« Holiness | Main | The Exorcism of Emily Rose »
July 07, 2005
Evolving
Don't ask me why, but Cardinal Shonborn in the NYtimes on Intelligent Design, etc.
EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.
Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
....Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.
The link requires registration, but I'll just go ahead and tell you that most of them say yes to the "Do you believe in evolution" question, and those that don't say something along the lines of I don't want to say. Most, as well, don't give much credence to Intelligent Design.
This is one discussion that usually drives me bats, being as unnuanced and uniformed as it is. The theory of evolution is far more than adaptation and survival of the fittest, or however the popular mind seeks to characterize it. The materialism and randomness at the heart of the theory must be dealt with by theists, who do their faith no credit by simply saying, "Oh, God could have started it all." At heart, the Darwinian theory of evolution and traditional Judeo-Christian theism are a much harder fit than many people think.
That said, I'm not for teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. What I am for is a more honest instruction in the theory of evolution - acknoweldging the problems, the gaps and the intelligent, scientifically-based challenges to it. One could do this, I'd think, without espousing Creationism. Not that the hysterical Darwinists would want you to think that, of course.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Amy--
I have the same reaction you do. One quibble I have is with your terminology. There is not a single, unified theory of evolution--there are theories of evolution (as JPII noted).
Also, to refer to evolution as Darwinian is a bit misleading, as Darwin himself had serious misgivings about some of his work (or at least the implications some had ascribed to it) in his waning years.
Now, if you'll excuse me, my opposable thumbs are getting tired...
Posted by: Cranky Lawyer at Jul 7, 2005 11:02:56 PM
One of the realities of the theory of evolution which is often ignored is that it is indeed a theory. It is an attempt to explain phenomena which have been observed. However, unlike many theories that exist in science, evolution is one which really presents a problem for the scientist because much of the core assumptions of the theory simply are not subject to typical scientific investigation. Neither is really possible to observe today phenomena which either do or do not support the theory.
For example, it really is not possible to devise an experiment which either supports or does not support species change. The theory itself suggests that this is not a phenomena which could fit within the realm of observable phenomena. In other words, the scientist cannot go back and either observe this occur nor can he attempt to observe it today. The time frame suggested for a species change alone prevents that.
Now someone will argue that all manner of experiments have taken place which give support to the theory of evolution. Yes and no. There are many experiments, but few which can actually attempt to verify the core ideas such as natural selection simply because the time frames are too large. Searching for a fossil record is not the same as attempting to reproduce the results of another persons's study. Lest you think I am being overly strict on the biological sciences, I would suggest that there are all kinds of experiments that can be done in biology which other scientists can attempt to reproduce. For example, scientists can observe the migratory habits of birds or the hibernation patterns of certain mammals. These can be done once and another scientist can attempt to reproduce the same results.
There are many people who have shown the logical problems with evolution. You do not have to be a scientist to do so. That is because much of the "science" of this theory is really philosophy which is much more subject to logical examination than it is to scientific examination. That is where folks like Philip Johnson have been able to make keen critiques of the very logic of the theory. It is a failure to understand the nature of the theory when criticisms about evolution from laymen such as Johnson or even you or I are dismissed because we are not part of the scientific community. Anyone who is able to apply logic, is able to evaluate the claims of the theory of evolution.
However, none of this is taught in schools. Instead, evolution has been taught for decades as really a scientific fact which has mountains of evidence to prove that it is correct. The reality is that many scientists know that the theory is the best that we have had for some time, but it is a theory which has many problems. Consequently, you see scientists who are in no way religious looking into theories of intelligent design because they are continuing to look for a theory which covers some of the gaps of evolution.
Finally, I would like to note that is far as scientific theories go, evolution is a fairly young one. Throughout history, there have been many scientific theories which have reigned for far longer only to be shown to be incorrect. We are in the midst of this theory's dominance, but given a few more decades and certainly centuries, will evolution even been considered a viable option for explaining the development of species? Perhaps in this information age, we expect a shrinking of time frames, but when it comes to a theory which attempts to explain where everything came from, it is doubtful that it will occur in the short term.
Given these inherent assumptions about the theory of evolution, it makes me cringe when I see theologians who are ever so ready to do all kinds of damage to the Biblical account in order to have it "reconcile" with science. It is true that all truth is God's truth. In the final analysis, there will be no inconsistencies between the Biblical account and science. The problem is that many assume first from the scientific viewpoint which is in no way an absolute established fact. I would argue that the theory of evolution should be seen as science's best efforts which may or may not reconcile with the Biblical account. For a person of faith, the Biblical account is the place to start because it is far more established.
I am not arguing for a literal six days of creation interpretation. I am simply suggesting that the efforts to squeeze the Biblical account into evolution are going about it the wrong way. The Bible is not a scientific account. It uses various genres to convey God's truth. What I would regret is much effort to reconcile with a theory which in time might be shown to be incorrect. In the meantime you have dismissed the Biblical account by stripping it of any meaning or have modified it to teach something that is contrary to the Faith.
Posted by: David W. at Jul 7, 2005 11:50:46 PM
There is a kulturkampf against organised religion going on and the dogmas of evolution undergird it. Those who support Intelligent Design, the Young Earth theory and other such creationist movements understand that they are opposing a theory whose logic inevitably leads to a loss of faith in the Christian God. This is apart from the fact that when the Darwinians are asked to show their money, they are hard pressed to account for the evolution and stability of any functionality without invoking final causes themselves.
Posted by: Ivan at Jul 8, 2005 12:25:08 AM
Hmmm - in writing up ID/quoting Schoenborn/etc, NYT trying to be "relevant" and retain/attract "red-state" religious-type readers? Admittedly a wild and unlikely "theory" in itself, but articles on ID are everywhere these days. Usually not positive, but what does one expect? Generally presented as creationism for not-as-stupid Christians.
Posted by: Anne Elliot at Jul 8, 2005 3:19:24 AM
"The materialism and randomness at the heart of the theory must be dealt with by theists, who do their faith no credit by simply saying, "Oh, God could have started it all." "
To observe and describe the actions of materials created by God and to attempt to reverse engineer the rules God has determined matter shall obey, does not require the adoption of materialism.
peace
Posted by: catholic at Jul 8, 2005 3:46:17 AM
catholic:
I think the point is that there's more to "Darwinism" fully understood than an "attempt to reverse engineer the rules God has determined matter shall obey."
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Jul 8, 2005 4:51:07 AM
+J.M.J+
The whole Creationist/Evolution debate is a clash of absolutes. Fundamentalist six-day young earth creationists speak about evolution as though it were synonymous with godless atheism, because that's what they believe it to be. Materialist evolutionists speak about creationism as though it were rank superstition and blithering ignorance, because that's what they believe it to be. The prejudice runs deep on both sides, preventing either side from really listening to the other or viewing the other with anything but profound contempt.
But there is a whole middle ground which often gets ignored when the two extremes clash. Old-earth progressive creationists and theistic evolutionists may have a lot more in common with each other than six-day young earth creationists have with materialist evolutionists.
Just once, I'd like to see a debate between a progressive creationist and a theistic evolutionist. It might prove enlightening, and it's bound to be better than the bloody dogfight that ensues whenever a Fundamentalist creationist argues with an atheistic evolutionist.
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie at Jul 8, 2005 7:10:44 AM
If you can catch the replay of the "Mother Angelica" program (Mitch Pacwa) of Wed. evening, it would prove quite interesting. The guest is the Jesuit good guy, Fr. Spitzer I believe (got in on the end of great discussion) of Gonzaga. Anyone up on the latest theories of "beginnings" would have to believe that the Darwin theories are quite antiquated. The "infinite" concept of the universe has given way to one that is finite with all the logic pointing to that Intelligent Designer on the outside. The way out of that, for those who won't hang it up, is to then posit "lots more universes" out there - way to get back to the infinite without the "outside influencer"! So, once again, in our schools we have lots of degreed folks in general "education" without the specific courses to really bring the kids up to date on this reality of science, and who can only parrot the old and worn debates - more predisposed prejudices due to upbringing than real science "evolving" into faith accompanied by "evolving" philosophies that come along for the ride.
Posted by: chris K at Jul 8, 2005 7:59:53 AM
People of faith have nothing to fear from this endless debate. No definitive absolute answer will emerge to satisfy either protagonist camp. Our God given intellect should be able to peacefully resolve this apparent dilemma. Faith cannot eliminate science nor can science eliminate faith, for those who have it. So relax and think about it……
The God of all creation is boundless. The God of all creation is precisely this. Creationism, evolution, the arguments continue, but is there any difference in God’s mind? What has the creator revealed for our insignificant minds to understand? Perhaps too simple, but it might be just this. We are spiritual beings in a physical existence that cannot be fully understood. For all the expertise of science, which might eventually explain this universe we live in, will it ever determine where it is? Do other universes exist? Will science ever answer these questions? Mystery will always envelop us, as it always should, the nature of an all-knowing God and his created. The humble part for me then, is this.
The spiritual child in me embraces the wonder of a God who could create the universe, and all that it contains, in six days and rest on the seventh.
The spiritual adult in me, embraces the wonder of a God who could create this universe and all that it contains, reflecting with perfect magnificence His profound power, and that He is timeless.
To constrain God to either understanding attempts to place limits on God. The God of all creation is boundless! The God of all creation is precisely this!
Posted by: Frank in Billerica at Jul 8, 2005 8:10:31 AM
Two good resources in this discussion are the recent video and book "The Privileged Planet", and the new book "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who find Darwinism Unconvincing". There are many nuances to the debate, but discussion of Intelligent Design is here to stay, IMHO.
Posted by: Fr Matthew K at Jul 8, 2005 8:27:40 AM
Intelligent design is a *philosophic* endeavor which tries to show how we think about such things as watches and rainbows and say that the one is designed and the other is a product of natural processes. The confusion of philosophy and science is why intelligent design is scorned by some scientists (who of course began this by accepting the philosophical side of Darwinism and calling it science). People who think the universe had a beginning are called physicists when they think it was 15 billion years ago. The actual proponents of ID are very clear about what they are doing (philosophy not science).
Posted by: Jane M at Jul 8, 2005 8:39:07 AM
"a theory whose logic inevitably leads to a loss of faith in the Christian God."
Depends on the exact definition of "evolution" you are talking about.
I will always remember the wonderful professor of Zoology I had at a Jesuit university in the 1960's when it was still Catholic. He spent the entire first day of class discussing this very thing. He explained that science and theology are two different things. He talked about the wonder of the universe and was so eloquent that many of us misted up. He tied the recent discovery of the helixes of DNA and RNA at the base of life forms to what he thought was the obvious hand of God in nature.
Then he ended by saying that next class we will begin to study animal life forms from a strictly scientific angle - which he hoped none of us would see as antithetical to a belief in divine creator.
I don't think his kind of speech should be done in a State school in exactly this way, but couldn't this be stressed to our young people in religious grade & high schools, CCD classes or in homilies or something? Publish and made available the Cardinal's opinion column.
Why bother arguing with materialists. It's a losing proposition. Innoculate our kids instead.
Posted by: Julia at Jul 8, 2005 8:42:28 AM
Cardinal S's NYT statement as quted by Amy seems absolutely right.
And I agree with the commentators above that the real casuse of the debate is not the ID proponents' unwarranted intrusion into science, but the proponents' of evolution frequent intrusions into philosophy.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jul 8, 2005 8:55:42 AM
I think Amy is right. The idea that evolution is a monolithic ediface of dogma among scientists is simply not true. Lynn Margulies, for example, has long challenged the view that--even on the microcellular scale--evolution is determined purely by random mutation and 'struggle.' The extent to which her work has been accepted (after first being vigorously attacked) is just one example.
I highly recommend the late Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is for a great overview of Darwin's theory.
Posted by: John Farrell at Jul 8, 2005 9:50:18 AM
Nothing can be decided about anything until all the facts are in. Mankind is, without question, increasing in consciousness and hence complexity. At term we will know the answer of our origins. Now we depend on Faith. No other option.
In a sense, the age of science (pre science?) is over as quantum theory has demonstrated. We are not smart enough, yet, to know why things do not act the way our math and our measurments say they should. Mankind somehow gets in the way by trying to observe the stuff at which we think we are looking. We are not as smart as once thought.
John Paul had it right when he commented on the question of our origin. . ."evolution is more than just a theory", but also right that "Faith must come to the aid Reason."
Posted by: tcreek at Jul 8, 2005 9:51:46 AM
I'd be curious to know what caused Schonborn to write this piece at this time, and which "neo-Darwinians" he is reacting against. Certainly, there are bozos out there like Richard Dawkins, but I don't have the impression that their intrusions into philosophy are given much credence in the scientific community beyond those who are already pre-disposed to share their conclusions. Other neo-Darwinists such as Stephen Jay Gould have actually gone to some lengths to demarkate the line between science on the one side and religion/philosophy on the other, as in this essay, where among other things he says:
I have some scientific colleagues, including a few prominent enough to wield influence by their writings, who view this rapprochement of the separate magisteria with dismay. To colleagues like me—agnostic scientists who welcome and celebrate the rapprochement, especially the pope's latest statement—they say: "C'mon, be honest; you know that religion is addle-pated, superstitious, old-fashioned b.s.; you're only making those welcoming noises because religion is so powerful, and we need to be diplomatic in order to assure public support and funding for science." I do not think that this attitude is common among scientists, but such a position fills me with dismay
The thing that strikes me reading Schonborn's essay, however, is that what he is propounding is not ID in the sense that I have normally encountered it, (say, in Dembski's books) but rather a re-affirmation that whatever evolution may tell us about the development in the physical world, that physical world owes its creation and continued existence to the creative will of God. If this is what ID is, then I'm all for it. But what I've read from the ID movement seems rather to be an attempt to take a specific system, creature or object and say "we have now proved that this specific system was intelligently designed, so stop studying it and go look at something else." It's this attempt to label and move on which I think scientists find so infuriating in a supposedly scientific discipline. ID diagnosis is treated as a "nothing to see here" conversation stopper.
Enthusiasts (both of the materialist and creationist variety) seem to forget the very nature of the scientific project: that is a discipline investigating the physical nature of the world. If something were directly, divinely created science could by definition say nothing about it's origins. It is only competant to investigate physical things and their physical causes. And because of its limited scope, science can never clearly point to the divine (though certainly some will look at the world that science reveals and see God's will therein) not can it prove that there is no divine.
Posted by: DarwinCatholic at Jul 8, 2005 10:12:42 AM
As an aside, I was interested in the Cardinal's curt dismissal of the Pope's 1996 letter as "vague and unimportant".
Weren't we supposed to consider the Pope's single phrase during a short speech regarding the discontinuation of hydration and nutrition as absolute and binding? If so, I'd say that a document the Pope takes the time to draft, revise, finalize and actually publish ought to carry more weight than "vague and unimportant".
Posted by: ajb at Jul 8, 2005 10:14:25 AM
Meanwhile, literal Six Days, Young Earth Creationism and the Geo-Centric Universe are spreading roots among RadTrads who think they're defending the inerrancy of Scripture.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Jul 8, 2005 10:15:22 AM
It takes more faith to believe in Darwinian evolution than it does to believe in transubstantiation.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Jul 8, 2005 10:29:56 AM
"Now, if you'll excuse me, my opposable thumbs are getting tired..."
Oh, no. Not another "Crackberry" addicted lawyer!
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Jul 8, 2005 10:33:40 AM
The problem that arises when Catholics participate in this argument is that, at least in this country, we have let it be defined by materialists and fundamentalists. No matter what sort of nuanced position we take, one 'side' (or both) will accuse us of abandoning either our faith or our reason.
We cannot, in good faith, deny that mankind was intentionally created in the image of God, or that he fell through sin, or that he will be redeemed only through Christ (and not by simply evoloving his problems away). We cannot deny that all of history and prehistory is guided by Divine Providence. But we cannot reasonably ignore the evidence for the long and slow development of our world.
But this has never posed too much of a problem for Roman Catholics. At least since Augustine, and probably before, all truth - whether from revelation, greek philosophy, or natural observation - has been considered complimentary (the ugly and exceptional Galileo debacle notwithstanding). The scholastics acknowledged the four senses of scripture, and were perfectly willing to view the early chapters of Genesis as primarily metaphorical, moral, or anagogical - it was the Protestants who reduced scripture to mere literality.
And no other faith can claim such a scientific pedigree as Roman Catholicism - the Big Bang, geologic time, and genetic theory may be indispensible to the materialist argument, but they were all fist proposed by priests - one of them (Steno) beatified. The Jesuit order alone has probably contributed more to Science that every materialist who ever lived combined.
So I don't see why the Catholic Church need to make concessions in this debate, or even participate if those disagreeing with Her are uninterested in either the truth of revelation or the truth of science. She can let the Fundamentalists and the Materialists argue each other to exhaustion, until they realize that She's had the answer all along. Maybe the populatrity of ID is the first evidence of this happening....
Posted by: hieronymus at Jul 8, 2005 10:37:13 AM
It takes more faith to believe in Darwinian evolution than it does to believe in transubstantiation.
Huh? The two are totally different kinds of "belief".
On the one hand, transubstantiation is fairly easily understood (water and wine truly changed into the body and blood of Christ while maintianing their original appearance) and is attested to powerfully by the magisterium of the Church. However, there is no way in which one may collect physical "evidence" for transubstantiation nor explain _how_ it occurs. So in that sense, it is quite mysterious.
"Darwinian evolution" on the other hand may be supported by physical evidence (the fossil record) and explanations of how it might have occurred, and yet there is no infallible authority to attest to its truth or falsehood, nor is it readily understandable.
Posted by: DarwinCatholic at Jul 8, 2005 10:51:12 AM
""Darwinian evolution" on the other hand may be supported by physical evidence (the fossil record) and explanations of how it might have occurred, and yet there is no infallible authority to attest to its truth or falsehood, nor is it readily understandable."
There is virtually no evidence in the fossil record to support Darwinian evolution. My point is that there is more evidence to support transubstantiation than there is to support evolution. In both cases the physical evidence is very slight. Transubstantiation has some fairly well documented miracles to support it, but they are far from conclusive. I believe in transubstantiation on the authority of Christ. I think many proponents of evolution also believe in it simply as an act of faith. Certainly the evidence for it is less than convincing otherwise.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Jul 8, 2005 11:00:51 AM
This debate is detestable. It compels me to side in part with secular liberals against friends who are loving, pious and wonderful people.
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Jul 8, 2005 11:05:34 AM
There is virtually no evidence in the fossil record to support Darwinian evolution...Transubstantiation has some fairly well documented miracles to support it, but they are far from conclusive.
Well, I suppose it all depends very much on what you are willing to grant is "evidence" for evolution, and "evidence" for transubstantiation.
While fully believing in transubstantiation, I would argue that science of it's nature could provide no evidence for it -- since science cannot speak to matters beyond the strictly physical, and those miracles in which the Eucharist displays the physical attritutes of Christ's flesh and blood by definition are unusual cases in which the consecrated species display the accidents of flesh and blood rather than of bread and wine.
As for the fossil record, I am sure we are destined to disagree, nor are comment boxes a very good way for carrying on a detailed debate thereon. But whether or not the current forumulations of evolutionary theory are correct, the are derived to a great extent from study of the fossil record, not from some abstract philosophising which is then imposed on what is found.
Posted by: DarwinCatholic at Jul 8, 2005 11:17:40 AM
