Friar Life

Fr. Kalish teaches Creationism

Darwinism and the Divine: Evolutionary Thought and Natural Theology by Alister E. McGrath No. 1 An Introduction The dilemma of theological evolutionists . . . This is the self-imposed burden of the theological evolutionists: 1. They must somehow be faith- ful to the Word of God, but also : 2. Be very beholden to Modern Science. They are con- vinced that unless they prove themselves loyal to Science, no one will be interested in the Church [nor in God] whom they are professedly representing. But, in response, NO ONE what- soever is at all interested in something they fully understand—in their heart-of-hearts— will never be more than mere HYPOCRISY, as we shall soon see. McGrath has THREE ACADEMIC DEGREES: molecular biophysics, theology, and intellectual history. But these three disciplines will be in fact fighting one another inside him, as in a Deadly Ring. Think of these disciplines, duking it out: 1. Molecular biophysics: A science based only upon material laws. 2. Theology: Interested supposedly only in . . . GOD. 3. Intellectual History: [May I ask: Who ever understands just what Intellectual History is?] History is only a detailed record—hopefully, a very good record—of actual events. But if that “history” is distorted by the lens of the historian who is trying desperately to prove a point, it is, then, only someone’s faulted opinion. “Science”: from Latin, scientia: “to know.” TO KNOW! Theology is “The Queen of the Sciences.” All knowledge—whether history, or humanities, or mathematics, or what we understand today within the narrow confines of the word “science,” or all of the liberal arts—are beholden to theology. What does this mean?: Applying to her for wis- dom. Applying for direction from God. For assurance and confirmation from the Word of God, which provides a universal rule under which all knowledge must be adjudicated now, and some- day be ultimately Judged. With all of these grand human disciplines, we must appeal to her, with bended knee. What are her servants, her ministers, who promote theology? They must be exalted, of all men. They must be exalted, of all men! What are they like? What are they like? They must be—of all men—Humble. Reverent. Self-effacing. Serving, to the point of suffering. Seeking answers. Of- fering responses, but only in humility. Willing to be contradicted. In other words, filled with Virtue. To be . . . like Christ!

Creation Thesis Study Addendum 2A Sep 1, 2022 Scriptures in reference to Thesis p. 41, top: “...God expressed himself emotionally and immanently within the cosmos, which he had birthed and brought into being.” * Genesis 2:19: “Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.” [Thus God invited Adam to join him in the finishing touches of creation.] * Genesis 3:8: “And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.” * Exodus 33:18: “And [Moses] said, ‘Please, show me Your glory.’ ” 34:5-6: “Now the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed, ‘The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, . . .’ ” “God nurtures and redeems the world with compassion”: * Psalm 104:14-15: “He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the service of man, That he may bring forth food from the earth, And wine that makes glad the heart of man, Oil to make his face shine, And bread which strengthens man’s heart.” * Matthew 5:44-45: “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” * Matthew 10:29: “Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.” * John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” End of Addendum 2A pg. 1 2A https://friarlife.slack.com/files/U03J94GRJF5/F03VBUSNM6Z/creation_thesis_study_addendum_2a_sep_1__2022.docx 2B https://friarlife.slack.com/files/U03J94GRJF5/F040DGWQCLR/creation_thesis_study-sep.1__2022_addendum__2b_copy.docx Prophetic warnings of divine judgment:

Fr. Kalish teaches from his Thesis

Creation Thesis Study August 18, 2022 Thesis pp. 35-38 Etienne Gilson 1884-1978 Gilson was a Catholic French “great commentator and historian of philosophy,”1 and “possibly the most renowned medievalist of his generation” (see n. 2 below). Below is a glossary of his terms in the Thesis, and an explanation of his statements. Let me “pose to myself” some FAQs, as to why I chose Gilson: Why did I chose Etienne Gilson?: For the same reasons I also included here: 1, the ancient and medieval Fathers of the Church (St. Augustine, St. Anselm, etc.); 2, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce; and Louis Agassiz. I needed two sources: theological, and scientific. My Thesis mentor sug- gested that I include specifically Anglican authorities [e.g., Bp. Wilberforce], especially because Thesis chap. 3 would feature a very well-known modern Anglican scholar, and a theological evo- lutionist; and 3, Gilson, (see below). In order to develop a workable thesis [Dictionary definition: “a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved.”], I wanted to have excellent references. But why did I especially pick Gilson? He is a writer well known both within the Catholic and Anglican churches. Is he a creationist? Perhaps we can’t ally him “with us” as a full-fledged creationist. But it is ob- vious that he had real doubts about darwinism. Read the following quote from his address in 1948 to a group of French Catholic bishops: The Terrors of the Year Two Thousand,2 just three years after WW II. He mentions 1000 AD, when many had been expecting Christ to return. This entire lecture is absolutely gripping: [Speaking almost jokingly of St. Irenaeus’ (c. 120-c.200 AD) attempt to predict Antichrist] “Why should the world last exactly six thousand years? It is because creation lasted six days and since a day of creation is worth a thousand years, the world will come to an end after the six days of creation have run their course. The answer is perfect! But here we stop smiling and an uncomfortable doubt slips into our mind. Six thousand years? But how old was the world at the time of Christ? Suppose the six thousand years of the world were not finally to have expired until around the year Two Thou- sand? The scourges which have struck us, the menace of the blows which await us, do not favor abandoning this hypothesis. If the drama which we live does not announce the end of the world, it is a rather good dress rehearsal. Shall we see worse than Buchenwald. Lydice and Oradour-sur-Glane? Perhaps it is not impossible, but it is difficult to believe. At this point in our reflections, we cast our eyes about and ask anxiously: ‘But where is Antichrist?' And behold, he is right there!” [Note: Bu- chenwald and Lydice were Nazi concentration camps, where countless multitudes died; Oradour-sur- Glane was a city destroyed by a Nazi SS company, where 643 women and children were also slaugh- tered.] 1 From the foreword from From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species, and Evolution, originally published in 1971. 2 Link: https://archive.org/stream/terrorsofyeartwo00gils/terrorsofyeartwo00gils_djvu.txt 2 The Thesis includes more quotes from Gilson. His book (see n.1) contrasts the Greek philosopher Aristotle (whom St. Thomas Aquinas made much use of) and Charles Darwin. Aristotle, al- though not a God-believer, still understood that the marvelous order surrounding him had some logical beginning and ending, whereas Darwin (and his ever-increasing atheistic disciples) have never believed either in a personal beginning nor ending to the universe, or to the world. Below is a glossary of Gilson’s terms: Fixity: All species are in the same place as their origin [with certain allowances, all of which are subject to the marvel of their own genetic structure]. Transformism: All species are subject to complete change, either through many untold years, or through the extinction of competing species, or chance, or random mutations, or the progress of species from unknown sources. Teleology: A purpose for everything toward a definite end [without necessarily giving a source] (For the Christian, it can only be the Creator. For others, it may be Nature, or Gaia, or Fate, or Destiny, or . . .) Causality: A final meaning or purpose to its origin or to its end [without necessarily ascrib- ing all to a Creator] (For the Christian, the origin and final end are through the Creator. For others, it may be the “Big Bang,” or the universe, or this-is-the-way-things-are, with no ex- planation.) The terms above separate creationists from evolutionists, to this very day!

Louis Agassiz (1807-1873): Swiss-born Harvard Zoologist Quotations Regarding Darwinism (1869) The following quotes are from a chapter in a much longer work by Agassiz: Essay on Classification in Zoology. This chapter is called: Darwinism: Classification of [Ernst] Haeckel, also a German zoologist. One contemporary author said of Haeckel, if Thomas Huxley was Darwin’s “bulldog” in England, then Haeckel was Darwin’s “German shepherd.” His beliefs contributed much later to the rise of Naziism. Just before each quote is my explanation of its meaning. Bold words and brackets [ ] are mine. ************************************** Agassiz offers why Darwin does no justice to his own science. Although Darwin is a very good naturalist, his theory leads his followers completely astray: “I have for Darwin all the esteem which one has to have; I know the remarkable work that he has accomplished, as much in Paleontology as in Geology, and the earnest investigations for which our science is indebted. But I consider it a duty to persist in opposition to the doctrine that today carries his name. I indeed regard this doctrine as contrary to the true methods that Natural History must inspire, as pernicious, and as fatal to progress in this science. It is not that I hold Darwin himself responsible for these troublesome consequences. In the different works of his pen, he never made allusion to the importance that his ideas could have for the point of view of classification. It is his henchmen who took hold of his theories in order to transform zoological taxonomy.” Darwin’s theory is not true science. It is instead the shoehorning of evidence to fit the theory: “This that Darwin presented as a theory about the origin of species is not a result gradually achieved by laborious researches applied to the solution of some point of detail in order to rise afterwards to a general and embracing synthesis; no, this is a doctrine that from the conception descends to facts, and seeks for facts to support one idea.” Darwinism ignores what it doesn’t like. It picks and chooses what it likes: “. . . darwinism excludes nearly all the mass of acquired information, for it assimilates and takes exclusively that which could be useful to the Doctrine. It is not the facts that determines for the darwinists the nature of their generalizations, it is the system that dictates the nature of their reality.” Darwinians attempt to prove without evidence that offspring will be different from their parents End of page 1 https://friarlife.slack.com/files/U03J94GRJF5/F03ST0U1JPL/creation_thesis_study_august_11__2022__document__1__copy_2.docx

Fr. Kalish teaches from his paper on Higher Criticism Higher Criticism (cont.) A Digression August 4, 2022 We have confronted two modern arch-foes of the Church: Evolutionism, and Higher Criticism. They go hand-in-hand. Although we are mainly concerned with evolutionism, since it pretends to be within the realm of science, it has also been ably assisted by intense subversion of Scripture, to overthrow it. I saw it everywhere in a “conservative” Anglican seminary. It is very important that we understand biblical criticism. There are ways in which we can ask regarding God’s Word with reverence and respect. But what is of far, far greater significance are the deliberate efforts to undercut Scripture, in order to render it useless and harmless. This document may help us get a handle on this potentially dangerous tool. I am utterly convinced that the Scripture cannot be dealt with merely as a literary work. It is . . . Living! It is . . . Holy! It commands the attention of all men. It is NOT to be tampered with. For these, and for a host of other reasons, the greatest, greatest care must be taken regarding analyz- ing the biblical text, because analysis easily leads to doubts, which in turn destroy Faith. For these reasons, “Criticism” of the Bible is a very, very poor label for approaching it. Generally, “criticism” is scholarly. It is the province of the “intelligentsia.” And pride, of course, always gets in the middle of everything. Jesus prayed to His Father: “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17). Always remember Hebrews 4:12. Below are three seminary texts to help us prove a point. Kinds of Criticism: We can divide critics of Scripture into Herbivores (with nice teeth), and Predators (with cruel teeth).1 Here are some of them: A. Herbivores [who may not be causing harm to the Church]: -Literary criticism: Looking at the Bible generally as a source of literature -Narrative criticism: Looking for “stories” behind the texts -Rhetorical criticism: Trying to affect the reader in some way -Text analysis: Looking at the language of the biblical times -Social/scientific criticism: How the writers affected the world, and their communities Many of these “criticisms” may be helpful, interesting, or enlightening, but when they are al- lowed to have the upper hand over the Truth of God’s Word, they are to be thoroughly dis- counted. God’s Word is for all times, all ages, all cultures, and all peoples. 1 These categories are found in Elements of Biblical Exegesis, by Michael J, Gorman, Baker, 2009. The use of ani- mals as metaphors is mine. End of page 1 of 4 https://friarlife.slack.com/files/U03J94GRJF5/F03S538BJN8/higher_criticism__cont.__august_4__2022.docx

Fr. Kalish teaches from his thesis Creation vs The Words of Man Creation Thesis-July 28, 2022-Notes for Discussion Please p. 29 (bottom) to p. 35 (bottom) We have been reviewing Darwin’s Theory and its consequences: 1. Material forces only have produced species, over countless years (p. 24, middle) 2. Natural selection only is the agency (see quotation, p. 26, top) 3. Death and extinction is the only remedy for those who are losing the Struggle for Life (p. 26, bottom) 4. The marvels associated with advanced animals and plants (e.g., the mammalian eye) are produced only by the “unerring skill” of natural selection (p. 27, top) 5. Man is the only competitor left alone from this entire order. (p. 28) 6. Races of man indicate that only one race is supreme (p. 28, 29). 7. The new science, eugenics, will be the only means of controlling unwanted races (p. 29) 8. God, and everything associated with Him, are only the products of natural selection (p. 29) Let us remind ourselves that all the above are built only upon conjectures (see footnote 39, p. 25, bottom). This new Theory, coupled with the scourge against Scripture of Higher Criticism, had an untold effect upon science and culture until this very day, in which we live. We now will be turning to two men, Bp. Samuel Wilberforce and Louis Agassiz, who attempted to stem the tide against evolution. There were enormous forces rallying in opposition to the Scripture, because, among other things, the Church until that point had preeminence through Scripture over the hearts and minds of all men. The diabolical Plan to ruin the Church might be like this: 1, if science wins over the accounts of Genesis, through Darwin’s new theory, which posits “deep time” to work; 2, if the theory is generally accepted, so that neither “death” nor “sin” never existed, prior to man’s fall; 3, if Bible can be proved fallacious on multiple counts; 4, then either the Old or New Testament can’t be trusted at face value, and, if one is going to ac- cept it on some level, it must be accepted allegorically, rather than historically or literally. “Jesus saves!” Christians all believe this today, as they always have. But His last enemy, death (1 Cor 15:26), must be poetic, even though through Adam, all died (vs. 22). Christ, being the great Savior, connecting the effects of the consequences of the fall with the everlasting life promised by God in Scripture by His crucifixion and resurrection, is vastly reduced to meaningless. Although the Church coopted almost completely accepted the theory, today, a very, very small force of dedicated scientists and faithful scholars faithful to the Scriptures are waking up spiritu- ally to the true nature of things at hand.

Skip the first 16 minutes, the audio is unusable. Creation Thesis-July 21, 2022-Notes for Discussion - Thesis: p. 25 ff. Consider: Darwin’s New“Theory”: —The Theory offers a theme of gigantic proportions. Think about it: 1. We now have a reason for everything! Everything proceeded from nothing, without explanation. With ONLY chance, and time, (and now, mutation, which was unknown to Darwin), things arranged themselves to produce what we have here, today: A. The entire universe (with its vast array of stars, galaxies, planets, which finally, pro- duced earth) B. The inception of life, millions of years ago, which then organized itself, by steps and degrees, to produce the ordered situation which we have today. C. All of the above, again, was “conceived” by Something (an impersonal force), which can’t conceive anything. 2. A Creator God is: * Non-existent, or . . . * Able to do nothing, except bless a process He has no control of. * Those who believe in God, must find ways to work God into the new Theory. * Very few believe in such a God, or His written words, inscribed in Scripture, which can’t be trusted. * Only a tiny fraction of civilized man wholeheartedly accept such a God and the entirety of His Word. The New Theory is the Victor, and God effectively is booted out: Consider the consequences: * Religion now is merely sentimental, something one can accept, or reject. * Since there is no absolute truth, except the New Theory, no divine law must be obeyed. * Conscience is hardened, because there is nothing to hold it in check. Is it possible that the rise of Naziism, Communism, and later, abortion, are some of the results? “Sin” is nonexistent. “Death” is the inevitable part of life. Is it possible that the Theory is included among the deceptions of the End Times?

Creation Thesis-July 14, 2022-Notes for Discussion Chapter Two-The Introduction of a Theory With Enormous Consequences Pages 23ff (I would recommend reading pages 23-27) Please read the following link, which would help you get a handle on the Enlightenment, especially the humanist, Jewish philosopher named Baruch Spinoza: https://answersingenesis.org/culture/science-versus-religion-or-pantheism-versus-christianity/ Read Darwin’s paragraph in p. 24 -The enormity of his “Theory” is written here in plain language: 1. It will upend special creation from its origin. 2. Species are changed from previous species, as a result of “natural selection” (NS). 3. NS has replaced God from any progress and development within the world and universe. -This Theory becomes so utterly convincing, that all of theology must realign itself accordingly. This is the same situation, today, with the help of a mass of additional complexity, which throws the world further into confusion. -Darwin a first wanted to be an Anglican priest. But his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, published Zoomania, an earlier work which promoted evolution. Darwin’s beloved daughter Anne at nine died of tuberculosis, which hardened his heart. -p. 25: The Theory was built on conjectures (read footnote n. 39 below). Darwin considered time as his ally: millions and millions of years regarding the earth as very, very old. This gave NS everything it needed to evolve a multitude of species. This geological timeline was first promulgated by James Hutton in the 18th century. And fossil deposits will prove the Theory. -p. 26: NS was given a god-like status to cull inferior species, and promote superior species. “Determinism” —laws which were put into effect by Who-Knows-Where— rules everything with an iron hand. Darwin never declared himself an atheist, but really is so, in essence. He has no interest in promoting theological evolutionism, because this is a scientific issue, which doesn’t need God at all. The “survival of the fittest,” the “wars of nature,” are bound to the laws of the Theory which he had discovered and promoted. It’s ingenious! [except: why, or how, the entire universe is subject to these impersonal, inanimate laws!] p. 26, 27: His offers “the mammalian eye” as the product of untold years of NS. “Mother Nature” is the one who invented this marvel [although no one can see her, find her, or give her credit]. p. 28: Man will be the crown of Nature’s creation. Of all of the various species, man survives through the death-filled battles of the past.