hie..WMount Electronic Reserve System lectronic Reterves Electronic Reserves Reading Please type all relevant information into the form, print the form and return it to the library circulation desk with each ERes photocopy. =: Professor Course Course ‘Semester Name Number Miller Intro to Biblical Studies SCRP501Sem |} Fall 20¢3 +: Reserve Reading Citation Dermott J. Mullan, "Fundamentalists Inside the Catholic Church” New Oxford Review 2003 (April): 31-41 & To Be Posted by (date) August 27, 2003 The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) overns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of lcopyrighted materials. Under certain conditions specified in the kw, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other lreproduction. |One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "ased for any purpose other than private tudy, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or V'ater uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair luse,"" that user may be liable for copyright infringement. http://www.msmary edu/eres/facultytemplate.htm! 8/5/2003, N"tena day —ie., more than ten changes of clothes to laccommodate not only her activities, but her per- eived need for “different outfits for different iends,” a new outfit for each song when they play wusic, etc. Atwood herself has achieved somewhat jore coherence: “I have become a little more sure f who I am, and so Laverage only two changes each omning before I know who I will be that day.” ‘The postmodem notion that reality is subjective ephemeral, thatall statements can be eviscerated their meaning, has penetrated to the perception of 1e self. Atwood’s musings reveal a pathetic empti- less, a lack of grounding in her being, Like a literary e, she can be constructed and deconstructed day, An image constantly in flux substitutes for ity, “Image is everything!” we ate told, Because, Fr, Hubert van Zeller putit, “the world wants us to sham people, false and shallow,” we therefore re- hire ever stronger faith toward off the unreality and untruth it foists upon us. Part of our self-defense is surely to dress ourselves in an honest, unpretentious wty, which does not preclude true elegance, always (OW _OLD 1S THE EARTH? ‘mentalism by Karl Keating has helped pre- vent Catholics from being lured out of the Church by Fundamentalists. Where Fundamental- ists nttack the Church from outside, that book pro- videg important and useful service. S ‘ince 1988 the book Catholicism and Funda- Dermott J. Mullan és a professor of astrophysics at the University of Delaware, and the father of 10 chil- dren) APRIL 2003 rooted in simplicity. Thus out external appearance will reflect the purity of soul amd sobriety of lifestyle that should characterize the Chvistian, Dress offers an oppotiunity to express personhood — femaleness and its charm, dignity, the sobriety befitting pilgrims in an increasingly depraved ‘world, In the words of St. Paul, “women should adom themselves modestly and sensilfly in seemnly apparel, not with braided hair [i.e., elabosite coiffures] or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion” (1 im. 2:9-10). St. Pe- ter echoes these sentiments: “Jet not yours be the outward adoming with braiding pfhair, decoration of gold, and wearing of robes, butiet it be the hidden Person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a Sentle and quiet spirit, which iry God’s sight is very precious” (1 Pet. 3:3-4). Then at the end of time itwill be said of the Church, the bride qf the Lamb: “It was granted her to be clothed with fige linen, bright and pure — for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints” (Rev. 19:8). This is the raiftent which should ‘be the focus of our lives. . Dermorrt J. Mullan Fundamentalists Inside the Catholic Church: A Growing Phenomenon But what if there are Fundaprentalists inside the Church? How is the Church td respond to such a situation? 1 submit that Fundamentalisin is now begin- ning to infect the thinking of certan Catholics who are loyal members of the Churgh. The clearest symptom of infection is the belief fhat the Earth is young, nto more thana few thousarfl years old. This calls for a change of plan from wh: has worked so far if Catholics are to be defendediagainst Funda- mentalism. > 31Is Fundamentalism Creeping Into the Lives of American Catholics? Fundamentalists trace their roots to a series of books called The Fundamentals, published by cer- tain Protestants between 1909 and 1915. These books contained (among other topics) accounts of “heresies” (including Catholicism) and “critiques of scientific theories.” To be sure, no one should object to criticisms of scientific work as long as the criti- cisms are based on sound reasoning. But the cri- tiques that are associated with Fundamentalism at times involve what is in essence a rejection of ratio- nal thinking. ‘Three events indicate to me that American Catholics are now being exposed to Fundamentalist ideas from within the Church, First, in the process of home-schooling some of our children about five years ago, my wife and I encountered a serious dilemma in connection with certain science textbooks. We did not want our chil- dren to be swept along by the erroneous ideas about Darwinian evolution that permeate much of Ameri- can culture. We therefore selected biology textbooks that reject Darwin’s ideas about evolution. In this regard, the textbooks met our needs admirably. However, we were startled to find that the textbooks. also contained the following claim: The Earth is only a few thousand years old. One textbook was Protes- tant, the other Catholic. Second, in 1999 one of the leading American publishers of orthodox Catholic books released a book entitled Creation Rediscovered by GJ. Keane. This book contains not only a well-written criticism of Dar- winian evolution, butalso an extended attack (60 pages Jong) on the results of modern astrophysics concern- ing the age of the Universe. The book suggests that astrophysicists have misinterpreted the evidence be- cause of their belief in evolution. The book states that the evidence actually points to an Earth anda Universe no more than a few thousand years old. ‘Third, in 2001 a meeting that advertised itself as the “First International Catholic Family Confer- ence on Creation” was held in Manassas, Virginia. In the first talk at the meeting (entitled “The Catholic Doctrine on Creation”), the speaker argued for a lit eral interpretation of the six days of creation, imply- ing that the Earth is young. The written version of this talk includes the claim that “contrary to mod- ern theory, the Earth is the center point of the Uni- 32 verse.” In another talk at the freeting, a speaker dis- cussed 15 points of evidence from physical science which (he concluded) prove that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. (Thege talks are available on tape.) However, a critical efamination of the 15 points shows that in each cas¢ the physical processes at work by no means force ofe to the young-Earth conclusion. An Astronomer's Viewpoint Why do I find the young-Earth development troubling? Because it flies in tne face of reason. In my profession as an agtronomer, Iam famil- iar with abundant evidence fif'm the physical world indicating that the Earth andthe Sun and the Uni- verse have ages that are measyed in billions of years, ‘The evidence for these ages comes fromat least five distinct and independent areas of research in astrophysics: expansion of thenuniverse, stellar struc- ture, isotope dating, white dwjurf cooling, and prop- erties of the cosmic microwave radiation. The con- cordance of these five methpds is impressive be- cause they rely on completely distinct types of ob- servations, and different laws bf physics, to arrive at their conclusions, It is beyond the boundsiof reason to suppose that, if the Universe were actually no older than a few thousand years (as the yogng-Earth proponents claim), many hundreds of regzarchers from diverse countries and all religious batkgrounds would dis- cover five completely differett methods which all yield multi-billion-year ages. Dilemma for a Catholic In school, the Christian Hpothers taught me the maxim: “The Church has nofhing to fear from the ‘truth.” It should not matter byfwhat means the truth about the world is discovered: Catholics should be willing to look it squarely in thd face. But the message of the Fundamentalists is very different. They claim that when science establishes cprtain truths about the age ofthe world, Christians sha}tld reject those truths. What is a Catholic hompe-schooler to think about statements in otherwis@ acceptable textbooks that the Earth is young? Whats an orthodox Catho- lic to think when his favorite| publishing company says that the Earth is young? What is a Catholic par- ent to think when a Catholif Family Conference teaches that modem physicists are misleading the new OxfoRD Review a apublic in a multitude of ways? In particular, has the Church taught doctrinally In order to answer these questions, it is worth- hile first to be clear about how the claim for a oung age for the Earth arises. for a Young Earth The origin of the young-Earth theory is easy to med in the book of Genesis, and then adds six s to the result, (In the writings of the Fathers of the early Church, one can find indications that many ofthem also believed that the Earth was created in ‘sit literal days.) ‘The young-Earth theory results from one par- ar interpretation of the text of Genesis. However, interpretation overlooks the fact that the Church § some significant teaching about the way in which atholics are to approach the reading of Scripture. odern history book or a modern science text- ‘This is one way to approach the Bible. But it is not the way that the Magisterium of gris in 1950. He wrote: “It has been clearly laid .. that the first eleven chapters of Genesis do in to history in the true sense. However, it is er labors of exegetes to determine.” Obviously, Pope Pius's approach to Genesis is jon is: Do Catholics have to believe the Pope’s fing on how to read Genesis 1-11? Or can they -a “take-it-or-leave-it” attitude to this teaching? ‘lear answers to these questions can be found ani Generis itself: “What is expounded in lical letters of itself demands consent, since in d such Letters, the Popes exercise the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to apply Christ’s words ‘He who hears you, hears Me’ (Lk. 10:16)." The fact that Catholi¢s should follow the “mind and will” of the Pope hps been repeated by Vatican II in no uncertain terns (see Lumen Gen- tium, No. 25). Church Fathers & Church Teaching: Is There a Difference? But what about those saintly and wise Fathers of the Church who wrote about the “young Earth”? ‘What are we to make of their claips? To answer this, ‘we note that the Fathers wrote thany centuries be- fore Pope Pius XII set forth the abtwve teaching about how Catholics should approach Genesis 1-11. Now, it is true that Catholics rightfully pay respect to the writings of the Fathers of the Church. However, those writings are not in themsehes infallible. Just because certain Fathes calculated the age of the Earth by adding up the agqs in Genesis, does notmean that the Church teacheg that age as part of her doctrine. in fact, Pope Leo Wl addressed this explicitly in his 1893 encyclical Providentissimus Deus: “The unshrinking defense pf the Holy Scrip- ture does not require that we showid equally upholdall the opinions which each of the Fathers have put forth in explaining it. For it may be that, in com- ‘menting on matters where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed their ideas of their own times, and have thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect” enzinger, 1948). Magisterial Teaching on Creation When it comes to a question of formal Church teaching about the age of the Earth, one point is clear: No official magisterial document from either Pope or Council has ever taught that the Earth is a certain number of years old. This is not to say that the Church has taught nothing about creation, Far from it. The Magiste- rium taught formally about creation at the fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215. Lateran IV made it official Church teaching that the world (and all of creation) had a beginning in time. In other words, the world has not been in existence forever. This was a huge break from ideas that dated back to Aristotle. Subsequently, when the first Vatican Council met in 1869-1870, the Council fathers were con- fronting some of the new ideas of modem science, including Darwin’s theory of evolution. On the topic of the creation of the world, Vatican I repeated word for word the teaching of Lateran IV (see Denzinger, 1783): “From the very beginning of time [Latin: ab initio temporis}, God has created both orders of crea- tures (the spiritual or angelic world, and the corpo- real or visible universe) in the same way out of noth- ing, And afterwards {Latin: deinde], He formed the creature man, who in a way belongs to both orders, as he is composed of spirit and body.” Note the phrases that are used by both Lateran Vand Vatican I: “FROM (Latin: ab) the very begin- ning of time.” The formal teaching does rot indude the phrase “AT (Latin: in) the beginning of time.” A Catholic is not required to believe that everything was created in the same instant, at the very begin- ning. This nontrivial distinction allows a Catholic to believe in good conscience that God's creative work has been in process ever since time began, Note also that neither Lateran IV nor Vatican I makes any mention here of a specific time at which creation occurred. Nor is there a mention of how much time elapsed between the beginning of time and the creation of man: The Councils merely use a4 the generic term “afterwards” Latin: deinde). There is no mention of a certain nutaber of days. Moreover, Vatican I also teaches (see Denzinger, 1805): “If anyone does not adpnit that the world and everything in it, both spiritual and material, have been produced in their entire sulistance by God out of nothing, let him be anathema.” Two features of this teaching are noteworthy, First, there is (once again) no mention of a particular tire at which God created spiritual and material things, Second, the term “en- tire substance,” also used by tte Church in her teach- ing on the Eucharist (Denzingier, 877), is a technical term that stands in distinctiog to the “accidents” (ie., the outward appearances). Vatican I does not say that the accidents of everything {a the world were pro- duced by God out of nothing. In fact, although the creation of each man’s soul ogrtainly involves a direct creation by God out of nothpug {indicating ongoing creation to this very day), tHis is not true of man’s body. Each of us received afhody from our parents. And even the body of Adamjnimself, as God reveals (Gen, 2:7), was created usitg pre-existing material (‘dust of the ground”). God Made the World Ratigaally — Therefore Science Is Posqble One of the triumphs of the work of St. Thomas Aquinas was to point out tht God (who is a rational Being) created the world inj such a way that man (a rational creature, made in the image and likeness of God) could understand thd world. God did not cre- ate the world capriciously, giving different proper- ties to different particles of the same type. Instead, God created an orderly world based on particular quantities of “number, weight, and measure” (Wisd. 11:20). The ability to use the gift of reason in order to discover the wonders off3od's world is as much a talentas any of His other g}its to us. And we will one day render an account of ow we used that talent. It is precisely re God made a rational world according to “numer, weight, and measure” that scientists have a chapice of discovering some specific truths about the rrfiterial world. If truth were inaccessible to human fzasoning, then science ‘would make no sense. As it is, science doeg provide access to certain truths about the world. When scientists use their reason to discover somehing about the material world, itis as if God them a glimpse of part of nao Oxford Reviewthe blueprint He used when He, in His capacity as divine Architect (St. Augustine’s phrase: De Civitate Dei, ii, 3), created the world. The Church & Human Reason ‘The young-Earth theory brings to a sharp fo- ‘cus an important question to which all Catholics should give some thought. Namely, can faith and reason contradict each other? ‘Surprising as it may seem, there have actually been certain people in the world who believe that, the answer to this question is yes. For example, in the Middle Ages, the Muslim philosopher Averroes taught that something that is true in religion is not necessarily also true in philosophy. Averroes believed that a religious truth might be a philosophical false- ‘hood. Averroes was apparently not concemed by this violation of the principle of non-contradiction. So troubling did Thomas Aquinas find this assault on human reasoning that he wrote an entire treatise specifically to demonstrate that Averroes was wrong about this. Thomas established that once an element of truth is discovered, it makes no difference whether twas faith orhuman reason (including science) that discovered it. At the time of Vatican I, materialism was firmly entrenched as the order of the day in scientific circles. Moreover, Darwin's theory of evolution had burst on the world only a few years prior to the Council. So the fathers of Vatican I perceived a need. to give a clear teaching on the relationship between faith and science. To achieve this, they essentially elevated Thomas’ ideas about faith and reason to the level of magisterial teaching. This teaching of Vatican | is quoted verbatim in the Catechism of the Catho- \lic Church (No. 159): “there can never be any real Idiscrepancy between faith and reason. Since the ‘same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith \has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth lever contradict truth.” ‘The Church paida great compliment to human ‘on at Vatican J, when it taught that unaided hu- reason could arrive at an item of information it has also been revealed by faith — ie,, the fact at God exists (Denzinger, 1806). Shortly after Vatican 1, in the year 1893, Pope XII extended Vatican I’s compliment concem- a ing human reason to scientists in particular. In his encyclical Providentissimus hleus, Pope Leo acknowl- edged that certain truths abohit the material world can beestablished by scientists wh:h “irrefutable evidence” (Latin: veracibus documents) (Denzinger, 1947). So much respect did Pope Leo hiave for scientific truth that he insisted that the Chf:rch must be careful in her teachings not to contrafict any truths that are based on “irrefutable evider Clearly, Pope Leo was ft referring here to ar- cane scientific truths such §s the theory of atomic structure. The latter theory §: certainly based on ir- refutable evidence, but it has f10 overlap with Church teaching, and cannot possilfly be relevant to Pope Leo, Instead, the Pope was) obviously referring to scientific truths that are pertfnent in one way or an- other to the contents of Gen¢iis 1-11. Ithas become evident in recent decades that modem astronomy is an area in which Pope Leo’d words are highly rel- evant. And Pope Leo put his money where his mouth was: He expanded th: Vatican Observatory so that the Church would nat be left behind by the discoveries of modem astronpmy. Where did Pope Leo obtajia his respect for scien- tific truths? The answer js clearly stated in Providentissimus Deus: The Pope simply followed some reasonable guidelines tut had been laid down ‘many centuries previously i in he writings of St, Au- s. For example, in the dressed the question of the Genesis account of tion 68, Reply 1): “In dis kind, two rules are to be ol wavering. Second, since Hol plained in a number of ways, should be held so rigidly that maintain this explanation if Thomas in an encyclical, guidelines to the level of result, since 1893, Catholics have had an obligation new axfordD reviewsito honor the truths that are established by means of science, provided that the evidence is irrefutable. But What About Faulty Science? It goes without saying that scientists are not fallible. Scientists can and do make mistakes, In- deed, large groups of them may at times espouse ideas that are incorrect. For example, during the [Sth century, the French Academy of Sciences de- vied the evidence that meteorites are objects that fail from the sky. Closer to our own time, Darwinian evolution is alcase in point. There is a widespread belief among ological scientists in the English-speaking world that Darwinian evolution (.e,, the theory that numer- ous slight successive modifications occurring at ran- 1m can cause a new species to appear from an older one) embodies the absolute truth about living things. In| fact, it can be plausibly argued that, since the yonkey trial” in Tennessee in the 1920s, Darwinian evolution has become the best-known scientific theory in America. Interestingly, in other parts of the orld (such as China and Franice), Darwin's ideas are ‘not treated with the sort of quasi-dogmatic reverence at is found in our Anglo-Saxon culture. And yet, there is an increasing body of scientific evidence to suggest that Darwinian evolution is in- inctions Between Physics & Biology jow that evidence against Darwinian theory fing, there is a danger that people may begin d all science as suspect. This would be un- because science does not have access to the im of infllibility does not mean that science is incapable of determining certain pieces of the truth. 20 appreciated this point explicitly. But this abvious question: Haw ase we to decide a scientific theory is true or not? The answer is that we need fo rely on probability. The probability. that the theory is correct can be frereased by perform- ing experiments to test certaif predictions of the theory. The more specific the prediction, the more valuabletthe test, And as more aid more tests are per- formed, with a successful aueome for each, the theory is regarded as ly more fikely to be true. At some point, rational theory provides a reliable des pects of the world. To be sure, but it does provide a credible enunciated by Pope Lea: “irrefuthble evidence.” Newton’s laws of motion, for example, which ‘were proposed in the 1600s, havp been subjected to a great number of tests. So religble are these laws that NASA has put them to superb use in its explora- tion of our solar system. For exafaple, when one of the Voyager spacecraft was launghed in 1977, it re- quired 12 years to reach Neptune) At the end of that 12-year journey, Voyager arrived bt Neptune within a minute of the time that had een predicted by Newton's laws. Asa result, even thpsugh Newton was not infallible, Newton's laws qualify as a theory that is based on “irrefutable evidence.” As pointed out by Behe and qthers, Darwinism fails to satisfy the criterion of “i The difficulty with Darwin's i turned out later to he incorrect. On the other hand, physics. defis with material bodies in the simplest possible terns. As a result, it is much easier for physicists to perfgm detailed and extensive tests of their theories, Newton's laws of motion are an example. As a example, we note that after Einstein developed hris Special and General Theories of Relativity, therd were at least a dozen specific experiments that sigegested them- selves as ways to test the theories. The predictions that were made for each experiment rere quite spe- cific. Many decades were to go by belpre the techni- cal difficulties of testing the variops predictions could be overcome. But overcome thty were, one by ‘one, and by the mid-1980s, 11 teststhad been per- formed by various groups of scientif's around the world, (The 12th is to be tested by me§ns of a special a7satellite still in development.) All 11 of Einstein's Predictions that have been tested to date have been confirmed by experiment. This is an astounding tribute to the genius of Einstein. Surely Einstein glimpsed a true image ofa piece of God's blueprint for the physical universe. ‘There is simply no comparison between Einstein's theory and Darwin's theory: The former has been tested in multiple ways, and has passed each test with flying colors, whereas Darwin's principal pre- diction (concerning macro-evolution) has still not been observed to happen. In view of the extensive evidence in favor of Einstein's theory, it is reasonable to conclude that the evidence for the Theory of Relativity deserves Pope Leo's adjective “irrefutable.” And according to this theory, the Universe is between 10 and 20 bil- lion years old. ‘There are other theories in physics that are also based on equally solid evidence. For example, calculations of stellar structure are based on the laws of conservation of momentum and energy. These have been widely tested over the past few centuries, and have been found to be accurate de- scriptions of the physical world. As a result, when calculations of stellar structure indicate that the oldest stars have ages between 10 and 20 billion years, these results are reliable. Other theories that have been used by physicists in arriving at similar estimates for the age of the Universe are also based on thoroughly tested evidence. What Does Pope Leo's Teaching Mean for a Catholic? Does Pope Leo's teaching make any difference for a Catholic when it comes to the young-Earth/ old-Earth controversy? I submit that the answer is yes: It makes a lot of difference. ‘As mentioned above, evidence from five dis- tinct fields of physics point to a universe with a multi-billion-year age. Because five completely in- dependent methods all point to essentially the same age, itis hard to avoid the conclusion that this evi- dence deserves the label “irrefutable” in Pope Leo’s sense. Based on this, it is inconceivable that the Church could teach that the Earth is young. If the Church were to proclaim the young- Earth theory as an item of Church teaching, in the 38 words of Thomas Aquinas, “Holy Scripture would be exposed to the ridicule tf unbelievers, and this, would block the unbeliever§' way to belief.” Does the Old-Earth Theory Favor the Theory of Evolytion? Almost everyone who piscusses evolution and the age of the Earth can be qlassified into one of two categories: (1) Evolution ocurs, and the Earth is old, or (2) evolution does not occur, and the Earth is young. have never met an qvolutionist who believes in a young Earth. Nor have [ met a young-Earther who believes in evolution. The question is: Are these the only two groups that pegple can be classified in? No. I suggest that there is a fhird possibility: (3) The Earth is old, but evolution dk nof occur (at least not the way Darwin suggested). Inother words, I make fhe following claim: Just because the Earth is oldjdoes not mean that Darwin's ideas must necessfrily be true. My reasons for making) this claim are based on the fact that evidence for ar} old Earth comes from the laws of physics, pure arfl simple. These claims have nothing whatsoever toflo with biology. In par- ticular, they have nothing th: do with the theory of Darwinian evolution. Unfortunately, some Fgndamentalists suspect that physicists are in collugion with evolutionists. ‘Thus, when physicists annpunce ages of 10 to 20 billion years for the Univers, the Fundamentalists claim that the physicists arp actually misinterpret ing data so as to (secretly) provide support for the theory of evolution. (This approach is evident in GJ. Keane’s book Creation Redthcovered.) ‘To counteract this suspjcion, opponents of evo- lution sometimes choose tol fight against evolution by opting for the young-Earth: theory. The argument goes roughly as follows: If we limit the Earth’s age to no more than a few thougand years, then evolu- tion will not have had enough time to do its work. However, in making tls argument, the oppo- nents of evolution are surrpndering unnecessarily to the Darwinians. In fact, the claim of the Darwin- ians is erroneous. Even iff10 billion years have elapsed since the Earth began, this is not enough time for even the first living fell to appear as a result of chance. Nowhere near enpugh time. The phrase “billions pnd billions of years” (that was made famous by the late Carl Sagan) neu oxford Reviewinds like a long time to us because it is much ger than a human life. But “long” is a relative \. The relevant scientific question as far as evo~ lution is concemed is: How “long” would it require fox random encounters between amino acid mol- ectiles in the primordial Earth to create even a single living protein? Even if we choose the small- esti known protein, consisting of a chain of 50 amiino acids arranged in a specific pattern, then it is easy to show from probability theory that 5 or 10 billlon years is not nearly enough time to create thig protein by chance. If not even a single protein can be created by rantlomness, the possibility of creating by chance one cell (which requires many different pro- to function) is astronomically small even if the is § or 10 billion years old. The first cell could ave come into existence by chance: It requires were a billion times a billion years. sold, the tion are misleading the uninitiated public. 'Thus, admitting that the Earth is 5 billion years not mean that the evolutionists have “won,” still a strict and unavoidable need for God to ife in an old Earth. akespeare.” This claim has been made so per- itly and so confidently over the years that it aken on the nature of dogma in some peoples’ 3. And yet this claim is demonstrably false. To jis, note that, if each monkey pecks once a Does God “Test Our Faith” With Scientific Evidence? When Fundamentalists are presented with sci- entific evidence that suggests thd Earth is old, they sometimes respond with the following argument: God can do anything; therefor, He can (if He chooses) make fossils look much older than they actually are. Or He can place the}stars at a million light years’ distance, but start thpir light traveling ‘toward us at an initial distance of only a thousand light years, so that the light can re§ch us today even though the Earth is only a few thqusand years old, In other wards, they say, the orld has the ap- ies, alffiough in actual- different prop- lists claim, God erties. In this way, the Fundament is testing our faith in His ability Fundamentalists claim that shpport for God's ability to create the appearance of ag2 (e.g, in fossils) comes from the following thought ¢:periment. Sup- pose someone met Adam and Eve the day after they ‘were created. Presumably, since Gog created them as adults, they would have the appearabce of being, say, 25 or 30 years old. And yet they wei actually only a day old. In view of this, the Fundaspentalists claim, appearances of age can be deceivis ‘On these grounds, they sug that scientists have been deceived by the a 6 of great age in the fossil evidence, and in the astroplhysical evidence. However, such arguments arel subject to seri- ous doubt. For example, when Ad: created, God's original plan for the death, It was only if they chose to death would enter the picture ("in die”). Before sin was committed, Ge t day, you shall ’s plan was for then go to he with God in Heaven. tion, the absence of death would ferent from the process with which miliar in everyday life. Adam and lived in the Garden for a hundred ye have “aged” (according to our:‘once Original Sin occurred, death entered into the lives of Adam and Eve. From that point on, they were driven from the Garden into the world that we live in now. And in our world, an aging process began in earnest for Adam and Eve in preparation for the separation of body and soul in death. Moreover, why would God trick us by setting up an elaborate system of multiple physical clues that point consistently to a Universe that has an age between 10 and 20 billion years? What would God achieve by deceiving us on such a massive scale? Such activity seems entirely out of character for Someone who (according to the standard theologi- cal definition) can neither deceive nor be deceived, NeW OXFORD Review / en espafiol / In furtherance of our mission to spread orthodox Catholicism to as wide an audience as possible, we are pleased to an- nounce the translation into Spanish of a selection of articles, guest columns, and New Oxford Notes from each issue of the NEw OXFORD REVIEW. These Spanish-lan- guage translations are now available on our website, www.newoxfordreview.org. We encourage our readers to utilize this feature of our website as a tool for evangeli- zation by recommending it to those who would benefit from catolicismo robusto — and who wouldn't? — or by simply logging on to our site, and printing and disseminat- ing favorite NOR items among Spanish- speakers. You could even put them in the vestibule or in the missalette slots in the pews prior to Spanish Masses. ‘We are always on the lookout for new ways to promote orthodox Catholicism, so if you or someone you know is capable of trans- lating text into, say, Arabic, Chinese, or Rus- sian, contact us at: New Oxford Review, De- partment of International Evangelization, 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley CA 94706. iAdelante! Italso seems entirely out offtharacter for Christ, who proclaimed Himself to be “the Truth,” to engage in worldwide trickery with scfinttists who are honestly and eamestly seeking the truth about the world. The Claim for a Young Ejrth: What Is a Catholic to Beljeve? What am I to tell my fiome-schooled children about the claim that the Eafth is young? How should they regard such a claim? Should they interpret Gen- esis in a literal sense? It seems to me that ) have an obligation to teach my children that litefalism is not the way the Church approaches the int@ pretation of Genesis, In this regard, Catholics are guided by the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII and Popd Pius XII. Catholics cer- tainly need to “hold the trpth of Scripture without wavering” (as Aquinas saiq). The difficult partis to determine what exactly is the “truth of Scripture.” Pope Leo XUII establisifed the Pontifical Biblical :. The PBC was an offi- 1m until 1971, when it mission of scholars en- }2 Church’s teaching of- PBC was asked if it is he Hebrew word yom ff Genesis in two distinct ¢ (as the natural day) or fying a certain space of 1 June 30, 1909: “In the | the “truth of Scripture” 's must regard the “days” intervals of 24 hours, as esin good standing may esis as spanning periods hours. the 100th anniversary of PBC issued a document fon in the Church. This 1 introduction by Pope : document pointed out yoach to the Bible is not ic Church is concerned. istapproach inadequate? the reason in his Intro- although God certainly rantly (as Pope Pius XII prs in his 1943 encycli- joying the confidence of fice. In the early 1900s, permissible to interpret (“day”) in the first chapter ways: either in its strict ina less strict sense as si time. The PBC answered affirmative.” In other wor does not mean that Cathol of Genesis 1 as identical t ‘we experience time. Cathol interpret the “days” of of time other than 24 of ot Moreover, in 1993, oF Pope Leo’s encyclical, the| entitled Biblical Interpret document included a lor John Paul Il. The 1993 PI that a Fundamentalist a adequate as faras the Cath Why is a Fundament Pope John Paul spells out duction. He points out uses human language in reiterated in no uncertain cal), God also uses thelexible. Gad is not locked in to using human lan- ein one and only one way. Because of this flex- ibility, the words of Scripture are sometimes hard to derstand. This is not a new teaching by the cur- mnt Pope; in fact, the very first Pope made the iden- ical point in one of his inspired writings (2 Pet. 3116). In order to find the “truth of Scripture,” the rds of Scripture need to be interpreted property. It] most cases, the interpretation is obvious. But jere are certain cases where the interpretation is in te, Jn such cases, it is the task of the Magiste- rium to provide the correct interpretation. An inflividual’s interpretation, even if supported by the ers of the Church, may be in error. In short, the interpretation of genealogies in is in such a way as to arrive at an age of only a thousand years for the Earth is nof part of mag- isterial teaching. ‘Therefore, when I teach my children that the is between 4 and 5 billion years old, 1am not tradicting any currently defined doctrine of the ic Church. Nor am I giving credence to Dar- bas never been achieved, it wan't be achieved until the coming of the Kingdom of God, and there's not uct] that beauty queens can do about it. 2003 Still, in a sense, every perstmn has the capacity ‘to change the world. Every persqni contributes to the sum total of happiness, contemtment, and disap- pointment that is felt in the w@rld. People usually have no idea what the long-teym or final conse- quences of their actions and words will be, but people can do things that it more likely that ‘they will make something wortiQvhile of their lives, not only for themselves but forjothers and for the Christian community. One aim $f Christian educa- tion is to help young people ungerstand that what they do and say really matters. Of course, a few people —bg, the Secretary General of the United Nations, thy: American Secre- tary of State — operate at a global level. And while it may be good to think globally (jf that’s really pos- sible), most of us are limited to geting locally. And ‘even those who do operate on the international scene aren’t inamune from the méndane realities of human life. So another aim of edbcation is to tem- per grandiosity and self-serving affbition. 1would guess that, more tha any other city in the U.S., Washington, D.C, is iniabited by ambi- tious people who want to do goog for “the world,” and yet itis also a city racked by ¢unning, conniv- ing, destructive power-politicking, and back stab- bing. The city seems to be full offeople who love humanity in general but can’t stabd people in par- ticular. This rerninds us that anotifer aim of educa- tion is to help students think abstr4-tly, but only, in the end, for the sake of acting righ ‘There's nothing commendable a sible to simultaneously “honor ing” (1 Pet. 2:17) and maintain one’s Christiantidentity on this earth as a “stranger” and “pilgrimp (1 Pet, 2:11)? ‘One reason that Christians have nev¢r finally figured ‘out what it means to be in the worlf but not of itis ing on circurnstances, and histori are never exactly the same for all p Each generation of Christians in