Faith (based on Divine Revelation) and reason (based on natural revelation) must remain in harmony. Therefore, "natural science" will never disprove Divine Revelation.
Our knowledge of this subject can come solely from Divine Revelation and theology, and the role of science in this field is to sit down and shut up.
Says who? Divine Revelation sheds light on natural law. Scientific observation can play a legitimate role in developing a clearer understanding of the latter.
Why does "reason" mean "subjecting the supernatural act of creation to presently-existing natural laws?" You think that's "reason?" It sounds like quite the opposite to me.
Our knowledge of this subject can come solely from Divine Revelation and theology, and the role of science in this field is to sit down and shut up.
Says who? Divine Revelation sheds light on natural law. Scientific observation can play a legitimate role in developing a clearer understanding of the latter.
Does the word "supernatural" mean nothing to you? How can science shed light on areas completely outside its purview? Do you allow science to explain the virgin birth or resurrection from the dead or transubstantiation? No? Then how in the name of all that is reasonable do you insist that naturalistic uniformitarian science can tell us how G-d supernaturally created the world?
You Catholics are absolutely hopeless. You rail against Teilhard and liberalism and modernism but you're married to scientism and the "demythologization" of the Bible. Did Jerome believe in evolution or the documentary hypothesis? If he didn't and the Church does today, how can it claim to be semper idem??? If the Catholic Church were a business it would shut down for false advertising!
And thank you so much for ignoring my question about the death of the firstborn in Exodus. I gather from this that you also believe the whole thing is a didactic fairy tale.
Some "unchanging conservatives" you Catholics are!!!