The Evolving Catholic

By Jeffrey B. Jones

What is the best explanation of mankind's origin? How did the universe, and all living things, come into being? Do theories of cosmic and biological evolution provide the answer? Do chapters one and two of the book of Genesis describe historical, supernatural creation events which exclude evolutionary processes? Does it matter as long as ev

• Language: English
• Publisher: Sunset Investment Group LLC
• Release date: Apr 18, 2022
• ISBN: 9780578285948

Book preview

One

What is the best explanation of mankind’s origin? How did the universe, and all living things, come into being? Do theories of cosmic and biological evolution provide the answer? Do chapters one and two of the book of Genesis describe historical, supernatural creation events which exclude evolutionary processes? Does it matter as long as everything is attributed to God? How do we find the truth? Is evolution empirical science or an artificial philosophy?

These questions generate controversy. Many assume evolution is beyond question and view it as a first principle to which everything else must conform. This assumption demands the rejection of traditional creation. The deceptive undercurrent does not justify a molecules-to-man worldview. A journey through this unique critical discussion for and against these opposing ideologies is warranted. Discovering the true foundation of life as we know it becomes a paramount look into where we come from and where we are going as human beings.

Are evolutionary views justified? Can we discover an authentic harmony between faith and reason? Many accept evolutionary claims because they believe there is overwhelming scientific evidence for cosmic and biological evolution.

No matter what your current beliefs about origins, join the quest for truth. Have an answer to why Darwinian claims fail from the perspective of theology, philosophy, natural science, and history. Discover why the restoration of truth about origins is foundational to a proper worldview. In the encyclical Fides et Ratio, Pope St. John Paul II asked, Who am I? Where have I come from, and where am I going? These questions are the ultimate quest, the search for meaning, because, as humans, we want accurate answers to direct our lives.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the foundations of human and Christian life. Where do we come from? Where are we going? What is our origin? What is our end? Where does existence come from, and where is it going?

When seeking to understand Church teachings on any issue, it is imperative to look at the level of authority associated with the various statements issued. A Bishop’s remark about evolution during an interview may be a personal opinion influenced by false evolutionary claims and should not be understood to reflect Church doctrine. The highest level of authority is Pope Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis, which in no way rescinded the Church’s authoritative teachings on creation.

Many Catholics claim the Church approved evolution. They quote the first sentence of paragraph 36 in Humani Generis for support. The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, that take place concerning the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter, for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold souls as immediately created by God.

View this sentence in the context of the remainder of the paragraph, However, this must be done in such a way the reasons for both opinions, favorable or unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation, and measure; provided all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures authentically.

The Church opened a discussion period among theologians and natural scientists to evaluate the evidence and determine whether evolution could be reconciled with Church doctrine. After all, evolution may not be compatible with God’s revelation about origins. A critical parallel occurred with the issue of contraception.

In March 1963, Pope St. John XXIII formed a committee to study whether the use of contraception could be compatible with Catholic teaching. Hearing this, many Catholics assumed approval of contraception was granted. Some clergy proclaimed contraception was permissible. Dissension erupted when Humanae Vitae announced contraception was not compatible with Church teaching.

The boundaries of dialogue are established in paragraph 36 of Humani Generis which sets limitations when discussing evolutionary theory. The paragraph mandates evidence for and against evolution theory. It states that evolution is not to be treated as specific or proven. All are to submit to the final decision of the Church. Assuming evolution is proven, divine revelation does not go beyond the permitted discussion limits.

Humani Generis establishes the first eleven chapters of Genesis as actual history. The chapters are inspired. The view of limited inerrancy has been repeatedly condemned. It is fictitious to think all difficulties vanish if the literal sense is symbolic or spiritual.

Humani Generis establishes that we must believe Adam was a real person and the father of all humans. It warns not to withdraw from the Church’s Teaching Authority of a desire for novelty or fear of ignorance of recent scientific findings.

It instructs bishops and religious orders not to advance opinions contrary to encyclical teachings and states that teachers in Catholic institutions cannot teach with a tranquil conscience unless they religiously accept and observe the norms ordained.

The most authoritative statement ever made by the Catholic Church on evolution was highly cautious and did not endorse the concept. Many have not read Humani Generis. As a result, there is confusion when Catholics question evolution.

Telling people, the truth and encouraging them in it is loving one’s neighbor. Pope Pius XII wrote, "To look at the evidence both for and against evolution, and not to treat it as a certain, proved fact."

We all come to the topic with presumptions. Some misbelief: Scientists explain evolution is beyond questioning and we should not let our own philosophical views interfere with objectivity. Many claim: My biology textbook presented the truth about origins, and the public education establishment does not deceive children. Still others: Origins are a matter of natural science and are supported by evidence. Or finally: The Bible doesn’t make scientific claims and may contain errors in history counter to natural science.

Should we view Creation in a spiritual sense or allegory? The biblical narrative is not an account of what happened. Some believe Christians can accept evolution as long as it is understood as God-directed theistic evolution. After all, truth cannot contradict truth, and theistic evolution is the only reasonable way to reconcile the truths of faith and science.

Two

From Charles Darwin to Stephen Hawking, prominent evolutionists have been committed materialists, agnostics, rationalists, and philosophical naturalists. They believe only matter exists. They question the existence of God, especially one who has intervened in the world after creation.

Many of these individuals expressed hatred toward the Church and a caring, loving God. Given the individual’s philosophical position and their expressed hatred of Christianity, are they objective about the evidence for evolution? Is it possible they misrepresented the evidence to support their worldview?

If their evolutionary claims are deceptive, is it not logical to evaluate the scientific evidence for their claim? Is it possible that the evidence for evolution has been misleading for philosophical or professional reasons? Is it appropriate to study the allegations using scientific literature?

Charles Darwin wrote, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true. The plain language of the text seems to show that men who do not believe (and this would include my father, brother, and almost all my best friends) will be everlastingly punished. This is a damnable doctrine.

Thomas Huxley wrote, If I have a wish to live thirty years, it is I may see the foot of science on the necks of her enemies. One of evolution’s greatest merits, in my eyes, is the fact it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to a vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and social life of mankind, the Catholic Church. By next Friday evening, they will all be convinced they are monkeys.

Charles Lyell, geologist and one of Charles Darwin’s closest friends, wrote, I am grappling not with the ordinary arm of flesh but with principalities and powers, and I must put on all my armor.

Darwin wrote of his mentor, Lyell is most firmly convinced he has shaken the faith in the Genesis flood far more efficiently by never having said a word against the Bible than if he had acted otherwise.

Ernst Haeckel, an influential German naturalist, and friend of Darwin wrote, On one side, spiritual freedom and truth, reason and culture, evolution and progress stand under the bright banner of science. On the other side, under the black hierarchy flag, spiritual slavery and falsehood, irrationality and barbarism, superstition and retrogression stand. Evolution is the heavy artillery in the struggle for truth. There cannot be true and enduring peace until one of the combatants lies powerless on the ground. Either the Church wins and farewells all free science and teaching, or the modern rational state proves victorious. In the twentieth century, human culture, freedom, and prosperity will continue their progressive development.

Eugene Dubois, the discoverer of Java man, wrote, "The Origin of Species brought about reorientation of our real knowledge of nature. It was the signpost to a new era and a new worldview. Nothing gives man the right to demand an exception, a privilege for himself, to lay claim to a special act of creation for his appearance in the ranks of living beings."

Julian Huxley, the grandson of Thomas Huxley, wrote, In the evolutionary pattern of thought, there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created. It evolved. All the animals, including our human selves, mind, soul, brain, body, and religion, evolved. Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness in the arms of a divinized father-figure whom he created.

Noble laureate and scientist Jacques Monod wrote, The ancient covenant is in pieces. Man knows he is alone in the universe, out of which he emerged only by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty.

Leading atheist and author Richard Dawkins wrote, I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

Astronomer Carl Sagan wrote, Our ancestors worshiped the sun, and they were far from foolish. If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the sun and stars?

Biologist William Provine wrote, Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear. There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am certain I am going to be dead. It’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans.

Stephen Hawking, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which advises the Pope on scientific matters, wrote, We are each free to believe what we want, and it is my view the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe, and no one directed our fate. This leads me to a profound realization. There is no heaven and no afterlife either. I regard the brain as a computer that will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken computers; it is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.

Leading evolutionists from Darwin onward have endorsed evolution due to their materialistic worldview. It is common to hear Christians point out that not all evolutionists are avowed atheists.

One prominent evolutionist is Kenneth Miller, a professed Catholic. Many regard Miller as a sound synthesis between the Catholic faith and evolution. Miller claims to be Catholic, yet in Finding Darwin’s God, he wrote, Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected. Even if God can intervene in nature, why should He when nature can do an excellent job of achieving His aims all by itself?

Miller wrote, It is time to place Genesis alongside the geocentric myth in the basket of stories.

Miller insists that evolution is undirected and has constructed a fence around natural origin. This is a philosophical ploy done to keep God out. How can Miller scientifically determine if evolutionary processes are directed by God? Is Miller qualified to undertake this philosophical task and misuse the trust naturally given to scientists?

Darwin wrote, However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow the belief variation has been led along certain beneficial lines.

Miller’s definition of evolution incorporates philosophical and theological concepts. In his 1995 statement Teaching Evolution, issued by the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT). He declared evolution to be an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process. Following numerous objections, the comment was deleted. The director of the NABT acknowledged saying evolution is unsupervised and made a theological statement. The concession did not shift the leading evolutionists underlying worldview.

In 2005 controversy over science standards rose in Kansas. A letter was sent by thirty-eight Nobel Laureates to the Kansas State Board of Education stating, Evolution is understood to result from an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. The letter expressed concern over the Board’s August 8, 2005 recommendation, allowing standards to criticize evolution.

According to surveys, Miller is doing an excellent service to the biology arm of the National Academy of Science, of whom ninety-five percent are atheists. Still, he is doing a great disservice to millions of Catholics, including well-known apologists, educators, and media personnel, who have mistakenly relied upon his authority as a scientist, his profession of Catholic belief. He assumes the evidence for evolution is objective.

It is a mistake to accept evolution solely on the authority of scientists who are philosophically or professionally committed to naturalism. St. Thomas warned in the Summa Theologica, Argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest.

Three

If naturalistic origins are true, God allowed the Apostles, the great Saints, the Church Fathers, the Doctors, approved Mystics, and the Magisterium to err in their understanding of origins for eighteen centuries. Instead, God allowed unbelieving evolutionists and philosophers who hate God and His Church to bring biological and cosmic origin to light.

There is no reason to abandon the traditional teaching on origins from a scientific perspective. The evidence for evolution can be evaluated if the testimony of leading evolutionists is taken at face value. The best way to assess evolutionary claims is to go beyond the biology textbooks. Evaluate the evidence for and against the scientific literature.

Scientific journals are committed to evolution, but they are also forthcoming about the massive shortcomings of