Evolution as Heresy?
by Frank M. Rega
"Science, my son, for all its greatness, is still an inferior thing; it is less than nothing when compared to the formidable mystery of Divinity." (St. Padre Pio)
In an address by Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996, entitled "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth," 1 the Holy Father made this controversial statement: "...new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis." This assertion greatly enflamed many in the anti-evolution camp, who felt that it set back the causes of creationism and "intelligent design," which had been making great headway.
However, one aspect of evolutionary theory is "natural selection", and in certain limited cases dealing with changes within a species, natural selection is in fact "more than a hypothesis." For example, some studies have shown that beak sizes in finches can vary depending on selection due to environmental factors. The same phenomenon of variation has been found in classical studies of the survival value of changes in wing coloration of peppered moths. Yet, in the end, we still have finches and peppered moths. The changes are due to natural selection and the environment acting on variations in the genetic information within members of a species.
However, the aspect of evolutionary theory that is most often questioned and debated is the supposition of "common evolutionary descent." It is questionable because there is no experimental, scientific proof that one species or family has descended from another. It is merely a hypothesis, and has not progressed beyond this stage for a century and a half. The term evolution in this essay will refer to this concept of common evolutionary descent.
In recent years the work of scientists who employ intelligent design theory has effectively debunked the notion of neo-Darwinism, i.e. evolution of new species arising from the interaction of natural selection, the environment, and genetic changes primarily due to mutations. Among the active pioneers in the intelligent design community are the London-educated Michael Denton, and the Americans William Dembski, and Michael Behe, a Catholic. Nevertheless, the new developments that have effectively challenged neo-Darwinism have not prevented evolutionists from brazenly referring to their model as the "fact of evolution." But evolutionary descent can be labeled neither a fact, nor as "more than a hypothesis", since it has never been scientifically proven that higher animals and plants developed from other species or simpler forms of life. Controlled laboratory experiments on genetic mutations have failed to produce evidence of new species evolution or even an "improved version" of an existing species.
Unfortunately, evolution is still uncritically accepted as true by large segments of the Catholic population. Perhaps some are so apprehensive of another Galileo incident that they bend over backwards to accommodate evolution theory to religion. Thus the compromise of "theistic evolution " is embraced, whereby God somehow used or permitted evolutionary descent to be the mechanism of creation. Speculation along this line of thought is permissible to a believing Catholic, as detailed in the encyclical Humani Generis issued by His Holiness Pope Pius XII. The encyclical explains that in light of the current (1950) state of opinions on evolution by scientists and theologians, it is permissible to discuss and explore the possibility of "…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." 2 In the more than half a century since then, and in the century and a half since Darwin, the discussion of the possibility of human descent from lower animals has been ongoing, and it still remains no more than an unproven hypothetical possibility.
Theistic evolutionists who have accepted the false premise of the "fact" of evolution, must try to reconcile it with their Christian faith, but cannot do so without diluting that very faith. For example, they must come to terms with the Biblical teaching that God created man not only with an immortal soul, but with a body that was not subject to death – a death which entered into the world with the fall of Adam. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). 3 And from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 1008): "Death is a consequence of sin. The Church's Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man's sin." Further, the book of Wisdom seems to indicate that initially no living beings of any kind were subject to death: "For God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. For he created all things that they might be" (Wisdom 1: 13,14).
For the rest of this article, click its title above.
"Science, my son, for all its greatness, is still an inferior thing; it is less than nothing when compared to the formidable mystery of Divinity." (St. Padre Pio)
In an address by Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996, entitled "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth," 1 the Holy Father made this controversial statement: "...new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis." This assertion greatly enflamed many in the anti-evolution camp, who felt that it set back the causes of creationism and "intelligent design," which had been making great headway.
However, one aspect of evolutionary theory is "natural selection", and in certain limited cases dealing with changes within a species, natural selection is in fact "more than a hypothesis." For example, some studies have shown that beak sizes in finches can vary depending on selection due to environmental factors. The same phenomenon of variation has been found in classical studies of the survival value of changes in wing coloration of peppered moths. Yet, in the end, we still have finches and peppered moths. The changes are due to natural selection and the environment acting on variations in the genetic information within members of a species.
However, the aspect of evolutionary theory that is most often questioned and debated is the supposition of "common evolutionary descent." It is questionable because there is no experimental, scientific proof that one species or family has descended from another. It is merely a hypothesis, and has not progressed beyond this stage for a century and a half. The term evolution in this essay will refer to this concept of common evolutionary descent.
In recent years the work of scientists who employ intelligent design theory has effectively debunked the notion of neo-Darwinism, i.e. evolution of new species arising from the interaction of natural selection, the environment, and genetic changes primarily due to mutations. Among the active pioneers in the intelligent design community are the London-educated Michael Denton, and the Americans William Dembski, and Michael Behe, a Catholic. Nevertheless, the new developments that have effectively challenged neo-Darwinism have not prevented evolutionists from brazenly referring to their model as the "fact of evolution." But evolutionary descent can be labeled neither a fact, nor as "more than a hypothesis", since it has never been scientifically proven that higher animals and plants developed from other species or simpler forms of life. Controlled laboratory experiments on genetic mutations have failed to produce evidence of new species evolution or even an "improved version" of an existing species.
Unfortunately, evolution is still uncritically accepted as true by large segments of the Catholic population. Perhaps some are so apprehensive of another Galileo incident that they bend over backwards to accommodate evolution theory to religion. Thus the compromise of "theistic evolution " is embraced, whereby God somehow used or permitted evolutionary descent to be the mechanism of creation. Speculation along this line of thought is permissible to a believing Catholic, as detailed in the encyclical Humani Generis issued by His Holiness Pope Pius XII. The encyclical explains that in light of the current (1950) state of opinions on evolution by scientists and theologians, it is permissible to discuss and explore the possibility of "…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." 2 In the more than half a century since then, and in the century and a half since Darwin, the discussion of the possibility of human descent from lower animals has been ongoing, and it still remains no more than an unproven hypothetical possibility.
Theistic evolutionists who have accepted the false premise of the "fact" of evolution, must try to reconcile it with their Christian faith, but cannot do so without diluting that very faith. For example, they must come to terms with the Biblical teaching that God created man not only with an immortal soul, but with a body that was not subject to death – a death which entered into the world with the fall of Adam. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). 3 And from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 1008): "Death is a consequence of sin. The Church's Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man's sin." Further, the book of Wisdom seems to indicate that initially no living beings of any kind were subject to death: "For God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. For he created all things that they might be" (Wisdom 1: 13,14).
For the rest of this article, click its title above.
posted by Br. Alexis Bugnolo at 9/04/2006 05:14:00 PM
6 Comments:
Fantastic article, it brings out some very important points that I wasn't aware of, especially the initial immortality of man.
I wonder though, with regard to this and the other issues raised about the geneology of Mary, and Christ. It would seem that the essence of man is in his immortal soul, and that the first human soul was that of Adam? So then the possibility that Adam was formed not directly from slime, but from a sub-human ancestor does not mean that his human geneology extends there. Is there any more issue with saying God made man from slime, vs. God made man from slime, first forming sub-humans without souls and then when this form was ready it was embued with the soul and thus became human?
I like Schonborn's suggestion, that we should remove ideology from evolution so that it can be freely explored (and in my opinion rejected), unfettered by the atheistic agenda.
The essence of man is not "in his immortal soul"; the essense of man is "a rational animal", this includes soul and body.
Your observation is based on the gross error of Decartes, which has found its way in the muddled minds of contemporary man, namely, that our essence is our soul; whereas the Catholic and philosphical truth is that our essence requires body and soul.
This error of Decartes is behind evolution, because if what we are is not both body and soul, the former being held in being and brought into being as a living being by the latter, then there can be more than one soul for a body, or more than one body for a soul, because the body wouild be to the soul like a glove is to a hand, as long as it roughly fits, it can be worn.
But the truth is much otherwise, becuase every body is unique, and every soul is unique, and between every body and every soul there is only one unique relation, such that no other body can have this soul, and no other soul can have this body.
That means, that though your body can change, grow old or sick, or be made anew in youthful splendor by God on the day of Resurrection, nevertheless it cannot exist nor can it have ever existed unless your soul exists or existed, such that they are coterminal in coming into being, such that the body, as a living body, does not exist prior to the creation of the soul, and with the departure of the soul ceases to exist, as a living body.
We often err in modern times, in saying after the death of a human person, that his body is still at hand, but that is not so: it is not his body any longer, it was his body, it is now a cadaver.
Just so, Adam could not have received a body from any other form of life, because even non-intelligent living things have a soul, which is the unique principle form of their bodies. These lesser souls are not immortal, and are quasi-material, in that the are equivalent to a number, expressible by the Divine Mind alone, on account of its complexity.
For this reason after human death, the corpse continues to have some sort of existence, and if severed from a living human body, a finger can be kept relatively alive long enough to be reattatched to the hand.
For these reasons, there can be no evolution of the human body; not can Adam have been created in the womb of some animal. Because Genesis clearly says that God made Adam out of the slime of the earth, it does not say out of the womb of an animal.
There is no need to remove ideology from evolution so as to explore it scientifically, for it is a philosophical and not an empiracl scientific theory, and as such it is patently false as has been observed by numerous philosophers, among whom I recommend: From Aristotle to Darwin, and back again, by Etienne Gilson, Notre Dame Press.
Thanks for the correction on the essence of man, I'm very new to learning the faith from philosophical perspective.
There is no need to remove ideology from evolution so as to explore it scientifically, for it is a philosophical and not an empiracl scientific theory, and as such it is patently false as has been observed by numerous philosophers
Of course you are correct in that evolution is a bankrupt theory/ideology, however, the point I believe of Schonborn, is that in order to correct this error we first remove it's ideological end, that it somehow explains the universe in a way that does not require God. It would be entirely possible for God to form the universe using some form of evolution (he clearly did not). By eliminating this end, it becomes possible to address the specific scientific errors of the theory without the "religious" defense of the darwinists.
I do agree that a classical education (which I sadly lack) including true philosopy is a necessary antidote to many of these "modernist" errors.
Matt,
It would not be possible for God to create a universe in which evolution is possible, since the theory of evolution is irrational, because it posits that order can arise from non order by chance.
And even God cannot create a universe that runs by irrational laws. For thus He would not be God.
As for your comment on Limbo, I could not make out what you meant to say.
Limbo is a teaching contained in Scripture and Tradition, not explicity as to the term, but implicity as to the doctrine: transubstantian is not explicity as a term, nor is the Trinity as a term, taught by Scripture, but the doctrines are.
Limbo is Latin for "upper edge", limbo is the upper edge of Hell. That those in hell are punished differently, we have from St. Paul's letters where he says that those punished in the life to come are punish in accord with their sins; no personal sins, therefore requires somethign different from personal sins. That one is damned for original sin alone, without personal sins, is a clear teaching of Scripture, otherwise, for St. Paul says "we are all born sons of wrath".
Limbo is a teaching contained in Scripture and Tradition, not explicity as to the term, but implicity as to the doctrine: transubstantian is not explicity as a term, nor is the Trinity as a term, taught by Scripture, but the doctrines are.
Limbo is Latin for "upper edge", limbo is the upper edge of Hell. That those in hell are punished differently, we have from St. Paul's letters where he says that those punished in the life to come are punish in accord with their sins; no personal sins, therefore requires somethign different from personal sins. That one is damned for original sin alone, without personal sins, is a clear teaching of Scripture, otherwise, for St. Paul says "we are all born sons of wrath".
As I understand it the interpretation of the scriptures to imply "limbo" as a permanent place for unbaptised persons, is not infallibly held by the Church. I will stand to be corrected from an authoritative source, but I do not believe that the interpretations support anything more than speculation on this matter. The Church has been clear that speculation in this area is to be avoided, we are simply to entrust those poor souls to the mercy and justice of God. Am I incorrect?
Dear Matt,
You wrote:
"As I understand it the interpretation of the scriptures to imply "limbo" as a permanent place for unbaptised persons, is not infallibly held by the Church."
Not correct: it would be correct if you had said " ... is not yet infallibly defined by the Church," because the Holy Office of the inquisition forbade the denial of the existence of Limbo (I believe in the 17th century), on the grounds that in denying it, one inevitably must deny Original Sin or the Divine Justice's equity.
"I will stand to be corrected from an authoritative source, but I do not believe that the interpretations support anything more than speculation on this matter."
Just as if one has never studied Nuclear Physics, one should not act on the basis of his poorly informed opinions in regards to which parts of a Nuclear Reactor to enter or not to enter, so one who has never formally studied Theology, shoul not act on such poorly informed opinions, for, "where Angels dread to enter, fools rush in".
"The Church has been clear that speculation in this area is to be avoided, we are simply to entrust those poor souls to the mercy and justice of God. Am I incorrect?"
As I mentioned above, speculation against Limbo is to be avoided: obviously speculation about Limbo has never been forbidden, or you would have a huge number of prevatican II theologians being condemened, when they were never condemned by the Vatican.
It is strange, isn't it, that the prejudices of the liberals today, have become more authoritative than the formal Magisterial condemnations of the pre-Vatican II era.
I submit that you have been mislead.
And I recommend reading carefully SEVERAL TIMES the following:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
In which article "positively taught in scripture" means "explicity and directly", rather than implicitly and in virtue of other explicit statements.
Aslo, the article is weak in that it speaks of a seeming conflict between the Scholastics and Augustine, since it mistakes Hell for Infera, the Latin word for the Lower RegionS. Limbo is not a 3rd place, but part of Hell, therefore there is no conflict.
Post a Comment
<< Home