VATICAN CITY - A professor at a Vatican-sponsored university expressed dismay Tuesday that some Christian groups reject the theory of evolution — implicitly criticizing the literal interpretation of the Bible.
Further emphasizing the official Catholic stance, a Vatican official restated the Church position that evolution is not incompatible with faith.
Both men spoke at a press conference ahead of a March event aimed at fostering dialogue between religion and science, and appraising evolution 150 years after Charles Darwin's landmark "On the Origin of Species."
The forum is being organized by Rome's prestigious Gregorian Pontifical University, which is highly influential in Vatican circles, and by the University of Notre Dame in the U.S. state of Indiana.
Popes going back to the mid-20th century have "recognized the scientific value of the theory of biological evolution," Gennaro Auletta, who teaches philosophy of science at the Gregorian, told reporters. "Greater understanding and assimilation of such subject matter by clergy and faithful has been hoped for."
"I would like to point out that unfortunately one cannot say that about the faithful of all Christian confessions, as media reports indicate," Auletta said.
Auletta appeared to be referring to stories about fundamentalist churches that maintain a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the belief that the world was created in six days.
Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasi told reporters that: "One thing is sure. Evolution is not incompatible with faith."
"Creationism from a strictly theological view makes sense, but when it is used in scientific fields it becomes useless," Ravasi said.
Quoting the late Pope John Paul II, Ravasi said that "evolution can no longer be considered a hypothesis."
Pope Benedict XVI warned last week against fundamentalists' literal interpretations of the Bible. The pontiff told a gathering of intellectuals and academics in Paris that the structure of the Bible "excludes by its nature everything that today is known as fundamentalism. In effect, the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text," Benedict said.
Benedict, in a book published last year, praised scientific progress, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions that science alone cannot answer. In the book, he stopped short of endorsing what is known as "intelligent design."
Intelligent design proponents believe that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force, rather than evolving from more primitive forms.
Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, an influential cardinal considered close to Benedict, has condemned a U.S. federal court decision that barred a Pennsylvania school district from teaching intelligent design in biology class.
Schoenborn has said he wants to correct what he says is a widespread misconception that the Catholic Church has given blanket endorsement to Darwin's theories.
Associated Press Writer Daniela Petroff contributed to this report.
RSS
viking, thanks for those encouraging words and even though some of your posts are way too deep for me from a scientific viewpoint I do appreciate your thoroughness as you share your views.
JoeU,
Hi. I am not qualified to discuss with you the issues you raise regarding catholic doctrine but in regards to "scientific reasons" I would like to suggest a few things in relation to your statement.
"Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life."
Of course contrary to misconception and popular belief in some quarters the theory of evolution which deals with biodiversity of species not the origin of life makes no such claim as you purport. The theory of evolution simply does not claim to be able to address the question of how life began and therefore any criticism based in this area is irrelevant. While there are many hypothesis of how life itself originated on earth non rise to the level of a universally accepted theory which adequately explains the observed phenomena or survives experimental scrutiny and so these are legitimately subject to criticism. However none of those is evolution.
"The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings."
While the above may seem at first glance to be sensible in fact the second statement is a logical non-sequiter to the first statement. In other words it does not logically follow. Let me demonstrate with a set of similar statements.
Trees do not sprout and grow "spontaneously" in the forest. Therefore there is no "natural process" whereby trees could exist in a forest.
As you can see you have "spontaneous" development with any "natural process" as if they are equivalent. This is simply not logical or true.
Third your statement contains an allusion to another popular misconception and untruth regarding the theory of evolution. you include the phrase or "chimpanzees into human beings." Contrary to the implication of your statement and to popular distortion the theory of evolution makes no such claim and in fact would deny that such a transformation was possible.
Which brings me to the suggestion that another reason could be added to why some people reject the theory of evolution. Because it has been misrepresented and distorted in popular culture many people simply do not know what it actually claims and do not understand the science that it is based on.
Believer,
thanks for your response. Also thank you for your first response remonstrating me regarding the appearance of arrogance. I need to be more sensitive to how posts "sound" at the other end. Finally let me say as you say while we agree to disagree I highly respect the fact that you base your views squarely on your beliefs and interpretations of biblical teachings. Keep well and while these discussions are interesting and diverting I know you will also stay primarily focused on sharing the Gospel of Christ.
Why are "Christians Rejecting Evolution" ?
Many (Catholic) Christians are rejecting evolution
for various reasons, including:
1.) Scientific reasons:
- Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.
- The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings.
2.) Traditional Catholic Teaching about Origins?
- Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)
- Genesis contains real historyâ
viking, thanks for your responses and as I said needless to say there are issues we can and do choose to agree to disagree and once again my interpreting your response to JC as being arrogant as opposed to simply stating a preference for not pursuing a discussion where the end result is pretty much known i do offer you my apology. That is one thing that posting lacks is the ability to fully hear others posters from an emotional and additudinal, if that's a word, perspective.
Polska13,
thanks for your response. I find that we disagree in some areas but agree in others. I will focus on where I see agreement. First I would say we both believe in a creator who is the originator of all the universe. Second I believe you would agree that this creator does not lie to us. Third you say that mostly God works in small still ways which I agree with as well.
Here let me expand on these with some further beliefs which I feel you might share. In keeping with the truth that god does not lie to us I believe that the creation itself is a message or telling to us by God. This being so things we discover reverently using the gifts he has given us to observe and understand his creation are also not lies. For example we have learned that contrary to superstition of some early groups of men lightning is not a weapon that angry petty dieties use to punish humans they are unhappy with.
God has given us the faculty not only of faith but also of reason. I believe that far from being incompatible that reason complements faith. Faith can inspire science and science can inform faith. I believe that any conflict between God's inspired word and God's revealed creation is a false conflict that arises from our misunderstanding not from God's revelation through word or creation. I have the feeling way may be together so far.
Now here is where I believe we differ. I believe the error in understanding is sometimes in the understanding of the revelation of creation (as in the view that the sun orbited the earth) and sometimes it is in our interpretation of the revelation of the word (as in my belief the view of a literal interpretation of Genesis). In closing let me say that my belief in God and faith in redemption through Christ is neither dependent on nor disturbed by the science of biodiversity and the theory of evolution.
Hi believer regarding secular humanism,
I think that idea regarding if "macro-evolution" (by which I take you to mean the process by which differing species arise as biologically distinct from common ancestors) is disproved then secular humanism is "dead in the water" is an unhelpful and even dangerous ground to try to stand on.
First let me say that to the extent that Secular Humanism is founded on an atheistic belief it is ultimately self defeating and void of a sustainable ethic (dead in the water). Ultimately all belief systems must face the existential question "is this all there is, is there nothing more" Eclisiastes dealt with this topic pretty thoroughly and is the best biblical answer I know to secular humanism. In modern philosophy and psychology Frankl's work that he began while a prisoner in a German concentration camp is helpful in understanding the limits and failings of secular humanism.
This is the ground on which atheistic secular humanism can be properly fought. However many secular humanists are not closed to a faith in God and ultimately reconciliation to god through Christ. Rather they are agnostic and thus are ground for the spreading of the word. However denouncing their entire world view (which many aspects of agree with Christ's teachings on man's treatment of man) does not bring them closer to Christ but often drives them from the hearing of Christ's message.
It dismays me that organizations such as ICR and others spend so much effort and time comming up with convoluted pseudo science attempts to prove the theory of evolution wrong in a vain hope that this will undermine the foundations of secular humanism. Secular humanism existed long before and completely independent of the scientific discoveries and observations which support the explanation of biodiversity known as the theory of evolution.
So no I would not agree with your statement in this area.
Believer regarding the "evolution camp". First my view is that there is no monolithic evolution world view. Some people will distort and misuse knowledge or truth to support a position which it does not. In fact even supposed Christians have been known to used the Bible to support such things as hanging Quakers in the early period of our country, justifying the continuation of slavery, etc. This does not mean that Christ's message was false just because those persons distorted and misused the teachings.
While I must be clear the understanding of the biodiversity of life called evolution is science not faith it to can be perverted and misused by those with either malice or ignorance.
My daughter had a science teacher in high school who told his students that women had an extra layer of fat becuase in "cave man times" while the men were away hunting the women would run into the ocean to escape being eaten by dinosaurs. The level of ignorance and misinformation included and implied by this statement is enormous.
similarly many elementary teachers and even textbooks tell children that we have seasons because the earth tilts "back and forth" on its axis. Again a dramatic display of scientific ignorance.
To the extent that you have experienced educators or others confusing the scientific explanation of biodiversity (evolution) with a theory or explanation of the origin of life (biogenesis) they are either ignorant of the science or they are intentionally misusing the science for ideological purposes. I have to say I place both atheists claiming evolution disproves god and theists claiming science proves god into this category. The bottom line on that by there very nature science can not prove or disprove the existence or non existence of God. Just as Faith can not prove or disprove a scientific fact or theory. Recognizing this I also believe without conflict that faith can inspire science and science can inform faith.
Now that being said as I would say to Denzel in the science and history courses you refer to "you had poor instruction with bad information and sloppy thinking"
Believer hi sorry for the delay in responding I was out of internet contact for a little while.
I agree with your identifying the Nail in our discussion. I believe the Bible is literally the inspired word of God but not that all parts of it are intended to be read as literally true. I believe this in fact no one believes every passage is intended to be read literally (i.e. Christs parrables, the poetry of Psalms etc.) but that there is honest disagreement between persons of faith on where the line is that seperates the literal and the metaphorical or allegorical in the bible. For myself I believe the spiritual truths of Genesis regarding the relationship of Man and God are more important than the literal issue.
Thank you for clarifying your view of Genesis two as literal. As you know I do not share this view but I think I understand your position. You explain the textual conflict arising from a strict literal reading in terms of the differing intents or emphasis of the passage based on an interpretation of the purposes of the writers.
5When no(D) bush of the field[a] was yet in the land[b] and no small plant of the field had yet sprung upâ
11And God said,(H) "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
God said let the earth SPROUT forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees. Clearly the term sprout indicates growth of the plants. God did not just instantaneously put plants on the earth but planted them to sprout forth.
The earth brought forth vegetation, etcâ
Thanks b, I appreciate you filling me in on that.
Steve
steveh20, I always appreciate your sharing what's happening in England on these issues. As for in the States in my personal experience where I attended school as well as where many of my friends went it was presented as the probable way life started, but as I told Viking that seems to have changed among evolutionists.
believer
I hope you don't mind if I interject here but in England when the big bang is referred to in classes it is in association with the origin of the universe and the formation of particles etc...nothing to do with the origin of life at all, which is the correct aproach. It may be a cultural thing but in the states when it is referred to in class is it to do with the origin of life then?
Thanks for bringing me up to speed on this.
Best wishes
Steve
viking, as much as I disagree with for lack of a better term macro-evolution I do agree that faith with regards to God should not be an issue. But would you agree that if you disprove macro-evolution secular humanism is pretty much dead in the water?