Catholics and Evolution

From a Friend:

Howdy Heavy D!

I thought you'd find this WND article interesting, and was curious as to
whether you might have heard of this. Whad'ya thinks?

V.S.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47205

My Reply:

Greetings, V.S.

Yeah, I've seen variations of that article coming from the same Reuters report. The issue pops up now and then in the news.

Of course, some writers seem to leave the impression that the Catholic Church is snuggling up to the brand of evolution that has atheism as its backdrop. To many "regular" people, "evolution" is seen as the opposing alternative to divine Creationism.

The Catholic Church always has and always will "believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen." She also believes that "through [Jesus], all things were made" (Nicene Creed). That's the Faith of the Church; it's foundational to the deposit of faith that she has preserved and transmitted to this day.

To explain how God did His creating is something we cannot understand, at least not comprehensively. How does something come from nothing? I don't know -- but God does. He did it! But did He do it in 518,400 seconds (6 days as we reckon them)? He sure could have, and He sure may have. Did He do it more gradually over the course of a much longer time, as in millions of kabillions of trajillions of years? He sure could have.

Yet the question isn't whether He "could have," but what did He do?

The answer depends on the correct interpretation of the Creation narrative in Genesis. Some people want to metaphorize the whole thing away so that there were no two original parents, Adam & Eve; and that there was no Fall into Original Sin; etc. The whole thing, they would believe, is a purely humanly devised, fictitious account with no basis in reality. "Metaphorized" in that fashion, I'm not sure what the point of the metaphor is supposed to be, other than ancient peoples sure had "creative" minds to come up with such a whopper.

Others, as you know (like I can tell you something new), want to stretch the poetically structured account of Creation to the strictest literal sense possible. Understanding Scripture with that kind of "literalism" is very good . . . IF the Holy Spirit intends for that particular portion of Scripture to be understood that way. (Did God and the ancient writers He inspired only know the one style of writing, that of a reporter working for Eye-Witness Action News?)

In a nutshell, the Church teaches that God created all things out of nothing. Beyond that, the Church has no power or authority to dogmatize in scientific terms how matter and life forms came to exist. It's just not part of the "religion business" to explain science.

Yet, the Church also teaches that faith and science -- TRUE science -- cannot contradict each other. It may be that many IN the church have their own scientific views (recall the Galileo thing), but these views are not necessarily those of this Church or its Management. These views can be wrong.

I like [Christian apologist and philosopher] Peter Kreeft a lot, but he apparently believes in some kind of evolutionary process. Other Catholics, however, totally reject the idea. They're all free to investigate and hold certain scientific views as long as they don't contradict the clear teachings of the Church (summarized anciently in the creeds).

I would want to ask the Cardinal featured in the article what he meant by "evolution" and what he means by there being "proof" for it. I am sure he didn't mean the same thing my high school biology teacher meant by it.

I believe in certain things that some people might label "evolution" -- such as what you discussed in a sermon about your little Coconut being a descendent of wolves. Certain kinds of "natural selection" seem to be commonsense fact.

But, from a scientific viewpoint, I do not see any compelling reason to believe, for example, that birds came from lizards or that man came from apes. It is a theory, but I don't see logical "proofs" for it that stand up to scientific scrutiny, certainly not to my satisfaction at all. I just don't believe it. It "doesn't make sense." One can interpret scriptures in a way that fits that scenario, but I don't think it's good science to start with. Just my humble opinion.

My belief is what the Church teaches: God made all things.

The Church encourages us all to investigate science, to be open and not be afraid of it. We are also to recognize that there is good and bad (i.e., true and false) science. But the Church has not, and is not , going to proclaim particular scientific views as part of Divine Revelation (that which she is commissioned to preserve and teach).

Genesis 1 and 2 are most definitely part of Divine Revelation, but the Church does not dictate a particular understanding of every single phrase and word in the account. Instead she gives us the freedom to grapple with and be awed by the mystery of Creation. She does give us guidelines, or confines, rather, that we must stay within (e.g., God directly creates the human soul; Adam & Eve were our first parents, who sinned and fell from grace; all that exists was created out of nothing -- i.e., the universe did not exist from all eternity).

It's good that the Church has not dogmatized scientific views in her history, because science (in many ways) has changed, mostly for the better. And the Church's dogmas cannot be reversed. So it's good that the Creed does not say, "We believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, which is at the center of the universe, and around which all other celestial bodies orbit. . . . Amen."

If individual Catholics -- even certain high-ranking officials -- believe in something that is contary to the constant Faith of the Church, then they are . . . what's the word? . . . wrong. If they hold views which don't contradict the Faith, yet can be proven incorrect scientifically (whether now or later), then they simply hold an erroneous view of science.

In the same way, certain officials of the Church can and do have the "wrong" view of our war on terrorism. The Church does officially set up criteria for what a "just war" is (it's in the Catechism), but she also says that it is the responsibility of governments to determine whether the use of force is justified according to the criteria. JP2 and B16, if I understand correctly, both had great reservations against the war in Iraq, but I don't think they watch FOX News or listen to Rush like everyone should. Either way, they are entitled to their geopolitical opinions like the rest of us, because "dealing with modern Islamic terrorism" is not part of the deposit of Faith. But because B16 is of considerable intellect and wisdom, and because of his position, I do not despise his analyses. His words ought to be considered, but they are not to be treated as Gospel -- unless, of course, he's speaking in an official capacity about the Gospel.

Another thing about that article -- the part about falling prey to "fundamentalism." In context of the article, that sounds awful to some people because it seems to equate "fundamentalism" with "Creationism," but that's not a fair understanding. A fundamentalist would be one who has a rigid, literalistic, narrow interpretation of Scripture that he believes no matter how goofy it is. I would say a typical fundamentalist, for example, might insist that the earth (the dirt, this third floating rock that goes around the sun) has only existed for some five or six thousand years (because he "believes the Book"). He doesn't allow room in the text of Scripture for the possibility that the universe (and even the earth) is much, much older, and that the earth was only recreated or prepared for man in more recent times. He may tend to ignore certain scientific facts. But we should be mature enough to not shun or fear science. We should instead pursue and embrace science (true science), realizing it cannot contradict the articles of our Christian Faith.

Fundamentalists do not own Creationism. At their core, Catholics are Creationists. Always have been, always will be.

I need to get ready for work. Sorry this email took longer than expected, but it's your fault for asking, "Whad'ya thinks?" I have much to do, though. I wish it only took six days for me to recreate the [Web site I'm working on].

His reply again:

Greetings again, El Darrenator!

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad you don't wholeheartedly embrace the cardinal's ideas. What struck me as odd is the fact that he speaks of "proof" of "evolution" (I'm fairly certain he meant the gradual development of all life forms from a single organism) at a time when there is more evidence against evolution than ever before, along with an abundance of evidence that fully developed life forms appeared suddenly. (Maybe the cardinal should be a little more open to the science he appears to be ignoring.) Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply.