Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwin Didn't Contradict God
Providence Journal ^ | August 10, 2005 | Kenneth Miller

Posted on 08/22/2005 5:03:52 PM PDT by curiosity

It's never been easy being Charles Darwin. Rodney Dangerfield talked about getting "no respect," but the brickbats thrown Darwin's way are putting poor Rodney to shame. Alabama pastes warning stickers in any textbook that mentions evolution; a member of the Kansas Board of Education pronounces evolution "biologically, genetically, mathematically, chemically and metaphysically impossible." And now even a cardinal of the Catholic Church has taken a potshot at poor old Charles.

Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, editor of the Church's Catechism, recently wrote that any notion that neo-Darwinian theory is "somehow compatible with Christian faith" is simply "not true."

The cardinal asserted that evolution is an "unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." Evolution, in his view, isn't science so much as a "materialistic philosophy" that denies the existence of a creator's plan. It's anti-Christian, and it's bad science to boot.

The cardinal may think that evolution deserves the Dangerfield treatment, but in his understandable eagerness to stand up for God, he's made three glaring mistakes: The most obvious is scientific. The second is political. And the third, dare I say as a Catholic lay person, is theological.

Knowing how the cardinal's words will be misused by the enemies of science, I think it's important to set the record straight.

Let's start with what Schonborn got right. The Catholic Church has always opposed any view of life that would exclude the notion of divine purpose. As the Catechism says, scientific studies of "the age and development of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man . . . invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator." Indeed they do.

But Schonborn's assertion that the theory of evolution is inherently anti-God is simply wrong. Consider these words from George Gaylord Simpson, widely recognized as one of the principal architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis:

"The process [of evolution] is wholly natural in its operation. This natural process achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer; and it has produced a vast plan without the concurrent action of a planner. It may be that the initiation of the process and the physical laws under which it functions had a purpose and that this mechanistic way of achieving a plan is the instrument of a Planner -- of this still deeper problem the scientist, as scientist, cannot speak."

Exactly. Science is, just as Pope John Paul II said, silent on the issue of ultimate purpose. This means that biological evolution, correctly understood, does not address what Simpson called the "deeper problem," leaving that issue, quite properly, to faith.

The cardinal's second error was to enter American politics by supporting the "intelligent-design" movement. This movement seeks to short-circuit science by applying political pressure at state and local levels, and the cardinal's misrepresentation of evolution will only further a growing entanglement between church and state. He seems not to understand that the neo-creationists of "intelligent design," unlike Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, argue against evolution on every level, asserting that a "designer" has repeatedly intervened to subvert the laws of nature. This view stands in sharp contradiction to a 2004 International Theological Commission document approved by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict.

This document carries a ringing endorsement of the "widely accepted scientific account" of life's emergence and evolution; describes the descent of all forms of life from a common ancestor as "virtually certain"; and echoes John Paul's observation of the "mounting support" for evolution from many fields of study.

More important, the document makes a critical statement on how to interpret scientific studies of the complexity of life: "[W]hether the available data support inferences of design or chancecannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency" -- that is, dependence upon chance -- "in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence."

Right there, in plain view, is the essence of compatibility between evolution and Catholic theology. "Contingency in the created order," the very heart of evolution, is not at all incompatible with the will of God. The church document re-emphasizes this point by stating that "even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God's providential plan for creation." And evolution, as scientist Stephen Jay Gould emphasized, is truly a contingent natural process.

The concerns of Pope Benedict, as expressed in his earlier writings, are not with evolution per se, but with how evolution is to be understood in our modern world. Biological evolution fits neatly into a traditional Catholic understanding of how contingent natural processes can be seen as part of God's plan, while "evolutionist" philosophies that deny the divine do not. Three popes, beginning with Pius XII, have now made this clear.

John Paul's 1996 letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences bore the magnificent title "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth." Writing in the tradition of Augustine and Aquinas, the late pope affirmed the church's twin commitments to scientific rationality and to an overarching spiritual view of the ultimate meaning and purpose of life.

Like many other scientists who hold the Catholic faith, I see the Creator's plan and purpose fulfilled in our universe. I see a planet bursting with evolutionary possibilities -- a continuing creation, in which the divine providence is manifest in every living thing. I see a science that tells us there is indeed a design to life. And the name of that design is evolution.

Kenneth R. Miller is a Brown University professor of biology and the author of Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.




TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: biology; catholicism; christianity; crevolist; darwinism; evolution; science; theism; theology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last
Another gem from Professor Miller.
1 posted on 08/22/2005 5:03:53 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: curiosity

What is, is. What isn't, ain't.


2 posted on 08/22/2005 5:04:24 PM PDT by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
The alternative theory to Darwin:


3 posted on 08/22/2005 5:05:38 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narby; Varda; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; PatrickHenry; marron; D-fendr; Junior; Aquinasfan; ...

Faith and Science Ping.


4 posted on 08/22/2005 5:05:57 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo

Would you mind elaborating your point?


5 posted on 08/22/2005 5:07:00 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: curiosity; VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; balrog666; ...
Thanks. Miller is good. I'll see if my ping list would be interested.

Guys? Shall the list be deployed?

6 posted on 08/22/2005 5:09:31 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

The fact that God create creatures that can adapt to the world he created seems pretty natural to me.

What is evolution and creating life so different today. For 5,000 years, people that could not read or write seemed to have understand this.


7 posted on 08/22/2005 5:10:24 PM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
John Paul's 1996 letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences bore the magnificent title "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth." Writing in the tradition of Augustine and Aquinas, the late pope affirmed the church's twin commitments to scientific rationality and to an overarching spiritual view of the ultimate meaning and purpose of life.

There is a point of view that scientific reality is based purely on empirical observations. If we had a time machine to go back and observe the process of evolution directly, those observations would enter into the domain of rational, verifiable science, at least in that kind of scientific philosophy.

What is, is. What isn't - can't be directly observed - ain't going to pass muster.

8 posted on 08/22/2005 5:11:24 PM PDT by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
I've always thought evolution was part of his plan.

God's plan that is.

9 posted on 08/22/2005 5:11:43 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure the borders;punish employers who hire illegals;halt all welfare handouts to illegals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Wasn't Darwin a racist?


10 posted on 08/22/2005 5:11:46 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (The repenting soul is the victorious soul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo
"What is, is. What isn't, ain't."

The problem is that to observe or know anything, you must necessarily change it. The only certain knowledge is- "what is, was, and what isn't, is both".

11 posted on 08/22/2005 5:12:16 PM PDT by SteveMcKing ("I was born a Democrat. I expect I'll be a Democrat the day I leave this earth." -Zell Miller '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
For 5,000 years, people that could not read or write seemed to have understand this.

Because fundamentalism hadn't been invented yet.

12 posted on 08/22/2005 5:12:23 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
"Wasn't Darwin a racist?"

Like everyone of the era, including minorities.

13 posted on 08/22/2005 5:13:27 PM PDT by SteveMcKing ("I was born a Democrat. I expect I'll be a Democrat the day I leave this earth." -Zell Miller '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo
What is, is. What isn't - can't be directly observed ain't going to pass muster.

I see, so forensic science can't pass muster, since the scientist never actually observes the crime. Ditto for the astronomical fact that the Sun is composed of hydrogen. No one has ever actually travelled to the sun to take a chemical analsysis.

Evolution is one of but countless sciences in which we study things that can't be directly observed.

14 posted on 08/22/2005 5:16:59 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

"Because fundamentalism hadn't been invented yet."

O-Bull - we burned women at the stake and put people in vats of oil we have had plenty of fundamentalism in the last 6,000 years.


15 posted on 08/22/2005 5:18:22 PM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I've always thought evolution was part of his plan.

Exactly. Creationists are placing arbitary limits on God.

16 posted on 08/22/2005 5:18:28 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
Fundamentalism and fanaticism aren't the same thing.
17 posted on 08/22/2005 5:19:20 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Evolution is one of but countless sciences in which we study things that can't be directly observed.

Evolution is the invisible scaffold onto which observations of the remains of the past are placed.

18 posted on 08/22/2005 5:20:57 PM PDT by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
[Christoph Schonborn] seems not to understand that the neo-creationists of "intelligent design,"....argue against evolution on every level, asserting that a "designer" has repeatedly intervened to subvert the laws of nature.

I'm surprised to hear that neo-creationists would think God would break His own laws of nature.

19 posted on 08/22/2005 5:24:35 PM PDT by syriacus (Cindy's campaign was interrupted by a bad event. But the Iraq campaign is supposed to go perfectly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo
Evolution is the invisible scaffold onto which observations of the remains of the past are placed.

No, evolution is a scientific theory that predicts that the remains we find of the past should fit a certain patern, a "scaffold," if you prefer. Darwin and others made predictions about how the "scaffold" should look BEFORE most of the fossils were found. The fact that they actually fit predicted "scaffold" is powerful evidence in favor of the theory.

20 posted on 08/22/2005 5:27:25 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson