Thursday, March 6, 2014

One group member promoted Hutchison

Identic start on both: 1) A Thread Where First Message was by Quarefremuntgentes, 2) One group member promoted Hutchison

quarefremeruntgentes7
2008-11-02 on Antimodernism
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible (The Politically Incorrect Guides) Paperback by Robert J. Hutchinson (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Bible-Guides/dp/1596985208/ref=pd_sim_b_6


9:10 PM PDT, October 17, 2007, updated at 10:48 AM PDT, October 19, 2007

For the past 400 years, the partisans of irreligion-from the Marquis de Sade to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins-have deliberately misrepresented the way science actually developed in the West as part of their ideological crusade against Judaism and Christianity.

What's worse, the partisans of atheism have been intellectually dishonest in the extreme: They have tried to take credit for the development of science when, in fact, they had little if anything to do with it.

Many of the most ideological and dogmatic of atheist crusaders, although continually referring to science, and seeking to use science to justify their own philosophical assumptions and declarations, were not scientists themselves.

In dramatic contrast, most of the true giants of empirical science-the people who founded entire scientific disciplines or who made landmark scientific discoveries-were primarily devout Christians who believed that their scientific studies, far from being in conflict with their religious faith, ultimately was dependent upon it.
on link
In the beginning, the Bible triggered a revolution in human thought and later established Western civilization's moral and philosophical foundation. Many people though--from authors to pundits--mock it for their own purposes and political agendas. However, the Bible remains the bestselling book of all time, believed by nearly two billion people (Christians and Jews) to be divinely inspired. In his hard-hitting new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Bible, author Robert J. Hutchinson details the facts behind the numerous truths the anti-religious secularists don't want you to know about, including:

  • Recent archaeological discoveries confirm the historical accuracy of many Bible stories
  • The Bible made modern science possible (which is why it started in the Middle Ages)
  • Biblical laws paved the way for democracy and limited government
  • The Bible promotes human freedom
  • The enemies of the Bible are enemies of true reason and tolerance


In this new installment in the bestselling P.I.G. series, Hutchinson silences the secularists and atheists with historical evidence, undeniable facts, and insightful revelations--proving why the Bible is still the bestselling book of all time--and so much more.
Where I disagree
"For the past 400 years, the partisans of irreligion-from the Marquis de Sade to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins"

Marquis de Sade did not live four hundred years ago. Irreligion has very little history around 1600 four hundred years ago, except as laxness in the practise of Catholicism.

If it represented Isaac Newton as a founder of Science, well, I might have somethings to say on that as well. I have not yet looked at the preview.

I might have been unduly suspicious about St Nicholas Steno's geology, at the time, I have since seen he was a Young Earth Creationist even as a Geologists. Giving Tas Walker on Creation Ministries International credit for that discovery. Would disagree with Hutchison if he credited Galileo and Kepler. Both as to their science and as to their fidelity to Holy Writ.
About Steno
Creation vs. Evolution : If Tas Walker is right, Pius XII was not wrong to canonise Steno!
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/07/if-tas-walker-is-right-pius-xii-was-not.html


CMI : Geological pioneer Nicolaus Steno was a biblical creationist
by Tas Walker
http://creation.com/geological-pioneer-nicolaus-steno-was-a-biblical-creationist
Do not recall if this link
was deleted by me. One other was. My excuse for that other one was that quarefremeruntgentes7 had just copied from the link and posted no own comments on that other one. I reserved a bit egoistically the right to post links, or I thought that quotes from links without selection or own comment were improper. When I reposted things from other boards, I was one of the debaters and so my own material was included in what I posted. That includes the earliest items on:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com


Back in the times when it was more often Yahoo Boards or Netscape Boards than youtube comments.
Other participants
very rarely posted. Maybe atheists were put off by my efficient arguing for a very uncompromising antimodernist outlook./HGL
I saw Hutchison's blog
He is, alas an evolutionist.

Evolution, Creation and Adam & Eve, Part 1
August 16, 2012 by Robert Hutchinson
http://roberthutchinson.com/robert-hutchinson/recent-columns/writing-life/evolution-creation-and-adam-eve-part-1/


And he gets the exact content of Humani Generis wrong. To be fair, even Tolkien did, at least while religying on the priest who referred to it.

HG first:
Real quote, as given by Hutchison:
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 – for the Catholic faith 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.
Hutchison's summming up, giving his comprehension:
It took the agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrmann nearly 20 years of rigorous graduate education before he could finally come to accept what I learned in fourth grade: that human beings have existed on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years… and their physical bodies likely developed out of more primitive animal forms.

When I was in high school, one of my Jesuit teachers showed me a copy of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani generis in which the pope explained that “the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries 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 key section (36): [After which he gives the quote.]
What is the difference?
Pius XII the Jesuit teacher of Hutchison
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 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.


In reality, the Pope did not affirm THAT this doctrine insofar as it enquires etc. "is not incompatible with Christian faith as revealed in the Biblical texts", but that the Magisterium did not positively de jure ecclesiastico forbid to enquire WHETHER it was compatible or not. He did not positively deny that the Bible might after all actually exclude thsi theory. He did not say directly that any faithful were free to embrace it.
What does Hutchison miss?
Pius XII Hutch
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. that human beings have existed on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years… and their physical bodies likely developed out of more primitive animal forms. ... is not incompatible with Christian faith as revealed in the Biblical texts.
Is Pius XII's text to blame?
For direct promotion of Evolutionism, no. For indirect encouragement to such promotion by underlings not really interested in Creationist arguments, well, they had themsleves to blame, since Pius XII told not to neglect precisly both opinions, but they had one excuse:

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


Readers uncautious might have taken "present state of human sciences and sacred theology" to mean a state in which Young earth Creationism was scientifically indefensible and Biblically unnnecessary. That is not what Pius XII claimed. That is what he wanted enquiry into. But "present state of human sciences" is a rubber term, where one man can mean his summing up of the controversy and another man can mean his denial there is any controversy "among real scientists" (Tas Walker is one such, btw). And "present state of ... sacred theology" is a term which did not directly come into his internal ear while writing, since he put in that other rubber term between its words, but it reads a bit like a denial of the necessity of staying with Traditional Exegesis as given by the Church through the Church Fathers whose positive unanimity (there is such for Young Earth Creationism) is obliging as per Council of Trent, even if the individual opinions of one Church Father (like St Augustine) not shared by another (like St Clement, if he be a canonised Saint - there is some dispute - or like St Irenaeus, of whom there is no dispute) are not so obliging. The words "present state of ... sacred theology" are uncannily reminiscent of a Protestant referring to Luther being important to the "Post-Reformation Church".
Has part of HG been misread?
38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This Letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

Papal Encyclicals Net : Pius XII : Humani Generis
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM
How does Hutchison read that?
Pope Pius XII’s explanation made more sense to me: The first 11 chapters of Genesis, the pope explained, do not conform “to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time” yet constitutes history in “a true sense.”

The inspired text, he added, “in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people.”
Oy vey!
Pius XII did not explain that this was so, he discussed a certain already existing document which had suggested it, and finally added what Hutchison omits:

If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
Now for some more Hutchison:
The debate over Evolution, Creation and Adam and Eve is one of my least favorite topics. That’s because I’ve accepted the theory of evolution ever since fourth grade, when it was first explained to me in science class by a Dominican nun.

As a result, debating evolution feels a lot like debating the Pythagorean theorem: It’s something I studied 40 years ago… long ago accepted… but makes my head hurt even thinking about.
As for myself:
I have accepted the Pythagorean theorem, but I can also give one or two versions of a proof for it, without this hurting my head. And if I accepted Evolution while very small and Young Earth Creationism since about ... grade four too! ... this does not make the subject something I just accepted, and debating it does not make my head hurt.

No comments:

Post a Comment