From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: Origins
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:00:26 GMT

     Dear Thomas, A few general responses to what you said
in reply to me.
 
     (1) I ass ure you I do not get my views of the state
of the scientific evidence from "uncritically" reading
anybody, let alone the unspeakable Carl Sagan. 
      (That should be 'assure', I don't want to give
JJ the satisfaction of thinking that I *admit* to being an ass!)
      I am in my own small way a scientist. I have a Ph.D. 
in theoretical physics from Princeton, and have written about
75 papers published in the leading journals of Physics,
many on the cosmology of the early universe.
      That the universe is about 15 billion years old I
believe for several reasons. (a) The Hubble expansion if
extrapolated back would have the galaxies meeting about
that long ago, (b) the standard Big Bang cosmology predicts
a cosmic microwave background of about 3 K (3 degrees above
absolute zero). This was discovered by Penzias and Wilson
back in the sixties. (c) The Big Bang nucleosynthesis
calculations of the primordial Helium abundance are in beautiful
agreement with the observations. Indeed, on the basis of this
agreement Steigman et al derived a limit on the number of
types of neutrinos that exist that has been confirmed by
the experiments on the Z width at CERN.                  
      That stars live about 10 billion years is what calculations
of stellar evolution tell us. These calculations are generally
in very good shape. They predict excellently the abundances of
the elements from stellar nucleosynthesis. Even if one did
not trust these calculations in detail (they also agree with
they kinds of stars one sees) the rough order of magnitude of
 a star's lifetime can be calculated simply from basic consider-        
ations.
      There are various measurements of the age of rocks etc
that give about 4.5 billion years. These, I confess, I know
little about. But I see no reason either to doubt the honesty
or competence of those why do these calculations. All the
other calculations I have mentioned I can (and have) done
myself.
      So, that the universe is about 15 billion years old
within about a factor of two is overwhelmingly probable.

     (2) I cannot speak as expert on the biological evidence.
As I understand it, one sees in the fossil records that
animals (like the horse) have evolved over time. Indeed,
there is evidence that forms somewhat between apes and
humans existed millions of years ago. 
         One sees evidence that animals like the whale
evolved from land creatures, both in the fossile record
and in vestigial skeletal features of these animals.
        Most impressive to me is the extremely close
match that has been found between the DNA of humans and
the higher primates (chimps, etc.) 
        Various bits of evidence like this convince me
that we are probably lineally descended from some kind
of apes.

      (3) You have some problems. You really do not seem 
to understand the Christian idea of Creation. According
to the concept most brilliantly expounded by St. Augustine,
the whole world is created by God in one single creative
Act that is identical to Himself. By this Act the whole
universe is brought into being in all its complexity, with all
its parts, and with all the manifold mutual relationships
among these parts. 
       All things are caused to be by God. But in addition
to this First Cause, one can speak of secondary causes. 
If a rock falls in a pond and causes a splash, that does not
mean that God did not cause all that to happen! God creates
the rock, and the splashing water, and the causal relationship
between them. If a pair of dogs mate and conceive a baby
dog, that does not mean that the baby dog is not created by God!
God creates all things by causing them to be: the pair of dogs
and the baby dog. The causal relationship between the parent dogs
and their offspring is part of the natural order and is itself
caused by God.

      (4) You confuse the idea of "Creation" with "interventions"
of God in the natural order. It is you who think like a deist,
because neither you nor the deists understand the Christian idea
of creation (it seems). Leave human origins to one side for a 
moment. Even leave living things to one side. If the universe
had proceeded from its first moment on without *any* supernatural
"interventions" by God, that is the laws of Physics were never
suspended in any way, and every event was in accordance with these
laws, then God is still "needed" to bring this universe into being!
Not just by "winding it up". Every moment of the universe's history,
every event, every thing in it is "exnihilated" by God. If you
don't know what this means then read St. Augustine's Confessions
Chapter 10. 
       An "intervention" is a "coming between" as the etymology
of the word shows. In this context, it is God coming between
a state of affairs and another state of affairs that would be
(otherwise) its *natural* outcome according to the natural
order of secondary causes established by God. Without such
an intervention, the Israelites would have been drowned in the Red
Sea--- the *natural* outcome of walking across a sea. But even
if God had not so *supernaturally* intervened there, all the events
that would have happened in accordance with the laws of nature would
have been caused by God. 
      If God had never "intervened" in evolution in the sense of
making something happen that would not have happened in the
natural order yet all things would have been created by him.
And everything that happened would still be as it was because of
his disposing will.

      If you don't understand this, then you better look up such
ideas as "Providence", "secondary cause", "natural order",
      
      (4) I am not a dualist, as I think you are hinting around.
There are things that are purely material, like a banana or a
piece of gold. It is the business of Physics (my business) to
understand the "natures" of these things (see Catholic dictionary).
The nature of a piece of Gold is completely understandable in 
physical terms. We humans, however, have aspects (free will, intellect)
which cannot be understood in purely physical terms. We have a
nature that is both spiritual and physical. To say that is not
to be a dualist. But there are two aspects to our nature nonetheless.
       It is on this grounds that I say that a purely physical
process cannot have given rise to human beings. But I think a
purely physical process could give rise to an animal. That in no
way denies that the selfsame animal is created by God, as explained
above.

      (5) I do not presume to seperate "myth" from "history" in
Scripture. (oops, separate) If you mean by "myth" an account
that is to be understood as true in a symbolic sense and not
historically accurate in every detail, then Catholic tradition
from early times admits of such "myth". St. Augustine interpreted
the predictions of the Book of Revelation and much of the
Genesis account in such a symbolic way.                 
       I defer to the authority of the magisterium on how
I am to interpret Scripture. The magisterium does not maintain
at this present day that a Catholic must interpret Scripture
in (what is innaccurately but commonly) called a literalist way.
The magisterium does not teach that we should reject the
hypotheses that the Earth is 4 billion years old, that our bodies
are the product of evolution from the lower animals, that 
the world is 15 billion years old etc, on Scriptural grounds.
       The Church teaches that there was an original pair of
humans from whom all are descended. She teaches that they sinned, etc. 
All this I therefore believe. I interpret Scripture accordingly. 
That there is some "myth" in the sense defined above in Scripture
I believe, and am allowed by the Church's teaching to believe.
However, I believe every word in Scripture is the inspired 
Word of God and is written as it is for some reason and contains
some truth. I do not presume to rashly say that any particular
text in Scripture is "myth" rather than "history". In general,
I treat it as history. There may have been a snake in Eden, or
perhaps the snake only represents the Devil symbolically. The
most important thing is that Satan tempted Eve. I lean toward
the view that the snake is a symbol of the Devil and not a
real snake. But I do not deny that a snake was there. The 
literal interpretation may be right. I do not presume to decide
this. But even if I were to say that there was not literally
a snake, I would believe that Satan was so described for
a reason, and that no other description would have been as good.
It is how God chose to describe the events.

      (6) You seem to have a rather simplistic epistemology,
as others have pointed out. Almost all of our knowledge
comes indirectly, from inference. Almost none of it can
be deduced rigorously from self evident principles, or directly
"experienced" in a way that removes all room for skepticism. 
Thomas Zerucha may not exist. All I see are certain patterns
on my screen. That a person named Zerucha stands behind them 
is an inference. All that we know about the physical world
scientifically is known by inference. Though not deduced
rigorously, most of what we know scientifically is known with
a high degree of certainty. To call these things "fads" is 
not to be "critical". It is to be obtuse. 
       I will not take a back seat to anyone in defending
every particle of the Church's teachings. (Ask JJ, Martin
Barry, and others on this list). BUt the kind of literalist
interpretation of Scripture that you espouse is not required
of Catholics by the Pope or the college of bishops. 
                                    Steve.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
"supernatural" in some Catholic dictionary.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU