[meteorite-list] RC's age of the universe???

[Sterling K. Webb]

Hi,

    While not a spokesperson or even a member
of the organization in question, as a metaphysical
observer, here is the history of its attitude, if not
doctrine.
    The Church has changed a great deal in the
XXth century. In 1900, medieval cosmology, biology,
science of all kinds was official doctrine. Evolution
was heresy, cosmology (such as there was) was
heresy, and so forth. As late as 1907, quite official
publications of the Church still argued that it was
an historic fact that Jews sacrificed Christian children
in diabolical rites. The 13th century was alive and
well and living in Rome.
    The picture in the year 2000 is radically different,
a compete turnabout. Rapprochement with other
religions is the goal, and officially the Church has no
outstanding quarrel with any science. There may be
some tension is certain quarters, but officially,
everything is cool.
    The late Pope said on numerous occasions that
the Church had no quarrel with evolution, for example.
That unfortunate business with Galilleo was, well,
unfortunate... There are reports that many prelates,
including the Pope, were delighted with the Big Bang
theory's wide acceptance, for obvious reasons. A created
universe? Didn't we always say so?
    The transformation over a "mere" century is
remarkable. In historcal terms, it is unprecedented,
after centuries of little if any change in attitude.
To my mind, it raises an interesting question.
    Although not organized as a unitary "church," the
Muslim faith, as of the year 2000, could be characterized
as having certain of its views that have been unaltered
for centuries. Currently, it is obvious that battles are being

waged for its heart and mind.
    What do you suppose it will be like in the year 2100?

Sterling K. Webb
----------------------------------------------------
"Martin H." wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> The question has risen:
>
> > I wonder why the
> > RC church  would have
> > such a huge collection of items which contradicts
> > their doctrine  that the
> > universe is only 6,000 to 10,000 years  old...
>
> Does anyone have a reference for the assumption that
> "their doctrine" actually addresses the age of the
> universe?
>
> I suspect that the silly sub-10k year age is being
> applied where it does not belong, thus nullifying this
> question all together.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martin
>