Catholic Church's stand on evolution

(taken verbatim from an Op-Ed piece in the nytimes.com)

“Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.” Intelligent design, and argument from incredulity. How sad. July 7, 2005 Finding Design in Nature By CHRISTOPH SCHÖNBORN

Vienna

EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was “more than just a hypothesis,” defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:

“All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”

He went on: “To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.”

Note that in this quotation the word “finality” is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, “It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity.”

Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: “Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason.” It adds: “We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.”

In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of “evolution” as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

The commission’s document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul’s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that “the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

Furthermore, according to the commission, “An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist.”

Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: “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.”

Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the “death of God” that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.

Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of “chance and necessity” are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

“Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

I think Science would say, “How can you tell where design is and where it is not?”, followed by a “prove it”.

I don’t think Science eliminates the possibility of design, it simply doesn’t address it because there is not way to accurately identify, measure, predict, etc. The scimethod is known to not be able to deal with the supernatural. This is not a “secret”. This seems to be the same pattern that goes into the Phillip Johnson debates … he never gets more specific then “design is there” … never addressing the questions of “where?”, “How do you know?”

an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.

IMO, calling evolution “unguided” is inaccurate. Natural Laws guide the process. “Anything” is not possible. Everything follows the laws. Who does the Catholic Church think put those Laws in place? Would that not count as “guided” (or planned?). Just like the term “hypothesis”, the term “random” means something different in Science than it does in everyday language. Random, in science, basically means “not completely predictable”, not “anything and everything can happen”.

"It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy.

Therein lies the big problem with the issue … too many people associate evolution with materialistic philosophy. I agree with Miller, it’s most likely due to loud, vocal, arrogant atheist scientists (Wilson, Dawkins, Dennett, Lewontin, etc) that neatly mesh their philosophy, theology, and science statements in a neat little ball (while speaking and writing), so that it’s hard to see where the Science begins and their philosophy/theology ends (I won’t speculate if it is intentional or accidental). Curiously, Ham, Morris, and others do the same thing. Scientists should make an honest and deliberate attempt to signify when they are speaking of Science and when they are speaking of their opinion, theology, and/or philosophy (I have yet to have anyone, on either side, disagree with that statement … no matter who says it).

I read in an Eldredge book, that stated the majority of scientists are theists (Niles did not give a number or pct) … I’m surprised that they are not more vocal about scientists that mix their science with their theology when speaking on the “behalf of science” (either in public addresses, published books, etc). I don’t know why.

IMO, God could easily be like a modern computer programmer, that writes a program by setting parameters, allows the program to run itself within those parameters (laws), the program changes itself along the way in response to changes in the computer environment, all with the intent to get to a general endpoint … and at that endpoint, it may be very difficult to tell what exactly the initial programmer did, and what the program changed on its own (from what I understand, modern programmers use programs resembling this in real life). Only the programmer would know for certain.

I don’t think Science, in general, has a problem with realizing “intelligence” or “design” … only that no one has presented a meaningful and accurate way of recognizing, deciphering, measuring, predicting, and testing for it. Science answers how, philosophy/theology answers why.

So what’s your point?

Well, let’s put all are religous arguments about science into this nice summary:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm
.