Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:01 Okay.
Speaker 1 00:01 Well, as usual, uh, the courts have been edited, cut and pasted. For Sake of clarity, I want to set all my sources, but I want to give special credit to doctors. David Berlinski, Wolfgang Smith and John Harnett and his work, the Summa Contra Jan titties, that great doctor, the church, Saint Thomas Aquinas states quote, it is absolutely false to maintain with reference to the truths of our faith. So what we believe regarding creation is of no consequence so long as one has an exact conception concerning God because an error regarding the nature of creation always gives rise to a false idea about God that's worth repeating. It is absolutely false to maintain with re referenced the truths of our faith, that what we believe regarding creation is of no consequence. So long as one has an exact conception concerning God because in air regarding the nature of creation always gives rise to false idea of God.
Speaker 1 01:07 Now in that regard, this little book is a real contribution to clearing up a massive number of the unfortunately common errors regarding creation. It's entitled the metaphysics of evolution. It was written by Father Chad repre repertoire, the metaphysics of evolution, Chad Repertoire. It's a perfect gift for the priest or philosopher in your life. It's academically rigorous. It's pretty dense, but it's really, really good and it has a nifty little dictionary in the back of terms. Okay. This work is a reflection on an application of first principles to the claims of evolution. Now we've talked about first principles are four. Here's just an example. First principle for anybody's forgot the principle identity. Asa like this book is this book or this thumb is this thumb and we've pointed out that no one can deny fundamental self-evident principles. No one can die like deny first principles. If he does, he's a madman and he can't be reasoned with in this work.
Speaker 1 02:08 Again, it's the metaphysics of evolution by Father Chad. Your father repick or lays out a series of irrefutable and absolutely conclusive arguments from first principles which demonstrate the absolute and possibility of evolution. I'll quote from the conclusion of this brilliant little work Father River Group. When we consider first philosophy that is that branch of metaphysics which studies first principles and we apply first principles to evolutionary theory. We began to realize that every form of evolutionary theory violates some first principles. Our chief concern has been to show that given some of the more evident first principles, it becomes clear that evolutionary theory is not able to be sustained rationally since it's irrational or contrary to reason to violate first principles in one's reasoning process. We can say that evolutionary theory is irrational or contrary to reason. Well, it is true that evolutionary theory is irrational. We should not think that everybody who holds evolutionary theories intentionally being irrational or that they would have sufficient knowledge at first principle is to realize that that theory is irrational.
Speaker 1 03:22 However, in light of this study, in light of the principles or in light of the findings of serious empirical research that contradicts the claims of evolution, our hypothesis, and in light of theological considerations, it is our hope that the scientific and academic communities who will stop taking a prejudiced view of the matter and begin considering the issue with greater intellectual clarity. Close quote, Father Chad, rip rigger. Let's pray that this book finds a wide audience and seminarians and priests. Now, one of the major obstacles for people taking our religion seriously, especially those of us who are trained in empirical sciences is a current standard model, naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe known as the Big Bang. Now, just in case someone here isn't familiar with the standard naturalistic explanation, we'll take a moment to summarize and only the most general terms what the cosmologists claim.
Speaker 1 04:18 Now, cosmologist is a physicist who specialize in the study, the formation and evolution of the universe. Okay? Almost a hundred years ago, astronomers are analyzing delight from galaxies and they noticed a phenomenon called a red shift. We don't have time to get into technical details, but we can say the one pos one, it's not unreasonable. One possible way of interpreting those red shifts is that they are signed, that the galaxies are moving apart and indeed the red chef's were interpreted as proof that the universe is expanding and the assumption was that the more red shifted the light the farther away the galaxy cosmologists. Again, those are the guys who study the formation and evolution of that universe, the cosmologists, Daenerys, and if the universe is currently expanding, then if we go backwards through time, sort of run the movie backwards so to speak. There once was a time roughly 15 billion years ago when the whole universe was squished together to a tiny volume, the whole universe, everything was squished together into a point, much smaller than a proton.
Speaker 1 05:21 And by everything of the cosmologists mean all energy, all space in all time, squished up everything, everything in the universe all squished together and some point smaller than a prototype appoint of infinite temperature and density and then suddenly for no apparent reason, the big bang happens, which is everything begins exploding outwards. And as the universe expands outwards and cools, the energy begins to condense into matter until the universe becomes a gigantic transparent, expanding cloud of gas made up mostly of hydrogen with helium and some traces of lithium. And Do Eric Deuterium over time inside this immense expanding gas cloud by the force of gravity, vast areas of guests began to coagulate until galaxies and stars are somehow formed until finally after 15 billion years. And we have the current universe just as we see it today. So now that we've considered a thumbnail sketch of the Big Bang, let's ask ourselves a question. If that's what the scientists tell us, what happened, what's wrong with that?
Speaker 1 06:26 What's wrong with that? There's plenty wrong with that and we only have time to consider a few problems. First, we'll consider a few scientific problems you may not be aware of and then we'll consider a few more general methodological problems. Scientific problems. First problem, the problem of the read of the red shift. Okay, remember that the notion the universe is expanding hangs upon the claim that because light coming from distant galaxies is red shifted. This den implies that the galaxies are moving away from each other and the more red shifted the light, the greater the distance. Now, the original work on red shifting was done almost a century ago by analyzing data from 20 galaxies. More recently, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, prominent American mathematician named Dr Iie Segal and his associates spent 20 years analyzing data from a set of more than 10,000 galaxies. Siegel and his associates have demonstrated they've demonstrated the red shift is not related to some measure of distance, but as related to the parent brightness of the galaxy.
Speaker 1 07:30 So much for an expanding universe. His conclusions quote by normal standards of scientific due process, the results of Big Bang cosmology are losery. Big Bang cosmology owes its acceptance as a physical principle primarily to the uncritical and premature representation of the red shift distance relationship. As an empirical fact observed, discrepancies have been resolved by a pyramid of exculpatory assumptions which are inherently incapable of non circular substantiation. Closed quotes. Now in plain English, what he's saying is big bang cosmology is Bunco. It's a bunch of Malarkey. It's a scam wrapped in circular reasoning. That's what he's saying there. The importance of these results cannot be overstated. What has been claimed to be evidence of expanding universe is seemed to be nothing of the sort. The red shift of the galaxy is simply a function of its apparent brightness, so the whole theory collapses just like that, but we're not done beating it up yet.
Speaker 1 08:36 Next problem for the Big Bang theory, the problem of the formation of stars and galaxies. Quote the theoretical astrophysicist, Professor Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University, his bestselling book of his brief history of time, claimed that his big bang theory was quote in agreement with all the observational evidence that we have today. Close quote. Now the casual reader might reasonably conclude from this that hockey's Big Bang theory explain the origin of the universe. That is to say, explained everything surprising. This is not the case. A few sentences after professor hawking claimed that his big bang theory, it explained all the evidence, he admitted that among the few remaining unanswered questions was the question of the origin of the stars and galaxies. Now in the universe where we live, if you take away the stars and galaxies, there is an effect. No universe left to explain close quote. Okay, so the theory which supposedly explains the formation, the universe can explain the formation of the stars and galaxies which actually make up the universe and the importance of this fat can't be overstated either. Quote, the Universe is by definition the planet, stars and galaxies that surround us insofar as Big Bang theory does not explain the origin of these objects. Then we could say the Big Bang theory does not even address the question of the origin of the universe. It does not even get to first base. Big Band theory produces at best, given the benefit of every doubt and expanding mass of gas.
Speaker 2 10:11 Close quote,
Speaker 1 10:13 Big Bang. Cosmology is bunker. It's a bunch of Malarkey. It is a scam wrapped in circular reasoning. Next problem. The problem of the missing matter and energy. Now according to this theory, as we heard under the force of gravity, vast areas of gas began to climb up and together until galaxies and stars are somehow formed. The strength of galaxy gravity depends on the amount of matter, the amount of stuff, the more matter and energy, the more gravity. So they've surveyed the skies and calculated the amount of matter. Then they're scattered out across space, and that's the problem. According to this theory, that needs to be quite a bit more met or in energy than they found in order to have the gravitation of forces necessary to form all the stars and galaxies and galactic clusters and superclusters keeping in of court of course, that the star, the theory doesn't actually explain their formation, but anyway, according to the theory, that needs to be quite a bit more matter and energy than they found in order to have the gravitational forces to form all the stars and galaxies and galactic clusters and superclusters within the so-called 15 billion year age of the universe.
Speaker 1 11:19 So how much more matter and energy do they need for the theory to work? Well, according to NASA, as of January, 2013 just a few months ago, when they survey the universe, they can't find 95.4% of the expected matter and energy.
Speaker 1 11:38 I think about that as a chairman of the astronomy department at the University of Washington, put a quote, it's a fairly embarrassing situation. Admit, we can't find 90% of the universe close quote. Yeah, I'd say so. But he's actually working with old data now. They can't find 90% of their imaginary universe. And then if gussied up this loss, uh, with, with fancy terms like cold, dark matter and dark energy. But keep in mind that not only is nobody ever seen either cold, dark matter, dark energy, they don't even know where to look for this stuff. The missing 96% of the universe reminds me of that. The, the man in the poem, it's always going up the stair. I met a man who wasn't there, he wasn't there again today. I wish, I wish he'd stay away. Big Bang cosmology as a Bunco. It's a bunch of Malarkey.
Speaker 1 12:26 It's a scam wrapped in circular reasoning. Next problem for the theory, the problem of the cosmological constant. Now we don't have the time to explain the significance of the cosmological constant. So we're just going to point out the magnitude of the problem. Professor Steven Weinberg, he's a Nobel Prize winner in physics. Points out that the discrepancy between the observed value for this constant and the predicted value according to Big Bang theory is greater than 118 orders of magnitude. Okay. For those that weren't trained in the period of sciences, what does that mean to save a discrepancy between observed values? For this constant I predicted values is 118 it's greater than 118 eight orders of magnitude. Well, picture the number one followed by 118 zeros.
Speaker 3 13:14 Okay.
Speaker 1 13:15 The number one and 118 zeroes to be off by 118 orders of magnitude and it's more than that. It means that predicted a theoretical value of this constant is not a hundred times greater, not a thousand times greater, not a million times greater, not a billion times greater, not not trillion times greater, but one followed by 118 zeros times greater than experimentally observed value. Well, that's just beautiful.
Speaker 3 13:41 Okay,
Speaker 1 13:42 cool. The scale of this problem is so great that no other problem cosmology comes anywhere near it. It is so embarrassing and so challenging that you can read whole books on cosmology without encountering a single mention of it. No one professor Stephen Hawkins popular books does he spell the nature of this problem? It is if he does not want to acknowledge that it exists. Close quote, his stuff is Bunco. It's Malarkey. It's a scam, raft and circular reason. Finally, the problem of a hidden etiological assertion in the large scale structure of space time. A book published in 1973 professor Stephen Hawking states that quote, we are not able to make cosmological models without some ad mixture of ideology closed coal. We're not able to make cosmological models without some admixture videology and then as a concrete example of an ideological assumption he sites the Copernican principle. The Copernican principle, obviously it's named after Nicholas Copernicus is not an experimentally determined scientific principle.
Speaker 1 14:53 It is not a scientific principle at all. It is an ideological assertion that the earth is not an a central specially favored position in the universe. As one cosmologists put it. Cool. It is evident that no well-informed and rational person can imagine that the earth occupies a unique position in the universe. It is evident that no well-informed and rational person can, can imagine that the earth occupies a unique position in the universe to which I reply. It is evident that no one well-informed and rational Catholic can possibly deny that the earth occupies a unique place in the universe. He came here, he came here.
Speaker 3 15:41 Okay.
Speaker 1 15:42 This stuff is anti-christ, anti Catholic Bunco. The point here is these cosmologists start with the ideological assumption. There's no intelligent design on a cosmic scale and surprise, surprise, surprise, surprise. Then they're so called scientific results show. There's no designer. They start with a hypothesis. Notice I'm gonna say grind for a while. It kicks out. No designer. That's circular reasoning.
Speaker 3 16:10 Yeah,
Speaker 1 16:10 Big Bang. Cosmology is Bunco. It's Malarkey. It's circular reasoning. Big Scam. The science isn't solid. It's a chalk. The reason the big bang is so strongly defend an academy is it because it functions as a materialist myth to explain creation without God? It's just an agenda driven fairy tale for adults. As a physicist, mathematician, philosopher, Wah, Wolfgang Smith significant when he made it, after he did his masters in physics, the guy figured out the theoretical problems that that had to do with reentry. Wolfgang Smith is above all imperative to get over the notion that science is simply a quest in search of the truth, open, unbiased, and fair. We need to realize that the enterprise has an ideology and agenda, an establishment and vested interest to protect the worldview of which science arise by purportedly rigorous means proves, find, reflect the ideological assumptions that guided the enterprise from the start. Close quote.
Speaker 3 17:10 Okay.
Speaker 1 17:11 Okay. We've looked at five quick look at five scientific problems with the big bang is so-called scientific theory. We've seen the very basis in the big bang for the idea of an expanding universe. The red shift is instead related to the brightness of the galaxy. In other words, the evidence claimed for expansion shows nothing of the sort. We've seen the three can't even account for the formation of stars and galaxies. We've seen that according to the most current estimates, approximately 96% of the universe county may be found and they don't even know where to look for it. And we've seen that the discrepancy between observed valleys for the cosmological constant or the big bang theory predicts those values to be is greater than 118 orders of magnitude is one five 118 zeros. It's that many times off who we've seen. It's a small wander that cosmologists conclude.
Speaker 1 17:56 There's no designer since they start by assuming there is no designer isn't science, it's a fairy tale, it's Bunco. There are a lot more problems of the big bang through. The hard part of a sermon like this is picking which problems to beat on. Unfortunately, we don't have enough time to treat this through with the contempt that it's so richly deserves. It's a fairy tale methodological problems. Now let's step back and ask ourselves two very basic questions. First, what is the actual goal of the Big Bang theorists? What are they trying to accomplish? And second, are there any hidden assumptions? Okay, so what's the actual goal? What are they trying to accomplish? It would seem that all they want to do is to describe the history of universe is a title. As Stephen Hawkins book, a brief history of time makes clear, but let's dig a little deeper and a BBC interview. Stephen Hawking, uh, explained the purpose of his more recent book, the grand design, which he co authored with Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow. Now I'm going to read this interview but I want you to ask yourself, is this really history? Is this really science or is it philosophy? Theology? Ask yourself those questions. The BBC, what is your book about hockey quote, why are we here?
Speaker 1 19:13 Where did we come from?
Speaker 4 19:15 Okay,
Speaker 1 19:16 why is the universe of the way it is? Why is there a universe at all? This book is meant as a secret, a brief history of time. Its main purpose is explore the existence and meaning of the grand design of the universe, which doesn't require a designer. A few quotes from the book itself. Ours is not the only universe. I think the definition of eaters from the Oxford Dictionary, cause I looked it up, is all existing matter and space considered as a whole. The Cosmos, ours is not the only universe. Well where does he get this information? This is science. Back to hockey. Ours is not the only universe. A great many universes were created out of nothing.
Speaker 1 19:59 Where are they? I guess with the 96% of this university we can't find because there is a law such as gravity. The universe can and will create itself from nothing. Now does that sound like history? Does that sound like science or does it sound like really, really crummy philosophy and theology? Two mystic philosopher Edward phaser comments, quote Stephen Hockey and Leonard Mlodinow tell us that because there's a lot like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Ignore for a moment the incoherence of the notion of self causation put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is correct. Forget about where the laws physics themselves are supposed to have come from. Just savor the manifests contradiction. The universe comes from nothing because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe. For some reason, this particular Phallus, he seems to be a favorite of physicists.
Speaker 1 21:05 Philosophers and theologians are constantly told that they need to learn the science before commenting on quantum mechanics, relativity or Darwinism, and rightly so. Yet, too many scientists refuse to learn the philosophy before pontificating on the subject. The results are particularly sophomores. Hakan is an arrogant and clueless amateur close quotes. Now, cosmologist can seem to continually spot this kind of nonsense. If we're ever going to get a handle on this problem, we've got to do something. I would like to propose a solution. It's only slightly tongue in cheek. Anytime a cosmologist is going to make a public statement and be required to put on a white beard of fake one at least three feet long, White Cape and a matching tall cone hat. Both cover with silver stars and comments and punctuate important parts of his testimony by stabbing the air with a ball with a wand. You know, because there's a lot like gravity, the universe can and will create itself is not necessarily and vote God to light the blue touch paper and get the universe going. Ours is not the only universe. A great many universities were created out of nothing. Anytime someone's selling in that kind of grew up, he really needs to be like, oh look, there's a cosmologist and there'd be fair warning to go get a cold one and pull up a chair and get ready for a good laugh.
Speaker 1 22:21 Okay. So the stated goal with the Big Bang theory is to give a historical account of the universe where it came from, how I began actually huddle end as well. But we don't have time for that. In other words, they are trying to solve historical problems with mathematical equations and as we've seen very, very crummy theology philosophy and theology. And there's the problem if someone wants to study a historical event like the bell of Alamo, cause he first start, but mastering a bunch of complex mathematics and perform a bunch of experiments. If someone wants to study historical events, say the story of Our Lady Guadalupe in the conversion of Mexico. Does he pick up an advanced physics textbook? Of course not, but why not? Because although in some cases mathematics and science can contribute to historical studies, history is not a math problem. History isn't a science problem. History isn't a philosophy problem. We judge historical statements. We judge historical claims on the basis of historical evidence. When we want to determine the reliability, the truth of historical claim, we look at the historical evidence. We ask yourselves, are there witnesses? Are their documents or their artifacts? Are the witnesses? Are there documents? Are there artifacts, artifacts or things like photos, movies, bloody knives, footprints, et Cetera, or the monuments tombs, the witnesses? Are there documents? Are there artifacts? Are they consistent and are they reliable? That's how you do history.
Speaker 1 24:05 It's really important also to know that there's absolutely no difference between the trust we place in scientists to accurately report their observations. No difference between that trust and the trust. We play an eyewear place, an eye witnesses to historical events to accurately report their observations. The questions are the same whether we're dealing with an absolute unique historical event or with repeatable experimental results in the lab. Are there witnesses? Are there documents? Are there artifacts? Are they consistent? Are they reliable? So the first methodological problems, obvious if we're setting out answer historical question, we need to employ historical methods and because mark cosmologists are not
Speaker 0 24:52 doing that.
Speaker 1 24:54 And once we see that clearly one of the most important hidden assumptions becomes obvious. See the history of the universe is being treated as if the only available evidence are the artifacts. What are the artifacts? The universe itself, the history of the universe is being treated as if the only available evidence is the universe itself, which is only an artifact. And that assumption makes it possible to act as if the whole historical question could only be solved with science and math. But if we assume that all we have to work with is the universe itself, that leaves us the only two possibilities. Either the origin of the universe was not witnessed and therefore there aren't any documents. How could there be or the origin of the universe was witnessed? But the witness has certainly left us no reliable documentation.
Speaker 1 25:46 That's it. He's the origin of the universe was not witnessed. So of course there are no documents or the origin universe was witnessed. We have no reliable documentation. All we have is universe in play. In terms of first possibility, no witness means no gods. Of course there can't be any historical constant origin of the universe. The second possibility is there is a witness, so there is a god, but he left us absolutely no reliable documentation. He left us no historical cons, the origin, the universe, so the methodological problems, the Big Bang theory or one historical question is not being treated as historical question at all, but is this if it's a very complex math problem too, as if the only available evidence, the origins of universe are artifacts like stars and galaxies. Three as if there are no witnesses and therefore no god at all. That'd be the case with cosmologists like Stephen Hockey or Lawrence crowds or four for those who acknowledged there's a god as if he has told us absolutely nothing of historical value about the origin of the universe, which would be the case for any Catholics who might subscribe to the big thing. So even though it's Big Bang believers to acknowledge the existence of God must logically conclude that Moses account of the origin of the universe is not reliable historical documentation,
Speaker 2 26:59 but love doesn't lie. How are we supposed to believe that our loving father and heaven has allowed us to be misled for so long from the time of Moses until the 1920s
Speaker 1 27:18 are we really supposed to believe that we suffered under 34 centuries of complete air fundamentalist air about the creation of the universe until the fullness of time God sent the atheist to finally explain to us be United Catholics what genesis really means? Is this
Speaker 2 27:34 believable? Is this love? No, we weren't wrong. If you want to know what happened in the beginning really happened, here it is.
Speaker 1 27:49 Please note that the Bible is not a science book. I don't know where people get that word idea. If I wanted to look up the periodic table elements, I would not pick up my bible. If I want to know the crystal structure of quartz, I would not pick up my bible. It's not a science book, but among other things it happens to be a history book. How bout that? And right here, if I open it up right here in the beginning, it has right at the beginning of I, if we can find the testimony, it was given a Moses by God Almighty, the creator of the universe who told him about the creation of the universe and that testimony was made by the most reliable possible witness. There could be God Almighty. This is the most reliable possible documentation that exists because it is the inspire in Aaron Word of God and the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Bible inspired, inerrant word of God contains a saw morning that a ring in our ears. Every time we hear someone tried to fool defend fantastical fairytales, like the big bang. If you believed in Moses, you would believe in me.
Speaker 0 29:00 Okay.
Speaker 1 29:01 But if you don't believe in his writings, how will you believe my words?
Speaker 0 29:07 Okay.
Speaker 1 29:08 Those are his words, incarnate word, Christ our Lord. The second person, the most blessed Trinny saying, if you believed in Moses, you would believe in me. But if you don't believe in his words, why would you believe my writing words? It's absolutely false to maintain with reference to the truths of our faith. So what we believe regarding creation is of no consequence. So long as one has an exact conception concerning God. Because an error regarding the nature of creation always gives rise to a false idea about God.
