However distasteful this is to some Orthodox who disdain us Latins, we count Beda Venerabilis as a Church Father.
And however distasteful it is to them when hearing again and again the age of the Earth as per George Syncellus, both the Martyrology and Beda differ from their favourite age of the earth as 5500 BC + current AD date.
Roman Martyrology since 1498 has in the Christmas proclamation a reference to Christ being born in 5199 after the beginning, and Beda considered that number 1200 years too long, since he presumably counted on Vulgate, which has Masoretic chronology.
What do these approaches all have in common?
George Syncellus carefully counted years between Biblical events, notably Genesis 5 and 11 according to standard version of the Septuagint.
The calculus of St. Jerome, using some older calculation by Julius Africanus, given in Roman martyrology, also does so, with some difference in chronology after Abraham, it being shorter, and also differing as to omission of second Cainan from Genesis 11.
Beda used the Vulgate, as translated by the same St. Jerome, and he considered that his other text for Genesis 5 and 11, translated from a Hebrew text whose chronology is identic to the later Masoretic version, excluded 1200 years, presumably mostly from Genesis 5 and 11 (there is a difference between LXX having Seth born when Adam was 230 years old and Vulgate when he was 130 years old, adding up to a difference between Flood year as either 1642 or 2242 after Creation : and in Genesis 11, Abraham was born respectively, 292, 942 or 1070 after the Flood, according to version).
Can anyone spot what all these three approaches have in common? Yes, they are all based on the Bible.
Now read this paragraph, by Brett Salkeld*:
The Catholic creationist tells us that the Church Fathers were unanimous in teaching that Scripture taught that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. This is sleight of hand. This only looks like unanimity against the backdrop of a 14 billion year old universe. The Venerable Bede certainly did not think he was speaking unanimously with earlier Fathers when his calculations from the same texts found the world to be 1200 years younger than many of them had concluded. A difference of 1200 is tiny out of 14 billion. Out of 5,200 (the number Bede rejected), it is enormous. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a better argument for the idea that the Bible does not mean to teach the age of the earth than the disunity of the Fathers who, reading the same texts, could come to such dramatically different conclusions.
Well, precisely, Brett, they weren't reading the same text.
First, Syncellus and Julius Africanus weren't reading the same text version of the Septuagint. Second, St. Jerome trusted Julius Africanus and Septuagint over his own translation from Hebrew. Third, Bede probably only knew the Hieronymian text, giving a very different chronology from St. Jerome's.
They all very much agreed that the Bible did teach the age of the earth.
Next the 1909 decision is brought up.
Now, the decision of 1909 was given by Fulcran Vigouroux. He was a Sulpician from Paris, who had made carreer in Rome. He was more conservative than some modern exegetes, insofar as he considered the Flood, not indeed global, but at least spanning all the parts of earth where men lived. And, he only allowed lengthening to occurr in Creation Days, that is, well before Genesis 5 and 11 - to his mind, at least a Septuagint reading should take care of the history of mankind, whatever millions of years needed to be pushed into the evolution of shellfish as studied in the Paris basin by Lyell.
Note also, this is a decision allowing sth, which is not always a type of decision that's infallible even on a Papal level (in 1909, Pope St. Pius X was arguably personally Young Earth Creationist, so the level of the Papal commission was slightly lower than Papal), and for a case in point, I give you Honorius giving a green light for Monotheletism, and even banning dispute (for or against, either way about it).
In the case of the 1909 decision, it's as I already** mentioned, a dead end, since it cannot be used to stretch the history of mankind, which modern dating methods would need us to do, if taken at face value.
Now, after 1909, we have 1950. Brett considers Pius XII said ... I'll give you his resumé:
The one papal encyclical that does deal with the question of evolution is an obvious problem for the Catholic creationist for the simple fact that it explicitly says what he considers heretical: that Catholic faith does not preclude the possibility that the human body evolved.
Well, does he explicitly say that?
No. One Hutchison*** had a Jesuit teacher who gave a similar resumé:
in which the pope explained that the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter is not incompatible with Christian faith as revealed in the Biblical texts.
Here is the actual passage:
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter
He did not mention the "faith", he mentioned the "teaching authority of the Church" - a disciplinary instance, even if about doctrinal matters. And he did not say "allowed to believe" but "does not forbid that research and discussions take place".
So, Humani Generis is not a green light for evolution being compatible with the Catholic faith.
Brett claims that this trumped 1909. But is this trumped by anything, in Brett's reckoning? Yes, he considers the "canon law" of 1983 as valid, this means he considers Vatican II as valid too. And § 3 of Dei Verbum° gives a pretty straightforward Young Earth Creationist scenario.
But let's return to Trent and Church Fathers. Brett considers this is past history, don't you Brett?:
But, even if Trent’s decree was interested in scientific matters and even if the Fathers of the Church actually were unanimous on the question, the creationist case would still face great difficulty from the fact that the decree at Trent to which they refer was not doctrinal (there were no anathemas attached), but disciplinary. As Jimmy Akin shows quite clearly in his explanation of the matter, the canonical provisions to which the decree led were abrogated with the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Part of the creationist hermeneutic is that less authoritative statements do not trump more authoritative statements from the past that have not been abrogated. Those pushing this narrative either do not know the status of Canon Law on the question, or they are hoping that you do not.
I did not know the abrogations from 1983. I do not count them as valid. Pius XII did not know them. He had to deal with unanimous sentence of the Fathers, all of which considered Adam was created "ex limo terrae" and not from some other type of already living creature. And he required:
However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.
Note what word is not here : future. He was well aware of the logical possibility the Church could have already decided this back at Trent, but did not want to enforce this. He did not want to see what in fact he saw.
Because, if he had admitted to seeing it, he would have had to face schism. One which seems to be breaking out right now, anyway. And one of those not in communion with him, had he been faithful to Trent openly and decidedly, had been his dear father confessor Augustin Bea, S. J., later "cardinal" if "John XXIII" had been pope. He did a huge sin against faith, but one compatible with still having it.
Especially, as the one good intention expressed in Humani Generis was a fair debate between both sides, and this debate was more or less smothered very quickly in 1951, by his expression of complete trust in the dating methods of dating Earth 5 billion years old. To him, as to Fulcran Vigoroux a generation or two earlier, there may have been a chance of this being just prehuman history of earth, with human history ensuing in full Biblical chronology, at least Septuagint version, after it. To most of his hearers, and especially after the less than a decade later discovery of Carbon 14 - with which I deal and have dealt extensively - there wasn't that. His words were constructed as a full green light for Evolution and even as a red light for "pseudo-science", for doubting what the "scientific community" seem to agree on.
This brings us back to the Church Fathers. There is one quotation of St. Augustine which Brett gives in a truncated and biassed version:
It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these [scientific] topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
It seems that this is part of book I of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII, given online, earlier, by Holy Cross College, but now°° the link gives a 404 error:
Book I, the Work of the First Day (excerpt from translation by John Hammond Taylor S. J.)
http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Genesis1.pdf
Now, there is a little problem insofar as the precedent on which "these topics" depends has been omitted and this omission is "repaired" by adding [scientific] in square brackets.
In fact, the category is given here:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
https://noanswersingenesis.org.au/saintaugustine.htm
Note that what has been replaced by "scientific topics" is "this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience". If someone claimed the rabbit had four stomachs like a cow, because the rabbit "ruminates", he would very clearly be guilty of this. And equally obviously, the text does not say the rabbit has four stomachs, it says he ruminates - meaning he takes back into the mouth what has already been in the stomach. This happens in very different ways for cows and rabbits, so "ruminates" is an equivocation. Now, Moses did not say rabbits are pure like ruminants, he said it doesn't matter they "ruminate" since they have feet divided into many toes, and so it still is impure.
But that rabbits do chew pellets from their anus and do not chew anything coming up from any stomach of four different ones, and that cows do have four stomachs, and chew semi-vomits from one of them, this is very clear from reason and experience, not mine, but people who have cut up cows or cut up rabbits, as butchers or for less creditable reasons.
That the Sun looks smaller than the Moon doesn't mean it is, or even is in actual comparison from earth, they are almost equal, as a solar eclipse will tell. Only the solar eclipse shows the Moon is smaller than the Sun, until you start doing trigonometry, from very far off points of observation, but it does show that.
But the one category which is not mentioned in above is "science". As I mentioned earlier, Polish wikipedia has a very good overview over St. Augustine's works, and one of them is / 386 Przeciw akademikom (Contra academicos; PL[46] 32,905-958; CSEL[47] 63; CCL[48] 29; BA 4[49]), przeł. K. Augustyniak, [w:] tenże, Dialogi filozoficzne, Kraków 1999 Znak FiR, s. 57-150. / And Academy, Peripatetics, Stoa, Epicureans, those were the schools that back then came closest to being "scientific communities" and therefore St. Augustine was most certainly not setting up any scientific community as the real test.
While our "scientific community" does claim its doctrines are certain from reason and experience, they are often on a very different level from rabbits and cows having different digestive systems, on which a Hebrew pun could construe an identity which isn't there. In other words, common sense, unlike that of the objector St. Augustine was thinking of, would not normally give them a status as "certain from reason and experience". Not normally - but sometimes preternormally, as in people attending by state compulsion a school system monitored ultimately by Dewey (even over in Europe).
I think this has some bearing on you Brett, since you have been in conflict with homeschooling parents:
Imagine my surprise, then, when a few Fridays ago I received an e-mail informing me that my work had been mentioned in a widely-disseminated electronic newsletter from a kind of self-appointed Catholic watchdog. As it turns out, the writer of this newsletter belongs to a homeschooling cooperative that had recently hired a biology teacher. The teacher, bless him, had shared my piece with the parents to put them at ease about his teaching of evolution to their Catholic children. This did not sit well with the watchdog who decided that a takedown of my piece would be of interest to his readers, several of whom forwarded it to me.
Well, obviously, the homeschooling cooperative had a reason to object, and object they did. And so sorry if none of the objection dealt with
the question of what the first life metabolized in order to go on living
and your having an answer to that. Some other objections to abiogenesis are really more important. Like, have you tried to produce phospholipids abiotically? Specifically in Miller Urey conditions? I have heard the answer of "Montmorillionite clay" having by itself, with no extra life, a tendency to produce such as a catalyst, but it is a fossile clay and its existence cannot be counted on in pre-biotic days. Also, how would any possible condition for getting phospholipids for a membrane coincide (or close enough) with the Miller Urey conditions to get very rudimentary amino acids? The amino acids break down quickly in Miller Urey conditions and can't be counted on to stay around for a million of years to when Montmorillionite clay fixes the day.
Now, it must be said, that the question of what the first life metabolized in order to go on living would be a pretty insightful question coming from a bright middle-schooler who is first being introduced to the idea of evolution (and abiogenesis in particular). But it does not function here as an honest question that seeks understanding. It is, rather, a “gotcha” question. It seeks neither truth, nor genuine engagement. It is triumphantly presented as self-evidently irrefutable, a dagger to the heart of evolution.
Yes, there are some who do hold as certain from reason and experience that abiogenesis doesn't function. There is a dagger in the heart of evolution, and stating this is not the least dishonest. Brett, you are living in a Confucian or Communist moral atmosphere, in which the only attitude to a teacher which is acceptable is "yes" or "what do you mean, exactly" and never "no" or "you would seem to be wrong". Catholics do not have this attitude to purely secular even clear knowledge. St. Thomas notably relished dealing with (and never minded five cents whether honest or not) any "gotcha" questions against theology, those are the things that start off the articles in the questions. At least in the more interesting ones, they are really given as "gotcha" arguments. In the Latin West, your indignation against a "gotcha" question as somehow "dishonest" is totally misplaced.
I'll not make this 113 footnotes long, so I'll end here. If you have any interest in any kind of objection to what I wrote, or think I missed sth really important, however dishonest or "gotcha" as long as it is an actual argument, fine, get back to me. Just one more thing, though: you have attributed to Catholic creationists a tactic of disgracing opponents, rather than arguing the points, you have taken some relish, as far as I can see, in doing the same.
I think what initially turned me off was the constant need, in creationist literature, to cast aspersions on the moral and intellectual character of “evolutionists.” Things were never presented as simply new findings of science that should be considered, or better interpretations of scientific data that challenge the regnant paradigm, as would be the case in any legitimate scientific dispute. Instead, they were couched in language that presumed those holding to the scientific consensus were at least duped, and in most cases themselves duplicitous. Evolution was not a mistake. It was not even a scientific theory that had outlived its usefulness. It was a lie.
That Coyne and some more act like liars who resolutely refuse to interact with real arguments from real opponents, like when a debate on his blog Pharyngula got blocked just where I was getting interesting, is a fact. Some vociferous evolutionists do act, if not in secret doubts for creationism, at least in some fairly obvious tactics of not considering the public ripe for the debate creationists give. That the lie exists is not really dubious for one who has followed the debate. But the point is, you are seemingly just as eager to denigrate your own opponents, supposedly your brothers in the Catholic faith, rather than actually argue any creation science / evolution science with them. If you wish to correct that, fine, I'll be here, if I can.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Zephyrinus, Pope and Martyr
26.VIII.2020
* Catholic Creationism as a Conspiracy Theory
by Brett Salkeld, May 13, 2020
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/catholic-creationism-as-a-conspiracy-theory/
** Creation vs. Evolution : What About the Fulcran Vigouroux Solution?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/what-about-fulcran-vigouroux-solution.html
*** MSN GROUP ANTIMODERNISM IN MEMORIAM : One group member promoted Hutchinson
http://antimodernisminmemoriam.blogspot.com/2014/03/one-group-member-promoted-hutchison.html
° Creation vs. Evolution : Is Dei Verbum a Young Earth Creationist Document?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/10/is-dei-verbum-young-earth-creationist.html
°° It disappeared after I wrote this:
Creation vs. Evolution : Was St Augustine against Literalism?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/10/was-st-augustine-against-literalism.html
In a PS of which I linked to a still functioning link from Holy Cross College.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire