# Catholic Church on Evolution



## Scott (Jul 8, 2005)

Below is a NY Times Op Ed piece from a Catholic cardinal. It sounds to me like they are basically defending a form of theistic evolution. Thoughts? Surprisingly, the Intelligent Design people are hailing this as good. My understanding is that they teach something quite different than anything that would be consistent with theistic evolution.


July 7, 2005 Finding Design in Nature
By CHRISTOPH SCHÃ–NBORN Vienna

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.

Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature: 

"All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. 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." 

He went on: "To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems." 

Note that in this quotation the word "finality" is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, "It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity." 

Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason." It adds: "We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance." 

In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism. 

The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe." 

Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist." 

Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the "death of God" that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers. 

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. 

Christoph SchÃ¶nborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

END


----------



## raderag (Jul 8, 2005)

Nevermind, I misunderstood the question.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by raderag]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Jul 8, 2005)

The RC has taught theistic evolution for several decades. this particular article is pretty much the rightmost wing of what i have seen from RC's. In fact, this article is getting a lot of attention on the creation-evolution-design boards as an illustration of a right shift in RC thinking on the issue.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## Scott (Jul 8, 2005)

Here is an excerpt from par. 283 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "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."

This is certainly consistent with an evolutionary view, although it does not necessarily mandate it. "[t]he development of life-forms and the appearance of man" sounds evolutionary but the terms are vague enough that they could encompass creationist beliefs as well.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 8, 2005)

I grew up Roman Catholic and never encountered a single Roman Catholic who believed in a literal six-day creation; they all believed (as did I) in theistic evolution.


----------



## raderag (Jul 8, 2005)

I do believe that it is still Catholic dogma to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and that they had the first souls.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> I do believe that it is still Catholic dogma to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and that they had the first souls.



I think you're right but that doesn't rule out theistic evolution if one accepts the day age theory of creation or some variation thereof. 

Moreover, what American Roman Catholics actually believe is often far astray from official Roman dogma.


----------



## raderag (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## Scott (Jul 8, 2005)

I guess Catholics are left to speculate whether Adam was cro-magnon man or neanderthal (both of whome had ancestors as some sort of ape).


----------



## Robin (Jul 9, 2005)

Knowledge of the sciences is so much smoke apart from the heavenly science of Christ. John Calvin



Robin


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Jul 9, 2005)

> Hath not God made foolish, etc. By wisdom here he means everything that man can comprehend either by the natural powers of his understanding, or as deriving aid from practice, from learning, or from a knowledge of the arts. For he contrasts the wisdom of the world with the wisdom of the Spirit. Hence, whatever knowledge a man rosy come to have without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, is included in the expression, the wisdom of this world. This he says God has utterly made foolish, that is, He has convicted it of folly. This you may understand to be effected in two ways; for whatever a man knows and understands, is mere vanity, if it is not grounded in true wisdom; and it is in no degree better fitted for the apprehension of spiritual doctrine than the eye of a blind man is for discriminating colors. We must carefully notice these two things -- that a knowledge of all the sciences is mere smoke, where the heavenly science of Christ is wanting; and man, with all his acuteness, is as stupid for obtaining of himself a knowledge of the mysteries of God, as an ass is unqualified for understanding musical harmonies. For in this way he reproves the destructive pride of those who glory in the wisdom of the world so as to despise Christ, and the entire doctrine of salvation, thinking themselves happy when they are taken up with creatures; and he beats down the arrogance of those who, trusting to their own understanding, attempt to scale heaven itself.
> 
> There is also a solution furnished at the same time to the question, how it happens that Paul in this way throws down upon the ground every kind of knowledge that is apart from Christ, and tramples, as it were, under foot what is manifestly one of the chief gifts of God in this world. For what is more noble than man's reason, in which man excels the other animals? How richly deserving of honor are the liberal sciences, which polish man, so as to give him the dignity of true humanity! Besides this, what distinguished and choice fruits they produce! Who would not extol with the highest commendations civil prudence18 (not to speak of other things,) by which governments, principalities, and kingdoms are maintained? A solution of this question, I say, is opened up to view from the circumstance, that Paul does not expressly condemn either man's natural perspicacity, or wisdom acquired from practice and experience, or cultivation of mind attained by learning; but declares that all this is of no avail for acquiring spiritual wisdom. And, certainly, it is madness for any one, confiding either in his own acuteness, or the assistance of learning, to attempt to fly up to heaven, or, in other words, to judge of the secret mysteries of the kingdom of God,19 or to break through (Exodus 19:21) to a discovery of them, for they are hid from human view. Let us, then, take notice, that we must restrict to the specialities of the case in hand what Paul here teaches respecting the vanity of the wisdom of this world -- that it rests in the mere elements of the world, and does not reach to heaven. In other respects, too, it holds true, that without Christ sciences in every department are vain, and that the man who knows not God is vain, though he should be conversant with every branch of learning. Nay more, we may affirm this, too, with truth, that these choice gifts of God -- expertness of mind, acuteness of judgment, liberal sciences, and acquaintance with languages, are in a manner profaned in every instance in which they fall to the lot of wicked men.


from: http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol39/htm/viii.iv.htm

please note the context for the quote previous--->


> We must carefully notice these two things -- that a knowledge of all the sciences is mere smoke, where the heavenly science of Christ is wanting; and man, with all his acuteness, is as stupid for obtaining of himself a knowledge of the mysteries of God, as an ass is unqualified for understanding musical harmonies.



Calvin is not condemning the wisdom of man per se but the wisdom of man as it tries to understand spiritual things. Man can not reach up to God, that is the ultimate foolishness but it doesn't say anything about the useful of this worldly knowledge for worldly things.



> 16. The greater light. I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honored who have expended useful labor on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage. For since the Lord stretches forth, as it were, his hand to us in causing us to enjoy the brightness of the sun and moon, how great would be our ingratitude were we to close our eyes against our own experience? There is therefore no reason why janglers should deride the unskilfulness of Moses in making the moon the second luminary; for he does not call us up into heaven, he only proposes things which lie open before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess their more exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon the splendor of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude unless they acknowledge the beneficence of God.


from: http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol01/htm/vii.htm

note especially--->


> endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honored who have expended useful labor on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise.



Calvin is not condemning science, but instructing in it's proper use.
Which is exactly what the Scriptures teach.


....


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 9, 2005)

Mr. Williams,
What you say is very true, however Calvin's version of common sense/proper use and our versions are probably two different games.

Evidence can be seen by this quote from his commentary.

"We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.pdf (p. 21)

CT


----------



## Robin (Jul 10, 2005)

To Richard, and those who may think theistic evolution is perhaps a benign distraction....

if the historic Adam is compromised, the Gospel is defeated.

(I don't know what you think, Richard...but this point must be emphasized.)

Calvin can offer us much needed discernment when courting scientific oracles.

Guard your heart....



Robin

[Edited on 7-10-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Scott (Jul 11, 2005)

"To Richard, and those who may think theistic evolution is perhaps a benign distraction.... if the historic Adam is compromised, the Gospel is defeated."

This is a good point. We have some ex-Catholics in out congregation I was talking to just yesterday. They had been taught theistic evolution and that Adam and Eve with myths to explain ideas. One said that while a Catholic she had wondered why Christ had to die for a myth. She did not get any helpful answers.


----------



## Scott (Jul 11, 2005)

Here is some more stuff from the RC world on evolution:

Well try this from the International Theological Commission (see especially paragraphs 62-70), which is the Vatican's statement (link here):

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution." (paragraph 63, "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God", published July 2004)

The Church's Theological Commission, last year headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, basically concedes the Big Bang (15 billion years ago) to atoms to galaxies/stars to planets to earth (about 4.5 billion years ago) to a first microscopic life (3.5 to 4 billion years ago) to all animals and finally US (homo sapiens), and calls this "virtually certain." This is just evolutionary science.

Here is an excerpt from Ratzinger's Commentary on Genesis 1-3.

What surprised me is that Catholics herald him as some conservative pope.

His views of Genesis 1-3 are a bit different than the ones I taught in a class on Genesis 1-3 last year!


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Jul 11, 2005)

there is an interesting OP NYT piece on the issue today at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?

nyt articles age to be paid for, so if you read this link in 30 days it will not be available for free.


----------

