No name

At the request of Gerard Keane, the author of Creation Rediscovered (TAN Books) in his most recent e-mail (see first message posted below), I post his critiques of my review of his book. I am glad to offer this on my site as I like to present my readers with information and let them draw their own conclusions. I give you his entire unedited remarks regarding my review of his book. If Mr. Keane would like me to allow people access to the lengthy articles that he sent in the form of e-mail attachments, he will have to post these on a website and I will link to them. These messages are presented in reverse chronological order, from the most recent backwards. Inicidentally, I "broke off" the "point-by-point" discussion because instead of answering my questions, he was attacking me (talk about ad hominem arguments!) and trying to intimidate me into removing the review from my website. - The webmaster

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 23, 2003

Dear Alicia,

I see that you are continuing to put comments affecting my integrity on your website. Why haven't you admitted to your readers that it was you who broke off the point by point discussion after instigating the idea and that we pray the Memorare in guiding the discussion? I'm really surprised that you resort to ad hominem arguments, which are the weakest form of argument, when rigorous attention to detail is warranted. You tell the world that my book displays poor scholarship - would you like me to send you to a list of various others (mostly PhDs) who think that it is indeed fine scholarship?

It astonishes me that you adopt such an air of authority when you admit that there is a great deal that your don't understand about Origins. Your claim that you can spot logical fallacies in my book is a mistaken conclusion. In fact your own writings re Origins display lots of fallacious reasoning. I have been paying serious attention for over 25 years and am confident that I have done my homework diligently over that time. Exactly when do you think you will arrive at the stage of really understanding Origins thoroughly?

As one Catholic to another - who each must stand before God eventually - I request that you insert in the same place on your website my unedited response to your comments. No doubt your readers would love to learn the objective truth.

By the way, remember I let you off the hook with that typo regarding Pius XII? Well, in another place on your site you categorise some folks with a completely mistaken depiction. It's not a typo and it's really ironic. This time I'm not going to let you off. You will have to find it yourself.

Regards,

Gerry Keane

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 25, 2003

Dear Alicia,

I think your review of Henry Morris and ICR is accurate in many aspects and very inaccurate in others.

(1) I have been aware for many years that Henry Morris tends to be anti-Catholic. Not so much for Dr Gish. In my experience the non-Catholic creationists (generally called Protestants although that term itself may be too narrow a definition) tend to come in two broad types. (1) Those who have been born into Christian families who historically have a certain hostility towards Catholics. Henry Morris and Ken Ham would definitely fit into this category as well as many others. (2) Those who come from atheistic backgrounds and have seen through the mistaken notion commonly called evolution and have gone on to convert to a form of Protestantism. Obviously both groups believe in Sola Scriptura which Catholics know to be a mistaken concept. This second type tend to be most interesting individuals who genuinely seek truth. Guys like Gary Parker and many others like him who are much more friendly disposed towards Catholicism and open to more information about the Catholic Church.

It does not follow that because their theological views are incorrect, therefore their scientific views per se are flawed as though automatically suspect. I think it is most ill-advised to use words such as "not compatible with true science". Dr Dean Kenyon was once a non-Christian who wrote in support of evolution. Later on he changed his mind after becoming convinced that he had been mistaken in believing in evolution. He subsequently embraced a Protestant version of Christianity and was persecuted at Berkeley Univ for his stance. He and others wrote a great book Of Pandas and People and he suffered greatly for his views. (Phillip Johnson wrote of the case.) Finally Dr Kenyon converted to the Catholic Church and is supportive of the Kolbe Center. He was interviewed in Homiletic and Pastoral Review in which he paid just tribute to the fine work which has been done by the folks at ICR over many decades. In no way does this make Dr Kenyon an unwitting stooge of the creationists. Dr Mastropaolo, another eminent Catholic scientist, is now an advisory member of the Kolbe Center but was years ago invited by ICR to teach a subject there. Again, it should not be assumed that he teaches flawed science.

In everyday life we all meet lots of qualified doctors, obstetricians etc who are Protestants and some may be hostile to Catholicism yet we have no trouble in trusting their scientific and professional integrity. Dr Robin Bernhoft, a surgeon from Seattle, was once an atheist but eventually found his way into the Catholic Church and is today a strong supporter of the Kolbe Center (and very, very happy with my book). He and Dr Peg Luksic are very active in the pro-life movement. But his scientific integrity has not changed.

So I think your good point about not condemning people by association is one which you need to be aware of yourself, that you yourself do not condemn others by association.

(2) Dr Morris is mistaken in many of his remarks about Pope JPII. However, let us not forget that the Pope's 1996 speech to the PAS was not given in an encyclical (it was probably mostly written by a member of that body) and at most represents only a personal opinion which is definitely not binding upon Catholics to believe. Just as the Pope's recent publicly expressed opposition to the invasion of Iraq did not constitute an binding position for all Catholics. At the time a TV report came out of the USA that George Weigel (who wrote the Pope's biography) stated that the view expressed by JPII against the invasion of Iraq was not binding on Catholics. You may also know of the famous case of Pope John XXII who about 700 hundred years ago publicly declared that the souls of the faithful departed will not see the vision of God until the Day of General Judgement. Other Catholics opposed him openly and before he died he declared publicly that this view was only a private opinion and that he was wrong in his opinion. (For what it's worth, I think that the present Pope could easily have prevented the altar-girls problem by simply and decisively asserting "No!" when he had the opportunity.)

So we have to pay attention to the level of assent in which any Pope declares a viewpoint. The Wednesday audiences, for example, are on about the lowest rung in the level of assent required.

Unfortunately, the present Pope has not defined precisely what he means by the term "evolution". (And neither have you in your references to the term "evolution".) I have tried very carefully to define the real meaning of this term so that any discussion will not be at cross purposes with others.

Contrast the looseness in the 1996 essentially private speech to the PAS to the tone in the encyclical Fides et Ratio. There is a much tighter treatment in the Pope's partial comments on Origins in this later encyclical given in 1998. I think that much of that 1996 speech is full of holes and the ICR spokesmen clearly thought so themselves and rightly spoke up against it. eg What exactly are the "recent discoveries" referred to in that speech?

Is it not appalling that the strongly-evolutionist body known as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, including the atheist Stephen Hawking, invite themselves into membership and the PAS has no real Church authority as other Catholic bodies do? Yet the PAS has enormous prestige and influence upon the Pope of the day and they have effectively ensured that our precious young souls are still largely being fed rubbish (lies?) in favour of evolution. I wish the well-known USA apologetics activists would pay much deeper attention to this crucial arena.I think also that you have to look at what has been declared in Catholic Tradition including Leo XIII and Pius XII. The present Pope could never officially declare in opposition to the truth already declared by earlier Popes; that's why the 1996 speech will never impact on the actual declared teachings which cannot be overturned. With great respect to yourself, I think that you have not yet truly grasped anywhere near enough of what has been officially taught. (But then, not too many Catholic Colleges seem well informed enough themselves. How much were you taught yourself about this at even such a good College as Aquinas Academy?) I hope you read the three files which I sent to you a few days ago for much of what has been declared is reiterated there. Have you ran your views past a priestly adviser who is himself fully informed of Origins, or are you trusting on your own partially informed views?

By the way, Fr Victor Warkulwiz, the theological adviser of the Kolbe Center, is also PhD in physics. As he says, the Protestants creationists have been taking the heat that we Catholics should have been taking all along. I agree wholeheartedly.

(3) I think that it should be clearly spelled out that there is an important distinction between the proper meaning of the term "literal" compared to the manner in which truth may be conveyed by the Sacred Writer. eg figurative, symbolic etc. (I know that you allude to this point in your comments.) The Protestant creationists do not make this distinction clear but, again in my experience, many Catholics who write on Origins often fail to understand that most of the Protestants creationists are really trying to comprehend what the Sacred Writer wished to convey. So the trite use of the term fundamentalist is often very inappropriate. Again, I comment on this in my response to Dr. Mullan.

(4) If you reject the literal as given understanding of the six days then what specifically do you replace it with? Have you thought this through? And can you elaborate on a credible third position? (See my response to Dr Mullan.) All of the Fathers including Augustine believed that they were no longer than 24 hours. Your ready rejection of the literal 24 hours days is very simplistic. I wish you would think through the ramifications of telling your readers that there is nothing wrong theologically and exegetically with the long ages view. Where do you place the global Flood and the origin of the fossil record, before or after the sin of Adam? Indeed, good science does help us to understand Genesis properly but it's not in favour of long ages as you may assume. And don't forget that the 1909 PBC finding was that the literal 24 hours belief is the proper meaning for yom in context and is still believable by loyal Catholics. Can you tell me what exactly constitutes the exegetical case for longer than 24 hours?

(5) Frankly, I am intensely disappointed beyond words that you did not proceed with the one by one discussion and that you chose to go public in rejection of me. Especially to so many readers. Doesn't Catholic moral teaching oblige us all to be careful rather than act too hastily when there may be much at stake? (I know of a story about a man who thought that he would shoot at the shining light of a tin floating down a river. He decided not to, and then with great relief realised that he almost shot at a bald-headed man who was swimming out there.) I am sure that you are well-intentioned but this Origins struggle needs more than good intentions. The seriousness of the matter requires an extremely rigorous and careful approach. What if I am right and that the salvation of souls really is at stake? - it shouldn't be influenced by whether one feels a need to place material on a website. If you really knew enough of the debate, I believe that you would support me and not have penned those five primary problems which you cite. Really, Alicia, they reflect a very amateurish understanding. In particular, for anyone to accuse me of disagreement with Pius XII leaves me lost for words.

If, as you admit publicly, you don't have a good handle on the depth of the Origins debate, isn't it better to say nothing rather than to stick your neck out? Before I went ahead with publication of the first edition of my book, I approached it with a great deal of caution lest I got it wrong. I re-wrote the ms ten times over ten years (1981 to 1991 - I thought it would never end) and consulted the advice and candid opinions of many others in the process. I did not want the book to have anything loose in it and I wanted to ensure that I did not mislead anyone reading the book.

Unfortunately, I fear that I lose with you no matter what I do. All you need do is state subjectively on your site something like, "I don't agree with Keane nor all the highly credentialed individuals associated with the Kolbe Center, I can sense that they manipulate things to force their own flawed views upon others" - as if a statement like that suffices for thorough scholarship. Would you care for someone to frame you as something which you are not? Did you seek informed priestly advice before placing the material in rejection of me? I consider that you have misrepresented me to maybe many thousands of maybe poorly informed Catholics (origins-wise) but I have not misrepresented you to anyone. You gave out details of our private disagreement on your website, yet you didn't mention that it was you who broke off the point-by-point discussion at Point One. Whatever happened to fair play and to the 8th commandment, and to commensurate restitution for harm done to the reputation of others.?

Yours in our gracious Creator/Redeemer,

Gerry Keane

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 23, 2003

Dear Alicia

I have been curious as to why you didn't follow up with the point by point discussion you suggested late last year. I figured that maybe you might have lots of other things on your plate (not the least of which is the busy task of caring for your children) and I even wondered if my email reply last November 22 somehow never reached you and that maybe you thought I had avoided you. I thought it was a very good idea to discuss things point by point and I have been praying the Memorare as you suggested. Anyway this afternoon I just thought of visiting some websites while trying to get back myself back to normal today. I read your statement there and was saddened by it.

(By the way, you incorrectly state that I disagree with the views of Pope Pius XI. I imagine that you mean Pius XII.)

I still think that you have arrived at the wrong conclusion about me and about the worth of my book. I sure wish that you could have attended the Kolbe Center conference last October; the range of topics covered was great and you would be much better placed to comment more authoritatively about Origins generally. The emerging new picture of a bounded Universe is fascinating and it transcends the heliocentrism/geocentrism debate. And Fr Harrison's speech was also great. I remain convinced that eventually there will come a time when we can truly re-evangelise within and without the Church by proclaiming the wonderful news of Special Creation, and my efforts and those of the Kolbe Center members will eventually be seen as vindicated in striving for restoration of the true Church founded by our gracious Creator/Redeemer.

Why don't you contact Cathy Mianecki and her colleagues at the Michigan Home Educators and ask their opinion of me? And why not ask Dr Mary Kay Clark? And then there is the Evangelicum Academy, who put out generalised guidelines for use of my book by homeschoolers. Also, you could look up comments on my book in Yahoo.com. I guess that a dozen favourable reviews have been published, only some of them on the web. And what about the review given by Mr Tom Nelson (TAN founder/publisher)?

Is it not obligatory that we all should to be truly "open" to be challenged in searching for truth? Since you have publicly warned off maybe thousands of Catholic homeschoolers against me, at least do me the courtesy of reading carefully the attached three items. (1) My Open Question paper given at the Kolbe Conference last year. (2) My paper on Pius XII's terms of reference in Humani Generis. In no way am I in disagreement with Pius XII. (3) My rebuttal of Dr. Dermott Mullan's portrayal of me and the Kolbe Center as fundamentalists. New Oxford Review ran a lengthy article of his in the April edition.

Dear Alicia, please understand that it's not just my opinions involved. Other loyal Catholics much more qualified than myself share the same beliefs about the key arguments involved in the Origins debate, and the need to defend the truth known from Catholic Tradition and which cannot be ignored. Ultimately what really is important is the plight of our precious little children. Each year a whole new bunch of them are deprived of knowledge of true Catholic teachings, and the dwindling away from practice of the faith continues on and on, and evolution nonsense is right there in the mindset of the dissenters. In my view, very few of the Bishops and very few of the Catholic activists pay enough attention to the truth of the Origins debate, and appear to be overly sensitive to political correctness in view of the perceived prestige of the PAS. Yet the marvellous news of trust in Jesus Christ, Creator/Redeemer, is still there, awaiting proclamation far and wide. It does bring us childlike and prayerfully onto our knees in humility.

Yours sincerely in our sweet Saviour,

Gerry Keane

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------