Evolution: Facts, Assertions, Theories and the Catholic Faith
Traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are 'a festering mass of unsupported assertions'.
Although evolution is often taken by some as an hypothesis proven beyond doubt, the scientific debate over the theory is one which, due to lack of empirical evidence, shows little if any signs of subsiding. John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions".
The Church transmits the fullness of truth concerning man's origin, the state of his existence, and the life to which he is called as a child of God.
PrintFormer president of Gonzaga University and noted scholar Fr. Robert Spitzer confirmed that "Darwin assumed that competition was what was driving the development of human species and particularly the dominance of one species over another." Fr. Spitzer pointed out that "there is no way of reaching back in time and finding empirical evidence of that fact."
Fr. Spitzer observed that "Darwin's theories are based on a series of inferences, which are rooted in genetics, fossil evidence, empirical evidence and even mere conjecture."
Although the above mentioned study is not directly related to a discussion of the origin of man, the topic of evolution often raises questions in the minds of believers. In a culture which often attempts to stamp out God's revealed truth, replacing it with dozens or even hundreds of suppositions concerning the origin of the created universe and the life within it, it is both necessary and helpful to familiarize one's self with the teaching of the Church God willed should exist -- the Catholic Church -- on the subject of man's origin.
The Evolution Debate Among Scientists
While evolution is often taken by some as an hypothesis proven beyond doubt, the scientific debate over the theory is one which, due to lack of empirical evidence, shows little if any signs of subsiding. John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions."
George Sim Johnston, author of Apes "R" Not Us: Catholics & the Debate Over Evolution, observed that "the two most famous figures in hominid paleontology, Richard Leakey and Donald Johansen (discoverer of "Lucy") are in complete disagreement over man's ancestry."
In light of the controversy over evolution, it is important to possess a sound understanding of Church teaching concerning the origin of man, for there are some aspects of the theory of evolution which intrude upon Catholic doctrine, and, as a result, can be the cause of serious errors in understanding. Although the Church herself is, of course, not directly involved in scientific study, she nevertheless is the authoritative transmitter of God's revelation, and therefore provides the faithful with the certainty of God's revealed truth as it relates to the origin of humankind.
It is also worth noting that many think discussions of man's origin began with Charles Darwin, whose writings on the subject did raise quite a stir; yet for the Church the issue is an old one, dealt with many times over the course of history.
A Brief Examination Of The Concepts Involved In The Theory Of Evolution
Evolution can be simply defined as a theory which posits that something was or is in a state of necessary development. We can see evidence of this type of evolutionary action all around us. However, the word "evolution" is often used today in a variety of ways, and can have numerous meanings to as many people. Therefore when we speak of the theory of evolution as it relates to man's origin it is necessary to narrow our definition in order to prevent ambiguity, misunderstanding, and errors which result from sweeping statements.
Materialistic evolution -- is a theory which assumes the eternal existence of uncreated matter, and posits that all living creatures emerged from it through a process of evolution. Such a theory is incompatible with God's revealed truth, for we know that God indeed created the material universe and all the matter within it from nothing. The notion that uncreated matter exists without a point of beginning, uncaused and without origin, stretching infinitely into the past is pure nonsense.
Evolutionism is a theory which posits that everything in ...
Rate This Article
1 - 10 of 47 Comments
Leave a Comment
More Living Faith News
- Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too!
- Receiving the Eucharist: I Have Decided to Kneel For Jesus
- Exorcism or not, it's still a miracle
- The Holy Spirit: Sanctifier and Giver of Life, Love and Truth
- Pope Francis tweets his prayers following devastation in Moore
- The Paraclete: The Counselor Who Helps Us Fulfill Our Calling
- Pope Francis calls for change within the Church
- Atheists to have their books placed atop Gideon Bibles
- Killer whale with missing fins cared for by its pod family
Featured News
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?
Most Popular
Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too! Read More
There's the problem! Americans are out of touch with scientific consensus on climate change Read More
Culture of Corruption: Why Obama's misuse of Marines is wrong Read More
Bill Donohue, Catholic League, Disclose Fight with the IRS, Demonstrate Courage Read More
Receiving the Eucharist: I Have Decided to Kneel For Jesus Read More
Daily Readings
Reading 1, Sirach 6:5-17
A kindly turn of speech attracts new friends, a courteous ... Read More
Psalm, Psalms 119:12, 16, 18, 27, 34, 35
Blessed are you, Yahweh, teach me your will! Read More
Gospel, Mark 10:1-12
After leaving there, he came into the territory of Judaea and ... Read More
Saint of the Day
St. David I of Scotland
May 24: David, the youngest son of Scotlands virtuous queen, (Saint) ... Read More
Latest Videos
Rottweiler Puppies in a Easter Basket View Video
Pope Francis to Italian bishops: Bring hope! View Video
Italy, Vatican, Basilica of Saint Peter View Video
Pope calls on Italian bishops to reduce the high number of dioceses in the country View Video
May 24 - Homily: Care For The Soul First, Then The Body View Video
Marketplace
Volume Seven: Greetings from Heaven
The saints who have gone before us want to help us during this time. ... Read More
Saint Dymphna Necklace. St Dymphna Catholic Jewelry. St. Dymphna. Read More
All I want to know is how can we have sinned (original) if we came from slime or whatever evolutionary thing with no brain. How would we have known right from wrong in that state.
MikeFP: I think your "bottom line" is right on and gets to the crux of most of this discussion, if I understand properly what you mean by the term "Grand Theory of Evolution." The Catholic Church does not object to evolution as a scientific theory, as it does not object to science. It objects to the use of evolutionary theory for making claims of a philosophical or theological nature, what might well be termed "Grand Theories of Evolution." Such claims are made regularly, if perhaps not always consciously, and Richard Dawson, who has been quoted several times above, is a good example. He uses the findings of science as a springboard for claiming that there is no God, a claim well outside of the realm of science.
I do, however, object to your unsupported statement that "Catholicism in particular has been correcting itself since the very beginning." Church doctrine has never set a timetable for the second coming, limbo has never been more than a theological postulate, and purgatory was not "introduced."
F. K. Bartels: I would like to add two observations to your nice summary of Church thought. First, John Paul II also strongly encouraged dialogue between theologians and scientists. In a 1988 letter to the director of the Vatican Observatory, he maintained that we have the opportunity for a “common interactive relationship in which each discipline [religion and science] retains its integrity and yet is radically open to the discoveries and insights of the other.” “Science" he said, "can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”
Secondly, Benedict XVI has not been silent on this topic either. Although he strongly agrees, in concert with his predecessor, that both faith and reason aim toward the same truth and can never ultimately contradict each other, he also has a deeper perspective on the implications of evolution to theology due to his long theological background. In a mini-conference at Gandolfo which is documented in Creation and Evolution (155-6), he observes that “It is not yet time to reconcile the two realms [of faith and evolutionary science]. We are glad to hear this message. I have always been of the opinion that overhasty attempts at harmonization are usually not very durable." In summary, while Catholics do in fact hold that faith does not conflict with evolutionary science, the full contours of that compatibility are not yet evident.
After taking Anthropology in college, I was convinced that evolution is not a fact. If man's origin began in Africa, there would be no migtation out of the climate to which man was adapted. A polar bear does not wander out of his adapted environment. A grizley bear does not wander north to the polar bear's enviroment. Why? Instincts for survival. If early man wandered north to the European continent, he would have evolved by growing fur coats like the bear. But instincts would tell him not to go into a cold climate because he will die of exposure. I believe God in his infinite intelligence created multiple species aroumd the globe. Today's scientists are amazed how complex tiny organisms are. I am surprised how Hawkins uasn't taken into account how exact and prefect earth's orbit and it's axis. It is like a precition machine.
MICHAEL HEMET, sounds about right to me. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in fact, puts it this way: "Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries." I enjoy being a member of a church confident enough to make that kind of statement.
If I understand Mike FP correctly I have to agree with him. God is our creator is enought for me, how he did it does not matter for this simple man. Yes, Catholicism is evolving and correcting itself. The objective truth passed on to mother church, by Jesus Christ has not changed, but our understand of that truth may change. Does that make sense.
FOLKS (including HARSHMAN, BARTELS, O'BRIEN et al), maybe I'm just an ignorant fool (okay, I'm probably an ignorant fool). But it seems that the bottom line is whether what some call the Grand Theory of Evolution applies and that God does not exist, right? I mean, other than that, this is really a quibble about the details of how God (my preference) or random events brought about the origin of species. This seems to involve a theological claim -- God exists -- that science is not really structured to address, versus an unsupportable scientific claim that God does not exist. So, my questions for the science guys are: 1) why do science types insist on making theological claims about God that science just isn't designed to address? 2) why are these claims most commonly found in the shakier areas of science? What I mean by "shakier" is that the methodologies available to support such claims lie as the other end of the scientific method from controlled experiments. For the more religious: why do you insist on making believers look so silly public by clinging to nonessential details? Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular has been correcting itself since the very beginning (see: timetable for Second Coming; elimination of Limbo; introduction of Purgatory, etc.) St. Paul did advise that we see things as through a darkened glass, no?
Mr. Bartels said: "Those who insist that there is no controversy around Darwinian evolution (often termed "macroevolution") are simply refusing to admit to the facts." He then goes on, like he did with Bonner, to post quotes that are meant to convey the supposed controversy around "macroevolution". Except that none of those people he has quoted (with the possible exception of Behe) have any doubt that macroevolution (common descent) is absolutely true. I'm excluding George Sim Johnston, of course, because he is a Catholic apologist and not a scientist. Mr. Bartels quotes Bonner as if Bonner doubts macroevolution, which he doesn't as seen from the other posts above. Mr. Bartels quotes Nelson and Platnick as if they doubt macroevolution, when they are the authors of a book that some considered the best proof ever that common descent is true! He quotes Michael Denton, who has looked at the data and has changed his position, and who now agrees with common descent or "macroevolution". He quotes Wolfram who, while he may disagree with Dawkins on the "selfish gene" principle, accepts completely that macroevolution is true. So once again we see Mr. Bartels using out of date or out of context quotes to portray a controversy in scientific circles that doesn't exist. The only controversy is in religious circles with people like Mr. Bartels who are uncomfortable with the fact that they share ancestors with chimpanzees. I'm sorry the fact makes you uncomfortable, Mr. Bartels, but it doesn't change the fact.
If there is no conflict between the Bible and science, I'm at a loss to explain why you're trying to manufacture a controversy within biology about whether macroevolution actually happens. Can you explain?
Todd: You're right. There is no conflict between the Bible and science. Sacred Scripture is not a science textbook, and should not be read like one. Rather, the Bible is a book about ourselves and our relationship with God as His people; it expresses truths that were written by the sacred authors under the breath of the Holy Spirit for our salvation. The trouble arises when people incorrectly interpret the Bible, as if it laid down scientific facts, which it clearly does not. If you believe God used a process of evolution in creating man, that is compatible with the Church's magisterial teaching provided the proper qualifications are made. See the explanation on Theistic Evolution in the article.
Why does it always have to be either/or? My theory is that evolution is how God created man. At some point, he put his spirit into "modern" Homo Sapiens. The Bible isn't a technical manual but a manual for the soul. I see no conflict with the bible and science. But what do I know. I'm just an accountant.