The following comes from an Oct. 10 column by Monsignor Charles Pope on the Archdiocese of Washington D.C website.
The Genesis accounts of creation provide a rich field for controversy and discussion. I have posted before focusing on the question of the genre of the Genesis texts. In this post I would like to ponder another point for discussion: The theory of evolution’s relationship to the Genesis text. I have also discussed elsewhere the question of polygensism (the theory that Adam was not one historical man but, rather, a euphemism for “mankind”).
Disclaimer– I do not intend to answer all the questions about evolution and Genesis here. This is a blog, not a theological or scientific journal. I am not a dogmatic theologian, neither do I have an advanced degree in Scripture. Neither am I a trained biologist. My MA is in moral theology. What I intend to do here is open a discussion. I would like to suggest some parameters to the topic which Catholicism requires of us. But in the end, I am going to depend on the comments section to broaden the discussion, make distinctions, suggest further limits, or clarify and quote other sources. Many of the commenters on this blog are theologically skilled and provide a valuable service to the rest of us. Likewise there are some with a scientific background who read here and can help clarify on the topic of evolution. I would only ask that all of us not rush to use words like heresy etc. and that the science folks not treat me or the rest of us like a bunch of ignoramuses. The Genesis accounts are very prototypical and archetypal. It is a true fact that the Church gives us guidance on how to interpret them but there is also some freedom to differ with each other as well. So let me set the table and then open the comments.
Sobriety about Evolutionary Theory – It is common to experience a rather simplistic notion among Catholics that the Theory of Evolution can be reconciled easily with the Biblical accounts and with our faith. Many will say something like this: “I have no problem with God setting things up so that we started as one-celled organisms and slowly evolved into being human beings. God could do this and perhaps the Genesis account is just simplifying evolution and telling us the same thing as what Evolution does.”
There are elements of the truth in this sort of a statement. Surely God could have set things up to evolve and directed the process so that human beings evolved and then, at some time he gave us souls. God could have done that.
The problem with the statement above is less theological than scientific because there is a word in that sentence that is “obnoxious” to evolutionary theory: “God.” The fact is that most Catholics who speak like this over-simplify evolutionary theory and hold a version of it that most Evolutionary Theorists do not hold. They accept the Theory of Evolution uncritically.
But, at the heart of evolutionary theory are the concepts of natural selection and genetic mutation. Notice the word “natural” and notice the word “mutation.” Generally speaking, evolutionary theory sees these processes as random, (though influenced by the environment). It sees them as chance mutations that happen to survive because they confer some benefit. But the process is natural, random and not directed by any outside intelligence with a design or purpose in mind.
Mutations in DNA are random, and in natural selection, the environment determines the probability of reproductive success. The end products of natural selection are organisms that are adapted to their present environments. Natural selection does not involve progress towards an ultimate goal. Evolution does not necessarily strive for more advanced, more intelligent, or more sophisticated life forms. Organisms are merely the outcome of variations that succeed or fail, dependent upon the environmental conditions at the time.
Now what this means is that God is excluded as a cause by an unqualified evolutionary theory. It would be fine if evolutionists (as natural scientists) were either silent on the question of God. Or, perhaps if they simply stated that things may be acted upon by an outside force or intelligence but that is beyond the scope of their discipline. But that is not what is being said by many proponents of classical evolutionary theory. They are saying that biodiversity results MERELY from natural selection and random (i.e. non intended or non-purposeful) genetic mutations. They are saying that observable effects of biodiversity are wholly caused by something natural, random and without any ultimate goal or plan.
But a Catholic cannot accept all of this. Even if a Catholic wants to accept that things have evolved in some way (whether through macro or microevolution) a Catholic cannot say that this process is simply random, chance, blind, or with no purpose. We believe that God alone created all things, and that he sustains all things. Neither do we confess some sort of “deist” God who merely started things off and then lets them take their own course. Rather, God sustains and carries out every detail….
To read the entire blog, click here.
“All things bright and beautiful, all creatures great and small, all things wise and wonderful the Lord God made them all.” I have no idea how he did it. I just know he did it. I will sit back and enjoy the debate.
The easiest logical solution to this is that all living beings have souls. There was not a specific time in evolution where we developed them, or even reached an intended end in our current stage of evolution.
A faithful Catholic can accept evolution because to do so is in accord with the magestrium and teaching of the Church. Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote a beautiful reflection on Genesis early in his Pontificate in which he addressed the theory of evolution and it’s compatibility with the Catholic faith. Catholics are not required to adhere to a literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures nor are we called to a type of “Catholic fundamentalism”.
The question is not whether a Catholic “can” accept evolution but rather why in the world any Catholic with half a brain would want to. Darwin himself, a person who had “evolved” into an atheiest by means of his pursuits, hardly believed his own “theory” himself as he admitted in letters shortly before Origins of a Species was published. Upon publication in 1858, 10 years after the Communist Manifesto, Marx contacted Engels and elatedly proclaimed that they now had the perfect “scientific” back-up for their social philosophy. The point of Darwin is atheism, materialism, and denial of eternity as the amoral root of the social corruption that readers of this site endlessly complain about. Leading scientists the the world over at this point scoff at Darwin (but often desperately suggest equally futile alternatives lest they be labeled creationists). C’mon, “faithful” Catholics, do we really need to stretch ourselves to find a place in our intellects for dogs like Darwin and Marx? Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Man did not evolve…our parent’s are indeed Adam and Eve…this is a biblical certainty…non-human primates exist…and seem to pre-date “modern” man”, e.g., Homo sapien sapien…this mystery of creation is wonderful…the literal creation of the world seems to be a metaphor for it’s creation…personally, I believe that God formed things slowly, over eons of time, these inexorable changes happened on a time scale so ancient and vast, it is almost unimaginable…but “modern man”…his existence in the geologic record is not terribly old…the process God instituted in the development of the cosmos is still a mystery, and maybe it always will be, until we reach Heaven…if we are so fortunate…
Bill, Pope John Paul II did not speak from the chair of St. Peter i.e. Ex-cathedra when he said that the theory of evolution can be compatible with church teaching. As such, this is not official church teaching, but only the opinion of the late pope.
I am a veteran science teacher. Science is properly concerned with secondary, not primary causes, and as long as science restricts its proper operations to the order of material nature, we ought to respect conclusions that are scientifically drawn from material evidence. But scientists should not trespass on the domain of philosophers and theologians and address primary causes (i.e. God), for that is beyond them. By the same token theologians and philosophers should not presume they can trace the means of secondary causality from first principles rather than material evidence. In other words: defend God as Creator, but don’t presume to tell Him how to create.
The Popes of late have made it clear we Roman Catholics are not fundamentalists or literalists when it comes to things like Genesis — we do not believe the world was created in six 24-hour periods, for example.
The basic message, however, is there: everyone comes from God.
The teaching of the Catholic Church is MUCH more sensible than Protestant fundamentalists who try to ignore science, who say the earth has only existed for six thousand years tops, etc.
We believe everything comes from God, and that all creation is headed toward God — especially the human race, made in God’s own image.
Bless you Suzanne,
Your expression of the actual faith we share was accurate, intelligent and appealing. Thank you for your concise expression of Catholicism.
God bless you
David L.
The President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences of the Vatican had interesting thoughts on evolution for the synod of bishops last year:
https://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/academicians/ordinary/arber/contemplation.html
If you want to go deeper into evolution of the universe, the Vatican has produced an interesting book freely available in the Internet. Interesting chapters by Stephen Hawking and Francis Collins, and other members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
Sorry, forgot to include the link to the Vatican’s book on evolution:
https://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/publications/acta/evolution.html
A literal interpretation of the Bible led to a conclusion that creation happened about 6,000 years ago. That’s an absurd conclusion, and the reason it’s absurd must be the fact that the literal view of the Bible is absurd. As usual, the truth is probably fairly simple. Creation is what happened and evolution is a part of how it happened.
A person has to have a lot of spare time to go much further into the subject because the answer is unlikely to be found by humans on their own, whatever the method they choose to use.
If evolution is disproved or proved to be a fact, it will not make any difference in my faith. If everything on earth evolved from one single cell, who created that first cell?
According to some scientists, the level of genetic variation present in humans today rules out a founding population with fewer than several thousand individuals. Lets assume these scientists are correct (and they may not be).
Catholic teaching allows for human evolution. Because of this one can presume man came from a hominid population. What makes a “human” and what makes an “almost, but not quite yet human”? The difference is presumably the presence (or not) of a human soul sent directly from God. A physically human large brained upright walking hominid without a soul directly infused by God is not fully human, it may be human physically with human-compatible DNA, but is not human spiritually since it does not have a human soul. A physically human large brained upright walking hominid with a human soul is human, both physically and spiritually.
Start with a population of un-souled upright hominids, call them pre-human because they are not quite human yet. God puts human souls into two of them, Adam and Eve. Adding a soul does not change the original pre-human DNA at all. We now have a pair of humans, Adam and Eve, from a population of pre-humans. Adam and Eve only mate with each other and have human children with souls (put in directly by God at conception per CCC 336). After the Fall, these children may have sought out mates outside their immediate family so they mate with some of the pre-humans. Genetically, this would not be bestiality since they are mating with same population Adam and Eve were extracted from.
Evolution is a scientific fact and is fully compatible with the Catholic faith. To the best of my knowledge, only Sarah Palin believes that man walked around the planet with dinosaurs in Jurassic Park.
good cause, which experiment or experiments can you site which have “proven” evolution as being fact? Also, can you site your resource where Sarah Palin stated “that man walked around the planet with dinosaurs in Jurassic Park”?
If the editor allows a link.
Accounts of Palin as a Young Earth Creationist mostly appear to riginate from a secondhand account in this piece from 2008:
https://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/nation/na-palinreligion28
And evolution. Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
In the Beginning – there was Physics – After a bigger than normal bang, they say.
Before that Bang, Was Meta-Physics (literally Beyond Physics) – which Little is known about, like Dark Matter / Energy – only Maybe Different.
Anywayyy, In the beginning of Western ‘science’ – the Greek Aristotle was top dog, until Galileo came along stating the Earth was Not the Center of the Universe; Rather Our Sun was. Ahem.
Chesterton said an Atheist is someone who believes as a matter of Faith – Absolutely everything came from absolutely nothing.
Myself, I am far too skeptical for such simplistic tautology, particularly given that Like ‘Cogito Ergo Sum’ Descartes, –I at least know that I Am, if not always exactly where.
Darwin should’ve named his book ‘Observations on the Evolutionary Mutation Within Species” – which Title might not have gotten as big a hype as “Origin of the Species”.
For as Darwin Admitted – he had No Ultimate Answers to the true Origins of Life, and actually presumed God played some role somewhere in the Actual Origins themselves – Meta-Physically speaking.
Genesis – as observed by those higher up the eccleastical Ladder than I, is Not a Science Textbook.
However – This does Not detract as tool for understanding Creation, which is more just running the numbers – although Galileo did say
“Mathematics is the Language with which God has Written the Universe.”
The mixture of Metaphor, Allegory & Insight the Bible provides in to Witnessing God’s CREATION – is not simply quantifiable in Human physical metrics alone.
I don’t think that God will judge me based on whether or not I accept evolution! I have much more important things to be concerned about.
While all of this can be seen as fascinating, and scientific findings can often lead to helping us unravel more and more of the mysteries of the universe into which we have found ourselves born, the Catholic take on it all reflects the most sane and sophisticated response to the unfolding increase – or perhaps unfortunate left turns on occasion – of our human understanding of life and the world around us.
Our response is, thankfully, not that of low-information reactionaries who insist on easily discredited misinterpretations of science, nor is it one of the closed-minded atheists who once dominated the scientific profession, but in fact is that most likely to be affirmed by what we learn, either as a result of mankind’s strivings in enormous amounts of time to come, or upon finding ourselves as individual souls in the presence of God, Who may choose to enlighten some or all of us in the world to come.
Among the unspoken underlying questions in mankind’s quest for knowledge of the means by which the universe was formed, and mankind came into being, are the greater questions of why it was created, why we were born, what it is we are to do with our lives, what to expect once life has ceased for each of us individually and once the earth ceases to exist, and greatest of all, whether or not God exists.
For faithful Catholics, these questions have been addressed exquisitely and most satisfactorily in a manner pleasing to our minds and hearts.
While theories created by man are endlessly fascinating and are always carefully considered by worthy and brilliant Catholics of every era at the intersection of faith and reason, so far no theory that man has proposed disposes of that which God has created. I daresay that so it shall be, unto eternity.
This quote hits the nail on the head when it comes to evolution: “The Bigger the LIE, the MORE people Believe it.” Joseph Goebbels
Before man fell…”the lion could lay with the lamb”…predatory creatures did not exist…venomous serpents were non existent, and stinging insects were unknown to Adam and Eve…once they both transgressed, the natural order of creation was out of balance…the docile, peaceful co-existent world man shared with big cats and killer whales was shattered irrevocably! Man now went in fear of wolves and tigers…and honey was secured at great risk, due to the aggressive nature of the honey bee, which defended it’s food-source unto it’s own demise…snakes could now kill with impunity…the vast oceans and inland waterways were now teeming with lethal fish that had man on it’s menu…this was the world man now inhabited…is this a truism…yes…the savagery that blossomed in the animal kingdom was but an outgrowth of man’s desire to serve himself, and his Creator second…
My catechism teacher, a Capuchin monk, taught me that God cannot reveal one truth through Science, and a contrary truth through Religion. Unless evolutionary tenets are used to attack and ridicule faith in God, I have no problem with them, provided they are not presented as facts, but only as working hypotheses. There is entirely too much acrimony in theses debates. My fallback position is still what it always was: “In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum….” The gospel of Saint John, so simple in its elegance, contains all the cosmology we need.
As a former evolutionary and agnostic geologist who is now a Catholic and a creationist, I paraphrase biologist Michael Behe, author of the seminal Intelligent Design book, “Darwin’s Black Box,” in saying that one can be a good Catholic and believe in evolution and an old age for the earth, but one cannot be a good scientist and blithely dismiss the evidence to the contrary. The irreducible complexity of even the smallest cell and the new discoveries of the contribution of epigenetics to the development of organisms all argue against the mechanisms of random chance and genetic mutation. In terms of the earth’s age, while radiometric dating provides the strongest support for the currently accepted age of the earth, it is contradicted by a mounting tide of discovery of preserved biomolecules in organisms whose ages are such that the organic material should have disappeared long ago. In addition, C-14 has been found in dinosaur bones presumed to be around 60 million years old, when it should have disappeared after 50-60,000 years. At the very least, these conflicting evidences suggest that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has not been met by either the evolutionary or the old age camps.
Absolutely brilliant, S.M. There are some truly amazing findings in science these days, but what is so frustrating is as Stephen Myer said in ‘Signature of the Cell’ the science being taught at universities is completely closed to any other scientific explanations, which is a complete contradiction to what the function of science is…to follow truth wherever it leads you. Intelligent Design scientists are kept from employment and those who are employed fear losing their jobs if their true beliefs become known. It reminds me of the physicists before Einstein that said everything there is to know was known…only now the universities have a way of ensuring that!
I have never enjoyed being gay, and have often wondered if the SSA is a result of my primitive ancestor’s being forced to mate with there own kind? This could result from not enough females in a given area or ecosystem, thus causing some males to become habituated to the bed of other males. My SSA must have a link to some unknown “gay” mechanism, that could trace itself all the way back to my primitive, ape-like ancestors. What say you?
Buddha is Laughing, please do not despair. Stay close to our Blessed Mother and if you do not already have devotion to her, please consider developing one. She is most generous in obtaining graces for her children who trust in her. Also, make it a practice to meditate often on the Passion of Christ. Our Lord allows his children to go through various sufferings for His good purpose. Stay connected to the “Vine” of Jesus and all will work together for good.
I say: You don’t have ape-like ancestors. Whether something in the far-remote past contributed to your orientation is not relevant. If you are gay, you are gay. You have to endure it, not enjoy it. We all have something about ourselves that we don’t like. You can spend you life wishing you were different or you can live life with what you got. Being gay does not mean you have to act on it. Catholically, you can still marry a woman and have kids or you can live a single life devoted to God. Sin, any sin, has an extremely negative impact on all our lives. Purity is the way. Figure out what God wills for you and go for it wholeheartedly. (The possibilities are mind-boggling. One way that people discern is to write down all the possibilities. The one that makes you cry because you didn’t believe God loved you enough to gift you with that is the one you should go for. One step at a time. Like driving in fog-you can only see as far ahead as you need to.) God bless you beyond your wildest dreams.
Homosexuality is prevalent in various forms and degrees across the animal kingdom. There’s a well-annotated and remarkably objective Wikipedia page about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Maybe the bigger question is how (or even why) would you want to find a way to reconcile both being gay and an orthodox Catholic? The options are to deny, challenge or ignore dogma (which you don’t appear to do), or resign yourself to self-loathing, an antagonistic social environment, and the acceptance of a paradigm that can only (barely) tolerate you if you practice self-denial.
Catholicism is an all or nothing proposition by design, and much of being faithful has to do not with having belief, but unquestioning obedience to and deference to the official positions of the Church. If you are, by nature, in opposition to official Church precepts, acceptance seems masochistic. Agitating opposition (with acceptance all the moral hazards) makes more sense, but it’s still a losing battle if the goal is to be a “Good” Catholic.
I am not sure I understand what you are saying you are not supposed to loathe yourself for being gay. That would be contrary to Catholic dogma, too. The first thing to do is not act on it because it will get worse. The second thing to do is really commit yourself to God and do all the things that Catholics do to make that easier. Mass, confession, constant prayer, practice of the presence of God, the Rosary, Bible study, charitable works, devotion to and awareness of one’s guardian angel, calling on the merits of the saints. But the interior life is the greatest adventure of our earthy lives-for everyone. It is a constant battle. One does not choose one’s temptations and they are not all sexual by any means. They can be strong but God is stronger. Catholics struggle more than you think. That is why there is so much spiritual help.
I have gay friends, men and women both, I even contemplated dating a lesbian for awhile, I figured it would be platonic. She became very attached to me, and I broke it off. Maybe I’m asexual? I do enjoy the sight of a hunky bronzed man, well oiled on the beach. Does this make me wrong, even if I don’t pursue it beyond a flash of the hot eye?
Buddha, you didn’t mention having any heterosexual friends. If you attended Holy Mass, devotions, Bible study etc, you would also have heterosexual friends. This recent comment of yours suggests to me that while you may not like being gay, you so identify with that identity that you are not ready to let God “bless you beyond your wildest dreams” as Anonymous said. I would suggest that you avoid the beach for the time being and spend more time with Jesus and the Blessed Mother. Also, you may find it helpful to seek out a good counselor who can help you along your spiritual journey. Buddha, everyone is more than their sexual desires. Find this side of yourself and you will be on the road to freedom.
Buddha Is Laughing, one of the reasons most religions forbid or discourage homosexual acts is that they destroy the bodies of the persons involved. In all seriousness you should avoid such temptations like the plague, whether you are Catholic or not. Even those who practice pagan religions, such as Asastru, although they do not punish the practice, look down upon such practices and encouraged men to eventually get married and have children. As I have said before, many pagans behaved and behave better than some of their gods and goddesses. There is something in all of us that tells us that it is not healthy. There are certain diseases and bodily injuries that are found among or common among those who practice homosexual acts that are uncommon among practicing heterosexuals. That is all beside the fact that all children need both a good mother and a good father.
Oh brother! Another chapter in PT Barnum’s book? Like a carny hawker you got a little crowd to peek in your little tent, LB?
Although not without critics – author James Perloff wrote a book “Tornado in a Junkyard’ well worth reading –at least for insights he gives to Darwin’s own Omissions & the Darrow / Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’.
Attorney Clarence Darrow committed Malpractice, and Pled an Innocent Man Guilty to an offense he Never Committed.
The Defendant Scopes was a substitute teacher, and he did not teach ‘evolution’ as charged. His attorney Darrow Knew this and it should have been an easy case – but Darrow wanted the publicity and grandstanded throughout…
Right up to the point where He had to put on His Own Actual Defense – which would have exposed his lies to all.
So – Darrow Folded the Case with NO Defense, and pled the Innocent client Guilty – and got out of town a Hero to media that knew the desired verdict in advance…
– As it proved a great recruiting tool – kind of like ‘Remember the Alamo’ for the Turkey Baster Creationist Movement.
**This is now known as ‘Shepardizing’ – Meaning a Media Cover-Up of the Big Lie just long enough to get a Thought Policing Law passed…
Now known as the Matthew Shepard memorial Homosex Aids Spreading Meth Dealer ‘Hate Crime’ Law…
– even though it was one of his meth dealing homosex boyfriends that killed him during a crank binge – to justify taking away the Civil Rights of the Rest of Us.
Ahhh – The Power of the