NY Times Spins the Pope and Evolution: Robert Bennett, Ph.D. Comments
Robert Bennett is the co-author of Galileo Was Wrong and a member of the advisory council of the Kolbe Center for the study of Creation.
Quotes from New York Times, September 2, 2006, Ian Fischer. Responses from Robert Bennett, Ph.D.
But now the professor, once called Joseph Ratzinger, has become Pope Benedict XVI. And this year, for three days beginning Friday, the topic on the table is evolution, an issue perched on the ever more contentious front between science and belief.
And so the questions rise as the meeting unfolds at a papal palace just outside Rome. Is this merely another yearly seminar? Or is the leader of the world’s billion Roman Catholics signaling that he may join in earnest the emotional debate over evolution, intelligent design and all that might mean for politics and faith, especially in the United States?
There is no way to know immediately, though many church experts believe that the pope has fewer problems with the science of evolution than with its use to wipe God more cleanly from a secular world. No document will be published afterward, no news conference given.
But the seminar comes after a year particularly fraught over the issue of evolution, in America — with the fight over intelligent design — and in the church. Last year a leading cardinal, who will speak at the meeting, expressed doubts that Darwinism and Catholicism were compatible, and the pope declared the creation of the universe an “intelligent project.”
And so scientists and believers from around the world, on all sides of an extraordinarily charged debate, are watching the meeting carefully.
Proponents of intelligent design, defeated in a high-profile court case last year in Pennsylvania, say they are pleased that their ideas, which posit that life is so complex that it requires an active creator, may get a fair hearing in the lofty circles of Professor Ratzinger’s seminars.
“I think this is indicative of an opening and expansion of the discussion, the discussion over Darwinism and evolution generally,” said Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute, one of the main proponents of intelligent design. “It’s very helpful to our desire to see an expanded dialogue in many quarters.”
On the other side, scientists and theologians who support evolution say they worry that, even inadvertently, the church may be driving a wedge between itself and science.
“If for some reason the Catholic Church gets on the wrong side of the science, then it’s going to in the long term do huge damage, just as it did when they went against Galileo,” said Lawrence M. Krauss, chairman of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University and a highly visible opponent of intelligent design. “It threatened their credibility.”
So the devil's drumbeat continues : the modernist claims of credibility invariably return to the strawman of Galileo vs. geocentrism. One can take it to be the logo of modernism, its defining mark and the signature stamp of the demon, the bludgeon by which orthodox dissent is beaten into silence.
“Because like it or not,” he added, “evolution happened.”
Technically, by using lower case 'church', Fisher could be referring to any religious congregation, not the Church. A convenient ambiguous out, but inconsistent with common usage.
Similarly, the church has moved from neutrality to something like acceptance of evolutionary theory, though drawing a thick bottom line that God is the ultimate creator.
In 1996, Pope John Paul declared evolution “more than a hypothesis,” and in 2004 as Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict endorsed the scientific view that the earth is roughly four billion years old and that species changed through evolution. Indeed, there has been no credible scientific challenge to the idea that evolution, the foundation of modern biology, explains the diversity of life on earth.
The deceptive art of the NYTimes is seen clearly in the last sentence. Is this thought that of the two popes that preceed it? Only a phrase from the popes is directly quoted, out of context.
Is this falsehood the interpretation of the reporter, placed so as to imply it reflects papal thinking?
Quotes from New York Times, September 2, 2006, Ian Fischer. Responses from Robert Bennett, Ph.D.
Professor-Turned-Pope Leads a Seminar on Evolution
They meet every year, the eminent German professor and his old doctoral students, for a weekend of high-minded talk on a chosen topic. For years it was nothing more than that.
But now the professor, once called Joseph Ratzinger, has become Pope Benedict XVI. And this year, for three days beginning Friday, the topic on the table is evolution, an issue perched on the ever more contentious front between science and belief.
And so the questions rise as the meeting unfolds at a papal palace just outside Rome. Is this merely another yearly seminar? Or is the leader of the world’s billion Roman Catholics signaling that he may join in earnest the emotional debate over evolution, intelligent design and all that might mean for politics and faith, especially in the United States?
[Robert Bennett] The topic was chosen by the seminar participants last year, with the Pope's concurrence, of course. If there is any 'signaling' being done, it's by them, not the Pope.
There is no way to know immediately, though many church experts believe that the pope has fewer problems with the science of evolution than with its use to wipe God more cleanly from a secular world. No document will be published afterward, no news conference given.
But the seminar comes after a year particularly fraught over the issue of evolution, in America — with the fight over intelligent design — and in the church. Last year a leading cardinal, who will speak at the meeting, expressed doubts that Darwinism and Catholicism were compatible, and the pope declared the creation of the universe an “intelligent project.”
And so scientists and believers from around the world, on all sides of an extraordinarily charged debate, are watching the meeting carefully.
Proponents of intelligent design, defeated in a high-profile court case last year in Pennsylvania, say they are pleased that their ideas, which posit that life is so complex that it requires an active creator, may get a fair hearing in the lofty circles of Professor Ratzinger’s seminars.
[Robert Bennett] Will the seminarians be pleased that ID pleads ignorance on the Designer's identity?
“I think this is indicative of an opening and expansion of the discussion, the discussion over Darwinism and evolution generally,” said Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute, one of the main proponents of intelligent design. “It’s very helpful to our desire to see an expanded dialogue in many quarters.”
On the other side, scientists and theologians who support evolution say they worry that, even inadvertently, the church may be driving a wedge between itself and science.
[Robert Bennett] There can be no wedge between the true Church and true science, only between that Church and modernist science. (see Fides et Ratio). Unfortunately the modern Church and the science of modernism are very comfortable with each other.
“If for some reason the Catholic Church gets on the wrong side of the science, then it’s going to in the long term do huge damage, just as it did when they went against Galileo,” said Lawrence M. Krauss, chairman of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University and a highly visible opponent of intelligent design. “It threatened their credibility.”
[Robert Bennett] Dr. Krauss was a leader of the modernists screaming for a papal correction of Cardinal Schoenborn's NYTimes article which seemed to support creationism. Since then Vatican damage control has acceded to his wishes.
But the evolution issue is obviously still seen as a threat to the accommodation of the Church to mod sci.
But the evolution issue is obviously still seen as a threat to the accommodation of the Church to mod sci.
So the devil's drumbeat continues : the modernist claims of credibility invariably return to the strawman of Galileo vs. geocentrism. One can take it to be the logo of modernism, its defining mark and the signature stamp of the demon, the bludgeon by which orthodox dissent is beaten into silence.
[Mark Wyatt: Note that Dr. Krauss was also a source for Dru Sefton's little rampage against Robert Sungenis]
“Because like it or not,” he added, “evolution happened.”
[Robert Bennett] A firm and unquestioned tenet of the Constantly Revised Modernist Church - CRMC
The meeting opened Friday morning at Castel Gandolfo, a papal palace that stands as a sort of symbol for the church’s coexistence with science. Castel Gandolfo houses a world-class observatory — with a telescope that Pope John Paul II enjoyed looking through — built a century after the church acknowledged its mistake in condemning Galileo for his postulation that planets revolve around the sun.
[Robert Bennett] As this is the NY Times speaking, my friends say it must be the truth. But does anyone recall this acknowledgment or its date?
Technically, by using lower case 'church', Fisher could be referring to any religious congregation, not the Church. A convenient ambiguous out, but inconsistent with common usage.
Similarly, the church has moved from neutrality to something like acceptance of evolutionary theory, though drawing a thick bottom line that God is the ultimate creator.
[Robert Bennett] That bottom line seems to be getting thinner every day.
In 1996, Pope John Paul declared evolution “more than a hypothesis,” and in 2004 as Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict endorsed the scientific view that the earth is roughly four billion years old and that species changed through evolution. Indeed, there has been no credible scientific challenge to the idea that evolution, the foundation of modern biology, explains the diversity of life on earth.
[Robert Bennett] More of the stock weapons of modernism are displayed, treating papal opinions as dogmatic dictates by "natural selection" of two of their voluminous public statements.
The deceptive art of the NYTimes is seen clearly in the last sentence. Is this thought that of the two popes that preceed it? Only a phrase from the popes is directly quoted, out of context.
Is this falsehood the interpretation of the reporter, placed so as to imply it reflects papal thinking?
Given that history, scientists and church experts say they cannot imagine the study session ending with any alignment of the pope or the church with intelligent design or American-style creationism, which often posits that Earth is only about 6,000 years old...
[Robert Bennett] Elimination of creation consideration as a possibility is attempted by the pre-emptive statement implying its acceptance is unimaginable.
posted by Mark Wyatt at Monday, September 04, 2006
14 Comments:
It doesn't really matter, being as this has no relevance to Catholicism anyway
Did Pope Pius XII support evolutionary theory?
The following is the extract from Catholic Church and evolution, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
“In the 1950 encyclical humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.”
Let’s analyze the above paragraph as below:
The phrase, Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God, as mentioned above gives us the truth of God’s direct involvement in creation of individual soul. As the phrase, there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, is mentioned before the phrase, PROVIDED that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation of God, it gives us the conclusion that Paul Pius XII only supported evolutionary theory provided that it supports individual soul was a direct creation of God. However, evolutionary theory does not support individual soul was the direct creation of God. Instead, it supports that God only assisted in the evolution instead of He created individual soul by Himself directly. Indeed, evolution assumes material force, i.e. natural selection, that causes one animal to be transformed into another.
As the phrase, provided that, has been stressed before the phrase, Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces (natural selection), it gives us a conclusion that Paul only encourages Christians to believe in evolution on the condition if it supports that God was a direct creator of individual soul, and that each of the creation was not the result of the product or the end-result of purely material force, such as, natural selection that drove the animals to be transformed.
As evolutionary theory does not support a direct creation from God and that it supports that it was the end-result of purely material force, such as, natural selection that drove animals to transform, Paul Pius XII did not call Christians to support evolutionary theory.
Paul Pius XII only called Christians to support evolutionary theory only if the teaching supports that it was God that created individual soul. Besides, they have to support that the existence of individual soul was not the product of material force but God’s direct creation.
Nevertheless, Paul Pius XII did not support evolutionary theory since this teaching does not support God’s direct creation. Besides, this teaching supports the end-result of evolution was the product of material force, such as, natural selection, that drove animals to transform.
Despite Pope Pius XII did not forbid evolutionary theory, he treated it to be the new erroneous philosophy.
The following are the extracts from the speech of Pope Pius XII at St. Peter’s (Rome) on 12th August 1950:
Pope Pius XII: “5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that EVOLUTION, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.”
6. SUCH fictitious tenets of EVOLUTION which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, HAVE PAVED THE WAY FOR THE NEW ERRONEOUS PHILOSOPHY which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above and observe those letters that are placed in capital letters. As the phrase, evolution…have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy, is mentioned above, it implies that he treated evolutionary doctrine to be misleading and erroneous. As evolution was treated by Pope Pius XII to be the new erroneous philosophy, he did not treat it to be the truth of God.
Pope Pius XII followed his speech: “8. IN ALL THIS CONFUSION OF OPINION it is some consolation to Us to see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly they accept the word of God, so much the more do they diminish the value of human reason, and the more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.”
Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above. The phrase, In all this confusion of opinion, as mentioned above should refer to his speech as mentioned earlier pertaining to his thought of evolution. The phrase, In all this confusion of opinion, as mentioned above, gives us the impression that he treated evolution to be full of confusion.
Pope Pius XII followed his speech: “9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, CANNOT AFFORD TO IGNORE OR NEGLECT THESE MORE OR LESS ERRONEOUS OPINIONS. Rather they must come to understand THESE SAME THEORIES well, both because DISEASES ARE NOT PROPERLY TREATED unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in THESE FALSE THEORIES a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.”
Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above. As the phrase, cannot afford to ignore…these…erroneous opinions, is mentioned above, it implies that he demanded Christians to be alert and beware of these erroneous opinions instead of ignoring them to let it has the influence upon the Church. The phrase, these false theories, gives the implication that he treated evolutionary theory to be a false theory and should not be treated as part of the truth of God.
Pope Pius XII followed his speech: “10. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that CATHOLIC TEACHERS generally AVOID THESE ERRORS, it is apparent, however, that SOME TODAY, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and FEARING TO BE CONSIDERED IGNORANT OF RECENT SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS, TRY TO WITHDRAW THEM FROM THE SACRED TEACHING AUTHORITY and are accordingly in danger of gradually DEPARTING FROM REVEALED TRUTH and of drawing others along with them into error.”
Comment upon the speech of Pope Pius XII as listed above. As the phrase, Catholic teachers…avoid these errors, is mentioned above, it implies that Catholic teachers should avoid these errors especially evolution had been treated by him as the new erroneous philosophy. As the phrase, some today…fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, is mentioned before the phrase, departing from…truth, it implies that he treated some people that involved in evolution (recent findings) to be those people that depart from the truth of God.
Pope Pius XII followed his speech by: “36. For these reasons THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF 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 - for the CATHOLIC FATIH obliges us to HOLD that SOULS ARE IMMEDIATELY CREATED BY GOD. 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.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”
As the phrase, the teaching authority of church does not forbid…the doctrine of evolution, is mentioned above, it implies that Paul Pius XII did not interfere the doctrine of evolution despite he treated it as new erroneous philosophy.
As the phrase, souls are immediately created by God, is mentioned above, it implies that he supported that Catholic faith should be based on the concept that all souls are immediately created by God. This teaching certainly contradicts evolutionary theory that teaches that all souls could not be created immediately by God but it would take many years to evolve so as to come into being. Besides, evolutionary theory supports that God do not create directly all souls but have assisted in the process of evolution. This concept is certainly wrong since it implies that God do not involve in the creation of souls but to stand aside just to assist them to be formed. A question has to be raised. Did God create the souls personally or He just stood aside to assist their formation?
Nevertheless, Paul Pius XII did not support that evolutionary theory is the truth of God despite he did not forbid its teaching.
The discrepancies between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth:
The scriptural verses about the beginning of the earth:
Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
Genesis 1:9-10, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”
As the phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that the earth was initially covered with water.
As the phrase, let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies that land should appear lately. If the land should appear first, there should not be any reason for the scripture to mention with the phrase, let the dry land appear. Besides, it would not be possible for the scripture to mention with the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, if the land should have appeared before the existence of sea. Even if one might assume that land and sea water would coexist in the beginning in the creation of the earth, why should the scripture mention with the phrase, Let the dry land appear, as if that there was no land initially on earth?
The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/timeline.html , pertaining to the evolution of the earth:
4650 mya: Formation of chondrules in the Solar Nebula
- 4567 mya: Formation of the Solar System
Sun was only 70% as bright as today.
- 4500 mya: Formation of the Earth.
- 4450 mya: The Moon accretes from fragments
of a collision between the Earth and a planetoid;
Moon's orbit is beyond 64,000 km from the Earth.[33]
EARTH DAY IS 7 HOUR’S LONG[34]
- Earth's original hydrogen and helium atmosphere
escapes Earth's gravity.
- 4455 mya: Tidal locking causes one side
of the Moon to face the Earth permanently.[30]
- 3900 mya: Cataclysmic meteorite bombardment.
The Moon is 282,000 km from Earth.[34]
EARTH DAY IS 14.4 HOURS LONG[34]
- Earth's atmosphere becomes mostly
carbon dioxide, water vapor,
methane, and ammonia.
- Formation of carbonate minerals starts
reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
- There is no geologic record for the Hadean Eon.
My comment: As listed above, the earth day was 7 hour’s long in 4450 mya and yet in 3000 mya, its speed reduced to 14.4 hour’s long per earth day. Thus, the spinning speed of the earth was super fast prior to 4450 mya since it took 7 hour’s long to finish its full day. In such a high speed, all the substances, such as, sea water, would fly out of the sky. Or in other words, sea water should not be in existence in beginning of the evolution of the earth.
As listed above also, earth’s orginal hydrogen and helium atmosphere would escape from the earth’s gravity in 4450 mya. Considering the environmental condition if the whole earth was filled with water, it is impossible for the earth to emit hydrogen and helium when the land was covered fully with water.
Besides, the rapid spinning of the earth in 7 hour’s long prior to 4450 mya would cause sea water to fly out of the earth.
The above show the contradiction between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth.
Was the earth formed through several destructions that were brought forth by volcanoes, meteorites and etc.? Does it differ from scriptural point of view?
Scriptural verses about the creation of the earth:
Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
Genesis 1:9-10, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”
The phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, in Genesis 1:2, implies that the scripture supports that the earth was initially covered with water. As the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together…and let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies the appearance of land lately. Thus, the scripture supports that the land was not visible on the surface of the earth since it was covered with water.
As the scripture mentions that the earth was covered with water, it is unlikely that volcanoes could be visible at that time since they should be under the sea water. As all the mountains were in the sea as mentioned in Genesis 1:2, how could the earth be under-attacked by volcanoes? As all the lands were in the sea water as mentioned in the scripture, how could the earth be under-attacked by meteorites? This is by virtue of meteorites would simply drop into the sea without any strong impact upon the land of the earth.
The following is the extract from the website, http://www.universetoday.com/76509/how-was-the-earth-formed/ , in which contradiction has been found against the scripture:
‘This first eon in which the Earth existed is what is known as the Hadean period, named after the Greek word “Hades” (underworld) which refers to the condition of the planet at the time. During this time, the Earth’s surface was under a continuous bombardment by meteorites, and volcanism is believed to be severe due to the large heat flow and geothermal gradient. Outgassing and volcanic activity produced the primordial atmosphere. Condensing water vapor, augmented by ice delivered by comets, accumulated in the atmosphere and cooled the molten exterior of the planet to form a solid crust and produced the oceans. This period ended roughly 3.8 years ago with the onset of the Archean age, by which time, the Earth had cooled significantly and primordial life began to evolve.’
Scientific evolution of the earth contradicts the scriptural view of God’s creation:
The following is the extract from the website, http://www.bobthealien.co.uk/earthform.htm, under the subtitle, Four billion years ago, seems to support the presence of the sun prior to the formation of the earth:
‘This is an artist's impression of what Earth looked like 4 BILLION YEARS AGO. The planet has no oxygen in its atmosphere and no ozone layer, so poisonous ULTRAVIOLET RAYS FROM THE SUN HIT THE SURFACE DIRECTLY….”
The website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/earth_formed ., under the heading, THE EARTH FORMS, seems to imply the simultaneous formation of the sun and the earth:
‘THE EARTH IS thought to have been FORMED about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that ALSO FORMED THE SUN. Gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps that became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals. These objects collided repeatedly and gradually got bigger, building up the planets in the Solar System, including the Earth’
My comment: Genesis 1:3-5, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” (King James Version)
Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”
Genesis 1:3-5 should undoubtedly refer to the creation of sun since the phrase, God divided the light the darkness, is mentioned in Genesis 1:4. As Genesis 1:4, the creation of sun, is mentioned after Genesis 1:2, the creation of the earth, it implies that the sun only existed after the creation of the earth. Even if some would assume that the creation of sun should fall within day four, the creation of sun was still treated to be after the creation of the earth since Genesis 1:2, the creation of the earth, is mentioned before the day four.
Some might argue that the arrangement of creation in Genesis 1 should not be in sequential order. However, there is no reason to assume that the scripture would support the sun could be created prior to the earth since the phrase, the earth was…darkness….upon the face of the deep, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2. The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2 implies the absence of light on earth. As long as there was sunlight on earth, the entire darkness on earth should not be present. As the word, darkness, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies the non-existence of sun or else the earth should be filled with some brightness. Thus, the scripture supports the sun was created after the earth and yet scientific evolution supports otherwise. Besides, the arrangement of creation in Genesis 1 should be in sequential order.
The following is the extract from the website, http://www.mcwdn.org/MAPS&GLOBES/Earth.html, to support the earth was a ball of white gases with extreme heat:
‘The earth was formed in the same way as the sun, planets, stars. At first the earth was a hot glowing ball of white hot gases with a temperature that was millions of degrees Fahrenheit. This was caused by particles of gases being drawn together and compressed, giving off a lot of heat. This happened millions of years ago.’
My comment: Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon THE FACE OF WATERS.”
Genesis 1:9, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.”
As the phrase, the face of waters, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that the earth was initially filled with water. As the earth was covered with water initially, it would be impossible for the earth to emit gases since all its lands were under water.
It is irrational to assume that active volcanoes might erupt in the water or the earth could be in molten stage. This is by virtue of any of these disasters would cause the earth to be shone with brightness especially the presence of larva. The word, darkness, as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 rejects the possibility of the earth in molten stage or the presence of eruption from volcanoes.
The following is the extract from the ninth paragraph of the website, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/28/starsgalaxiesandplan... :
‘Early Earth was a very different place to the planet we inhabit today. Initially the planet didn't have a crust, mantle and core, and instead all the elements were evenly mixed. There were no oceans nor continents and no atmosphere. Meteorite collisions, radioactive decay and planetary compression made Earth become hotter and hotter. After a few hundred million years the temperature of Earth reached 2,000C - the melting point of iron - and Earth's core was formed.’
My comment: As Genesis 1:2 supports that the whole earth was covered with water, it opposes scientific evolution of earth that supports the non-existence of ocean.
As Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was filled with darkness and water, it is impossible for the earth to become hotter due to the absence of sign that the earth was in molten stage or the sign of larva from the eruption of volcanoes. The presence of eruption of volcanoes or the earth in molten stage would cause some brightness on the earth.
The following is the extract from the twenty second paragraph under the heading, How our earth was formed (Apr, 1923), from the website, http://blog.modernmechanix.com/how-our-earth-was-formed/ :
It- is reasonably certain that the earth at first was very hot, hot enough to be molten all the way through. Its surface was a sea of melted rock in which great flaming tides hundreds of feet high raced twice daily around the globe. Gradually the rock grew cooler. It hardened. After awhile there was a solid surface crust. And slowly, after many millions of years, this crust grew cool enough for water to collect in hollows on it and to stay there. The first oceans were formed.
My comment: As Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was in darkness, it is irrational to support that the earth was in molten stage due to the absence of sign of brightness on earth.
The doctrine of evolution contradicts the books of New Testament:
Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings in the past, many of them would evolve into human beings at that time. There is no reason to assume that there would only be one man to be evolved from evolution if the environmental condition would turn up to be suitable for apes to evolve. If human beings flourished in the past were the result of the evolution of many apes, the origin of human beings could not be traced back to one man, i.e. Adam. The sin of Adam would not affect all human races if their forefathers could not trace back to him but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22 mention that all fall into sin by one man? Thus, the doctrine of evolution does contradict Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22.
The following are the extracts:
Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
If human beings were evolved from apes, did Jesus die for apes also as they were the forefathers of human beings? Why should Jesus Christ not die for apes when human beings were evolved from them?
Was Eve formed from Adam?
Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
If 1 Timothy 2:13 should be interpreted literally, why shouldn’t Genesis 2:21-23 be interpreted the same literally since both of them agree that Adam was formed prior to the existence of Eve?
Besides, there should not be any reason for 1 Timothy 2:14 to mention the word, Adam, if this word in the book of Genesis should not be interpreted literally. As the word, Adam, is mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:14, the book of Genesis should be interpreted literally instead of treating it to be a non-existing event. The following is the extract:
1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
If the first human beings were not made by God but evolved through nature, why should the word, made, be mentioned in Matthew 19:4?
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Miller and Harold Urey did successfully create non-life organic compounds through experiments in year 1950s. The successful creation of non-life organic compounds does not provide the evidence that lively creatures could be evolved from non-life object. This is simply due to they failed to create lively organic compounds previously. Thus, it is not justifiable for any scientists to use them as an excuse that lively unicellular organisms could be evolved from non-life object.
The following is the extract from the website, http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/courses/v1001/7.html , under the subtitle, VI. LIFE EVOLVES :
'Such experiments have been repeated many times and it is clear that it is easy to make many complex organic compounds BUT NONE OF THESE SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS PRODUCED EVEN THE BASICS OF LIFE.So have scientists managed to produce life from non-life? Many have tried, but no experiment has succeeded. A scientist called Stanley Miller made an attempt at this and claimed that he had succeeded. However a closer look at his experiment shows that even he did not succeed (for more info on Stanley Miller’s experiment click here.This was shown in the famous Miller-Urey experiments done in the 1950's.'
The same is mentioned in the third paragraph from the website, http://www.findtheanswer.net/whataboutevolution/waechemicallife.php :
'So have scientists managed to produce life from non-life? Many have tried, but no experiment has succeeded. A scientist called STANLEY MILLER MADE AN ATTEMPT at this and claimed that he had succeeded. However A CLOSER LOOK AT HIS EXPERIMENT shows that even HE DID NOT SUCCEED (for more info on Stanley Miller’s experiment click here.'
Big Bang Theory contradicts the teaching of the scripture.
The following are the extracts from the website, http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html :
‘About 400 million years after the Big Bang, the universe began to emerge from the cosmic dark ages during the epoch of reionization. During this time, which lasted more than a half-billion years, clumps of gas collapsed enough to form the first stars and galaxies, whose energetic ultraviolet light ionized and destroyed most of the neutral hydrogen.
Although the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity, about 5 or 6 billion years after the Big Bang, a mysterious force now called dark energy began speeding up the expansion of the universe again, a phenomenon that continues today.
A little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang, our solar system was born.’
My comment: The stars were formed about 400 million years after the Big Bang and yet our earth was formed a little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang.
Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
As the phrase, darkness was upon the face of the deep, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that there was no light on earth. If stars were created at that time, starlight would still be visible at that time especially the sea water would reflect the starlight from the sky.
The following is the extract from the website, http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html, that states that stars do give off light:
‘Stars do give off light, that's why we can see them far away. The Sun, which is just an ordinary star, gives off the light that allows life to exist on Earth. Stars give off light the same way the filament in a light bulb does. Anything that is hot will glow. Cool stars glow red, stars like the Sun glow yellow, and really hot stars glow white or even blue-white.’
As stars could give off light by themselves and yet the earth was filled with water initially as mentioned in Genesis 1:2, the sea water would reflect the starlight and would cause the earth no longer to be in darkness if stars would be assumed to be created prior to the formation of the earth. The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2, implies the absence of light especially the starlight in the sea that reflects the light from stars in the sky. As the scripture mentions with the word, darkness, there is no reason to assume that stars could exist in Genesis 1:2 at the presence of the earth or else the sea water would not be in darkness instead, there should be many spots of starlight. Or in other words, the scripture places the stars’ creation to be in Genesis 1:16 after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:2, should be considered in sequential order since the stars should be created after the formation of the earth or else the earth would not be in darkness as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 since it would reflect the starlight. However, the Big Bang Theory supports the reverse and that is stars should be formed prior to the formation of the earth.
Both Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory support that this entire universe would take billion years to be formed and yet the scripture supports a short while.
What did the scripture describe about the timeframe of God’s creation?
Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (King James Version)
Psalms 33:7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
Psalms 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
The phrase, By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, as mentioned above implies that the heavens were created at the time of His speech. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 implies that the creation of heaven was speedy so much so that the heaven was created at the time of His speech.
Let’s link up Psalm 33:6 and 33:9 with Genesis 1:1, it would come to the conclusion that God should have created the heaven and the earth speedily in Genesis 1:1 since, at His speech, the heaven and the earth stood fast and they were created in the beginning of the first day.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Big Bang Theory supports the heavens have not been finished in its evolution since they support that they are still in construction currently that have led to current view of speedily expansion of this universe. Or in other words, Big Bang Theory supports the unceasing generation of new planets as well as the extension of the universe. The scripture supports otherwise since the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9. As the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9, it implies that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was on construction or on evolution, He had not finished His creation of heavens and that would have led to the current expansion of the universe as a result of His continuous work in construction of the heavens by expansion and forming more new planets. Nevertheless, the scripture supports that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech.
The phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, in Psalms 33:6 implies whatever things that were in this heaven were created by His spoken words. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 refers the same that all the host of them, such as, stars and living creatures, were created instantaneously at the time of His speech.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. When Genesis 1:3 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be the light stood fast on the first day.
When Genesis 1:6 has been read with Psalms 33:7 and Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the division of water, such as, ocean or clouds or whatever, was created speedily at the time of His speech and this fell on the second day.
Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
When Genesis 1:9 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the land appeared on earth speedily after His speech on the third day.
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
When Genesis 1:11 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that all the plants were created instantaneously at the time when God has finished His speech on day three.
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
The instantaneous creation of all living things should apply the same throughout Genesis 1 since the phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, is mentioned in Psalms 33:6. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was in construction or evolution, He did not have the power to create things instantaneously at the time of His speech but would take ample time, i.e. million or billion years to accomplish His creation.
From the above explanations, it would come to conclusion that God had created the heavens and the earth within six days literally and they were done but Big Bang supports the heavens have not been finished their construction and that has led their assumption of the continuous expansion of the universe currently. If the heavens were not done in their creation, they need further construction work so as to expand. If the heavens were done in their creation in the beginning, current movement of galaxies away from the earth does not imply God has not finished His construction. Instead, it implies the movement of galaxies in which this universe could be created already in infinity.
Is God omnipotent?
Revelation 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
Post a Comment
<< Home