Creation? Age of Earth?

[olorin12]

Questions for Geremia:

First, I found this page from Alan Aversa's site (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/). Am I correct in assuming that you are the same person?

If so, I noticed that you have a strong scientific background, and you seem to be a very orthodox strict Thomist. I have noticed that some other Thomists believe in theistic evolution (Dominicans at Providence College), some believe in a sort of 'progressive creationism' (Fr Michael Chaberek OP, Fr Paul Robinson SSPX), and some believe in a young-earth creationism (Kolbe Centre, Fr Ripperger).

May I ask what you hold to on this issue?
And what books and other resources you would recommend to someone studying the issue?

Thank you.

[Geremia]

May I ask what you hold to on this issue?

Fr. Ripperger's position is the best. Have you read his Metaphysics of Evolution or seen his lectures?

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., in a handful of his works succinctly argues against evolution from a corollary of the principle that one cannot give what one does not have (6.21 Nemo dat quod non habet.): the more perfect cannot come from the lesser perfect.
Essence & Topicality of Thomism pt. 1 §3 fn. 33:

Some teach more or less explicitly that the material world would naturally evolve toward the spiritual, or that likewise the spiritual world would evolve naturally or quasi-naturally toward the supernatural order, as if Baius had been right. The world would be thereby in natural evolution toward the fullness of Christ; it would be in continual progress and hence would not have been able to be in the beginning in the perfect state of original justice followed by a fall, namely, original sin; such evolutionism, which recalls that of Hegel, mutates the substance of dogma itself.

Also, have you read Creation Rediscovered?

[olorin12]

Thank you.

I haven't read any of those. I'll have to purchase them. Fr Ripperger's position is basically that of the Kolbe Centre, is it not? And they are young-earth creationists, correct?

I already do not believe in 'macro-evolution'. My position is either young-earth or old-earth (progressive) creationism. For me, it depends on the age of the universe/earth. I'm most interested in the physics/astrophysics and geology involved in determining the age of the universe/earth. Does the book you linked cover that? Are there any other works you know of that address these issues specifically?

God bless.

[Geremia]

Fr Ripperger's position is basically that of the Kolbe Centre

What's the Kolbe Center's "official position"? What does Hugh Owen personally think?

Are there any other works you know of that address these issues specifically?

Check out Fr. Victor Warkulwiz, M.S.S., Ph.D.

[olorin12]

Ah I thought you'd be familiar with the Kolbe Centre.

You can find them at kolbecentre.org

They are a Catholic young-earth creationist organisation. Fr Warkulwiz was an advisor before his death in 2019, according to their site. Fr Ripperger is featured in their 'Foundations Restored' DVD series, so I figured that he'd have the same positions as they do.

Thank you for the links to the books, I'll check them out.

[Geremia]

I thought you'd be familiar with the Kolbe Centre.

I am familiar with them. I wouldn't call them a "young-earth creationist"; that's a Protestant movement.

Pontifical Biblical Commission, June 30, 1909:

8. The Word Yôm (day), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken either in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time: and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters.  Answer: Yes.

Fr Ripperger is featured in their 'Foundations Restored' DVD series

I saw the first two parts that were free. The whole series seems good.

[Kephapaulos]

Pontifical Biblical Commission, June 30, 1909:

8. The Word Yôm (day), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken either in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time: and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters.  Answer: Yes.

Does this have to do with St. Augustine's thoughts about the six days being contemplations of the angels? Or does it have to do with the Fathers and Doctors having various interpretations? Generally, would not the Church have simply taught a literal six days as argued by the Kolbe Center? Perhaps we will see that be defined someday as such.

[olorin12]

I wouldn't call them a "young-earth creationist"; that's a Protestant movement.

I just listened to an interview with Hugh Owen, and a presentation by Pamela Acker who is an advisor to the KC. They promote the idea that the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old - I don't know what else you would call that.

Does this have to do with St. Augustine's thoughts about the six days being contemplations of the angels? Or does it have to do with the Fathers and Doctors having various interpretations? Generally, would not the Church have simply taught a literal six days as argued by the Kolbe Center? Perhaps we will see that be defined someday as such.

I have seen some argue that this leaves open the possibility of viewing the days in Genesis as being millions of years. When I was a Lutheran, they argued that Yôm only carried the meaning of a natural 24-hour day.

[Geremia]

St. Augustine's thoughts about the six days being contemplations of the angels

You referring to how St. Augustine "interprets the six days wherein God made all things, not as ordinary days measured by the solar circuit, since the sun was only made on the fourth day, but as one day, namely, the day of angelic knowledge as directed to six classes of things." (I q. 58 a. 6)?

a literal six days [...] Perhaps we will see that be defined someday as such.

Is that definable?
I'm curious how it could be phrased.

[Geremia]

They promote the idea that the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old

See PDF pp. 9ff. of the Bibliorum Sacrorum Concordantiæ for a detailed chronology, in Anno mundi and Ante J. Ch. (i.e., "BC"), of all the biblical events, including birth and death dates of the historical figures. It says that Adam & Eve were created 4056 BC and that Adam died at 930 years old.

[Kephapaulos]

St. Augustine's thoughts about the six days being contemplations of the angels

You referring to how St. Augustine "interprets the six days wherein God made all things, not as ordinary days measured by the solar circuit, since the sun was only made on the fourth day, but as one day, namely, the day of angelic knowledge as directed to six classes of things." (I q. 58 a. 6)?

a literal six days [...] Perhaps we will see that be defined someday as such.

Is that definable?
I'm curious how it could be phrased.

I had not read that part of the Summa Theologiae until just a little while ago, but it seems St. Thomas is simply responding with a quote from St. Augustine, although I don't know if it really says what St. Thomas thinks about that matter in that instance, for the days could still be measured as 24 hours by God's will and sustenance, where on the fourth day, the sun and moon were created to take respective roles of governing the day and the night.

A definition is possible. It would have account for every detail in the history of Creation and answer every conceivable scientific objection.

[Geremia]

answer every conceivable scientific objection

How could it do that? Aren't there an infinite number of "conceivable scientific objection"s?

[Kephapaulos]

answer every conceivable scientific objection

How could it do that? Aren't there an infinite number of "conceivable scientific objection"s?

There are many against special creation you mean? If not answering every single objection specifically, there is the very possibility of simply citing Holy Writ since that is inerrant.