John Paul II's Lead On Evolution
Editorial FAITH Magazine January 1997 by Tim Finigan
To regular readers of Faith will come as no surprise that we received Pope John Paul’s recent statement on evolution with enthusiasm. It is a part of the vision and understanding of the Catholic faith upon which the Faith movement is founded that God’s creation through evolution and his salvation of mankind in Jesus Christ, the heir of the ages, form one sweep of the divine law of wisdom working through all things and triumphant even in the face of sin.
Of course we are not dealing here with infallible teaching. Nevertheless, the consistent encouragement of the present Pope for scientific research and his positive approach to a scientific view of the world are wise and far-sighted. He has done the Church a great service by this approach. Pope John Paul clearly wishes his remarks on evolution to be interpreted as an extension of the teaching of Pope Pius XII to which he explicitly refers. He says that since Humani Generis
First of all, we need to be clear that evolution does not commit anyone to a purely materialistic view of the world. It is perfectly reasonable to accept evolution and to believe in a wise God who created the universe in which evolution happens. Many scientists working in various fields directly concerned with evolution believe firmly in the existence of God and the Christian doctrine of creation. It is well known, of course that some scientists do not believe in God. Many others would challenge them even to support their scientific view of the world without accepting the existence of God. (See Fr Nesbitt’s excellent pamphlet The path from science to God for a collection of many references.)
It is also important to understand that evolution does not commit anyone to hold that everything happened by “random chance”. Even natural selection (one of the mechanisms involved in some sorts of evolution) is not a “chance” process. It posits an ordered mechanism of interplay between the organism and its environment that is anything but random. A Christian could speak in traditional terms of “providence” but find a much deeper and more thrilling content to that idea by studying the manner in which God’s providence has worked through the ages.
Another misunderstanding is over the nature of scientific theory. A theory is not an imperfect fact as many six-day creationists seem to believe. It is, on the contrary an attempt to explain the facts that we have observed. If science is proceeding properly, it is likely that there will be rival theories and these will be modified where the observations do not accord with them. Such is the case, for example with understanding gravity. Gravity is a fact but there are various theories to account for the facts about gravity that we know. In the same way, many people accept evolution as a fact but may not be sure yet which is the best of the theories to account for all the facts we know.
It is sometimes asserted that evolution is not a matter of science because the process cannot be observed. But in fact it has been observed in the laboratory. There are experiments that can demonstrate evolution in, for example fruit flies. Evolution from past ages is observed in the results such as the fossil record that is continually being discovered. It is sometimes asserted that there are no transitional fossils. In fact there are thousands of transitional fossils and more are being discovered all the time. Notable examples are the transition from reptile to mammal and the transition from land mammal to early whale. A good walk round the Natural History Museum will make an impartial observer wonder why this claim is ever made.
And so we could continue but the interested observer could do worse than to read an introduction to evolutionary biology in a reputable textbook or encyclopaedia in order to appreciate the wonder of creation that is set before us on such an understanding of the material world. It would be a mistake to rely upon a six-day creationist’s account of evolution since these generally tend to ridicule a “straw man” version of “evolution” which no scientists actually hold.
In addition, the fundamentalist groups are notoriously shy of stating what their positive belief is. Some notable creationists have gone on record as saying that they believe the earth to be 6000 years old. Such a view would do away not only with evolutionary biology (which is all that most six-day creationists are concerned about) but also to the physical basis of all other modern science. The magnificent view of the universe is not simply a matter of men evolving from apes but of the sweep of billions of years and the formation of galaxies, stars and planets in the tremendous process of development which led to our earth. Today, there is also a remarkable interchange between the astronomers and cosmologists who deal with unimaginably vast values of space and time and the particle and high energy physicists who examine the smallest components of the universe and the briefest periods of existence.
It is interesting that the arguments advanced by the fundamentalists against evolution are very similar to those advanced against the heliocentric theory—most especially the insistence that it is “only a theory”. Catholics would do well to remember that Luther and Calvin were far more fiercely opposed to Copernicus than the Catholic theologians and the sola scriptura devotees a century later were more adamantly opposed to Galileo than the Holy Office. Within the Catholic Church, it is possible to understand the condemnation of Galileo for the short-sighted and mistaken petulance that it was. For the fundamentalist, the rejection of Galileo would be more than a personality clash. It follows from the scriptures and, logically, would have to be reaffirmed today. The present Holy Father’s recent reappraisal would be unthinkable.
The Catholic position has been expressed many times by our present Holy Father. Speaking to the Summer School of Astrophysics in 1995, he said
Conversely, in our time with the decline of Christian civilisation we are beginning to find the decline of interest in science and in pure research generally. A forthcoming conference of the Science and Religion forum will be dealing for the first time with the question of whether science is true or not. The anti-scientific movement stems from precisely the naturalistic preoccupations that some of the fundamentalists accuse science of supporting. On the contrary, science truly pursued will lead us to God “through the things he has made”. And the loss of faith will lead us as surely away from all truly human values. In particular it will lead us away from a disinterested desire to know the truth about the universe as mankind becomes more and more immersed in the immediate gratification of selfish desire. The results of this decay in civilisation are evident in other areas too. In the arts, the despairing view that human life is meaningless and truth is subjective is reflected in art and architecture (even, sadly and perhaps through ignorance, in many Church buildings.) Nor will technology alone prevent the decline of pure science. In his brilliant essay on Science, Technology and the Person (Faith May-June 1996) Joseph Sowerby pointed out the danger of a technological world paradoxically becoming a less scientific one because it is taken further away from the underlying truth.
The constant encouragement of the Holy Father, is to form a synthesis between faith and culture. He does not generally specify the project which most concerns us in faith, the synthesis between faith and science, but it is clearly high in his own list of priorities. Such enthusiasm for science is fully in accord with the Pope’s clear insistence on orthodox teaching generally. Science is concerned with objective facts and observations, testable predictions. It is the subjectivists who have the most to fear from science. After reducing God to the limits of subjective consciousness, such a philosopher may be disconcerted to find him reappear as the creator of a very objective physical universe that reflects in its law and meaning the very wisdom of its creator.
Editorial FAITH Magazine January 1997 by Tim Finigan
To regular readers of Faith will come as no surprise that we received Pope John Paul’s recent statement on evolution with enthusiasm. It is a part of the vision and understanding of the Catholic faith upon which the Faith movement is founded that God’s creation through evolution and his salvation of mankind in Jesus Christ, the heir of the ages, form one sweep of the divine law of wisdom working through all things and triumphant even in the face of sin.
Of course we are not dealing here with infallible teaching. Nevertheless, the consistent encouragement of the present Pope for scientific research and his positive approach to a scientific view of the world are wise and far-sighted. He has done the Church a great service by this approach. Pope John Paul clearly wishes his remarks on evolution to be interpreted as an extension of the teaching of Pope Pius XII to which he explicitly refers. He says that since Humani Generis
It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. (n.4)atholics who support the teaching of the Pope may sometimes meet opposition from the fundamentalist “six day” camp, rehearsing several well-worn arguments that either misunderstand science as a whole or evolutionary biology in particular. For the benefit, then, of Catholics who are happy, with the Pope’s very clear reassurance, to accept the general scientific view of the world, we should mention briefly some of the more glaring howlers that are often re-iterated. Occasionally, Catholics are even to be found repeating them, perhaps under the misguided impression that somehow Catholicism and science are at odds with one another. Nothing could be further from the truth.
First of all, we need to be clear that evolution does not commit anyone to a purely materialistic view of the world. It is perfectly reasonable to accept evolution and to believe in a wise God who created the universe in which evolution happens. Many scientists working in various fields directly concerned with evolution believe firmly in the existence of God and the Christian doctrine of creation. It is well known, of course that some scientists do not believe in God. Many others would challenge them even to support their scientific view of the world without accepting the existence of God. (See Fr Nesbitt’s excellent pamphlet The path from science to God for a collection of many references.)
It is also important to understand that evolution does not commit anyone to hold that everything happened by “random chance”. Even natural selection (one of the mechanisms involved in some sorts of evolution) is not a “chance” process. It posits an ordered mechanism of interplay between the organism and its environment that is anything but random. A Christian could speak in traditional terms of “providence” but find a much deeper and more thrilling content to that idea by studying the manner in which God’s providence has worked through the ages.
Another misunderstanding is over the nature of scientific theory. A theory is not an imperfect fact as many six-day creationists seem to believe. It is, on the contrary an attempt to explain the facts that we have observed. If science is proceeding properly, it is likely that there will be rival theories and these will be modified where the observations do not accord with them. Such is the case, for example with understanding gravity. Gravity is a fact but there are various theories to account for the facts about gravity that we know. In the same way, many people accept evolution as a fact but may not be sure yet which is the best of the theories to account for all the facts we know.
It is sometimes asserted that evolution is not a matter of science because the process cannot be observed. But in fact it has been observed in the laboratory. There are experiments that can demonstrate evolution in, for example fruit flies. Evolution from past ages is observed in the results such as the fossil record that is continually being discovered. It is sometimes asserted that there are no transitional fossils. In fact there are thousands of transitional fossils and more are being discovered all the time. Notable examples are the transition from reptile to mammal and the transition from land mammal to early whale. A good walk round the Natural History Museum will make an impartial observer wonder why this claim is ever made.
And so we could continue but the interested observer could do worse than to read an introduction to evolutionary biology in a reputable textbook or encyclopaedia in order to appreciate the wonder of creation that is set before us on such an understanding of the material world. It would be a mistake to rely upon a six-day creationist’s account of evolution since these generally tend to ridicule a “straw man” version of “evolution” which no scientists actually hold.
In addition, the fundamentalist groups are notoriously shy of stating what their positive belief is. Some notable creationists have gone on record as saying that they believe the earth to be 6000 years old. Such a view would do away not only with evolutionary biology (which is all that most six-day creationists are concerned about) but also to the physical basis of all other modern science. The magnificent view of the universe is not simply a matter of men evolving from apes but of the sweep of billions of years and the formation of galaxies, stars and planets in the tremendous process of development which led to our earth. Today, there is also a remarkable interchange between the astronomers and cosmologists who deal with unimaginably vast values of space and time and the particle and high energy physicists who examine the smallest components of the universe and the briefest periods of existence.
It is interesting that the arguments advanced by the fundamentalists against evolution are very similar to those advanced against the heliocentric theory—most especially the insistence that it is “only a theory”. Catholics would do well to remember that Luther and Calvin were far more fiercely opposed to Copernicus than the Catholic theologians and the sola scriptura devotees a century later were more adamantly opposed to Galileo than the Holy Office. Within the Catholic Church, it is possible to understand the condemnation of Galileo for the short-sighted and mistaken petulance that it was. For the fundamentalist, the rejection of Galileo would be more than a personality clash. It follows from the scriptures and, logically, would have to be reaffirmed today. The present Holy Father’s recent reappraisal would be unthinkable.
The Catholic position has been expressed many times by our present Holy Father. Speaking to the Summer School of Astrophysics in 1995, he said
The integration of an understanding of ourselves and the universe requires that we be open to the many different channels through which we come to knowledge; the sciences, the arts, literature, philosophy, theology. In this context, your scientific research is of greatest benefit to humanity when it helps to synthesise and consolidate the knowledge derived from other sources, and when it enables you as scientists to enter into a true and honest dialogue with these other disciplines. [i]The secular press hailed the Pope’s recent statement on evolution as a new departure in Catholic teaching. It seems a shame that even one or two quality papers failed to do the elementary research necessary to find previous references in the Church’s teaching (reading the footnotes would be a start!) But even in the present pontificate, there has been much on the subject. For example we have a very clear statement in a General Audience series over ten years earlier:
"All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusions. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its Creator.”[ii]Nor should the Pope’s position on evolution be surprising given the statement published relatively recently in the Catechism:
The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements… for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.”[iii]For the Catholic, science is a part of our knowledge of the Lord’s creation. Since the beginnings of modern science in the high middle ages, the proper place for the Catholic Church is at the forefront of scientific endeavour. The occasional clashes between big-headed scientists and small-minded clerics should not blind us to the fact that it is an essentially Catholic trait to be interested in the synthesis of the secular and the sacred sciences. Modern science began in the bosom of the Church because the unique conditions for scientific research to flourish were found in Christian civilisation. An understanding of the world as something that makes sense and leads us to knowledge of God, a linear understanding of time and a respect for study and research for its own sake, for the value it can give, all contributed to the rise of the natural sciences.
Conversely, in our time with the decline of Christian civilisation we are beginning to find the decline of interest in science and in pure research generally. A forthcoming conference of the Science and Religion forum will be dealing for the first time with the question of whether science is true or not. The anti-scientific movement stems from precisely the naturalistic preoccupations that some of the fundamentalists accuse science of supporting. On the contrary, science truly pursued will lead us to God “through the things he has made”. And the loss of faith will lead us as surely away from all truly human values. In particular it will lead us away from a disinterested desire to know the truth about the universe as mankind becomes more and more immersed in the immediate gratification of selfish desire. The results of this decay in civilisation are evident in other areas too. In the arts, the despairing view that human life is meaningless and truth is subjective is reflected in art and architecture (even, sadly and perhaps through ignorance, in many Church buildings.) Nor will technology alone prevent the decline of pure science. In his brilliant essay on Science, Technology and the Person (Faith May-June 1996) Joseph Sowerby pointed out the danger of a technological world paradoxically becoming a less scientific one because it is taken further away from the underlying truth.
The constant encouragement of the Holy Father, is to form a synthesis between faith and culture. He does not generally specify the project which most concerns us in faith, the synthesis between faith and science, but it is clearly high in his own list of priorities. Such enthusiasm for science is fully in accord with the Pope’s clear insistence on orthodox teaching generally. Science is concerned with objective facts and observations, testable predictions. It is the subjectivists who have the most to fear from science. After reducing God to the limits of subjective consciousness, such a philosopher may be disconcerted to find him reappear as the creator of a very objective physical universe that reflects in its law and meaning the very wisdom of its creator.