THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND EVOLUTION

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND EVOLUTION

INTRODUCTION

For over a long period till now, there has been a tension between science and religion in general and particularly the Catholic Church, which is epitomized in the evolutionary theory of Darwin. Much ink has been spilled concerning this Darwinian Theory by many philosophers, theologian and scientists. A number of objections to evolution have been raised since evolutionary ideas came to prominence in the 19th century. When Charles Darwin published his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, his theory of evolution by natural selection initially met opposition from alternate scientific theories, but came to be widely accepted by the scientific community, but then its tension with most religions is obviously felt till the present century. Thus, the resultant creation-evolution controversy has been a focal point of recent conflict between religion and science. The emergence of Pope Pius XII encyclical letter concerning evolution is one of such issues. In an effort to project some kind of ecclesiastical concerns through his papal authority, Pope Pius XII adds his ink to the many who have written for or against evolution. Actually, the problem does not lie in the theory itself but the very many interpretations it has received. It is in the light of the tensions that these interpretation create that Pope Pius XII tried to affirm the stand of the Church through this encyclical letter titled: “Humani Generis”.

Coherently, this short essay would: present the arguments sustained in the encyclical, stand of other scholars on evolution, then evaluate the Church’s arguments against evolution (as seen in the encyclical) and finally, draw a critical conclusion.

THE BASIC ARGUMENT OF HUMANI GENERIS AGAINST EVOLUTION 

In the above mentioned encyclical, Pope Pius XII makes effort to state the threshold beyond which evolution theory should not penetrate or filter into the creation account of Genesis. The concern shown in this letter tends from this statement: “…Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribed to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism”. 

Apart from this, the letter projects evolution as mere hypothesis in the sense that it has not been proven scientifically. More still, in the same line of thought, the pope maintained that the above tenets of evolution repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, and has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences. 

In the light of this perception, the Pius XII enjoins catholic theologian and philosophers not to ignore or keep silent on this issue of evolution but to carry out an undiluted diagnosis on it so as to filter out the hidden truths in the theory. In any case, the out come of their result is pinned within the frame work of what the Church teaches as truth. All through the letter, the pope makes it clear that reconciliation of evolution with Catholic teaching should not and must not in any way adjust the fundamental teachings of the church as regards how the universe (and especially, the human race) came to be. Anything contrary to the biblical account of creation is a sure destruction of the integrity of the faith. 

Coherently, one can summarize this encyclical on evolution thus: The question of the origin of man's body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church's right to define matters touching on Revelation. Catholics must believe, however, that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person. This is the basic stand of this encyclical as far as any debate on evolution is concerned. 

THE TENSION BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND EVOLUTION THEORY

No concrete analysis can be carried out if one does not know the bone of contention or what is at stake. The same applies to this tension between the above encyclical and evolution theory. The argument is not just on how human beings came into existence rather it bends towards the whole idea of original sin which eventually points to salvific action of Christ. The entire idea of salvation will be meaningless if there was no original sin, and in the same light, original sin has to be traced to one man and his wife, first human one earth created by God whom they offended. In other words, the argument is more than just the question of creation of the universe. Accepting evolution completely would mean, in the view of Pius XII, sweeping off the substratum on which most Church’s teachings rest. 

Apart from the above basic reason, as far as enlightenment era, many have maintained a false supposition that faith and reason were opposed and totally incompatible or not complementary. This also filters into the tension between evolution and the Church. There is a misunderstanding about purpose. Evolution projects a cause-and-effect account of human origin, and says nothing about the purpose of its subject. It is precisely about how and not why. On the other hand, the Bible reveals that there is a purpose to human life, which is ultimately to glorify God, his creator. These two dimensions of view apparently seem to stand against each other. Thus, the Church, as reflected in the above encyclical, would object to evolution.

Another fear of the Church was that if the assumption of a divine creation is replaced by the assumption of a natural origin the human being ceases to feel that he is in the hand of a God who cares for every individual; he sees himself as a cog in the mechanism of natural law

EVALUATION OF THE STAND THEOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS IN THIS DEBATE.

For decades Catholicism avoided official refutation of evolution. However, it would rein in Catholics who proposed that evolution could be reconciled with the Bible, as this conflicted with First Vatican Council's (1869-70) finding that everything was created out of nothing by God, and to question that could lead to excommunication. In 1950, the encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII first mentioned evolution directly and officially.[16] It allowed for inquiry into humans coming from pre-existing living matter, but to not question Adam and Eve or the creation of the soul. In 1996, Pope John Paul II stated evolution was "more than a hypothesis" and acknowledged the large body of work accumulated in its support, but reiterated that any attempt to give a material explanation of the human soul was incompatible with the truth about man.

In response, a theologian, Tracy argues that there are several ways in which God might be understood to act in and through evolutionary processes. God acts universally to create and sustain all finite things. In so doing, God may choose to fix the course of events in the world by establishing deterministic natural laws. In this case every event in cosmic history could be regarded as an act of God. There are good reasons, both theological and scientific, to reject this universal determinism. From science it appears that indeterministic chance is built into the structures of nature, and that chance events at the quantum level can both constitute the stable properties of macroscopic entities and effect the course of macroscopic processes. Chaotic dynamics and evolutionary biology provide two key examples here. This in turn creates several fascinating possibilities for conceiving of divine action in the world. Perhaps a “hands-off” God leaves some features of the world’s history up to chance. Or may be God chooses to act at some or all of these points of indeterminism. Then God could in this way initiate particular causal chains without intervening in the regular processes of nature. Tracy notes that there are conceptual puzzles raised by each of these ideas, such as whether God determines all or just some of these events - and thus the relative theological merits of each would need to be debated. But this variety of options for conceiving of divine action makes it clear that the first challenge can be met.

Following the statement: “Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own”(Humani Generis, 37), it is not clear whether or not Pius XII explicitly exclude or include polygenism (that there were many Adams and Eves).

In any case, it is implied in the encyclical that all men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in “polygenism,” the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans. In the same line, Pius XII treats two questions regarding the origin of the human person. Firstly, the human being's origin through evolution from other living beings: while formerly evolution was rejected as irreconcilable with the biblical account of creation (which was given a pure literal interpretation), and as implying a materialistic conception of the human being, the question is now left open to scholarly investigation, provided that the creation of the soul by God is maintained. Secondly, monogenism or polygenism, that is, the question whether the human race must be conceived as descending from a single couple or can be considered to originate from several couples. polygenism is rejected because it is not apparently reconcilable with the doctrine of original sin inherited by all from Adam. Recent theology, however, is seeking explanations of original sin under the supposition of polygenism, and so tries to remove the reason for its rejection. 

Furthermore, Pius XII wrote: “...in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter...” The above statement from Humani Generis is ambiguous. In effect Pius XII does not exclude evolution or what is theistic evolution, which asserts that humans evolved from primitive biological matter to monkey-like creatures that were finally given a soul by God. Ordinarily this is just what “coming from pre-existent and living matter” would mean. 

In this effort to reconcile evolution with the theology of creation, one may propose that evolution means that the chore of creation is gong on all around us, all the time. The process does not follow a preordained path, since God loved the world enough to set it free. Still even if evolution is sustains a wrong theory or against the teachings of the Church, it in a sense enables the Church to rethink her stand as regards the Genesis account of creation.

CONCLUSION

Pius XII was diplomatic to maintain a neutral stand on this issue of evolution in a sense: “The Church does not forbid that...research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter”. He is merely allowing the discussion to continue, withholding any judgment by the Church on the matter until more evidence could be honestly presented. He is in no way endorsing evolution and reminding all of the necessity of conforming any scientific proposition to the certainties of the Divine and Catholic Faith. In any case, this leaves us on a cross-road. At this juncture one may proffer what looks like suggestion towards reconciling evolution with creation.

The genesis creation account presents to us a creation that is completed – a creation which needs nothing else, which can not be better. This creation is capable of no history; but in a deeper sense, one discovers that creation was made good, not perfect. In other words, there is chance for growth and change. Consequently, there is need to returned or dig up again the doctrines of: creatio continua (continuous creation), and creatio nova (new creation). Within continuous creation, one would discover evolution – God is still at work in the world and things keep on transforming towards perfection

In the final analysis, we have come to the awareness that the interest is no longer whether or not evolution is true but the proper interpretation of what Darwin had in mind. The Church is interested in this argument because the misinterpretation of this theory is a menace to faith and catholic doctrinal teaching on creation. In other words, there is still that need to fit evolution its proper place while still maintaining the indisputable action of God in creation.

On one hand, scientists should recognize the untenability of an exclusively material interpretation of Scripture and on the other hand, on the part of the Church, it seems unwise to boldly conclude that “my views certainly have all the correct answers, so (in every aspect we differ) your thoughts must be wrong”. Is it not possible that God created using another way different form the one we hold on? The debate should therefore continue till a better true conclusion is drawn.

It may be right to hold that if Pope Pius XII were to be present at this era, he would have taken a more or better welcoming approach to evolution. He would have expanded the rooms more for investigation into this theory.