood that since the creation of the world men began to know God by the things that were made.#
Iob XXXVI, 25: omnes homines vident eum. Job XXXVI, 25: All men see him.
Glossa autem dicit quod per invisibilia Dei intelligitur persona patris. I Tim. c. ult.: quem nullus hominum vidit, et cetera.  The Gloss however says that by "the invisible things of God" is understood the Person of the Father. I Tim. last chapter [=VI, 16:] whom no man hath seen.
Per sempiternam virtutem, persona filii secundum illud I Cor. I, 24: Christum Dei virtutem.  By eternal power, the Person of the Son accordting to that [word] I Cor. I, 24: Christ the power of God.
Per divinitatem, persona spiritus sancti cui appropriatur bonitas.  By divinity, the person of the Holy Ghost, to whom goodness is appropriated.###
Non quod philosophi, ductu rationis, potuerint pervenire, per ea quae facta sunt, in cognitionem personarum quantum ad propria, quae non significant habitudinem causae ad creaturas, sed secundum appropriata.  Not that the philosophers, lead by reason, could arrive, through the things that were made, to knowledge of the Persons as to what is really their propers*#, which do not signify the "habit of being cause" in relation to creatures, but according to the appropriated things.###
Dicuntur tamen defecisse in tertio signo, id est in spiritu sancto quia non posuerunt aliquid respondere spiritui sancto, sicut posuerunt aliquid respondere patri, scilicet ipsum primum principium, et aliquid respondere filio, scilicet primam mentem creatam, quam vocabant paternum intellectum ut Macrobius dicit in libro super somnium Scipionis. But they are said to have been deficient in the third sign, that is in the Holy Ghost since they did not posit anything corresponding to the Holy Ghost as they did posit something corresponding to the Father, namely the First Principle itself, and something corresponding to the Son, namely the First Created Mind**## which they call Fatherly Understanding or Understanding of the Father, as Macrobius says in the book aboutv the Dream of Scipio.***###

For the Question 11 and Article 3 of Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, there is fortunately already an English translation available and online:

First from His simplicity. For it is manifest that the reason why any singular thing is "this particular thing" is because it cannot be communicated to many: since that whereby Socrates is a man, can be communicated to many; whereas, what makes him this particular man, is only communicable to one. Therefore, if Socrates were a man by what makes him to be this particular man, as there cannot be many Socrates, so there could not in that way be many men. Now this belongs to God alone; for God Himself is His own nature, as was shown above (Question 3, Article 3). Therefore, in the very same way God is God, and He is this God. Impossible is it therefore that many Gods should exist.

Secondly, this is proved from the infinity of His perfection. For it was shown above (Question 4, Article 2) that God comprehends in Himself the whole perfection of being. If then many gods existed, they would necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to exist. Hence also the ancient philosophers, constrained as it were by truth, when they asserted an infinite principle, asserted likewise that there was only one such principle.

Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the "per se" cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so "per se" and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God.

This last and third thing is the most obvious to a modern reader - insofar as he grasps that St Thomas was a Geocentric and believed ALL of the Universe had exactly one centre, Earth and ALL the rest of the visible universe is circling around it. What about the other two? The second gets back to Q4 A2:

First, because whatever perfection exists in an effect must be found in the effective cause: either in the same formality, if it is a univocal agent--as when man reproduces man; or in a more eminent degree, if it is an equivocal agent--thus in the sun is the likeness of whatever is generated by the sun's power. Now it is plain that the effect pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause: and although to pre-exist in the potentiality of a material cause is to pre-exist in a more imperfect way, since matter as such is imperfect, and an agent as such is perfect; still to pre-exist virtually in the efficient cause is to pre-exist not in a more imperfect, but in a more perfect way. Since therefore God is the first effective cause of things, the perfections of all things must pre-exist in God in a more eminent way. Dionysius implies the same line of argument by saying of God (Div. Nom. v): "It is not that He is this and not that, but that He is all, as the cause of all."

Secondly, from what has been already proved, God is existence itself, of itself subsistent (3, 4). Consequently, He must contain within Himself the whole perfection of being. For it is clear that if some hot thing has not the whole perfection of heat, this is because heat is not participated in its full perfection; but if this heat were self-subsisting, nothing of the virtue of heat would be wanting to it. Since therefore God is subsisting being itself, nothing of the perfection of being can be wanting to Him. Now all created perfections are included in the perfection of being; for things are perfect, precisely so far as they have being after some fashion. It follows therefore that the perfection of no one thing is wanting to God. This line of argument, too, is implied by Dionysius (Div. Nom. v), when he says that, "God exists not in any single mode, but embraces all being within Himself, absolutely, without limitation, uniformly;" and afterwards he adds that, "He is the very existence to subsisting things."

This gets back to Q3 A4: which in turn points to 3,3 so let us get there and then 3,4:

I answer that, God is the same as His essence or nature. To understand this, it must be noted that in things composed of matter and form, the nature or essence must differ from the "suppositum," because the essence or nature connotes only what is included in the definition of the species; as, humanity connotes all that is included in the definition of man, for it is by this that man is man, and it is this that humanity signifies, that, namely, whereby man is man. Now individual matter, with all the individualizing accidents, is not included in the definition of the species. For this particular flesh, these bones, this blackness or whiteness, etc., are not included in the definition of a man. Therefore this flesh, these bones, and the accidental qualities distinguishing this particular matter, are not included in humanity; and yet they are included in the thing which is man. Hence the thing which is a man has something more in it than has humanity. Consequently humanity and a man are not wholly identical; but humanity is taken to mean the formal part of a man, because the principles whereby a thing is defined are regarded as the formal constituent in regard to the individualizing matter. On the other hand, in things not composed of matter and form, in which individualization is not due to individual matter--that is to say, to "this" matter--the very forms being individualized of themselves--it is necessary the forms themselves should be subsisting "supposita." Therefore "suppositum" and nature in them are identified. Since God then is not composed of matter and form, He must be His own Godhead, His own Life, and whatever else is thus predicated of Him.

Now, this is a bit abstruse - perhaps - to "the modern reader", who has been raised on materialism. However it is presupposed in the following article to which the second reason for the unity of God looked back:

First, whatever a thing has besides its essence must be caused either by the constituent principles of that essence (like a property that necessarily accompanies the species--as the faculty of laughing is proper to a man--and is caused by the constituent principles of the species), or by some exterior agent--as heat is caused in water by fire. Therefore, if the existence of a thing differs from its essence, this existence must be caused either by some exterior agent or by its essential principles. Now it is impossible for a thing's existence to be caused by its essential constituent principles, for nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own existence, if its existence is caused. Therefore that thing, whose existence differs from its essence, must have its existence caused by another. But this cannot be true of God; because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence.

Secondly, existence is that which makes every form or nature actual; for goodness and humanity are spoken of as actual, only because they are spoken of as existing. Therefore existence must be compared to essence, if the latter is a distinct reality, as actuality to potentiality. Therefore, since in God there is no potentiality, as shown above (Article 1), it follows that in Him essence does not differ from existence. Therefore His essence is His existence.

Thirdly, because, just as that which has fire, but is not itself fire, is on fire by participation; so that which has existence but is not existence, is a being by participation. But God is His own essence, as shown above (Article 3) if, therefore, He is not His own existence He will be not essential, but participated being. He will not therefore be the first being--which is absurd. Therefore God is His own existence, and not merely His own essence.

But what about the first reason for the unity of God? It also looks back to Q3, A3. Which looks back to Q3, A1:

First, because no body is in motion unless it be put in motion, as is evident from induction. Now it has been already proved (2, 3), that God is the First Mover, and is Himself unmoved. Therefore it is clear that God is not a body.

Secondly, because the first being must of necessity be in act, and in no way in potentiality. For although in any single thing that passes from potentiality to actuality, the potentiality is prior in time to the actuality; nevertheless, absolutely speaking, actuality is prior to potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality can be reduced into actuality only by some being in actuality. Now it has been already proved that God is the First Being. It is therefore impossible that in God there should be any potentiality. But every body is in potentiality because the continuous, as such, is divisible to infinity; it is therefore impossible that God should be a body.

Thirdly, because God is the most noble of beings. Now it is impossible for a body to be the most noble of beings; for a body must be either animate or inanimate; and an animate body is manifestly nobler than any inanimate body. But an animate body is not animate precisely as body; otherwise all bodies would be animate. Therefore its animation depends upon some other thing, as our body depends for its animation on the soul. Hence that by which a body becomes animated must be nobler than the body. Therefore it is impossible that God should be a body.

A Dominican once told me the thing that made St Thomas wrong and moderns - say Kant - right was that the proofs of St Thomas suffer from essentialism. But any proof of anyone, including Dawkins's for Darwin, is essentially essentialist. The real problem for a modern would be Newtonian mechanics making uniform motion the same thing as perfect still-standing for any piece of matter. And then also of Universe according to Heliocentrism not being in daily motion round earth. But the Newtonian matter tends to make reasonings about potentiality and actuality less understood. In Newtonian matter the distinction between potentiality and actuality is blurred through the concept of "energy" and stillstanding is no longer the only default option of matter.

So the easiest way - and remember the proof is easy, otherwise Pagans would not have had a very obvious proof making them inexcusable - would be the third reason for the unity of God. Quoting it once again:

Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the "per se" cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so "per se" and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God.

Giordano Bruno was the first Heliocentric to take this as a serious implication in cosmology. His several solar systems, as we would call them, was in his terminology several worlds. So, familiar as he was with the proofs for God, he took the non-unity of the worlds as permitting (or perhaps even exacting) a non-unity of God. He was in 1600 burned for heresies involving pantheism and polytheism. And from there things have rolled on towards Dawkins.

Dawkins - as briefly mentioned earlier - has not exactly denied the conclusion of the five ways of St Thomas. He has identified the god of the three first ways with "matter-and-energy". The modern theory about "energy" being an entity that can neither be created nor destroyed makes it a candidate for being the God of the three first ways. As to the way concerned with degree and as to the way concerned with wisdom, the last two ways, Dawkins makes Evolution and whatever has most developed the Highest Value and Failure of whatever is unfit to last (either on levels like initial unity of all energy before Big Bang or on levels like Natural Selection eliminiating whatever is unfit to survive in competition to the other variety) the wisdom. Now, note he does not make Natural Selection the highest value. But he considers that it has through evolution led to one detestation of natural selection being very developed and therefore the most noble attitude.

He is in his way as honest as St Thomas Aquinas in saying that his deity cannot be seen, but there are millions of pieces of evidence for it. But one of them is geocentrism being a mistake and universe having no unified observable rule, but the view of Abraham was - on this view - an optical illusion. What was Abraham viewing, according to Josephus? Same thing as Geocentric Saint Thomas Aquinas. Stars moving in obedience to a single rule. If it had only been an inside of a globe moving and all he stars either fires glued onto it or holes through which a single fire is seen, then indeed he would not as immediately have had a reason to believe all stars obeyed a single ruler. But he saw that the planets are not attached (and "parallax" has proven to Geocentrics that neither are the fixed stars), since they make tours around the zodiak. So he concluded they were obeying one God, since their movements stayed harmonious. Without eliminating Geocentrism Dawkins could no more have been an intellectually fulfilled atheist than without accepting Evolution. Geocentrism points immediately to God. Day proclaims God's glory to day and night to night ... King David was giving us the view of Abraham.

And Heliocentrism is making this an optical illusion brought about by one movement simple enough to be mindless, namely earth turning around its axis. Newtonism is also denying that local motion can only happen to a body through its being reduced from potency to act.

But fortunately, Geocentrism is very obvious. However, apart from the Dawkins quote, the video by CMI contains one other statement worth noting in this very context:

01:25 Richard Lewontin

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

Hear that? Which one is first and most often cited? Actually two of them are cited together: earth is round and does not stand still. Now, earth being round may be surprising, but is not against common sense if you think about it. But earth not standing still is. And we have no evidence for it.

I have seen the sun lower at noon in winter than in summer in Malmö, but also lower in Malmö than in USA, California. I know the earth is curved. Or I have watched a boat leave a harbour through binoculars. I know the sea level, flattest thing there is on a large scale, is curved. But I have no such evidence for Heliocentrism.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs.

CMI, after all your support for Galileo, I find it even touching that you cite this admission! It is worth citing in full as far as you do it yourselves, beginning with your reference for it:

Richard Lewontin, Harvard Geneticist, "Billions & Billions of Demons", The New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, Pg. 31

Our willingness to accept scientific claim that are against common sinse is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science, in spite of the patent absurdity of many of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Cited on - once again:

CMIcreationstation : Why does the evidence always point to evolution? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 3-05)

OK, first unsubstantiated just-so story: Heliocentrism.

This is what I think that Pope Urban VIII foresaw when he considered that Galileos error - from which the Pisan's soul was saved by abjuration which if not immediately earnest became so his last year - would bring about. Along with a polytheistic, pantheistic and for that matter sunworshipping and starworshipping perversion of the Five Ways.

For of course, Kant's famous rebuttal of the Five Ways is not such a one and Dawkins is, as his interpretation of the fourth and fifth way in favour of evolution, as well as his interpretation of first three ways in favour of materialism show very well, not taking Kant seriously at all.

Immanuel Kant's attack on Romans 1:20 and on St Thomas Aquinas, using Aristotle, explaining it, can be very safely put aside as insincere rebuttals forgotten in any context outside the very specialied one of refuting Catholic Scholastics.

First support for this just-so story, overemphasising the gullibility of the senses.

Take two rings or rather parts of such, each a quarter circle wide, each a half radius thick. Make them point same way at a little distance. If they are equal, one will look greater than the other (the outer circumference which is opposite the inner circumference). But note that if you had not just used eyes but also fingertips, that is a second sense, on these figures in solids, you would very easily have noted that there was no difference in size.

Another support for another kind of just-so story - those attacking tradition between events and writing down of Genesis and Gospels - is the "whispering game" which may be pretty close to what happens in rumour mongering now and then, but is very far from how a story is deliberately orally transmitted in an oral culture.

A third is of course claiming to know the difference between fact and foction from miracles being fiction. Some simplify that into the rule of knowing them apart by fiction being miracles as well. And you land up with believing Name of the Rose is fact, because it contains no miracle and because there is this Adso of Melk - whom Umberto Eco invented as shamelessly as Tolkien invented the Red Book of Westmarch. The real test for Harry Potter not being history is that it has not come down to us, and the happenings in mundane settings, though purportedly recent, have not come down to us. The real test is tradition.

But the one "scientific" support for this mistrust in the senses comes not so much from earth not being flat (we can hardly use either fingertips or inner ears to determine whether the apparent flatness is not really very big roundness), but from earth, despite two of the senses, not being still in its place.

Note what argument Pope Urban VIII gave Galileo while he was himself still a Cardinal, the one that convinced Galileo years after he had recanted verbally. "God could create the world any way he wanted to and make it appear any way he wanted to." This is perhaps sometimes understood as ultimately undermining his position and its consistency with the truthfulness of God. But the thing is that if God could make the universe appear as He created it or create it as He wanted it to appear to us, He may very well have avoided a combination of reality and appearance involving two sensory illusions and not just one. And He may have done this to make the proof for His existence very readily accessible to any hack among the Pagans, even without access directly to the Scriptures or to Faith.

That is what, believing Romans 1:20, I think He did.

So did St Thomas: "The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion." (2,3 in the cited part) - In the parallel in Contra Gentes, he says "as for instance the sun".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Blaise, Bishop and Martyr

Notes on translation:

* The Latin word "ibi" really means "there". Now "there" can de defined as "in that place" exactly as "from there" = "inde" can be explained as "from that place". In Classical Latin, as far as I know, "ibi" either refers to a physical place in space or, if pointing to a physical text to the place in the physical text which you show forth by putting your finger there. In St Thomas' usage here (!) it is rather = "in that passage" or = "in that phrase" = "where (!) it says". Classical Latin had a system for indirect speech which facilitated a form of quotation that was indirect and chnged the wording, so Medieval Latin had to invent - after Greek usages of 'οτι ("that", Medieval Latin "quod" or "quia" after other meaning of 'οτι) and of το - a new technical vocabulary for introduction of direct exact quote. Another version - after το - is "ly", pronounced as French "le" with "y" for a vowel foreign to Latin, and used much as one usage of Spanish "lo": Decían "que pagan bien a gente que trabajan bien". Lo de "pagan a gente que trabajan bien" es correcto, lo de "pagan bien" no lo es. Dicebant quia "bene remunerant quibus bene operant", et quidem ly remunerant quibus bene operant recte dixerunt, sed ly "bene remunerant" non recte. Here however St Thomas is not using "ly" for referring to a quote rather than to a concept signified by his word, he is using "ibi" and thinking of the definition "in that place" rather than of Classical usage.

** Last of Zachariah = last chapter of Zachariah, Zachariah 14. As said there were as yet no verse numbers (any verse number reference in the text of St Thomas has been added in modern editions for easier reference), but this is verse 9. Similarily "Last of Mark" = Marc 16. In this case second half of v. 15. St Francis had notably some decades earlier had another take on preaching "to every creature" when he used docile birds to rebuke indocile men. And obviously his doing so and them flying away in cruciform configuration agrees with some verses later in "Last of Marc".

*** He certainly quoted things from memory, but he also had a reason to believe his memory was exact, so I venture the conjecture he was recalling a copy with a mistake in it. Or even - I do not know the text history of this work - that one copier copied him out badly.

° Douay Rheims has eternal about the power of God.

°° This could be the reason why Douay Rheims does chose the word "eternal". I am not sure about the Greek, but "sempiternus" means "everlasting", something which will last for ever, but the causality implies an eternal power, one that is also from eternity.

°°° Was someone saying the New Testament never cites "the Apocrypha" as in the Books counted Canonic in the Septuagint? St Thomas Aquinas spotted a very clear reference in Romans 1 (especially vv. 19-20) to Wisdom 13.

*° By "imagination" St Thomas meant simply the power to visualise absent things, whether used for memory recalling them or for reason constructing (and in our sense "imagining") them.

**°° Understands God = understands there is a God and whatever else can be concluded about God. Not obviously understands God as in understands God in His own essence or understands God as God understands us (for He does understand us in our essence).

***°°° C. S. Lewis has for that matter made a proof of God from the partial understanding we have of ourselves as spiritual, i e we know the act of understanding is not material, and as creatures at the same time, i e we know we are not eternal.

# Or done? My "things" in this context is not the plural of the noun res, but the neutre plural of the pronoun, literally then "they which were made" or "they which were done" and faceere ... well, that is the rub, the things that were done might rather refer to the verb "ea quae acta sunt". So, I will for my part stick with "the things that were made".

## Time of grace - starting 5199 years or so after the creation of the world. Has been going on for 2000 years or so. Starts with the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, and had a small start a bit earlier when Our Lady was conceived without the Sin of Adam.

### Certain things are common to all the Three Persons, but are Theologically appropriated to one of them so as to help us see Them as the different persons as which They see Eachother. Power to the Father, Wisdom to the Son, Goodness to the Holy Ghost. Or Creation to the Father, Redemption - is NOT just appropriated to the Son, since He did it in His human nature - and Sanctification to the Holy Ghost.

*# It is proper to the Father to be Eternal Origin without any Origin. It is proper to the Son to be Eternal Origin takin His Origin by Filiation of the Father. It is proper to the Holy Spirit to be Eternal Origin taking His Origin by Spiration of the Father and of the Son. As we know, Photius disagreed with the last clause here, but St Athanasius did not.

**## If the Pagan philosophers considered what they had found out through reason about the Son as being "first created" - like Arius and Jehovah's Witnesses consider the Son, that does not mean the Son is actually created, but that the Philosophical understanding of God the Son was incomplete and fell short of the full Mystery of the Most Blessed Trinity.

***### Dream of Scipio is a pretty short story by Cicero. It is the Sixth Book of his Republic, and you know from the Bible how short a "book" can be. It is as the title says a dream which one of the national heros of Rome, Scipio, is said to have had. Nothing indicates Scipio actually had it, Cicero is using Scipio as an appropriate figure for having had it, since the main theme is the reward of virtue, including courage and patriotism, after death. And Scipio was, in the Pagan estimation of Cicero at least, a very virtuous man and recognised as such by everyone else. It refers to the younger Scipio, who destroyed Carthage, who died 23 years before Cicero was born himself. A bit as if I were putting Chesterton into a story. Now, Macrobius who lived centuries later wrote a very much longer comment on the Dream of Scipio which was during the Middle Ages apaprently one of the major sources of knowledge about Pagan Philosophers. If Dream of Scipio is Cicero's most Platonic work, the commentary by Macrobius is pretty decidedly Neoplatonic. So if ever you have wondered what Hypatia's doctrine was, the one that Agora is supposed to be about, you might do worse than consulting Macrobius. Consulting Agora is pretty inane for that purpose. She was Neoplatonic.

Here is Dream of Scipio:

Cicero, The Dream of Scipio - Somnium Scipionis (1883) pp.3-14
[Translated by W. D. Pearman]

The English translation of Macrobius' commentary is not online, as far as I could tell, here is the amazon on its paper format:

Commentary on the Dream of Scipio by Macrobius (Records of Western Civilization Series) Paperback
by Macrobius (Author) , William Harris Stahl (Translator)

The Latin text is on wikisource:

Vicifons : Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius Commentariorum in Somnium Scipionis
(ed. Franciscus Eyssenhardt)

References in Summa Theologica:

Newadvent Summa Theologica, Prima Pars Question 11. The unity of God
Article 3. Whether God is one?

Newadvent Summa Theologica, Prima Pars Question 4. The perfection of God
Article 2. Whether the perfections of all things are in God?

Newadvent Summa Theologica, Prima Pars Question 3. The simplicity of God
Article 3. Whether God is the same as His essence or nature?

Newadvent Summa Theologica, Prima Pars Question 3. The simplicity of God
Article 4. Whether essence and existence are the same in God?

Newadvent Summa Theologica, Prima Pars Question 3. The simplicity of God
Article 1. Whether God is a body?

Newadvent Summa Theologica, Prima Pars Question 2. The existence of God
Article 3. Whether God exists?