Evolution, not intelligent design, is fundamental Catholic teaching, Vatican Observatory director says
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (Catholic Online) -- Intelligent Design reduces and belittles God’s power and might, according to the director of the Vatican Observatory.
Science is and should be seen as “completely neutral” on the issue of the theistic or atheistic implications of scientific results, says Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, while noting that “science and religion are totally separate pursuits.”
Father Coyne is scheduled to deliver the annual Aquinas Lecture on “Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution” at Palm Beach Atlantic University, an interdenominational Christian university of about 3,100 students, here Jan. 31. The talk is sponsored by the Newman Club, and scheduled in conjunction with the Jan. 28 feast of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Catholic Online received an advance copy of the remarks from the Jesuit priest-astronomer, who heads the Vatican Observatory, which has sites at Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome, and on Mount Graham in Arizona.
Christianity is “radically creationist,” Father George V. Coyne said, but it is not best described by the “crude creationism” of the fundamental, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis or by the Newtonian dictatorial God who makes the universe tick along like a watch. Rather, he stresses, God acts as a parent toward the universe, nurturing, encouraging and working with it.
In his remarks, he also criticizes the cardinal archbishop of Vienna’s support for Intelligent Design and notes that Pope John Paul’s declaration that “evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis” is “a fundamental church teaching” which advances the evolutionary debate.
He calls “mistaken” the belief that the Bible should be used “as a source of scientific knowledge,” which then serves to “unduly complicate the debate over evolution.”
And while Charles Darwin receives most of the attention in the debate over evolution, Father Coyne said it was the 18th-century French naturalist Georges Buffon, condemned a hundred years before Darwin for suggesting that “it took billions of years to form the crust of the earth,” who “caused problems for the theologians with the implications that might be drawn from the theory of evolution.”
He points to the “marvelous intuition” of Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman who said in 1868, “the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill.”
Pope John Paul Paul II, he adds, told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.”
He criticizes Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna for instigating a “tragic” episode “in the relationship of the Catholic Church to science” through the prelate’s July 7, 2005, article he wrote for the New York Times that “neo-Darwinian evolution is not compatible with Catholic doctrine,” while the Intelligent Design theory is.
Cardinal Schonborn “is in error,” the Vatican observatory director says, on “at least five fundamental issues.”
“One, the scientific theory of evolution, as all scientific theories, is completely neutral with respect to religious thinking; two, the message of John Paul II, which I have just referred to and which is dismissed by the cardinal as ‘rather vague and unimportant,’ is a fundamental church teaching which significantly advances the evolution debate; three, neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection;’ four, the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer; five, Intelligent Design is not science despite the cardinal’s statement that ‘neo-Darwinism and the multi-verse hypothesis in cosmology [were] invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science,’” Father Coyne says.
Christianity is “radically creationist” and God is the “creator of the universe,” he says, but in “a totally different sense” than creationism has come to mean.
“It is unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis,” he stresses. “It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God. The universe is not God and it cannot exist independently of God. Neither pantheism nor naturalism is true.”
He says that God is not needed to explain the “scientific picture of life’s origins in terms of religious belief.”
“To need God would be a very denial of God. God is not a response to a need,” the Jesuit says, adding that some religious believers act as if they “fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God.”
Yet, he adds, this is the opposite of what human intelligence should be working toward. “We should be seeking for the fullness of God in creation.”
Modern science reveals to the religious believer “God who made a universe that has within it a certain dynamism and thus participates in the very creativity of God,” Father Coyne says, adding that this view of creation is not new but can be found in early Christian writings, including from those of St. Augustine.
“Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.”
He proposes to describe God’s relationship with the universe as that of a parent with a child, with God nurturing, preserving and enriching its individual character. “God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words.”
He stresses that the theory of Intelligent Design diminishes God into “an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.”
“God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.”
The concludes his prepared remarks noting that science challenges believers’ traditional understanding of God and the universe to look beyond “crude creationism” to a view that preserves the special character of both.
- - -
Copyright © 2006 by Catholic Online (www.catholic.org). All Rights Reserved.
Rate This Article
1 - 10 of 11 Comments
Leave a Comment
More U.S. News
- Bridge that collapsed in Washington State was structurally unsound
- Gay youths to be allowed to join Boy Scouts: Controversy rages
- Violent Tsarnev friend killed by FBI after blaming Tamerlan for unsolved murders
- Eric Garcetti becomes Los Angeles' first Jewish mayor
- 12,000 homes damaged or destroyed in Moore, daunting road to recovery underway
- US Supreme Court Accepts Religion Case: Will Legislative Prayer Survive Religious Censorship?
- In the Wake of the Moore Tornado: What Can we Learn from the Disaster?
- Priests for Life: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act Most Significant Legislative Step Forward
- Homeless man whose face was eaten away in cannibal attack recovering
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 Scotland’s 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
At Prayer with Mary
Deepen your appreciation of and devotion to our Blessed Mother Mary ... Read More
Olive Wood Medium Cord Rosary
High quality manufacturing shows in the material and workmanship of ... Read More
Anyone who believes in evolution is calling Our Lord Jesus Christ a liar! Please refer to the Gospel of St Mark, chapter 10, verses 2 to 9. Our Lord and God, the creator of the universe says in verse 6 of that chapter:
"But from the BEGINNING OF CREATION God made them male and female."
Actually THIS is what the Catholic Church really teaches about evolution: http://www.kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/
Father makes blunt and firm statements. The problem with scientists making blunt statements regarding evolutionary science is that they shoot themselves in their own foot. When scientists, or writers of science proclaim that 'evolution' is a 'fact' they inadvertently bite the hand that feeds them. Saying a case is closed tends to shut down any funding for further research. Saying "I believe in evolution" discloses that that person knows very little regarding the study of or facts pertaining to the science of evolution as it exists today. When a serious minded person begins the journey of discovery by reading popular writers on evolution; Dawkins, Gould, Hauser, Zimmer....ad nauseum..and read the sections on Evolution in High School textbooks for themselves..they will come away with more questions than answers. In these volumes of text you will be faced with many occurrences of words and phrases like; "somehow", "in some yet unexplained miraculous way" by some unknown mechanism" , etc...etc... Wonderful writers waxing eloquent does not a scientific fact make. There would be no "God of the gaps" if there weren't so many gaps. Robust and large scale scientific discovery is not well funded and we are left with no answers to the logical idea of an original cause for one. You can imagine as many universes as you wish but you always end up facing a beginning. A beginning presupposes a beginner; an uncaused cause; a non-contingent contingency. That is logical. That is thinking scientifically. If you really want to understand evolution to be a fact you have to answer the question of biological 'mechanisms'. How did an early simple chemical become a molecule, or what was the forcer of change. What 'told' the simplest form of life to arrange itself into a complex and robust 'machine' and produce for itself a protective and complex cell 'wall'. What environmental 'sensors' were there to provide feedback to the core decision processor and how did these sensors develop and construct themselves without a set of instructions. Even the most basic of questions such as "what is' the survival 'instinct' and where did or does it reside and what were the mechanisms that created 'it' and how did the simple organism 'learn' and put into effect the mechanics of biological survival. Believing in 'evolution' is a non- sensical statement. Believing that evolutionary science will someday support a knowledge of evolutionary processes that is complete enough and robust enough to call this area of science 'fact' is an act of 'faith' at this point. If we shut down the funding for and interest in finding the answers to the most basic questions, then writers of evolutionary theory will always have to employ words and phrases such as "somehow" and "one possibility might be", etc.. It is a fact that there is mutation. That is fact. It is a fact that lifeforms are extremely complex, and the complexity of a single cell is mind boggling. The ID folks are simply asking the how questions before accepting conjecture as fact. That is the mark of a true scientist.
As far as evolution is concerned;
I believe it to be perhaps the biggest hoax of our time. It is a shame that many are giving direction to its' following without seeing the problems that incurs. I used to believe in it myself. I have a Biology degree and background and evolution was taken for granted and other proofs that did not fit were simply thrown out. Being somewhat questioning and stubborn, I looked at these other proofs and have come to abandon evolution completely. The mere complexity of life even at the 'simple' cell level is mind-boggling. If you think that God threw it all up to chance and mutations, you have succumbed also. There is a thing termed irreducible complexity, whereby the removal or alteration of one part leads to the whole organism's destruction. So many details are required for an advancement to propagate, that chance does not allow on its own.
That God created the universe and all life in it, is fundamental to Christian and Judaic beliefs. Genesis gives the overview. It is backed up by the psalmist. Even the New Testament points towards the 6-day creation of Genesis. Do we pick and choose what to believe of the sacred scriptures? I hope not. Details of the creation theory may be lacking, but that doesn't mean we throw it out to chance and mutations. True science will eventually lead to the truth. But today's 'science' is biased towards evolution, with little or no room for God. By faith, and many natural proofs I have been fortunate to see, I believe in Creation!
Dan
Father Coyne has an interesting and deeply flawed take on this subject - he apparently thinks that since the majority of scientists agree that evolution is correct and ID is incorrect - that Catholicism must fall in line. Catholicism should not challenge evolution but accept it and make it fit into Catholic teaching.
What exactly does science say about immaculate conception and virgin birth, Father Coyne?
And how should Catholicism respond to scientific pronouncements on that subject?
As i agree with most of what is said here, i have to strongly disagree with the part that says God does not intervene. Well than please explain, Joan of Arch, Mosses, and Jesus himself. All miracles, Mary appearing around the world and while your at it, explain the splitting of the red sea too. Thanks, my 2 sense.
Sean
Formally known as the pope and his interests in evolution goes, I have read almost all the articles on evolution done on the more than ten catholic sites, and they all say the same thing in common to Pope Pius's statements on evolution... 1) Polygenism is rejected by the Catholic Faith and anyone who supports it is in error.
2) The soul should be known by ALL followers of Christ, that it is not made by material means, but instantly given to people by birth.
3) Adam and Eve did not come from animals. IF I understand this correctly.
But of course even Charles Darwin himself said that the human race was not poly genetically, but mono genetically from one race of parents. Therefore I agree totality that in comparative religions is involved that Christianity might be wrong if the following were found; being the animal link to the human, which would mean that maybe the ancient Indian religions would serve me better, even though they lack ever more in logical consistency.
@spomer He's not just the director of the Vatican observatory, he's also a priest. And the article isn't mainly about matters of faith and morals, it's mainly about how God and our modern scientific understanding of the world (which has given us [via a discovery process] much of the technology which allows us to communicate to each other using these electronic devices on this thing called the web) can be reconciled. I believe Father Coyne did a good job of clarifying the roll of science w.r.t. God and of God w.r.t. science while emphasizing God's ultimate importance to our spiritual experience.
I'm glad to hear SOMEONE from the Catholic Church blow the whistle on Schonborn, who is a very dishonest man. He has close ties to the Discovery Institute, which is the driving force behind the I.D. movement, though he makes mention of this relationship when he remarks about I.D. (in fact, he falsely presents himself as someone with no personal stake in the I.D. movement). He is obviously part of the Discovery Institute's notorious 'wedge' strategy (which was leaked years ago) which is a plan to promote I.D. creationism and resist the teaching of evolution by stealth. It's no coincidence Schonborn's pro ID remarks came just 3 months after John Paul 2's death; what a snake.
The article has cleared many of my doubts. God is the Creator of the universe. Evolution is the process which God Himself has used to create the universe. Bible is a spiritual history , which reveals God's messages.It helps us to grow spiritually.To know God we must read the Bible. To know the material world we must read books on science.