If the World Only Knew
Noel Derose
CESHE, 2008
352 pages

This book is an overview by Noel Derose of the works of Fernand Crombette (1880-1970), a French Catholic intellectual, who wrote extensively on ancient history.  His primary claim to fame was deciphering hieroglyphics using the Egyptian Coptic language.  Using this method, he claimed to be able to reconcile the histories of Egypt with that of Genesis in the Bible.

His works include those on geography, especially the breakup of the continents from a single land mass.  He created an atlas to illustrate the detailed movement of the continents.  He wrote an entire volume on Easter Island and another on Atlantis.  According to Crombette, Atlantis sank at the same time as the Israelite crossing of the Red Sea, which also coincided with the voyage of Jason and the Argonauts and the drying up of the Scythian Ocean.

He wrote a great deal on the history of Egypt, and also on Crete, the Hittites, the Assyrians and the Babylonians.  His work on history led him to question the long ages of evolutionary theory.  His work on astronomy led him to a geocentric-type structure of the cosmos.  He wrote his own translation of the first 11 chapters of Genesis using his Coptic method.  He also wrote a history of France.

Crombette knew that Egyptian chronology had been developed by reading hieroglyphics, and had been used to question the chronology of the Bible – Genesis in particular.  So he made his own study of Egyptian hieroglyphics and decided that the method developed by Champollion was deficient.

He was well-versed in a number of languages and thought that the Egyptian hieroglyphics might be better read using the ancient Egyptian Coptic language.  To his surprise, his method revealed startling similarities between the Egyptian hieroglyphic writings and the Bible.  He was also able to decipher the hieroglyphics of Crete using his method.

Crombette next turned to reading the Bible in the original Hebrew while using his method to interpret the meaning.  He translated the first eleven chapters of Genesis in this fashion and came to the conclusion that the earth was taken from the sun, and the moon was taken from the earth.  This seems to be in contradiction to the accepted reading of Genesis, however.

Crombette makes some fascinating claims and seems to be able to lay out evidence to support them.  Unfortunately, most of his work was done in isolation and he did not get much feedback on his ideas.  The fact that his earth-from-sun and moon-from-earth theory conflicts with the earth-first sequence of Genesis might cause some to wonder about the accuracy of the Coptic method.  It would be helpful if experts in linguistics could independently verify his method so that the extent of its application could be known.  It would be fascinating if his translations of Egyptian hieroglyphics are correct.

Eric Bermingham
December, 2010

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:8).

Perhaps no verse has been used more often to challenge the patristic understanding of the days of Genesis than 2 Peter 3:8. This is ironic, because St. Peter wrote the passage from which this verse is taken to defend the traditional Catholic (and Hebrew) doctrine of Creation and the Flood. This becomes apparent if one examines the verses immediately preceding 2 Peter 3:8:

Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation.” They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men (2 Peter 3:3-7) (emphasis added).

In this remarkable prophecy, St. Peter predicted that “in the latter days”-a future time-”scoffers” would arise who would deny God’s supernatural creative action “in the beginning of creation” and at the time of the Noachic Flood, thus casting doubt on His sovereign intervention in the future at the Second Coming of Christ. Enlightened by the Holy Spirit, St. Peter foresaw that the scoffers would predicate their denials on the stability of the natural order-on the grounds that “all things have continued as they were” “since the fathers fell asleep.”

In modern times this principle became known as “uniformitarianism,” or “the present is the key to the past.” Just as St. Peter had foretold, “uniformitarianism” became the guiding principle of Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin, and other naturalistic evolutionists who argued that natural scientists could extrapolate from present-day processes in the order of providence all the way back to the beginning of creation. St. Peter foresaw that to champion their evolutionary theory they would have to “deliberately ignore” the fact of the Flood, and, indeed, Darwin wrote in an unpublished manuscript of 1873: “Lyell is most firmly convinced that he has shaken the faith in the Deluge far more efficiently [in his writings on geology] by never having said a word against the Bible than if he had acted otherwise.”

These thinkers flatly contradicted the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers who held, with St. Paul, that “all God’s works were finished from the foundation of the world” (Hebrews 4:3)-after the creation of Adam and Eve-and that God created all of the different kinds of creatures, including man, by a supernatural divine action, in six natural days (the majority view) or in an instant (the minority Augustinian view). Indeed, all of the Fathers would have concurred with the fourth century “Apostolic Constitutions” that the Sabbath was observed “on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence.” Thus, the farthest thing from St. Peter’s mind was to expand the length of the days of creation to allow for a natural development of creatures. Indeed, St. Peter’s primary point in the third chapter of his second epistle is that creation-like the Second Coming-is a supernatural divine action which “scoffers” will try to reduce to a natural process.

Moreover, the text contains additional indications that St. Peter is defending a rapid supernatural creation, not a leisurely creation over many thousands or millions of years. In 2 Peter 3:8, St. Peter exhorts his readers to “be not ignorant” “of this one thing,” and turns their attention to another passage of Scripture, Psalm 90:4: “For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” A careful reading of this verse shows that the psalmist is not saying anything about the length of the days of creation. On the contrary, he is contrasting God’s eternal perspective with man’s limited, temporal perspective. Some early commentators apparently used Psalm 90 to suggest that the days of creation might have been a thousand years long, but St. Augustine refuted this interpretation: “Even if the six first days in which God finished His works seemed to give some plausibility to their opinion”-in other words, that creation took place over six thousand years-”six watches, which amount to eighteen hours, will not consist with that opinion.”

Some interpreters have tried to justify using 2 Peter 3:8 to equate the days of Genesis with thousands of years on the grounds that several early Church Fathers related the days of creation to the millennia of human history. But such interpreters have failed to understand the mind of these same Fathers, whose philosophy of history was based on the radical distinction between the days of Genesis-the period of creation-and the epochs of human history-the period of divine providence. St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus, and Lactantius, among others, speculated that there might be a proportion between the days of creation and the eras of human history, precisely because they recognized that the days of creation belonged to a different order of things from the epochs of human history. Hence, Lactantius:

God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in the space of six days, as is contained in the secrets of Holy Scripture, and consecrated the seventh day…For there are seven days, by the revolutions of which in order the circles of years are made up…Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years…For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, “In Thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day.” …And as God labored during those six days in creating such great works, so His religion and truth must labor during these six thousand years…(emphasis added). (Institutes 7, 14).

In conclusion, 2 Peter 3:8 reinforces the patristic understanding of Creation and the Flood and provides no basis for lengthening the creation period to allow for any kind of natural development of the original kinds of creatures. Just as God produced all of the different kinds of creatures ex nihilo in six natural days and “rested” in His very good creation, so God would work out His purposes in the order of Providence in human history and “rest” in His elect during what St. Irenaeus in Book V of Against Heresies called “the times of the Kingdom.” Tragically, those who “scoff” at the traditional understanding of Creation and the Flood wittingly or unwittingly weaken expectant faith in the Second Coming of Christ, which has always been one of the hallmarks of a vibrant Catholic community.

Ariadne’s Thread: Sedimentology and the Collapse of Evolutionary Theory

In the famous story of Theseus and the Minotaur, Ariadne gives Theseus a ball of scarlet thread so that he can find his way out of an intricate labyrinth after slaying the Minotaur.  Today, sedimentology is the Ariadne’s thread that allows scientists to retrace the history of evolutionary theory, discover the fundamental error upon which it was based, and escape from the labyrinth of false conclusions that followed from that fundamental error.

The foundations of evolutionary theory were laid in the field of geology in the nineteenth century by amateur geologist Charles Lyell and his colleagues who speculated that Earth’s fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks had been laid down gradually and that consequently the layers of rock that they studied must have been formed over immense periods of time.  It followed that the fossils in the rocks had been laid down successively during these immense periods and that the apparent succession of fossils from small, seemingly simple, organisms in the lower rocks, to more complex organisms in the higher rocks, suggested that the simpler organisms had evolved through some kind of natural process into the variety of species of living things that populated the earth.

For amateur naturalist Charles Darwin, the fact that various species of plants and animals changed over time seemed to support this theory of biological evolution.  According to Darwin, given Lyell’s long ages of geologic time, small changes, such as the changes in beak size that he observed in finches on the Galapagos Islands, might accumulate, resulting in the transformation of species.  He theorized that natural selection-the survival of the fittest, or better adapted, members of each species-could even account for the transformation of reptiles into birds, land mammals into whales, and apes into men.

What followed vividly recalls Iago’s devilish discovery of “irrefutable evidence” of Desdemona’s infidelity-only in this case the victim was the rare scientist who insisted on empirical proof of Darwin’s theory.  From the end of the nineteenth century, an increasing number of intellectuals came to believe the facts of biology and geology had “proven” the theory that all living things evolved from a primordial blob by small changes.  In reality, the proof of macroevolution-or particles to people evolution-was never provided.  Instead, like Iago, (but, in some cases, without a deliberate desire to deceive) the theory’s promoters presented pieces of evidence that could be interpreted as favoring their theory, while promising to deliver the definitive “proof”-fossil evidence of transitional forms between diverse kinds of living things-in the future.

Numerous intellectuals of good will accepted as proven the assumption that the fossil-bearing rocks of the earth had been laid down vertically in chronological order over millions of years.  Interpreted in this way, the apparent arrangement of the fossils from simpler to more complex from the deepest to the surface fossil layers seemed to confirm the occurrence of macroevolution.  A few lone voices, like those of Sir J. Ambrose Fleming, Paul Lemoine, and W. Bell Dawson protested the complete lack of evidence for these assumptions. However, the intellectual leadership of the world came under increasing pressure to agree with the American Association for the Advancement of Science resolution of 1922 that “the evidences in favor of the evolution of man are sufficient to convince every scientist of note in the world.”

What these “scientists of note” had overlooked is that it is far more common for scientists to reason correctly from false premises than it is for them to reason incorrectly from true ones.  In this case, mainstream scientists made logical deductions from the false premise of slow and gradual deposition of the fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks, with the result that they constructed a theory on a foundation of sand.  As long ago as 1956, Edmund M. Speiker, in the Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists reflected, “I wonder how many of us realize that the time scale was frozen in essentially its present form by 1840,” after the publication of Lyell’s Principles of Geology. Writing in Science in 1983, Stephen Rowland noted that “The basic time scale has remained unchanged since 1879, when the Ordovician period was inserted between the Cambrian and Silurian.” Indeed, in 1893, three years before the discovery of radioactivity, an age of 600 million years was assigned to the beginning of the Cambrian era, based on a slow and steady rate of sedimentation over millions of years.

Nowadays the geological time scale is said to be based on radiometric dating, which is believed to offer an objective method for determining the ages of sedimentary rocks, by dating the rocks above or below the sedimentary rocks.  But T.C. Chamberlain who pioneered the practice of radiometric dating at the end of the nineteenth century based his estimated ages of rock samples on “biological requirements.” By this he meant the time required for the slow and gradual transformation of biological species-such as reptiles into birds and land mammals into whales. These “biological requirements” were, in turn, based on Lyell’s principles of slow and steady sedimentation, which meant that nineteenth century sedimentology provided the interpretative framework for radiometric dating and continues to do so at the dawn of the third millennium.

Lyellian geology not only provides the framework for the interpretation of radiometric dating of earth’s rocks.  It also provides the framework for interpreting astronomical data used to determine the age of the solar system and of the whole cosmos.  For example, in the early twentieth century most astronomers believed that the sun was gradually contracting and converting gravitational energy into heat.  The famous astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington challenged this hypothesis, not on empirical grounds, but because “it is not much use extending the age of the earth without extending the age of the sun.” According to Eddington, astronomers ought not to put their trust in astronomical arguments alone but must “turn to the sister sciences for other and perhaps more conclusive evidence. …The age of the older rocks [of the earth] is found to be about 1,200 million years. …The sun, of course, must be very much older than the earth and its rocks.” Thus, Lyellian geology was even used to determine the age of the sun!

The reliance on the Lyellian geological framework as the ultimate basis for assigning dates to prehistoric objects has continued to the present day.  East African fossils of alleged human ancestors are still “dated” by radiometric dating of lava flows whose ages were in turn determined with reference to the standard stratigraphic scale.  According to physicist Dr. Jean Pontcharra:

In theory, dating fossils with the K40/Ar40 method, is only possible if they are buried above or under a solidified lava flow. In reality, fossil deposits are far away from magmatic flows. The stratigraphic scale is used to match the depth of fossil occurrence with the depth of lavas flows located several miles away. The lava flows are dated by radiometric Ar and an age is given to their strata depth. In fact the radiometric results are calibrated with the stratigraphic scale. The excess argon demonstrated in contemporary deposits also alters the results on supposed old rocks and prevents any consistent age to be attributed to the fossils. In addition, the necessity to match with the standard stratigraphic scale destroys the credibility of the entire process.

It is ironic that the foundations of evolutionary theory were laid by amateur scientists who did not do experimental research and that all of the experimental research that has been done by evolutionary scientists since then has been shoehorned into a framework constructed without experimental verification.  Even when geologists like Harlan Bretz challenged the conventional Lyellian, uniformitarian interpretation of major geological formations, like those found in the Missoula scablands, and proved that massive formations could be-and had been-produced rapidly by catastrophic forces, no attempt was made to reconstruct the geological time scale that had been erected by Lyell and his disciples.  Instead, mainstream geologists defended the Lyellian time scale on the grounds that they had taken catastrophism into account, but without explaining how the same geological framework that had been erected on the assumption of slow and gradual formation of sedimentary rocks could accommodate catastrophism without being overhauled!  Such a situation could not endure forever, of course, and in the second half of the twentieth century, a number of scientists began to do experiments in sedimentology and developed laboratories where experimental research could be performed.

In the 1980s, French researcher Guy Berthault demonstrated that sediments suspended in a liquid are sorted by physical characteristics and deposited in strata simultaneously.  The two principal stages of his research program dwelt upon research in lamination and stratification.  In 1986, Berthault conducted sedimentation experiments in still water with a continuous supply of heterogranular material.  A deposit was obtained, giving the illusion of successive beds of laminae.  These laminae were the result of a spontaneous periodic and continuous grading process, which took place immediately, following the deposition of the heterogranular mixture.  The thickness of the laminae appeared to be independent of the sedimentation rate but increased with extreme differences in the particle size in the mixture.  Where a horizontal current was involved, thin laminated layers developed laterally in the direction of the current.  A second series of experiments was performed at the Marseilles Institute of Fluid Mechanics which demonstrated that in still water, continuous deposition of heterogranular sediments gives rise to laminae, which disappear progressively as the height of the fall of particles into water (and apparently their size) increases.  Laminae follow the slope of the upper part of the deposit.  In running water, many closely related superposed types of lamination appear in the deposit.

Berthault then conducted experiments in stratification at the Fort Collins hydraulics laboratory of the Colorado State University with the professor of hydraulics and sedimentology Pierre Julien. For these, it was necessary to operate with water in a recirculating flume traversed by a current laden with sediment. As Hjulstrom (1935) and his successors had defined the critical sedimentation rate for each particle size, the current velocity would need to be varied. By modulating the current velocity, a superposition of different sized particles could be obtained.

The flume experiments showed that in the presence of a variable current, stratified superposed beds form simultaneously in the direction of the current. The result, on the scale of strata, also conformed, on the scale of facies, to the findings of Golovkinskii, Inostrantzev and to Walther’s law (Walther, 1894; Middleton, 1973; Romanovskii, 1988), according to which the extension of facies of a specific sequence is the same in both a lateral and vertical direction. Laboratory experiments on the desiccation of natural sands also showed preferential fracturing (or joints) of crusty deposits at the interface between strata of coarse and fine particles. Rather than successive sedimentary layers, these experiments demonstrated that stratification under a continuous supply of heterogeneous sandy mixtures results from segregation for lamination, non-uniform flow for graded beds, and desiccation for joints. Superposed strata are not, therefore, necessarily identical to successive sedimentary layers.

During the first decade of the twenty-first century, Berthault worked intensively with a team of Russian sedimentologists directed by Alexander Lalomov (Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Ore Deposits) and applied paleohydraulic analyses to geological formations in Russia. One example is the publication of a report in 2007 by the Lithology and Mineral Resources journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It concerns the Crimean Peninsular. It shows that the time of sedimentation of the sequence studied corresponds to a virtually instantaneous episode whilst according to stratigraphy it took several millions of years.  Moreover, a recent report concerning the North-West Russian plateau in the St. Petersburg region shows that the time of sedimentation was much shorter than that attributed to it by the stratigraphic time-scale: 0.01% of the time.

In the conclusion to a paper presented by Berthault at a conference devoted to a scientific critique of evolutionary theory at Gustav Siewerth Akademie in Germany, Berthault observed that:

Paleohydraulic analysis determines the time of sedimentation of a sequence, which is shown to be much shorter than the stratigraphic time. Evidently, this short time period does not support the evolutionary hypothesis that life arose from non-life and that life-forms developed from a common ancestor through innumerable genetic mutations over hundreds of millions of years (see: www.sedimentology.fr) .  .  . By calling into question the principles and methods, upon which geological dates are founded, and in proposing the new approach of paleohydrology, I hope to open a dialogue with specialists in the disciplines concerned, who are able to appreciate the implications, and propose a geological chronology in conformity with experimental observation based upon time of sedimentation-time which is insufficient for the evolution of species, as conceived by the proponents of the evolutionary hypothesis.

Defenders of the Lyellian framework have criticized the new experimentally-driven sedimentology, but the critics are having an increasingly difficult time defending the Lyellian framework.  For example, noted critic Alan Hayward articulates the conventional wisdom that:

shale is made of compacted clay. As most readers will have noticed, clay consists of exceedingly fine particles which take a long time to settle in water. Turbulence keeps them in suspension and consequently clay will only settle in calm water.

However, recent experimental studies in mudstone formation have shattered that conventional wisdom.  In a recent report in Science by Schieber et al, the authors conclude:

Our observations do not support the notion that muds can only be deposited in quiet environments with only intermittent weak currents. Instead, bedload transport of flocculated mud and deposition occurs at current velocities that would also transport and deposit sand. Clay beds can accrete from migrating floccule ripples under swiftly moving currents in the 10 cm/s to 26 cm/s velocity range, a range likely to expand as flows with larger sediment concentrations are explored . . . In the course of two decades of detailed studies of shales and mudstones, one of us has seen comparable low-amplitude bedforms  in shale units that were deposited in a wide variety of environments. Examples can be found in the Mid-Proterozoic Belt Supergroup, the Devonian of the eastern United States, the Jurassic Posidonia Shale, the Cretaceous Mancos Shale, and the Eocene Green River Formation. This suggests that mud accretion from migrating floccule ripples probably occurred throughout geologic history. Many ancient shale units, once examined carefully, may thus reveal that they accumulated in the manner illustrated here, rather than having largely settled from slow-moving or still suspensions. This, in turn, will most likely necessitate the reevaluation of the sedimentary history of large portions of the geologic record.

As Schieber notes in his report, “Mudstones constitute up to two-thirds of the sedimentary record and are arguably the most poorly understood type of sedimentary rocks.” Moreover, it is important to note that the mudstone formations mentioned by Schieber in his Science report are massive.  The Belt Supergroup shales near Glacier National Part are up to 2100 meters thick, the Marcellus shale in the Devonian in the Eastern United States is up to 900 feet thick, the Ohio shale in Kentucky is up to 500 feet thick, and the Mancos shale is between 1000 and 5000 feet thick. Thus, the experimental research proving that formations of this size can be explained in terms of rapid deposition of sediment by turbulent waters supports Berthault’s call to reconstruct the geological time scale in the light of experimental findings.

The importance of Berthault’s research has been underscored by recent research in paleontology, radiometric dating and genetics which strongly supports his contention that the geological time scale ought to be reconstructed.  Meticulous carbon-14 dating of material from virtually every part of the geological column has produced results in the same range as fossils of mammoths and other megafauna that are known to have lived contemporaneously with man. Soft tissue and DNA have been found in dinosaur bones and other megafauna, and collagen from dinosaur bones has been dated using accelerated mass spectrometry in the same carbon-14 age range as modern mammals. In the field of genetics, researchers Kimura and Kondrashov have shown that the vast majority of mutations have a slightly-harmful effect on an organism.  These slightly-harmful mutations accumulate, producing a steady degradation of the genome, and imposing a time limit “on the existence of vertebrate lineages”-a time limit much lower than the millions of years evolution requires. The research of Berthault, Lalomov, and Schieber demonstrates that fossilized organisms entrapped in many massive sedimentary rock formations lived simultaneously and therefore provide no evidence of evolution.  Moreover, recent studies of fossils found in earth’s deepest rocks have confirmed the existence of an astonishing degree of technological sophistication in some of the “oldest” fossils on earth.

Trilobites are members of the arthropod phylum, invertebrate animals having an exoskeleton, a segmented body, and jointed appendages.  Although they appear in some of earth’s “oldest” rocks-dated at 560 million years ago within the Lyellian framework-trilobite eyes had bifocal lenses that human engineers did not learn how to make until several hundred years ago.  Trilobites “could see anteriorly, laterally, dorsally, and even downwards and backwards,” from one position. According to Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobite eyes “represent an all-time feat of function optimization.” A writer for Science News described trilobite eyes as having “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature,” a fact which prompted the famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould to admit that “The eyes of early trilobites . . . have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods. … I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.”

In the light of the new experimental sedimentology, Gould’s puzzle can finally be solved.  The trilobite eye appears in the fossil record, flawlessly formed and fully-functional, without an evolutionary history-because there was no evolutionary history to begin with. In the light of all of the evidence cited in this article, it is time for all truth-loving scientists to take hold of the Ariadne’s thread offered to them by the latest research in sedimentology.  Only then will they be able to identify and correct the fundamental errors of Lyell and Darwin and extricate themselves from the labyrinth of false ideas that followed from those errors.

Edmund M. Speiker, “Mountain-building and the Nature of the Geologic Time-scale,” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, (1956) 40(8):1769_.

Stephen Rowland, “A New Shirt for Carl,” Science (1983) 4(5):80_82.

Cf. C. Schuchert, Geochronology. Bulletin of the National Research Council. (1931) 80:10_64.

Stephen G. Brush,. “The Age of the Earth in the Twentieth Century,” Earth Sciences History (1989) 8(2):170_182.

A.S. Eddington,. The Internal Constitution of the Stars. (New York: Dover, 1926; reprinted 1959), p. 295.

Ibid, p. 96.

Jean Pontcharra, “Are Radioactive Dating Methods Reliable?” (Bierbronnen: Gustav Siewerth Akademie, 2010).

Guy Berthault, “Experiments in Stratification Do Not Support the Theory of Evolution,” (Rome: Sapienza University, 2009), pp. 15-30.

Guy Berthault, “Time Required for Sedimentation Contradicts the Evolutionary Hypothesis,” (Bierbronnen: Gustav Siewerth Akademie, 2010).

Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies (London: Triangle, 1985), pp. 123-125.

Juergen Schieber, John Southard, and Kevin Thaisen, “Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating Floccule Ripples,” Science 14 December 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1760 – 1763.

http://www.nature.nps.gov/GEOLOGY/paleontology/pub/fossil_conference_7/7%20Hunt%201.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellus_shale

http://www.uky.edu/KGS/emsweb/devsh/final_report.pdf

http://www.halliburton.com/public/solutions/contents/Shale/related_docs/Mancos.pdf

Josef Holzschuh et al, “Recent C-14 Dating of Dinosaur Fossil Bone Collagen,” (Bierbronnen: Gustav Siewerth Akademie, 2010).

Ibid.

Alexey Kondrashov, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1995, 175:583.

T. McCormick and R.A Fortey. “Independent Testing of a Paleobiological Hypothesis: The Optical Design of Two Ordovician Pelagic Trilobites Reveals Their Relative Paleobathymetry,” Paleobiology 24(2):235-253 (1998), p. 236.

Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 29-74.

Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, Vol. 105, 2 February 1974, p. 72.

Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22-23.

Creation and Evolution – A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo
Ignatius Press, 2008
210 pages

During the sermon at his inauguration Mass, Pope Benedict XVI remarked that “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.”  However, that does not mean that Benedict thinks the theory of evolution is entirely incorrect.  At the annual meeting of his former students in 2006, the topic of Creation and Evolution was discussed in detail.  This book is a record of the presentations and the discussions from that meeting.  Cardinal Schonborn, the archbishop of Vienna who has made public comments on evolution, wrote the Foreword and gave one of the presentations.

If you are looking for a scientific critique of the problems with the theory of evolution, you are not going to find much here.  All those involved in the discussions are willing to accept many of the tenets of modern science – billions of years, man from ape, everything from the first life, etc.  What they are unwilling to accept is the atheistic nature of the theory; that God was unnecessary. The overall goal of the discussions seems to be an attempt to inject God into the theory of evolution.  It does not seem to dawn on them that the theory of evolution was introduced explicitly to keep the necessity of God out of scientific debate.

All of the presentations and discussions are highly philosophical in nature.  As with most discussions on evolution, hard facts such as experimental data are not generally considered in any way other than as evidence to support the theory.  The first presentation does admit, however, that Mendel actually deduced the correct mechanism for heredity, whereas Darwin did not.  Unfortunately, it attempts to support the mechanism of evolution with a computer program modeling natural selection.  It does not seem to occur to evolutionists that computer models are designed by intelligent beings.

The second presentation tries to reconcile common descent with intelligent design.  It does actually give a reasonable critique of Occam’s razor (the idea that the simplest explanation must be the correct one).  The weakness in the presentation is the unquestioned acceptance of common descent.  Nowhere does anyone mention the Biblical account of creation with each animal made according to its kind; never mind six days.

The third presentation strives to somehow find cause and purpose in evolution, which would make it more palatable.  The last presentation by Cardinal Schonborn is basically an attempt to get God back into the scientific discussion.  He does mention the major critiques of evolution, such as the non-existence of transitional forms.  On the other hand, he says that we should not be over-hasty about trying to point out “intelligent design” everywhere.

The discussion section is a record of the debate among the participants concerning the presentations.  The comments of the Pope are perhaps the most revealing.  He says “I have always been of the opinion that overhasty attempts at harmonization are usually not very durable.”  Obviously, he wants to harmonize science and the faith.

The Pope also mentions the well-known comment by the late John Paul II, “The theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis.”  Benedict says that it is important to interpret this comment correctly.  As with many statements from the Vatican in the last fifty years or so, the interpretation is elusive.  Benedict does say that the theory of evolution is still not a complete, scientifically verified theory.  He points out the problem of the leaps in evolution and the rarity of positive mutations in particular.  The appendix seems like yet another argument for keeping God in the discussion without being dogmatic about it.

I suppose that this book is a good record of where much of the Church stands today regarding the theory of evolution.  It is clear that a theory that attempts to explain everything without reference to God will never be acceptable to the Church.  However, those attempting to inject God into the theory of evolution seem oblivious to the fact that the theory was explicitly designed to explain nature without reference to the supernatural.

The Pope is aware of problems with the theory of evolution but he does not want the Church to be divorced from the scientific community.  However, he should appreciate the fact that much of the scientific community wants nothing to do with the Church.  Any reconciliation between science and faith will have to involve admission from the scientific community that there is a God and that some things are not within the reach of natural science.  It is futile to expect that those holding a dogmatic belief in a godless theory of evolution will ever come to terms with a Catholic understanding of creation.  It would be good for churchmen to understand the Catholic view of creation and the weaknesses of evolutionary theory before attempting reconciliation between the two.

Eric Bermingham
October, 2010

On October 28, Hugh Owen will present “The Impact of Darwinian Theory on Medical Research” at the annual meeting of the Catholic Medical Association in Seattle, Washington; and on Saturday, October 30,  he will talk on “Creation, Evolution and the Crisis of Faith” at Holy Rosary Catholic Church in Portland, Oregon. There are three other lectures scheduled in the Seattle and Spokane area between October 27 and November 2. See Calendar for details.

Between October 7 and October 19, advisory council member Timothy Murnane and Kolbe Center Director, Hugh Owen will give a series of Catholic creation seminars in the United Kingdom. The tour will cover cities in Scotland, England and Wales. Creation, Evolution and the Crisis of Faith Seminars are planned. Please keep them in your prayers.

Member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Debunks God?

Article Republished by permission from The Remnant

Prof. Hawking’s latest book “The Grand Design”, with its “multiverse” hypothesis, is, of course, just another attempt to debunk God. This in itself is nothing new, but the fact that its author is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences should give ground for reflection.

The question is how does the anti-God club get away with it? If its ideas were based upon sound science there would be some excuse, but in the case of Hawking’s book, astrophysicists themselves admit that his hypotheses and others regarding the cosmos are speculative to the extreme. There is no empirical proof whatsoever; everything is based upon extrapolation.

The answer to the enigma is not difficult to find as most of the scientific community are non-believers. If one of their members has a scientific kite to fly which knocks the Creator, all obstacles are removed from its path. Even to the point of getting one of their club admitted to the scientific elite of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences! The fact that the remnant of the once powerful Catholic intelligentsia is impregnated with evolutionary philosophy is an inevitable consequence. At one time some of those carrying weight both within the Church and in the scientific community had a say, but their voice has been drowned by the incessant barraging of Darwinists.

Best-selling books like Dawkins “The God Delusion,” chalking up fortunes in royalties for their authors, make no pretence that their mission is to dethrone the Creator in favour of science. Coming from a member of the prestigious Catholic Academy of Sciences, albeit with the same aim, Hawking’s latest book has all the trappings of a Trojan Horse. Prof. Hawking is a member of the Catholic establishment and is attacking from inside by simple presentation of his Pontifical privileged golden card entrée to the Vatican itself.

Fortunately all is not gloom. The situation could be about to change for at least two reasons. The first is that the fuel supply driving Darwinism has been cut off! Time is the fuel! The element of time needed for evolution to take place has now been shown both in the laboratory and in the field to be wrongly calculated. The experimental evidence has been published. Darwin and his disciples based their theory of biological evolution upon the long periods of time needed for sedimentary particles to deposit and bury the fossils, which, allegedly, provided evidence of evolution. Now, instead of the speculated millions of years, sedimentary mechanics shows that sediments deposit as a function of current velocity which is relatively very fast. Without a sufficiency of time the evolutionary edifice must eventually come tumbling down (for details see www.sedimentology.fr)

The second reason is biological. For some time, attention has focussed upon animal instincts and their effect upon man. Questions are being asked. How it is that animals depend upon their instincts for survival, whereas man can only survive by rational thought? Instinct they say is written into the genes of animals and plants. It is passed on from generation to generation. The Monarch butterfly migrates annually from Canada to Mexico. Because of its short life span, the population that leaves Canada is not the same as the one that returns. Neither knows the route, but millions of butterflies take it each year. How do they do it? The text book reason is “instinct”. Slowly, in the evolutionary indoctrinated biologists’ minds a blurred idea is spawning, that instinct is in fact a programme. Just as a computer needs a programme to perform its incredible feats, some of them are wondering if the same applies in the world of irrational living things.

Biologists in the relatively new science of biomimetics (or bionics) are copying biological systems found in living things for engineering and modern technology. For instance plants and trees depend principally on light to energise them. They use a highly sophisticated process to synthesize food directly from carbon dioxide using energy from light. The micro photosynthesis apparatus is a biological machine of such technical complexity it has yet to be copied in the laboratory. It is found in every blade of grass, every leaf and every green thing on earth.

The potential value to mankind of being able to copy a process able to transform light into energy is mindboggling. The origin of biological technology of this complexity has hitherto been explained by “nature” selecting beneficial genetic mutations by random chance. The biological engineering complexity is recognised as such by both biologists and engineers and the possibility of it originating by chance is beginning to be seen as laughable. Mutations are biological aberrations or mistakes. Can one imagine a generation of computers, as yet not even at the conceptual stage, being produced by a chance accumulation of computing mistakes? To any one not blinded by Darwinist philosophy, the requirement of a programmer behind these wonders of nature is self-evident.

Take the simple scenario of pollination: a process by which flowers reproduce. For continuity of the species fertilisation has to take place. For this, the pollen in one flower has to be transported to another flower. The pollen contains the genetic code without which reproduction cannot take place. The transporter is the bee attracted to the flower not only by its pollen but also its nectar. Reaching for the nectar causes the genetically coded pollen to adhere to its fur which brushes off on the subsequent flower it visits. The whole process is simple and effective. Without it the flower would have no descendants, and the species would die out. That the process is necessary and intelligently planned or programmed is difficult not to see.

Pollination is just one link in the chain of being. The interdependence of its separate parts is a biological fact, but one apparently not taken into account by Prof. Hawking, Dawkins et al. They live in a multiverse where science fiction trumps reality. Being assured of a good income, due to royalties and lecturing fees, and hopefully for them an enjoyable life (on this earth!), an estimate of the damage they are doing to people’s faith is incalculable. Erstwhile believers are falling over themselves to buy their books. Instead of the Church’s bastion of science protecting its members from anti-God theories it has opened the way, through one of its most prominent members, for every last vestige of the faith to be swept away.

Thanks to the down-to earth sciences of sedimentology and biomimetics, the detractors of divine intelligence are gradually being unmasked, but how much longer must this go on before a responsible informed Catholic in both science and theology steps in to call a halt?

“There is no place for God in
theories on the creation
of the Universe.”
- Prof. Stephen Hawking,
BBC September 2, 2010

The following letter to the editor from Eric Bermingham appeared in the July 26, 2010 edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology.