By JOHN YOUNG
The scientific evidence against macroevolution is so strong that evolutionists won’t face it impartially. Only some form of theistic evolution, with God-given laws guiding the process, is even possible, whereas materialistic evolution is totally impossible.
According to the materialistic view the world as existing today arose from primitive elements by a process of natural selection, with no guiding intelligence. But that is to posit an effect without any proportionate cause, because science (and ordinary observation) shows a marvelous order throughout nature, from the most elementary elements to the most complex living things. Order demands an orderer as its explanation.
The fossil record, supposedly a proof of evolution, is actually a compelling argument against it, for it illustrates the relative fixity of the basic types of living things, with no clear evidence of a development from simple to complex organisms.
Much more could be said, but that is not the purpose of this article. Instead I want to look at an argument proposed by some Catholic creationists, and which they maintain shows that the official teaching of the Catholic Church is incompatible with every hypothesis of evolution, including theistic evolution.
It is alleged that the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 infallibly ruled out evolution with the statement that God “…is Creator of all things, visible and invisible, spiritual and corporeal; Who by His own omnipotent power together at the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, the spiritual and the corporeal, namely, the angelic and the earthly, and then man as it were common to both, composed of spirit and body”(DS 800).
The above teaching is certainly infallible, but it does not mean what some Catholic creationists claim that it means. They misinterpret it at a number of points.
They say the statement that God created each creature from nothing excludes the evolution of later creatures from earlier ones. They understand “each creature” to mean each basic type, as when Genesis says that God created the animals “according to their kinds” (Gen. 1:21). Further, as this was done at the beginning of time, a long period of evolution is excluded. Regarding man: The statement that he was created by God excludes his evolution from lower animals.
My first comment is that the Fourth Lateran Council clearly does not mean that each kind of creature was made from nothing by God: the first elephants, the first ants, and so on. “Each” refers to the two orders, the material world and the angels. Further, if God did produce each kind of animal directly, He did so from existing matter (not from nothing); thus Genesis says man was formed from the dust of the earth.
“From the beginning of time” refers to God’s creation of the material universe and the angels, but the council says nothing about the process of development after that initial act of creation.
A long process of evolutionary development is perfectly compatible with the statement that the universe was created at the beginning of time. What Lateran IV ruled out is the claim that the universe always existed, having no beginning.
When we say that all things in the material universe, including man, were made from nothing by God, we mean that all depend on the matter that God willed into being at the beginning of time. So I was made from nothing by God, but not directly; my body was formed from previously existing matter.
If it were indeed true that Lateran IV excludes macroevolution, it would be heresy to accept evolution — or even to see it as a possibility — because the above quoted statement of Lateran IV is infallible. That would mean practically all Catholic theologians who have commented on the statement, including the most orthodox on other questions, are material heretics (saved from mortal sin only by invincible ignorance).
Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II must be included, because of their acceptance of evolution as possible. Also Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani generis, where he allows for the possibility of evolution, including that of the human body, while insisting on great caution in this matter (Humani generis, 36, 37).
Quite apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is incredible that all these authorities could have so grossly misunderstood one of the most important pronouncements of an ecumenical council.
Attempts to disprove the evolutionary hypothesis with arguments from Scripture or Tradition are not only a failure; they bolster the false claim of evolutionists who say Christians are prejudiced by their religion when they argue against evolution. They charge us with being impelled by our dogmas to reject the scientific evidence.
I saw a scientific argument against evolution given by the famous Protestant creationist Henry Morris and the response of an evolutionist who quoted another statement Morris had made, a statement in which Morris had argued from Scripture.
The implication was: Morris can’t be trusted to view the evidence impartially, because he feels he must reject evolution on religious grounds. Off course, that was irrelevant; the scientific argument Morris presented should have been considered on its merits.
But we can be sure of one thing: If we use arguments from Revelation, any scientific case we present will be viewed with suspicion — not only by unbelievers but also by many Christians.
That couldn’t be helped if indeed God’s Revelation excluded every form of macroevolution. But it doesn’t. So if we wrongly think it does, and defend that position, the scientific case we then give will often be dismissed on the grounds that we are prejudiced fundamentalists.
Not only that. To tell people that something is part of the faith when it isn’t is to gravely mislead them, because it implies that there is an obligation to believe it — an obligation binding under pain of mortal sin.
St. Augustine insisted often that the creation accounts in Genesis are open to various interpretations, and warned against insisting that the interpretation we prefer must be the only correct one.
Writing of those who obstinately hold to one opinion while rejecting other legitimate interpretations, he says: “For what they say, they say not because they are Godly men and have seen it in the mind of Your servant Moses, but because they are proud men: it is not that they know the opinion of Moses but that they love their own opinion, and this not because it is true but because it is their own” (Confessions, book XII, section 25).
We all need to be on our guard against falling into that trap.
+ + +
(John Young is a graduate of the Aquinas Academy in Sydney, Australia, and has taught philosophy in four seminaries. His book The Scope of Philosophy was published by Gracewing Publishers in England in 2010. He has been a frequent contributor to The Wanderer on theological issues since 1977.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress