Catholics (those tending to be of the conservative variety) who have followed Creationism over the years would be well aware that mainstream Catholic scholars have shown virtually no interest whatsoever in its teachings, and that official Catholic documents never seem to support Creation Science.
1) I contest that documents from after the 80's from the Vatican are Catholic.
2) I highly suggest that Humani Generis wanted a discussion, with Creation Science as a partner.
3) I suggest that the proper scope of Humani Generis was among scholars, but part of the content was leaked in a distorted way for pastoral reasons with some canon law tweaking.
But mostly, I would suggest that before Henry Morris, partly with same arguments, and starting before Ellen G. White, Roman Catholics were doing Creation Science. The Day-Ager Vigouroux did so on a amateur and failed way. Others did so on less failed ways, like the ones mentioned (with dissent) by Fr. Mangenot in his 1920 article. One of them was Veith, a man who converted from Judaism, was friend and doctor to St. Clement Maria Hofbauer, who later became a priest. In 1909, when Pope St. Pius X allowed Vigouroux to allow discussion of the Day-Age view, he also canonised the Saint who was apostle to Vienna, Fr. Hofbauer.
Some traditions, even those of very long standing, may need correcting. The conservative friends of Job had to be awoken from their dogmatic slumber and traditional views about the Divine and retribution. So was the case with the Apostles in regard to the blind man (John 9:3).
Who says either Apostles or the comforters of Job had long tradition in the people of the faithful behind them? Most people would say Job was an Edomite. A nation that started out as faithful as Isaac's son Esau or Edom, but which was going to apostatise more or less deeply before the time of Moses.
As we shall see, the methodology is artificial because the approach is entirely ‘Procrustean’, forcing all the data to conform to the a priori concept. It is exactly like the approach to reality of the highly theoretical physical scientists, many of whom are not believers.
I don't think it's forced to say:
For a remainder of 25 pmC (apart from untypical, though recurrent cases) we have the options starting with 100 pmC and reduced by twice a halflife decay process (5730 + 5730 = 11 460 years) or starting out with 50 pmC and reducing by one halflife (only 5730 years ago) or starting out with less and being even younger. For a remainder of 80 pmC, now, the material we have is on other, namely historic, grounds, tied to c. 2000 years ago.*
Or:
Polystrate fossils prove the strates were soft at the same time.
Or:
Seafaring proves, the Ark would have been very likely to sink in a local Flood, but much safer in a global one, with very much deeper water.
He's obviously welcome to forward whatever case he wants or objections on these two or three to show his "Procrustean" really is such. But he has made no such specifications, just this generalisation, in the paper I'm quoting.
Oh, one exception, courtesy of Carol A. Hill:
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%201.pdf
One of the basic tenants of many biblical literalists (creation scientists) is that Noah s Flood was a universal phenomenon that is, flood waters covered the entire planet Earth up to at least the height of Mount Ararat, which is ~17,000 feet (5000 m) in elevation. Corollary to this view is the position held by flood geologists that most of the Earth's sedimentary rocks and fossils were deposited during the deluge of Noah as described in Genesis 6-8.
I'm not sure how fair this was even back in 2002. By now this reads like a strawman.
- she misses the distinction between deposition and folding or other raising
- that Ararat is a volcano
- and that (at least since her time) Flood geologists have come to favour, among other candidates, Mount Judi, which is lower, 2,089 m (6,854 ft).
She also pokes a hole at the canopy theory, which happens to be fairly abandoned among Flood geologists. Perhaps not by Mr. Hovind, but by plenty in the CMI.
She goes on to say that in Genesis 41:56 (she mis-cites as 41:46) not all the globe was starving, and then that the language is similar in Genesis 6 to 8. Sure. But famines can be devastating apart from imports from elsewhere without being global. Waters cannot cover the highest mountains of any place without being that height globally. Whether the water height was Judi or Ararat, it could not have covered that high without flowing down to the Mediterranean or Black Sea or sth, unless it was also that high over the Black Sea, and how come it didn't fall down through the Dardanelles or the whole Mediterranean, and how come it didn't fall down in the Straights of Gibraltar? Similarity of language doesn't always translate to similarity of application, the situation has some importance as well. She cites Woolley as arguing the Flood covered Mesopotamia ... but Mount Judi is East of Tigris so outside Mesopotamia. Cizre below Mount Judi is just 377 meters high above the sea, and considerably less over the slope of Mesopotamia which reached the sea only 1000 km further SE. If Mesopotamia was flooded outside in from the rivers, it wouldn't have reached much higher than the riverbanks, i e the height of Cizre, and not the height of Mt. Judi. Neither Woolley nor herself were sailors. Even 377 m. water depth would have been too little to allow for relative calm, the Ark would have been in a situation not far from Schooner Wyoming. It may be added, the meme that the Ark took off from Mesopotamia, it comes from Woolley's idea that the Flood only covered Mesopotamia. The Bible doesn't say where the Ark took off. Mesopotamia would have had mountains looming higher than itself to the North and the East along most of its length.
Were the flood waters fifteen cubits above the highest mountains of planet Earth; were they fifteen cubits above the hill country of Mesopotamia (located in the northern, Assyrian part); were they fifteen cubits above the tops of ziggurat temple mounds (mountains) in southern Mesopotamia, thus dooming all the people who ran to the high temples for safety; or were they only fifteen cubits above the Mesopotamian alluvial plain? Or, as suggested by Ramm, does the fifteen cubits upward refer to the draft (draught) of the ark; i.e., how deep its 30 cubit depth (Gen. 6:15) was submerged in the water when the ark was loaded?22
Another difficulty with Gen. 7:20 is: How did Noah measure the depth of the flood at fifteen cubits?
I think Noah knew the draft, planning for a half submerged vessel, which is pretty normal, and built the Ark on the actually highest mountain. So, she half answered her rhetoric question in the previous sentence.
Modern geologists, hydrologists, paleontologists, and geophysicists know exactly how the different types of sedimentary rock form, how fossils form and what they represent,
In fact, I don't think Carol A. Hill had the opportunity to learn of the experiments of Guy Berthault, back in 2002. She also misses out on all logistics answers that have been given, including but not limited to Baraminology.**
But why is Damien Mackey citing a 22~23 year old paper as refutation of Flood geology and Creation Science, if he is interested in the debate and knows that Creation Science is still around? He also cites Tim Martin, Beyond Creation Science. The book came out in 2007.
Check if you see any other outward reference in his:
What exactly is Creation Science?
Part One: An obsession with ‘Science’
by Damien F. Mackey (reissued) 19.I.2025
https://www.academia.edu/35676906/What_exactly_is_Creation_Science_Part_One_Our_Western_obsession_with_Science
I don't mean P. J. Wiseman, the relevant idea of which is about the authorship of Genesis, (Wiseman, P.J., Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis, 1985), but the ones directed against Creation science.
For my own part, I have a preference to immerse myself in the debate, and be up to date about what I pretend to refute. And to be aware of as much of the earlier history of ideas as possible, as with the Catholic predecessors of Henry Morris. For Damien's work, I'd say a more exact title would be "What was Creation Science by 2002 and ignoring Catholic Contributions Prior to 1920?"
/Hans Georg Lundahl
* The pmC values in my tables are not about the now measured pmC, they are my alternative views against the assumption "starting close to 100 pmC" ...
** She gives dates for Mesopotamian archaeology, often carbon dates in the measuring, in Table 1. Archaeological Periods in Mesopotamia, I'll insert from my calibration for the limits:
~5500—3800 BC Ubaid
~3800—3100 BC Uruk
~3100—2900 BC Jemdet Nasr
~2900—2750 BC Early Dynastic I
|
~2750—2600 BC Early Dynastic II
~2600—2350 BC Early Dynastic III
~2350—2150 BC Dynasty of Akkad
~2150—2000 BC 3rd Dynasty of Ur
~2000—1600 BC Old Babylonian
|
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire