Creationism Fail

From the very funny Failblog comes this little diddy. Some kids are going on a field trip the Rocks and Mineral Festival (BYOB by the way). In order to attend the lil tykes need to have a permission slip. This is how one came back.

The note reads.
“Note: Just to let you it is not that we don’t believe in things like that, it is just misleading when you talk about it being billions of years old, when we all know that the world is only about 6,000 years old. So why would I pay so that you can misslead my children, your world is just a revolving(?), ours has a start and an end. God created the world. He created animals and man all in the same week. It was also Adam who named all the animals, they will do the essay ‘Rock and Minerals’ but it might not be 5 pages long, and about billions of years, it will be according to the Bible.”
The best part is that if you look at the picture, she signed the permission slip. Its not that I don't believe in misleading my children its just that I don't believe in misleading my children but they can go anyway. Or something.


  1. It's George Bush's fault.

    -- Mack

  2. Growing up Catholic, I never gave Creationism a second thought. It's just not a Catholic problem, since we are not biblical literalists. After moving to Texas and living among evangelicals, I find attitudes like this very, very common. In fact, scientists like Francis Collins thinks that "young earth" beliefs are the predominant ones in the U.S. despite any and every scientific proof to the contrary.

    I simply can't explain it. But yes, fail. Big fail. Many sects in the US think that if you believe in evolution and natural selection you absolutely cannot be a Christian.

  3. TragicallyUnhipMomCanBeACoolMomSometimes...January 7, 2010 at 11:16 PM

    Sounds like that Mom needs a whack upside the head with good old fashioned commonsense. Just let the kids go. They might have a good time and get to see some cool stuff. Just a thought...

  4. I really think that the comments reflect a serious lack of understanding as well as a lack of concern about the problems embedded within evolutionary based education.

    First of all, even if she is wrong about 6,000 years, she is infinitely more correct that God created man as opposed to the idea that man evolved into being by random mutations over billions of years from a single cell organism. In fact, evolutionary theory on a chemical level for elements to happen into molecules to happen in to RNA is astronomically, statistically an impossibility. It would be like clouds evolving into writing out the Magna Carta.

    To believe that the cell came to exist through evolution is idiocy. We’ll never know everything there is to know about the cell wall, let alone the cell. It is incredibly complex.

    1000 years is as a day to God. It is just as possible that in one or six days God aged the universe a billions years. Even creationists have to admit that the trees in the garden were created old with rings and all. We also don’t know everything there is to know about time. Most Catholics don’t even talk about the flood as if they never heard of it or are embarrassed by it. It had catastrophic effects on reading earth time.

    It may be obvious that I am quite perturbed but Catholics should take the high road and not mock our brothers and sisters in Christ who have unfortunately made the literal interpretation of Genesis a dogma. We interpret John 6 literally as a dogma and they can go ahead and mock. At least we are supposed to but probably 90% of Catholics couldn’t even find John 6 let alone believe it. It makes me furious when Catholics mock sincere protestant believers about creationism and seem to care less about the lack of reverence for the Eucharist. I’m not saying these particular individuals lack belief in the Real Presence. I’m saying most Catholics do and most mock creationists.

    Please read Chesterton's Everlasting Man if you want some common sense about evolution.

  5. dulmer,

    The problem with your whole argument is that you're setting up a false dichotomy: Either you have to completely buy into the atheistic notion of evolution or you agree with strict creationism. That's not the case at all. Have you happened to hear about intelligent design?

    As for your transition to the lack of respect for the Real Presence: Huh? Is it something like "So if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood, and is therefore a witch"?

    Literal interpretation of Christ's teachings in the gospels and of the creation narratives in Genesis are two completely different matters.

  6. The thing is, as far as I can tell, this field trip isn't about the origins of man. It's about geology. Maybe the particular geology society sponsoring the fair has an agenda or something which we don't know about, but if all they're doing is studying rocks shouldn't you want your kids to learn the current state of the science.

    If the universe really is only 6,000 years old, the only way anyone's going to be able to prove it is by doing the science and demonstrating why things merely appear to be older. But having her kids write a report on rocks and minerals according the Bible is just bad science.

  7. I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I understand the mother's desire to protect her child from an educational field trip that may challenge or even ridicule the beliefs her child is being taught at home. A sixth or seventh grader, I hope, would be able to recount for his parents what went on, what the teacher/guide may have said that stuck out in his memory, and what questions he had lingering in his mind, if he had any. It sounds, honestly, like it would be a fascinating field trip, and I'd be inclined to let my kid go, though I'd want to talk to him about it later.
    I understand dulmer's point about the dangers of letting our kids get brainwashed into believing Darwinian evolution as an explanation for the origin of species. I don't have a problem believing in a strict, seven-day creation of the world (i.e., taking the Genesis account literally). No one should question that God could certainly make the world in seven days and make it look centuries or even millenia older. Why not? Any Narnia fans, here? Remember the description of the creation of Narnia in _The Magician's Nephew_? I'm not saying God did it the same way, but if He'd wanted to, He certainly could have. I don't think it's unscientific to accept that explanation of how God created the world.

    Do we really need to know the particulars as to how He did it or how long He really took to do it? The important thing is to keep God as the Creator and not try to explain Him away as a man-made myth--a crutch for feeble, unscientific minds. Whether God took six twenty-four-hour days or six "days that are as a thousand years," . . . does it really matter? Evolution without God is the lie we need to expose to our kids, as we teach them what God has taught us (through Scripture and Tradition) and what He has enabled us to discover ourselves with the intelligence He's given us. Real science cannot contradict the Truth.

  8. I'm a recent convert to Catholicism with a 31 year Protestant background. Yeah, one of those. Not surprised about the response on the note. Many evangelicals aren't too well-rounded in their thinking when you can even get them to do any. That was always a problem for me. Haven't been Catholic long enough to know the attitudes I'll find in my new fold but, humans being what they are, I'm sure I'm in for a learning experience. But for sure evolution (as in man evolving from primates) throws a significant inconsistency into the concept of Christ as the second Adam. If you're interested check out the website of Arthur Custance 1910-1985 ( He was a Protestant (he prefered to worship as an Anglican)anthropologist who had some very original thinking. You don't have to agree with all he says to find his free downloadable books enlightening.

  9. Catholics in the US, especially those who are especially influenced, or have extensive interactions with Fundamentalist Protestants should be very wary about accepting Creationism in its various forms.

    As everyone knows Catholics are permitted to believe in evolution as long as it does not reduce all being to mere material components and does not discount the divine origin of creation and the divine creation of man (especially the existence of Adam and Eve, and original sin).

    Yet Catholics who believe in creationism should also be careful to avoid falling into heresy. It is heresy to deny reason its rightful place in the pursuit of truth, and if reason tells us that the world is several billion years old it would be wrong to deny what our reason is telling us and accept an irrational proposition.

    In cases where the Scripture is clear and talks of faith and morals, then we should trust that above appearances or what our reason seems to be telling us (eg: the Eucharist). However, when Scripture is not clear, when there is a question of science and not faith and morals, when Catholic tradition going back at least to Augustine leaves open the possibility of evolution, and when our reason clearly contradicts the literal interpretation of Scripture, then I think it CAN be heresy to persist in an irrational belief (eg: Creationism.)

  10. Anthony,
    How can it be irrational to take the creation account in Genesis literally? I don't see how "reason clearly contradicts the literal interpretation of Scripture," unless you understand "reason" to exclude the possibility of miracles or anything we can't explain.

    And, no, it is not heresy to accept the literal interpretation of the creation account--any more than it is heresy to accept the Biblical account of the great flood (Noah's ark), the crossing of the Red Sea, or the feeding of the five-thousand.

  11. Sarah - it depends. Many Biblical commentators (not just Catholics) think of the first chapter of Genesis as a poem, not a blow-by-blow history textbook of the creation of the Earth. Even the rest of it probably isn't a straight history the way modern Westerners understand the word. It's much more narrative and it isn't meant to be a scientific treatise, but a record of God's works.

    Reason can contradict a literal interpretation of Scripture the same way reason can contradict a literal interpretation of any highly-symbolic and stylized narrative. Reason clearly contradicts a literal interpretation of Styx's "Come Sail Away." Are they really on a boat heading for the virgin seas? No, they're just young and excited about their lives, and they're expressing themselves with poetry - and that's before we get to the angels who are actually space aliens. (Man, the 70's were WEIRD.) They get farther saying "Come sail away with me, lads!" rather than "We're young and life is cool, isn't it fellows?"

    Reason clearly contradicts me when I say that I'm starving when I'm just hungry, or that my head is killing me when it just hurts, or when I sarcastically suggest that I've never been better after a tumble down the front brick porch. I'm not lying, I'm just using some tricks of speech to more accurately express myself than if I had just said, "I'm hungry, my head hurts, and falling down the stairs was unpleasant."

    Long story short, the Bible in general and Genesis in particular do not require us to accept a young earth creationist explanation for the origins of man. Reason doesn't require us to reject miracles (they are often quite a reasonable explanation for some of the craziness that went down in Biblical times). Reason is there to give us a more complete picture, and God wouldn't have given it to us if it wasn't going to help.

  12. Reason can certainly contradict the literal interpretation of much that we say and write, but when we're talking about the inspired Word of God Himself, why reject outright the literal interpretation of any part of it simply because it sounds improbable or we can think up a more "reasonable" explanation for it?

    I'm not saying we have to accept the literal interpretation and only that, but as far as I know, the literal interpretation of the Creation account is still considered by the Catholic Church to be an acceptable interpretation of that text. It is at least AS believable as anything we've come up with on our own and more believable than some.

  13. I don't like the dichotomy of literal/allegorical interpretation here. The literal interpretation of a Biblical text is always true, and binding (and determinative of the other senses). The literal interpretation is just not always the first one that pops into your head when you are reading the text. So the question here is what is the literal interpretation of the text. Which is from tradition that (a) God created the world. and (b)that God sustains the world in existence.

    My problem with creationism and ID is that they are both failed theologies. In particular, they suggest a very low view of human reason, which is probably why they are both so popular amongst protestants. Oh. Of course, creationism could be true, in the same sense that phlogiston theory could be true, and Geocentrism could be true. But it doesn't seem to be true, nor does there seem to be a good reason to believe it.

    In the second place, and perhaps more significantly, creationism and ID constitute scandal in the eyes of many. So, while we could hold on to the idea of the earth as 6000 years old, and fossils and coal just put there, or that God had to constantly "tinker" with nature to make it work (more dubiously, since it seems to contradict the omnipotence of God), in publicizing such beliefs, we should be careful not to create new stumbling blocks for people unnecessarily.

  14. Michael, if my argument was to say it must be creationism (as we defined it) or a Godless evolution then it would be false. We certainly agree that is a false dichotomy. One of the problems with my argument is that I seemed to not make my point clear enough.

    The fool says there is no God. Mock the secular view that believes the forces of time and chance brought about all that exists. Don’t mock the creationist who believes in God and may be correct in what she believes. It may have taken 6 days and it may have been 6,000 years ago. That remains open for discussion.

    Since our schools are only allowed to teach a secular evolution then they are the ones that FAIL. Any Christian mocking another Christian because of their literal 6 day interpretation of Genesis 1 FAILs.

    If you can’t see the relationship between a discussion of a literal interpretation of Christ’s teachings in Genesis and a literal interpretation of Christ’s teachings in the Gospels then quite frankly I don’t know what to say. You must mean something other than what you wrote. They are not two completely different matters.

  15. If we evolved, why would Jesus come as a man just to save man, why not an ape to save the apes, can someone explain this to me. I dont believe in evolution, science can keep digiing up all sorts of fossils, how can i belive a science which kills babies and the elderly and tries to get rid of handicapped kids. NO WAY. I believe the bible, God created man
    at the end of the day it really is do you believe sicene which in all its advances has led to the destruction of man or Christ who in his Anihiliation on the cross saved man.

  16. As a PS I am catholic, Science was good when monks and men who belived in God did experiments they were not trying to disprove the existence of God but tyring to find out more about the world He made.
    Today most scientists are nonbelievers and hell bent on proving they are right and God is wrong that dear blog owner is why I say current science ie FAIL

  17. Well, you can't pick and choose, or rather you are welcome to do so, but I don't see why such a choice is rational. Me, I take my stand with Thomas Aquinas, who, against Bonaventure and the Franciscan "orthodox" consensus held that, by reason, one could not disprove that the world was eternal, and that if one tried to prove it by stretching the bounds of reason, one ran the risk of looking ridiculous. One can and should hold the opposite (in his case) by faith. And just as Aquinas pointed out, point by point, and over and again, that those who argued rationally for the eternity of the world were right, so too do we, Catholics of today, have an obligation, for our part to point out, that rationally, the arguments against evolution do not hold water. See this, and this.

    This would be true, even if, as was the case with Thomas Aquinas, a particular point of view is explicitly and uncontestably contrary to the Faith. On the other hand, the claim that evolution, in and of itself, is contrary to the Faith, is not proven. Indeed,

    (a) the early Catholic reaction to evolution was largely positive, in England (Newman, Bishop Hedley, the Wilfrid Wards etc...), France (Fr. M-D Leroy OP), and the US (of many names, one might state St. Elizabeth Seton's grandson, William Seton).

    (b) Some quite prominent scientists in the last century or so have been Catholics, including the man who came up with the Big Bang theory, the Belgian Catholic priest, George Lemaitre.

    (c) Several Popes, including Ven. Pius XII have spoken of the evolution of the human body as entirely viable. The present Pope and his predecessor have both tended to regard evolution, scientifically, as established scientific theory with its own legitimacy.

  18. (d) Attacking a scientific theory, rather than challenging its metaphysical assumptions or ethical conclusions, does exactly nothing to establish the error of those who say this or that scientific theory proves we don't need God. Essentially, you have two opposing camps who cannot have an argument or disprove each other, because they have nothing in common. What is needed is to show that "even if" x is true, the conclusions drawn from it are false, not elaborate attempts to show that coal, or diamonds, were created 6000 years ago.

    (e) It is quite naive to think that science "in the past" was done by men who believed in God, and today, it is not. In the first place, medieval science was often conducted by people who were opposed to the Church as they are today. Conversely, quite a few scientists today are not unfriendly to the Faith, or are themselves Catholic.

    (f) I oppose Creationism, because Creationism opposes reason, and the rational quest for understanding. As such this is a Catholic position, quite at variance with the Protestant disdain for human reason. Indeed, some of the same arguments trotted out against evolution are (with variation in content) trotted out against the dogmas the Church has defined. Calvinists ain't our friends. The either/or distinction between God and science isn't Catholic, but Calvinist.

    (g) Jesus came as man to save man, because He chose so to do. As Aquinas says, (ST, Prima Pars, Q. 46, Art. 2, Answer, linked above) "the will of God cannot be investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among these, as was said above." On the link between the views of creation and redemption, see Jaroslav Pelikan on Creation and Causality. Rather than being orthodox, the restriction of creation to a "once for all" act of Creation, 6000 years ago is connected with the rise of Protestant polemics against the Eucharist as Sacrifice. Both creation and redemption, in the traditional Catholic view, are continuous processes, something which is not opposed to evolution at all.

    God bless

  19. The old Latin maxim *ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia* tells us that we can't draw a valid conclusion about something's proper use from its abuse. Even if a majority of scientists were to misuse scientific methodology to try to disprove some element of belief, it still wouldn't follow that Science (note the capital!) must receive a FAIL. It's not a case of: "Scientists are our enemies, therefore we MUST believe in a six-day creation in order to remain good Catholics." The one doesn't follow from the other by necessity, nor is the antecedent true by definition.

    While I, too, object to atheists attempting to paint us into a materialist, reductionist and determinist corner, I must still point out: That's not "science" doing the painting. Science doesn't have to be reductionist, and is only materialist because no one has bothered to try to formulate immateriality mathematically. As for determinism, there is an extreme degree to which determinism renders reason--and therefore Science--impossible; let it allow some room for free will and it can yield positive fruit.

    Finally, evolution PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD is not Godless; as a mechanism for species variation, it works, though some argue that it can stand more tweaking. It becomes "atheist" only when atheists such as Richard Dawkins try to push it beyond its design. Again, though, the abuse doesn't speak to the proper use.

    As for taking Christ's words literally, DU: I hope you allow for figures of speech? or rhetorical exaggeration? Or parables? If Jesus can create fictional characters, such as the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son, to illustrate his teachings of God, then do we really need to insist on a six-day creation? No one takes him so literally that he can't exaggerate or tell a tall tale in service of his ministry.

  20. Of course anti-evolutionism (i.e., belief in the special creation of the first man) and "young earth creationism" do not necessarily have to go together. One could certainly reject evolution - which has much more working against it as a theory today in 2010 than it did 50 years ago, before a lot of the "missing links" had been disproven or reinterpreted. One can be a "Catholic creationist" without being a "fundamentalist young-earth creationist". On the other hand, there are certain curious phenomena that make one scratch one's head - such as fossilized trees penetrating several geological layers "that took millions of years to form". I am not saying that proves the earth is young but it raises questions for which the existing model should be made to account.

  21. Pope Benedict XVI said “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.” on his first speech as pope!

    The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

    Read the abstracts on the site.

    Science proves that earth or at least the surface (geologic layers) and dinosaur fossils are not many billions of years old. Therefore evolution which need many billions of years to be true is scientific impossible!

  22. Stefan, now there's putting words into someone's mouth. What he said was that human beings are not accidental, but intentional. He did not thereby intend to deny evolution. Here are some of the things he said. The Pope is indeed intimately concerned about evolution, and has made several statements about it. Almost every single one of them is concerned with the same thing: challenging not evolution qua scientific theory, but the metaphysical, religious and ethical conclusions illegitimately drawn therefrom. He is one of the things he said:

    "I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called 'creationism' and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: Those who believe in the creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God,"

    "This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favor of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such."

    He goes on to show specifically what he meant by the quip above:

    "But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: Where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man?"

    The Holy Father is, I humbly submit, throwing his lot not with creationists or Dawkinsians, both of whom he considers absurd, but with the philosophical/metaphysical critiques of extreme Darwinism.

  23. Kiran:
    As a Catholic with a background in geology, who came to question Darwinism through the writings of Michael Denton ("Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"), I wish that Pope Benedict had been more explicit in defining what he means by the term "evolution." Variation within limits, which is easily observed and which all sides on the origin issue agree to, is not the same thing as, for example, the massive genetic overhaul required for a land-dwelling tetrapod to become an ocean-dwelling whale, and which calls for as least as much faith in random mutation as the Catholic faith does in the doctrines of the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection. The Tradition of the Church from the earliest times has been to accept the first chapters of Genesis as historical, and Humani Generis, the most recent and authoritative teaching, only allows for investigation into evolution, with many caveats, and with a request that both sides of the issue be presented:

    36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in so far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter--for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions,that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

    The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation ( is one group that is seeking to answer Pope Pius XII's request to present the "other" side of the question, by demonstrating the flaws in evolutionary theory and the unverifiable assumptions of geology in projecting presently observed data into the unwitnessed past. I would humbly submit that while God certainly could have used evolution in His creation of the world, there is much evidence to suggest that He did not, and that it is important to distinguish between observational science and historical science, which must by its nature make unverifiable assumptions about initial conditions that may be reasonable, but that are nonetheless unverifiable.


  24. This is an excellent discussion. JSM, Francis, and other make many good points. As usual, in discussion of Evolution, it seems that terms get thrown around that perhaps don't mean the same thing to everyone using them. Sometimes it helps to distinguish macro and micro.

    For instance the evolution of a deeper orchid along with a longer beak of a hummingbird is clear to all, but the evolution of the ability of the hummingbird to fly as it does takes faith. The lack of respect for the irreducible complexity of such a feat throughout the entire body of the bird is sheer arrogance or ignorance. I repeat my claim about the cell wall’s complexity as well, which is exponentially less complex than my typing on a keyboard.

    “Tony”, if you read my post I make no such assertion, insisting on literal interpretation. I simply defer to the authority of the Church. I believe She interprets without error and what she teaches about how to interpret is without error. (see Dei Verbum)

    The most important book to read on this subject is "Everlasting Man" by G.K. Chesterton. It is exactly how all Christians should regard Evolution. It's funny too.

  25. JSM, with respect, all science makes assumptions. Pierre Duhem famously showed this in his Physical Theory. And further, it is not a problem that one needs to believe in order to understand. The tradition of the Church is quite varied actually. Augustine to take one example has definite problems with the idea of God taking time to do things. The Cappadocian Fathers (and Augustine following them) come up with the idea of Rationes Seminales to explain how creation blossomed out. Up to the twelfth century (and for all I know beyond that), the view that the human body could have naturally developed is available and adopted from time to time. Historically, the Pelikan article I cited above, and Gilson's Aristotle to Darwin and back are the two best books on the subject of evolution, creation, and the Church's beliefs on it.

    As for the "complexity" argument, so what? We believe in a lot more complex things happening naturally, or being naturally explicable. We always have. It is rather the root of all this that we don't understand. The more fundamental question is not how the transition happened between whales and land-dwelling mammals, but how there is anything at all.

    Keep in mind that Pius XII wrote 60 years ago, when things were a lot less clear than they are now.

  26. Pope Benedict XVI knows the truth for sure. Especially that macroevolution is scientific impossible. He founded the Gustav Siewerth Academy (, which did great scientific research in this direction ("Schöpfung und Evolution" - creation and evolution), which he pointed out on many visits and letters.

    German letter thanking for the positiv work of the academy from a scientic and church related point of view:

    “Central Theme” through the main Research
    of the Gustav-Siewerth-Akademie

    Page 10, but the other pages are also very recommended to read!

    The rector (Albrecht Graf von Brandenstein-Zeppelin) and co-rector (Prof. Dr. Alma v. Stockhausen) of the Gustav-Siewerth-Academy did and do many lecturs and discussion on catholic television like EWTN and K-TV, unfortunatly AFAIK all only in german language. They are clearly argue against ape and human being related or having a common ancestors and also against the macroevolution which claims without any scientific proof that ameba developed to fish, then to amphibia, then reptiles, then birds, mammals and apes and finally humans.

  27. Maybe someone should also mention that teachers should use better grammar than what is found in the permission slip?

  28. Sirach 42:
    15 Now will I recall God's works; what I have seen, I will describe. At God's word were his works brought into being; they do his will as he has ordained for them.
    16 As the rising sun is clear to all, so the glory of the LORD fills all his works;
    17 Yet even God's holy ones must fail in recounting the wonders of the LORD, Though God has given these, his hosts, the strength to stand firm before his glory.
    18 He plumbs the depths and penetrates the heart; their innermost being he understands. The Most High possesses all knowledge, and sees from of old the things that are to come:
    19 He makes known the past and the future, and reveals the deepest secrets.
    20 No understanding does he lack;
    no single thing escapes him.
    21 Perennial is his almighty wisdom;
    he is from all eternity one and the same,
    22 With nothing added, nothing taken away;
    no need of a counselor for him!
    23 How beautiful are all his works!
    even to the spark and the fleeting vision!
    24 The universe lives and abides forever;
    to meet each need, each creature is preserved.
    25 All of them differ, one from another,
    yet none of them has he made in vain, For each in turn, as it comes, is good; can one ever see enough of their splendor?

  29. I know that it can be VERY irritating when someone simply copies and pastes, so I hope people will read to the end anyway and praise GOD.

    Sirach 43:
    1 The clear vault of the sky shines forth like heaven itself, a vision of glory.
    2 The orb of the sun, resplendent at its rising: what a wonderful work of the Most High!
    3 At noon it seethes the surface of the earth, and who can bear its fiery heat?
    4 Like a blazing furnace of solid metal, it sets the mountains aflame with its rays;
    By its fiery darts the land is consumed; the eyes are dazzled by its light.
    5 Great indeed is the LORD who made it, at whose orders it urges on its steeds.
    6 The moon, too, that marks the changing times, governing the seasons, their lasting sign,
    7 By which we know the feast days and fixed dates, this light-giver which wanes in its course:
    8 As its name says, each month it renews itself; how wondrous in this change!
    9 The beauty, the glory, of the heavens are the stars that adorn with their sparkling the heights of God,
    10 At whose command they keep their place and never relax in their vigils. A weapon against the flood waters stored on high, lighting up the firmament by its brilliance,
    11 Behold the rainbow! Then bless its Maker, for majestic indeed is its splendor;
    12 It spans the heavens with its glory, this bow bent by the mighty hand of God.
    13 His rebuke marks out the path for the lightning,and speeds the arrows of his judgment to their goal.
    14 At it the storehouse is opened, and like vultures the clouds hurry forth.
    15 In his majesty he gives the storm its power and breaks off the hailstones.
    16 The thunder of his voice makes the earth writhe; before his might the mountains quake.
    17 A word from him drives on the south wind, the angry north wind, the hurricane and the storm.
    18 He sprinkles the snow like fluttering birds; it comes to settle like swarms of locusts.
    19 Its shining whiteness blinds the eyes, the mind is baffled by its steady fall.
    20 He scatters frost like so much salt; it shines like blossoms on the thornbush.
    21 Cold northern blasts he sends that turn the ponds to lumps of ice. He freezes over every body of water, and clothes each pool with a coat of mail.
    22 When the mountain growth is scorched with heat, and the flowering plains as though by flames,
    23 The dripping clouds restore them all, and the scattered dew enriches the parched land.
    24 His is the plan that calms the deep, and plants the islands in the sea.
    25 Those who go down to the sea tell part of its story, and when we hear them we are thunderstruck;
    26 In it are his creatures, stupendous, amazing, all kinds of life, and the monsters of the deep.
    27 For him each messenger succeeds, and at his bidding accomplishes his will.
    28 More than this we need not add; let the last word be, he is all in all!
    29 Let us praise him the more, since we cannot fathom him, for greater is he than all his works;
    30 Awful indeed is the LORD'S majesty, and wonderful is his power.
    31 Lift up your voices to glorify the LORD, though he is still beyond your power to praise;
    32 Extol him with renewed strength, and weary not, though you cannot reach the end:
    33 For who can see him and describe him? or who can praise him as he is?
    34 Beyond these, many things lie hid; only a few of his works have we seen.
    35 It is the LORD who has made all things, and to those who fear him he gives wisdom.


Post a Comment