Magisterium on Creation and Evolution

Zenit ^ | Dec 14, 2005 | Father Rafael Pascual

[AncientAirs]

Interview With Father Rafael Pascual

ROME, DEC. 14, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Evolution and creation can be compatible, says a philosopher who goes so far as to speak of "evolutionary creation."

Legionary Father Rafael Pascual, director of the master's program in Science and Faith at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, puts his comments in context by clarifying that the "Bible has no scientific end."

The debate on evolution and faith heated up last summer after Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna published an article July 7 in the New York Times in which he affirmed: "Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity' are not scientific at all."

To understand the issue better, ZENIT interviewed Father Pascual, author of "L'Evoluzione: crocevia di scienza, filosofia e teologia" (Evolution: Crossroads of Science, Philosophy and Theology), recently published in Italy by Studium.

Q: Yes to evolution and no to evolutionism?

Father Pascual: Evolution, understood as a scientific theory, based on empirical data, seems to be quite well affirmed, although it is not altogether true that there is no longer anything to add or complete, above all in regard to the mechanisms that regulate it.

Instead, I don't think evolutionism is admissible as an ideology that denies purpose and holds that everything is due to chance and to necessity, as Jacques Monod affirms in his book "Chance and Necessity," proposing atheist materialism.

This evolutionism cannot be upheld, either as a scientific truth or as a necessary consequence of the scientific theory of evolution, as some hold.

Q: Yes to creation, no to creationism?

Father Pascual: Creation is a comprehensible truth for reason, especially for philosophy, but it is also a revealed truth.

On the other hand, so-called creationism is also, as evolutionism, an ideology based, on many occasions, on an erroneous theology, that is, on a literal interpretation of the passages of the Bible, which, according to their authors, would maintain, in regard to the origin of species, the immediate creation of each species by God, and the immutability of each species with the passing of time.

Q: Are evolution and creation compatible?

Father Pascual: Evolution and creation may be compatible in themselves; one can speak -- without falling into a contradiction in terms -- of an "evolutionary creation," while evolutionism and creationism are necessarily incompatible.

On the other hand, undoubtedly there was an intelligent design but, in my opinion, it is not a question of an alternative scientific theory to the theory of evolution. At the same time, one must point out that evolutionism, understood as a materialist and atheist ideology, is not scientific.

Q: What does the Church's magisterium say on the matter?

Father Pascual: In itself, the magisterium of the Church is not opposed to evolution as a scientific theory.

On one hand, it allows and asks scientists to do research in what is its specific ambit. But, on the other hand, given the ideologies that lie behind some versions of evolutionism, it makes some fundamental points clear which must be respected:

-- Divine causality cannot be excluded a priori. Science can neither affirm nor deny it.

-- The human being has been created in the image and likeness of God. From this fact derives his dignity and eternal destiny.

-- There is a discontinuity between the human being and other living beings, in virtue of his spiritual soul, which cannot be generated by simple natural reproduction, but is created immediately by God.

Q: What are the fundamental truths on the origin of the world and the human being which the Church indicates as basic points?

Father Pascual: Clearly, the magisterium does not enter into scientific questions as such, which she leaves to the research of specialists. But she feels the duty to intervene to explain the consequences of an ethical and religious nature that such questions entail.

The first principle underlined is that truth cannot contradict truth; there cannot be a real contrast or conflict between a truth of faith -- or revealed truth -- and a truth of reason -- that is, natural -- because both have God as origin.

Second, it is emphasized that the Bible does not have a scientific end but rather a religious end. Therefore, it would not be correct to draw consequences that might implicate science, or respect for the doctrine of the origin of the universe, or about the biological origin of man.

A correct exegesis, therefore, must be done of the biblical texts, as the Pontifical Biblical Commission clearly indicates in "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church."

Third, for the Church, in principle, there is no incompatibility between the truth of creation and the scientific theory of evolution. God could have created a world in evolution, which in itself does not take anything away from divine causality; on the contrary, it can focus on it better as regards its wealth and potentiality.

Fourth, on the question of the origin of the human being, an evolutionary process could be admitted in regard to his corporeal nature, but in the case of the soul, because it is spiritual, a direct creative action is required on the part of God, given that what is spiritual cannot be initiated by something that is not spiritual.

There is discontinuity between matter and spirit. The spirit cannot flow or emerge from matter, as some thinkers have affirmed. Therefore, in man, there is discontinuity in relation to other living beings, an "ontological leap."

Finally, and here we are before the central point: The fact of being created and loved immediately by God is the only thing that can justify, in the last instance, the dignity of the human being.

Indeed, man is not the result of simple chance or blind fate, but rather the fruit of a divine plan. The human being has been created in the image and likeness of God; more than that, he is called to a relationship of communion with God. His destiny is eternal, and because of this he is not simply subject to the laws of this passing world.

The human being is the only creature that God wanted for its own sake; he [the human] is an end in himself, and cannot be treated as a means to reach any other end, no matter how noble it is or seems to be.

Q: An appropriate anthropology is needed therefore that takes all this into consideration and that can give an account of the human being in his entirety.

Father Pascual: On the kind of relationship that the Church promotes with the world of science, John Paul II said the collaboration between religion and science becomes a gain for one another, without violating in any way the respective autonomies.

Q: What is Benedict XVI's thought on creation and evolution?

Father Pascual: Obviously we are not faced with an alternative such as "creation or evolution," bur rather with an articulation.

In a series of homilies, on the first chapters of Genesis, the then archbishop of Munich, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, wrote in 1981: "The exact formula is creation and evolution, because both respond to two different questions. The account of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, does not in fact tell us how man originated. It tells us that it is man. It speaks to us of his most profound origin, illustrates the plan that is behind him. Vice versa, the theory of evolution tries to define and describe biological processes. However, it does not succeed in explaining the origin of the 'project' man, to explain his interior provenance and his essence. We are faced therefore with two questions that complement, not exclude each other."

Ratzinger speaks of the reasonable character of faith in creation, which continues to be, still today, the best and most plausible of the theories.

In fact, Ratzinger's text continues saying, "through the reason of creation, God himself looks at us. Physics, biology, the natural sciences in general, have given us a new, unheard-of account of creation, with grandiose and new images, which enable us to recognize the face of the Creator and make us know again: Yes, in the beginning and deep down in every being is the Creator Spirit. The world is not the product of darkness and the absurd. It comes from an intelligence, from a freedom, from a beauty that is love. To acknowledge this, infuses in us the courage that enables us to live, that makes us capable of confidently facing life's venture."

It is significant that, in his homily at the start of his Petrine ministry, Pope Benedict XVI said: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary." ZE05121422

[TXnMA]

Heads up! This article "has some meat on its bones"...

BTW, Ladies, I find myself pinging you two to these threads because

1. Your thoughtful insights and comments usually make me go, "Hmmmm!" -- and drive me to further study...
2. Your personal testimonies always bless and uplift me...

Guess I'm just selfish! '-)

[narby]

When you speak about generic evolution, the idea most people has is of some soup of chemicals that mixed because of atmosphiric changes...

That's not a description of evolution in any way. That's abiogenesis, which is an entirely different subject, and much less understood. That's why it's so easy for misinformation to be spread on the subject, because many people have no idea what they're talking about.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for this ping and all of your pings!

Truly, TXnMA, you have been in our hearts and minds also. I'm sure the Spirit has a purpose in this.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. That section calls for meditation!

Truly there is no incompatibility between faith and reason, nor between matter and spirit, as some of our correspondents tirelessly insist. They are complementarities that express the whole man, and they do not contradict each other in any way. For both have their origin in God, who is Truth. And truth cannot contradict truth.

Thank you for this wisdom, dear sister in Christ. It is so important to keep repeating this - especially in this day and age - because many have been (probably intentionally and unintentionally) proliferating a lie: that the natural is not part/product of the supernatural, that it is an either/or.

[hosepipe]

[ Truly there is no incompatibility between faith and reason, nor between matter and spirit ]

Every man can reason, how well he does is the question..
Every man has faith, what he has faith in is the question..

Matter very well might be a form of energy, and spirit very well might a form of energy.. The matter / energy duality is not proven completely yet if even possible, so then the spirit link to energy might not be possible to prove either, NOW..

What is provable, even to ME.. is that man can be the most arrogant creature on this planet..
Thinking they are wise they become fools.. buying 2nd reality as if it were 1st reality.. and wouldn't know reality if it jumped up and bit them on their "but"...

[Alamo-Girl]

What is provable, even to ME.. is that man can be the most arrogant creature on this planet.. Thinking they are wise they become fools.. buying 2nd reality as if it were 1st reality.. and wouldn't know reality if it jumped up and bit them on their "but"...

LOLOLOL! So very true!

[TXnMA]

Truly there is no incompatibility between faith and reason, nor between matter and spirit, as some of our correspondents tirelessly insist. They are complementarities that express the whole man, and they do not contradict each other in any way. For both have their origin in God, who is Truth. And truth cannot contradict truth.

Thank you, Ma'am! Those are some thoughts that deserve to be framed, hung on the wall, and pondered -- frequently and prayerfully!

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, it is beautifully and truly said!

[Right Wing Professor]

I don't post on the religion forum. Thanks.

[betty boop]

Oh thank you so very much, TX, for your kind words!

How did the human race get to the point where it could say faith is superstition and thus false, and reason alone is qualified to deal with issues of the truth of reality? Jeepers, I must have missed something....

[betty boop]

I don't post on the religion forum. Thanks.

Too bad, RWP. Do you ever read here? If not, in this case, you're missing out on the first-rate exposition of a world-class philosopher regarding subjects that I know are near and dear to your heart.

Is this some kind of self-censorship you practice?

[Alamo-Girl]

How, indeed. Thank God we are immune to such things. Maranatha, Jesus!

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm not religious, and my interest in religion qua religion is approximately zero. I see no point, therefore, in intruding on a forum where my only comments would be negative or critical.

[betty boop]

Thank God, dear A-G! Maranatha!

[betty boop]

I see no point, therefore, in intruding on a forum where my only comments would be negative or critical.

Well. It would be a start....

[TXnMA]

Most of you are aware that I am distressed by the enormous resources wasted by a large number of our believing brethren who make a crusade of attacking the scapegoat called "evolution" rather than focusing those resources on furthering the work of Our Lord's "Great Commission".

Both of us say, "God Said it; I believe it; and that ends it." and we mean what we say. Unfortunately, many folks hide behind that simplistic declaration, and use it as a shield against faithfully seeking to understand what God really said in Genesis.

Face it: acknowledging that one is "made in the image of God" is heady stuff. It is also dangerous, in that misunderstanding the true nature of God can lead one to hurtful hubris and wasted emphasis on the importance of this mortal body.

IMCO, whether they will admit it or not, the interpretation of Genesis by many "anti-evolution creationists" has been mis-directed and deluded by anthropomorphic images like this famous, but very seductive painting:

One (erroneous) message inherent in this image is that the body on the left was modeled after ("in the image of") the body on the right. Even subconscious acceptance of that message can color a believer's understanding of Genesis so as to place undue importance on how man's physical body arrived at its present state. That is a slippery slope toward hubris and undue emphasis and energy expenditure on antievolutionism.

I know whereof I speak: I was under that selfsame delusion -- until intense study of Scripture and of physical science -- together -- led me to understand why this Commandment,

Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:

Was placed second only after,

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Clearly, the Second Commandment not only prohibits the creation and worshiping of "graven" (frescoed?) images, it warns us away from the dangerous, but mortal, temptation to "put a human face on God", who, according to Scripture, is Spirit. Such anthropomorphism not only degrades God, it elevates man's perception of this earthly body to the point that many feel the need to defend its (non-existent, IMCO) sanctity from any attempt to discern the processes involved in its development.

I find it to be curious, indeed, that many believers who (like I) look forward with hope to our souls' discarding of this frail, aching, fat, skinny, ugly, etc. vessel, perversely defend its genesis as if it were something more than a mere container for their souls and spirits.

To Michaelangelo's credit, the center of his painting is not the fully-formed (evolved from the "dust of the earth"?) and mature body of Adam on the left -- already matured, awake and aware...and reaching out to God. Nor is it the absurdly anthropomorphized representation of God on the right. (Why not a burning bush, or a pillar of fire or smoke or some other form in which God's Spirit has manifested?)

The center of his painting is, indeed, the narrow gap between God and Adam -- bridged by a tiny spark representing the "pneumos" -- the "Breath of Life" -- the Spirit and Likeness of God -- indwelling the first Man whose body and brain were (finally) developed to the point of being capable of housing God's Spirit.

I rejoice in having a spirit and soul, "in the image of God". But I place minimal importance on how my fellow scientists attempt to explain how my soul's mortal transporter reached its present state of development.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually, I have my own explanation for this particular body's sorry state: genetics, old age and bad diet... '-)

[hosepipe]

I Don't know whether to be offended on being called ugly in such a creative style or to be impressed by this bit of wisdom written in your post..

[ I rejoice in having a spirit and soul, "in the image of God". But I place minimal importance on how my fellow scientists attempt to explain how my soul's mortal transporter reached its present state of development. ]

If you are not a comedian, at least you're quite an interesting person read..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights and perspective on the crevo wars - and especially, your testimony!

Seems to me the most combative correspondents on the one side are those who believe reality is "matter in all its motions" - and those on the other side who believe that Adam was the first mortal man.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! When I consider what the human body actually "is" underneath the outward appearance, it's not very pretty to me. And as you have said, it's "needy" - has to have air, food, water, baths, repairs. I'm not suicidal or anything but truly, I look forward to the day my spirit weighs anchor from this body. Then I'll be free.

[LieothVarthes]

Let us revamp... The basic theory for most people of evolutionism has to do with this idea... Without it, there would be no backing what so ever... I simply use it as an example...Not as a purist's bible ideal or anything of the sort...