Magisterium on Creation and Evolution

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Indeed. This point about "graven" images of God the Creator came up on another post a few days back. By "graven," I understand any graphical depiction of God, which would include paintings, frescoes, and sculptures, but not such images as poetry or psalms, for instance. The only such depiction I am aware of is Michelangelo's, which you show. And I agree that the painting is actually misleading. For here we have the birth of Adam. And the way the artist has imagined this event is as a touching of the divine and mortal fingers, as if a physical "spark" of some kind has been propagated from God and transmitted to Adam. But the transmission of man's full humanity -- that is, his birth as a man -- comes by pneuma, the divine Breath, not by any physical contact between God and man.

Notice there are zillions of paintings of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. But what is depicted is the man's body that Christ employed during His incarnation as Man. And most of the depictions of Christ show the Man hung on the Cross, his body wracked and wrecked, tortured, abused.... There is no "glorification of the body" in such scenes; rather the opposite is the case. The entire message of the Crucifixion is that the Spirit is irreducible to the body; the body is mortal, but Spirit is not. Spirit -- soul -- is of infinitely greater importance. Body can be destroyed; but Spirit, being eternal, cannot.

So I agree with you that the idea of man's being in the image of God does not refer at all to his physical body. He is in the image of God in the likeness of his spirit and his reason to God's. As you wrote, Michelangelo's "anthropomorphism not only degrades God, it elevates man's perception of [his] earthly body."

Notice the word "likeness." In the ancient Greek, the word is syngenes, denoting "alike" or "akin." There is no suggestion of any substantial identity of the two, thus no way to equate them. All that can be suggested by syngenes is that God and man are partners in a "common cause." And not because of the likeness of their bodies (for as you said, God has no "body" that could be imagined by us, for He is Spirit), but because of the fact that man is ensouled, a spiritual being akin to God because of the breath of God at the birth of Adam, which constitutes the human being as a participant in the divine, alone of all the denizens of created Nature.

Michelangelo has painted a powerfully masterful fresco here; but it actually falsifies the subject matter he paints, and thus tends to mislead....

Thank you for your wonderful post, TXnMA!

The basic theory for most people of evolutionism has to do with this [abiogenesis] idea...

Which is a good reason why surveys of what people believe about evolution are so meaningless. "Most people" have no clue about evolution.

Without it, there would be no backing what so ever...

Not sure what you mean. If you mean that without abiogenesis there is no backing for evolution, then you couldn't be more wrong. Many Christians believe God created the first life, and then "guided" evolution just like God "guides" the weather. There's no proof that God guides anything, but it's perfectly fine to have faith that He does.

The fact is that either God created evolution, or God is a liar (the contradiction between Genesis and evidence found in God's creation), or creationists seriously misinterpret Genesis. Evolution has been found in nature in real time, it's been found in historical natural evidence, it has been re-created in the lab, and common descent (a major element of evolution) has been proved by ERV virus DNA segments in primate and human genomes.

Evolution is not an "ism", it is a fact. Deal with it.

Quite an interesting dialog on this.. Images.. and the commandment against them.. Painting a painting IS creating a metaphor.. A photo is an image.. A painting is a metaphor of something, an artists rendering of some "vision".. even a portrait.. A portrait is not a photographic rendering..

A painting then is a spiritual rendering of "vision".. it is indeed a spiritual thing.. Anyone can take a photograph thats mechanical, but not everyone can paint.. thats spiritual.. The condition of that spirit is another matter.. but the point is made.. The finger of man touching the finger of God, are as metaphorical in content and character as any verbal one(metaphor).. maybe more so..

Goody, gives me some bodacious ideas.. i.e. spirit salivating, and jumping up and down, making cool noises.. (I paint you see)

Thank you so much for your excellent essay-post! And thank you, hosepipe, for all of your insights!

I very much appreciate the point that TxnMA raised and betty boop affirmed vis-à-vis Michelangelo’s painting.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto 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 water under the earth:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. – Exodus 20:3-6

There are some who interpret the second statement above separately and differently and thus do not allow sculptures, paintings, photographs or any kind of image.

But most interpret the context is “make unto thee” as in an idol which one would fabricate to worship.

Yet I see value in capturing images to whatever extent the Spirit leads so that others can share in an understanding which sometimes exceeds the power of language per se to convey. Mel Gibson’s the Passion of the Christ is an example as is Pieta - another Michelangelo piece which was acted out in the movie.

Personally, I have received such a beautiful Spiritual image that if I were an artist, I would love to render it in some fashion so that it could be shared. Mine was in answer to a prayer asking about Christ’s death. The image I received was, at the moment He released the Spirit, a brilliant light came from Him and spread over all of reality – all of time – and there were bubbles, innumerable tiny bubbles, rising out of the darkness, disappearing into the Light.

Should He ever give me the gift of art to capture that image, I would love to do so. But it would not be an image to worship but to inspire.

[ The image I received was, at the moment He released the Spirit, a brilliant light came from Him and spread over all of reality – all of time – and there were bubbles, innumerable tiny bubbles, rising out of the darkness, disappearing into the Light. Should He ever give me the gift of art to capture that image, I would love to do so. But it would not be an image to worship but to inspire. ]

I had the same kind of "vision" ugh.. metaphorical image thought.. ugh! oh! you know.. anyway..

I "saw" Jesus being born from Mary not as a baby is usually born.. but as a plasmic light "blob" riseing from her belly so that Mary and Joseph would know that something special happened there(to them AND US).. morphing into a real baby.. Biblically correct?.. of course not.. But who knows.. it worked for me.. and ME is who the thought came too.. LoL.. Was not a negative image at all.. never shared this before.. Was too scared too(when I was a young christian).. So you see deep calleth out to deep.. Answered to me; how could a verible GOD be limited to some human baby, some creature.. I said, to myself, that would have been so cool.. And besides would make the point to a couple of "blue collar" individuals on the immense thing that just happened..

Hmmm.. both images yours and mine MIGHT HAPPEN.. bubbles, heavy mental image.. thank you for your candid remarks, and very open trust with your spirit.. It will not be wasted..

I don’t believe Michaelangelo’s painting (and other such religious art) was meant to be worshipped but to remind worshippers of Scriptures and to inspire them to worship God. Truly, it is a false representation of God the Father – any such rendering would be – and thus it demeans and misleads.... Yet I see value in capturing images to whatever extent the Spirit leads so that others can share in an understanding which sometimes exceeds the power of language per se to convey.... Personally, I have received such a beautiful Spiritual image that if I were an artist, I would love to render it in some fashion so that it could be shared.... But it would not be an image to worship but to inspire.

What a magnificent essay, Alamo-Girl!

Some of my friends of Reformed Chruch persuasion have given me to understand that the Catholic Church especially is given over to idolatry, because of its universal usage of graphic images -- paintings, statues, stained-glass windows, figure carvings, etc. -- in the communication of the mysteries of the Church to the faithful. But these must not be understood as objects that are things-in-themselves such that they could be worshipped. They are not the terminus of the divine communication, but the way through to the gifts of the Holy Spirit that contemplation of the divine meanings they symbolize facilitates.

I wish you were an artist, dear Alamo-Girl, so you could paint your image, your vision, for us!

Thank you so much for your beautiful essay/post.

[ Some of my friends of Reformed Chruch persuasion have given me to understand that the Catholic Church especially is given over to idolatry ]

I was guilty of that very same devisive attitude when younger.. because it seemed that way to me.. There are many things that seem true when young but can be exposed as wild goose chases or worse when a little water under the bridge over the river of life has flowed..

What IS an idol with one, may not be so with another.. One dimensionality is so, so, so earthy.. and limiting.. Could that one dimensioned person NEEDS to be limited.. for everbodys benefit.. Separating sheep from goats might not be a uni-dimensional separation but is a "timing" thing.. there is a time for everything under the sun, a biblical sage said.. How better to understand lack of tolerance than to be intolerant.. Theres a cure for intolerance..

Theres a cure for intolerance.

Dear brother, i would dearly love to know what that is.

In my own understanding, it is just to love God with one's whole heart and soul and mind and strength. Then there's no "room" left over for any thing else, certainly not intolerance.

I don't know if any other sort of "cure" could be efficacious. But the one I recommend is a "tough sell" for many of our brethren these days.

May God ever bless you, pipe! Thanks as always for sharing your thoughts....

Thank you so much for your encouragements and for sharing your testimony!

But these must not be understood as objects that are things-in-themselves such that they could be worshipped. They are not the terminus of the divine communication, but the way through to the gifts of the Holy Spirit that contemplation of the divine meanings they symbolize facilitates.

So very true! Even the most anxious among us would never suggest that God's instructions to Moses on how to build the Ark of the Covenant (especially the Mercy Seat) - ever stood in contradiction to His own commandment.

...The more you know confirms that you know even less.. not the other way around..

Your father and I share that philosophy. In fact, I just passed the 50th reunion of my highschool graduating class, and someone pointed out to me, this "philosophy statement" of mine from our 1955 yearbook:

"As man increases the radius of his knowledge, he expands -- by a factor of 2 pi -- the circumference whereupon he touches his ignorance..."

That concept has remained with me through a long career in scientific research -- and a lifetime of seeking the Holy Spirit's guidance in understanding the Scriptures -- and it has served me well...

Evolution properly understood, you say? Who was it that
"properly" explained it to you?

You are having God intervening at a moment in time, which sounds a bit Deist, for one, and then gifting our "genetic ancestors" (I'm not sure what OTHER kind of ancestors you would suggest there EVER are for anyone!) with reason. I know people who claim to understand evolution quite well who insist that animals like dogs, for example, have reason, too. I don't suppose you are one of those. But you appear to be one who believes that God took a kind of ape, or pre-humanoid of some description (would that be one which has perfections of nature including freedom from sickness, corruption and death?) and imbued it (or would that be "them?") with merely "reason;" I say merely, for you don't mention any other gifts, to apparently effect our "genetic ancestors," which would therefore indicate that the pre-humaknoid(s) plus reason equals man. Are you aware of what that "man" was, with respect to original sin? Would that have been first one man, namely Adam, or, would that have been an unspecified plural quantity of men, symbolized by the mythical Adam, but was in actuality a whole race, as it were, of men?

You are going to have to be more precise if we are to understand each other.

Like I was asking at first, do you know much about original sin, as the Church has taught from apostolic times and by the infallible pronouncements of the popes through the ages?

For one, the popes and councils have not treated the topic of evolution, "properly understood," as you allude, which is why I am bound to inquire from whom it was that you acquired your ostensible confidence. We cannot discuss the relationship between two things when it is not clear whether either of the two things (original sin and evolution) are the same in each of our respective minds. You would be talking about a relationship between A and B, while I'm talking about a relationship between C and D. The two relationships would likely therefore be different, and our discussion would, in consequence, likely be nonsense.

Perhaps you would prefer not to defer to the Church in matters of science, and if so, I have to ask you: are you Catholic?

Please note: if you are Catholic, I do not intend it as any kind of personal insult to insiuate that you don't sound like one. There are numerous priests today who give credence to evolution. I am aware of the problem. And it IS a problem, because those priests are giving scandal to their office and to the priesthood they have vowed to protect, objectively speaking, whether or not they intend to do so. I promise to be patient and as accurate as I am able to be, and if you ask me something I don't know the anwser to, I will find out the answer from most reliable sources.

I don't want to presume I must first describe everything in detail. But I need to know what YOUR description of them is, due to the recent muddied waters in moral theology and various topics like that.

You could be confident, for example, because of your experience in some university, studying diligently under the direction of a very intelligent but morally depraved professor. If you would like to see a conversation that ocurred between a stubborn professor and a rather inquisitive and independent thinking student, I would be pleased to share it with you.

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.