This room is for discussion concerning issues related to what is commonly described as the "Traditional Catholic" movement in the Roman Rite and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.
Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius
Science Cannot Explain History: Errors of Big Bang Cosmology
- Date Preached: 2013-08-18
- Sermon length: 29 minutes 55 seconds
- File size: 10.3 MB
- Download Link: www.AudioSancto.org
- The preacher's name is withheld by his request -- click here for info.
- Short link: www.AudioSancto.org
I was wondering if you have ever heard of the Kolbe Center. They are a Catholic orginization that seeks to:
"The Kolbe Center aims to equip Catholic evangelists with a decisive advantage in the third millennium by rooting their apologetics in the true Catholic doctrine of creation, supported by sound arguments from theology, philosophy and natural science.
Once persuaded of the bankruptcy of molecules-to-man evolution and of
the reasonableness of special creation, the practical atheist will be
able to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the claims of the Catholic
Church." They are not a Traditional Catholic organization but they do want to restore the true Catholic Doctrine of Creation. So far what I have read on their website has been very informative and I'm trying to get a parish in my area to host a speaker from them. They have several topics they can speak about. I'm currently trying to get the evolution and culture of death seminar in my area. There website is www.kolbecenter.org .
Since the website does not seem to have the updated list of where he is scheduled to speak I've included it if anyone is interested and it is in their area.
September 18-19 - St. Pius X Parish, Mobile, Alabama
September 20-21- Christian Family Outreach, Morgan City, Louisiana
September 23 - Fisher-More College, Ft. Worth, Texas (TBA)
September 24 - Birmingham, Alabama (TBA)
September 27-28 - St. Joseph's Catholic Church, Chesterfield, Virginia
October 4 - Bay College Auditorium, Escanaba, Michigan, 7:00-9:00 p.m. (Dr. Joseph Strada and Hugh Owen)
October 5 - St. Joseph and St. Patrick Parish, Escanaba, Michigan, 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. (Dr. Joseph Strada and Hugh Owen)
October 6 - St. Stephen's Catholic Church, New Boston, Michigan, 3:00 p.m. (Dr. Joseph Strada and Hugh Owen)
October 11-12 - Wichita, Kansas (TBA)
October 13-19 - Regional Leaders' Training Seminar, Richmond, Missouri
October 19-21 - Iron Mountain, Michigan (TBA)
October 24-25 - Institute of the Incarnate Word, Rome, ItalyOctober 27 - London, England (TBA) (Greg Clovis and Hugh Owen)
November 1-10 - Ireland (TBA)
November 13 - St. Andrew's College, Scotland
December 6-7 - St. Benedict's Catholic Church, Chesapeake, Virginia
If you know of a parish, school, home-school cooperative or other Catholic (or non-Catholic) group that would be willing to host a presentation in any of the areas that I will be visiting, please let me know as soon as possible.
Here are just the few problems I noticed on one listen-through. (Quotes from the speaker are in italics.)
1. "The greater the redshift, the further away the galaxy." Second claim: "[Redshift] is related to the apparent brightness of a galaxy."
No, that's not right. Neither of those are right. Both of those claims are very, very wrong. The Doppler effect - which you've probably most frequently heard of in meteorological reports, yet are most familiar with from sirens on emergency vehicles (or train whistles) - deals with the change in a wave's frequency relative to the observer. If something emitting waves - an ambulance's siren, for example - is traveling towards you, the sound waves emitted from the siren will be compressed, leading to a higher-pitched siren. When it passes you and moves away from you, the sound waves are "stretched", leading to a lower-pitched siren. This is the Doppler effect, and this is where redshift and blueshift comes from. (The higher-pitched siren is a blueshifted sound wave, the lower-pitched siren is a redshifted sound wave. And yeah, blueshift is a thing, too. I have a theory as to why he didn't mention it in his speech.)
Light also travels in a wave, so it can also have a Doppler effect. This is how we can measure whether distant galaxies are moving away from the Milky Way - by measuring their redshift - or if they're moving towards the Milky Way - by measuring their blueshift. (Heads up: the Andromeda galaxy will collide with the Milky Way in about 4 billion years.)
2. The speaker has a problem with numbers. He keeps repeating an age of 15 billion years for the universe. Our best measurement for the age of the universe is 13.798 billion years, give or take 0.037 billion years. If you're going to try to debunk someone else's arguments, then you should do some research beforehand to make sure your facts are right. Also, at another section, he rounds 95.4% to 96%. In every math class I've ever taken, doing something like that would result in the teacher marking it wrong. Are we supposed to believe his commentary on the higher, more difficult sciences when he can't even display a solid grasp of basic mathematics?There's more that I could comment on, after about the 18' mark, but this is getting too long as it is. I'll wrap it up here.
3. "'If that's what the scientists tell us what happened, what's wrong with that?' What's wrong with that? There's plenty wrong with that." I guess we should ignore the Church's teaching of Christ, then, since we obviously should never listen to experts speaking about their area of expertise.
4. The dark matter topic. "Nobody [has] ever even seen cold dark matter or dark energy, they don't even know where to look for this stuff." Of course not! We haven't been able to build tools to help us see it yet. But this is how science works. We look at what we can see, and we see things that don't make sense but can't figure out why. So we throw together some theories as to why the strange thing happens, and then we build tools to test those theories. If all of those early theories fail, then we use those failures as the building blocks of new theories. There have been plenty of things that we've never been able to see but have concluded their existence through empirical experimentation - protons, neutrons, and electrons, for example. (Oh, and hey, look: we've finally managed to capture an image of an electron orbiting an hydrogen atom. It only took us about 250 years from hydrogen's discovery to be able to see its electron. www.foxnews.com )
5. On the cosmological constant topic, he attempted to claim that a 118-order-of-magnitude difference between expected values and measured values means science is wrong. He didn't even try to dispute anything, he just used this as a way to mock science and scientists. Actually, what this does is reinforce how science actually works. Scientist 1: "Based on what we know, the cosmological constant should be this value." Scientist 2: "Well, after taking a close look at it, it's actually this other value." Scientist 1: "How peculiar. Obviously there's something were were ignorant of and failed to take into account in our calculations. Let's find out what it was. To the Batcave!" (Okay, I'm kidding a bit there. Most scientists don't have a Batcave.)
6. "We don't have enough time to treat this theory with the contempt that it so richly deserves." Contempt for science. What did I say earlier? Luddite propaganda. I rest my case.
On a personal level, I'm very bothered by his constant repetition of the "bunko/malarkey" line. All I can think is that he's addressing people with no higher learning whatsoever, and he believes that they'll never actually understand his argument, so he must resort to sophomoric terminology in order to sway them emotionally towards his anti-science agenda. (And then there's his constant use of the term "close quotes" without ever citing who he's quoting at the start, or giving any indication that he's about to quote someone.)
In closing, I'd like to say one more thing. This speaker began his speech with a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas: "It is absolutely false...that what we believe regarding Creation is of no consequence so long as one has an exact conception concerning God, because an error regarding the nature of Creation always gives rise to a false idea of God." I suggest, then, using this quote that the speaker chose, that this person has a false idea of God. He has raised strawmen in the forms of inaccurate science, blatantly wrong science, and false representation of science. If he actually believes the nonsense he spoke, then he most certainly has errors regarding the nature of Creation.
St. Thomas Aquinas also said "To apply human intelligence to understand the world is not an affront to God but is pleasing to Him." The speaker in this recording is not using his intelligence to understand the world. He is using his intelligence to lead others astray - using the quote he chose, by leading others astray as regards the nature of Creation, he is giving them false ideas of God. As human beings, we produce experts for a reason. We need experts - people to focus on a given area of life - because not everyone can do everything. We produce experts in construction so that buildings can be made to endure earthquakes. We produce experts in the arts so that we can have beautiful images to look at and to raise our minds to God. We produce experts in farming so that we can have larger, healthier yields in crops. We produce experts in theology - by allowing those people to answer the calling that God is giving them - so that we can better know, love, and serve God in this life. And we produce experts in the sciences so that we can understand what God created for us to live in, and then, perhaps, to have an even greater awe towards Him. By completely dismissing scientific claims simply because those minds are blinded by their own intellects and refuse to believe in God, we do all of us a disservice, and we do God a disservice by refusing to make use of a method to honor Him - a method He chose to give us.
The big bang theory is our scientists' best explanation for how the universe came into existence. If this is the tool that God chose to use, who are we to say that He didn't? How can anyone say that His Fiat lux was not the reason the singularity exploded and became what we see today?
God created everything in its whole substance from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
(Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)
Genesis contains real historyit gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
Adam and Eve were real human beingsthe first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
Polygenism (many first parents) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6the one ancestor referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
The beginning of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adams body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been createdexcept for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings andall kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
The historical existence of Noahs Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
(Pius XII, Humani Generis)
Investigation into human evolution was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.
You bring up some interesting points, but I'd like to address your second point immediately and then perhaps discuss the others at a later time. In your second point you state that he seems to have a problem with numbers as he seems to jump from 95.4 to 96...
The problem with this point is that you are failing to realize the reality of what often happens when we speak with emotion. If we are referencing a number, especially when speaking passionately, we will often inaccurately round up or round down when we are trying to reiterate a point. I'm sure that you've done it when speaking with your friends, I know I have on more than one occasion. If you were giving a speech to a large crowd of people and referencing a percentage value that was slightly askew even after citing the original source accurately in a previous statement, would you consider it uncharitable if I didn't give you the benefit of the doubt? I'm certain you would, especially if it were a passionate speech. The larger point could not be fully discarded especially since you did your due diligence to find a credible source to back up your original argument. It would be best for me to put it within the larger context of the point you already made. Do you agree?
However, the topic covered in the audio was the big bang theory/cosmology, not evolution.
Chalk it up to a difference of personality. (I'm already anticipating that we're not going to convince each other of our side regarding this point, so I'll simply state how I perceive this.)
I don't believe that arguments should be made from emotion, but rather from reason. The heart is good at feeling, but terrible at thinking. (And vice versa.) Many times the worst decisions can be made when in the heat of emotion. Similarly, trying to persuade people when you're under strong emotions can have detrimental effects. Such as in this case. (That is, my opinion of the speaker dropped with each misstated value.)
If I were speaking and misstated a numerical value, I would expect to be called out on it so that I could correct that error and give it accurately in the future. Accuracy and precision are important in dialogue. Without that, meaning becomes muddy and understanding falls by the wayside.