Lopsided Review, Consolmagno

Guy Consolmagno was interviewed:

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION MASTER'S PROGRAM : Brother Guy Consolmagno, S.J., astronomer
https://scicom.ucsc.edu/publications/QandA/2008/consolmagno.html

Can a person take the Bible literally and still do good science?

That depends on what science they're doing. But it's a tricky answer, because in many cases, the creedal belief is something where you raise your hands and say, "Yes, I believe," as a form of membership in your church, your social group. For example, Science News had an article in 1996 — an interview with several creationists and pagans — which found a significant number of people who said, "Yes, the Earth was made 6,000 years ago," but who also said, "Dinosaurs roamed the world millions of years ago — oh yeah, I believe that." It means these statements have no mathematical significance to these people, because they don't think like techies do. But certainly there are devout evangelical Christians who are also very good scientists. Because they're scientists, they understand the problem of dinosaurs millions of years ago versus a young Earth, and they're careful to say they don't believe in the second idea.

Yes, I very much agree it is "hairbrained" to say yes to both "the Earth was made 6,000 years ago," and ""Dinosaurs roamed the world millions of years ago."

But what about those who also understand the problem of dinosaurs millions of years ago verses a young Earth and are careful to say they don't believe in the first idea?

What about those who do this without being scientists, professionally? What about those who do this as Catholics (all alternative Popes I looked into - Pope Michael whom I accept, Alexander IX who was apparently an internet media hoax (last update I heard on internet about him), Palmarian line (which I did accept) all of them are Young Earth Creationists and so are Dimond Brothers)?

Guy Consolmagno gave the impression, in order to be Biblical literalist, you have to be so "unscientific" you can't see the difference between an earth created thousands of years ago and an earth containing traces of beings who lived millions of years ago, as if no one who understood the difference opted for the former, you also need to be a scientist to see there is a contradiction, and you have to be Evangelical and for instance not Catholic to use the former even as a "credal statement".

What is not wrong with this?

You can be and many are Biblical literalists while seeing, as a scientist or for reasons of common sense and good attention (happens outside scientific community) that Young Earth Creationism and Deep Time contradict.

You can do it while being a scientist. And you can do it while being Roman Catholic. Except perhaps for those accepting the last three Popes that Consolmagno accepts : "John Paul II" - "Benedict XVI" - "Francis". Since these guys have basically started treating Deep Time as a near dogma.

Now, Consolmagno does admit to ignorance about Classics:

When I compare my knowledge of classical literature with that of intellectuals from a hundred years ago, like G. K. Chesterton, I'm ashamed of my ignorance.

Perhaps that should be used to take with a grain of salt what he says here:

How did [the earliest Christian scholars] read [the Bible]?

Oh, everything was symbolic. Their symbolism was stuff we would laugh at now.

While everything was symbol for something, everything was also literally true of something. Generally, everything was a symbol for something ... different. And literally true of ... itself. If you would really laugh at their symbolism, you are not in a position to say you agree with them, especially if also you are disagreeing with their literal truth of the Bible.

Why are there no "antipodes"? Because the Earth isn't round enough? No, "antipodes" does not like now mean opposite coordinates for the other place. I am in Paris, 48° 51' 52.9776'' North and 2° 20' 56.4504'' East (probably exact coordinates of Notre Dame, which is not where I am). We would by "antipodes" mean 48° 51' 52.9776'' SOUTH and 177° 39' 3.5496'' WEST (Southern part of the Pacific. St. Augustine would however have meant people there or around there who have their feet opposed to our feet. Why would he say that?

His reasons boil down to a combination of two:

• there is no other humanity than the one descending from Adam and Eve and from the eight on the Ark (who live on our hemisphere);
• he didn't think that men could have come to opposite coordinates and not gone back and told, so he did not think people would have arrived there from here.

The second reason is, apart from the exact antipodes of Paris or where he was in Hippo (also antipodes in South Pacific), that he was a landcrab and an idealist : he didn't reckon oceanic currents could make the return voyage impossible with ships at hand and he didn't reckon people could have criminal or similar reasons to not want to come back even if they could. Like, considering the manslaughter in the name of certain Pre-Columbian religions, this was a hazardous guess on that side too.

But the reason for the first reason is, St. Augustine was taking perfectly literally the words of Genesis 10:32 These are the families of Noe, according to their peoples and nations. By these were the nations divided on the earth after the flood. He took this as excluding positively any other men of any other (back in that generation) origin. And he could only do that because he was taking the story of Genesis 10:32 as literal history.

I think Consolmagno is as ignorant of Patristics as he is of the classics that Chesterton knew better than he. And sorry, explaining "the significance of a three-sigma deviation from the norm" really isn't comparable, as that is only valuable for a very narrow class. While knowing that Aeneas came from Troy to near whereabouts of Rome is valuable not just for those required to have Classic education (as both civil and clerical and military servants once were) but for anyone both enjoying a true story and being curious of true origins, and that is most of us.

But as Consolmagno bviously does know what a three-sigma deviation from the norm is, would he kindly for a moment treat as "norm" that 2957 BC (year of the Flood) is carbon dated typically to 40 000 BP. Would he then, from there, ask whether the dating of the "Laschamps event" constitutes a "three-sigma" or a lesser deviation from that norm?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Third Day of Easter
6.IV.2021

PS, next Tuesday (one week later), Consolmagno has not replied./HGL