A couple of weeks ago, I received a copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to
Catholicism, authored by John Zmirak.
The Politically Incorrect Guides were
a series of several books published on various subjects in the early 2000s by
Regnery Press, a conservative publisher.
These books, called by their fans “PIG’s” for short, are actually quite
informative, and each features a different author who is an authority in a
certain subject area. At this time, I
have approximately six of these books in my own library, as they are concise,
easy to read, and for the most part present a more accurate perspective on a
controversial subject than you will find in most “mainstream” narratives. This PIG on Catholicism is likewise useful,
although there are some issues I do take personal exception with in regard to
the topic of evolution and science, and that will be my main focus here.
First, I feel a little background information on the author,
John Zmirak is in order. He is, for
starters, editor of a Catholic periodical called The Stream, which can be accessed online at www.thestream.org. This periodical is a fairly conservative
journal, and it does have good content.
Zmirak was at one time also the Press Secretary to former Louisiana
Governor Mike Foster and he has also contributed extensively as a reporter and
editor to a variety of other publications.
In addition to this PIG on Catholicism, he has also written at least 11
other books. His educational credentials
include some impressive content as well – he has Bachelor of Arts from Yale, an
MFA and Ph.D. from Louisiana State University and he has taught courses as
well at both LSU and Tulane. In reading
the majority of the PIG he authored, Zmirak generally holds pretty orthodox
Catholic religious views, and is also conservative politically. In all, I would conclude that Zmirak is a
talented writer and also a sound voice of Catholic orthodoxy on a variety of
issues. However – and this is where it
gets more complicated, as not all orthodox conservative Catholics necessarily
agree on all the minors – when it comes to science and evolution, Zmirak
expresses many points that I would disagree with him on, and this is where my
focus will mainly be concentrated.
The section of Zmirak’s book I want to focus on is Chapter
10, entitled “Is the Church Anti-Science?”
The chapter itself encompasses approximately 34 pages, and in order to
see where things differ one has to read the text carefully. The majority of it, on a positive note, is
actually not bad reading at all, as it largely affirms the importance of both
faith and reason as well as making the valid (and truthful) case that in many
cases the Church was on the forefront of scientific discovery. So far, this is all good and actually true –
no Catholic or any other Christian of any denominational tradition would deny
any of this at all. However, when
delving deeper into the “meat” of the chapter, there are a few small things we
are going to address more at length momentarily, but let me just give where
Zmirak is coming from in regard to science first.
While Zmirak is mostly sound and orthodox in the majority of
his theses in this book, when you get to Chapter 10 you quickly find out that
Zmirak would fall into the category of what is called a theistic evolutionist. Theistic
evolution basically asserts that while one can affirm that God did ultimately create the universe and
everything in it (to deny that, regardless of who you are, would be outright
heresy from a Catholic perspective), he also instituted the evolutionary
process and therefore evolution is the reason why creation happened – to put it
this way, for the theistic evolution, God essentially created the process of
evolution, and then it did the rest.
Although a theistic evolutionist would affirm the uniqueness of
humanity, there is a twist to this – God created the apes and then chose a
specific ape to give a soul and spirit to, and thus Adam was essentially a
genetically-enhanced gorilla or chimpanzee.
Therefore, when God injected the soul into that special ape, evolution
took over, and – voila! – Man comes
into the picture! There are a number of
problems with this position and we will address them, but I wanted to make a
couple of important points. First,
despite a very flawed perspective on
creation, a theistic evolutionist is technically still a Christian, and despite
that variance, someone can still otherwise be an orthodox and faithful
Catholic. And, leading to the second
observation, a theistic evolutionist doesn’t necessarily deny God as ultimate
Creator, but rather the person has a faulty understanding as to how the
creative process happened. This
essentially means that I don’t have a problem accepting a person like Zmirak as
a fellow faithful Catholic and a brother in Christ, and I will not dismiss all
the good material he and others who
would share his perspective have produced based on a different view of creation
he has – I think he’s fundamentally wrong, and that his theistic evolutionism
has some gaps, but at the end of the day I still can see he doesn’t deny the
essentials of the faith. I hold a similar
position with fellow Creationists like myself who happen to be in what is
called the “Old Earth Creationist” camp; despite holding to the view that the
earth is billions of years old, for the most part, Old Earth Creationists are
still Creationists – one particular figure that comes to mind is Protestant
Old-Earth Creationist Hugh Ross, who has produced some good material. I have more sympathy for “Old-Earthers” as
well because I used to be one too, and I understand where they come from. The problem I would have with the “Old Earth”
position, however, is that those who hold to it need to face some sticky
theological issues, in particular concerning the origin and present reality of
sin and death. However, that is a
discussion for another time.
One more thing I wanted to add in this lengthy introduction
is to note that not every Creationist ever agrees 100% on everything. Even among us “Young-Earthers,” there are
differences in opinion about such things as the origin of the Genesis 6
Nephilim (some, like myself, hold to a Watchers view while others hold to a
Sethite position), whether the sun revolves around the earth or if it is the
other way around (the Geocentric view, espoused by Catholic writer Bob Sungenis
among others, vs. the Heliocentric view, which is the one I would hold to), or
other such topics that may arise. It is
to actually be expected that differences of opinion on minor points happen, and
at the end of the day, we can still be good friends although we may differ on
the minors – what counts is the major belief
which we all share, that being that God created the universe and everything in
it. That being said, it is perfectly
fine to engage in healthy debate and discussion over minors, as long as we
don’t end up making those minors into majors.
Having established this basic understanding, we can now dive into the
“meat” of our subject.
The first thing I would like to address is found on page 220
of Zmirak’s book, and it is a clear affirmation that science and the Catholic
Church are not in conflict with each other.
That is actually very true, and looking at it Thomistically, here is
why. First, theologians such as Aquinas,
Bonaventure and others noted that God authored two “books,” those being Nature
and Revelation. Revelation, for the sake
of our argument here, is synonymous in this context with Holy Scripture as
whole, while Nature is pretty much self-explanatory. If we introduce supernatural grace (which
comes from God alone and nowhere else) into this, then here is what happens –
Nature will always affirm Revelation,
and in turn, Revelation will always work
to elevate, heal, and perfect Nature. We
see this in Scripture in such passages as Psalm 18:2, 44:6, and 96:6, as well
as passages in the earliest chapters of Genesis where God declared at each
point in his creation of all that is that “it
is good,” and this is also affirmed in mathematical principles such as the
“Golden Ratio” and the Fibonacci Sequence, particularly if one looks at the
particular designs of things such as sunflowers, snail shells, and the structure
of the Milky Way Galaxy itself. These
things bear witness to the fact that natural law has a supernatural source,
which is also a major tenet of another school called Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design (or ID from here on) is not the same as Biblical Creationism,
and that is because of one important difference – ID is based on scientific
evidences, while Biblical Creationism is theological in emphasis. Although Biblical Creationists and ID
proponents are two different schools of thought with even some disagreements,
it is also very reasonable to accept both Biblical Creation and ID as the
framework together of a valid explanation of origins. Rather than being in conflict (which both
some ID proponents and Biblical Creationists seem to miss), I personally feel
that the combination of Biblical Creationism and ID are actually complimentary,
and in my case, I would hold to both myself while at the same time also include
what is called a Christian euhemerist perspective – to explain that, euhemerism
essentially holds that much of the mythology and folklore of many cultures has
at its root something which inspired it, and thus despite embellishment over
time, once the fictional aspects of a subject are stripped away, a core truth
is there which can be accepted. When it
comes to both ID and Biblical Creationism, a euhemerist view of things happens
on topics such as dinosaurs, and if you can be completely honest about it, the
so-called “dragons” that dominate the folklore of many cultures would establish
that these people encountered something, and
what they encountered more than likely were the creatures we today call
dinosaurs. Aside from the foray into
euhemerism and ID, getting back to Zmirak’s premise, he is on-point here by
acknowledging God is the supernatural source of all creation. However, it is when we get to page 22 that we
encounter the first problem with his position, and I want to discuss that now.
Anyone who is familiar with any of the PIG books will note
that in their basic structure they have these little gray boxes inserted at
various points that highlight certain things, and one of those shows up on page
222 entitled “Fourteen Centuries Before Darwin.” Here, Zmirak attempts to use the writings of
St. Augustine to refute a literal reading of Genesis, and he even presupposes
that St. Augustine taught evolution.
But, did he really? Zmirak makes
a few key errors in his assertion at this point and these are errors that can
be easily corrected. First, in my
readings of St. Augustine or any of the other Church Fathers, which I have done
extensively in my own research, I see no evidence
whatsoever that any of them espoused anything remotely akin to evolution. They did differ regarding their
interpretation of Genesis, which is true, as some like St. Augustine would be
aptly classified as “Old-Earth Creationist” while others such as St. Lawrence
of Brindisi, some centuries later would be more “Young-Earth Creationist.” The idea of a Darwinian-type macroevolutionary
process of one species evolving into another was far from their minds, John N
Wynne, in his book A Catholic Assessment
of Evolution Theory (Restoring Truth Ministries, 2013) notes on page 254
that the actual position of St Augustin was that one should never depart from the literal and
obvious sense of except where reason makes it unattainable or necessarily
requires it. That goes back to the
“Fourfold Hermeneutic” principle I have talked about before, in that something
can be both literally true and allegorically valid at the same time.
In discussing how Genesis is to be understood and
interpreted, there are concepts the Church gives us to do so. The most important of these is something
we’ve touched on before elsewhere in my earlier Genesis study called the
“Fourfold Hermeneutic of Scripture,” and we can remember it with the easy
acronym LAMA:
Literal – what it
says in plain language
Allegorical –
what it admonishes us to believe
Moral – what it
compels us to do
Anagogical – what
hope it instills
Theologians and Biblical scholars have literally gotten into
dogfights over the years regarding these, and often try to assert the
prominence of one over the others.
However, in reality, this conflict was never really necessary – on the
contrary, a passage in Scripture can be one or more of these at one time and
still be true, communicating the core truth it was meant to. It is of no surprise that the two pivotal
books of the Bible – Genesis, and Revelation – have been at the forefront of
this. This is a major reason why a
discussion such as this is important, and it also calls into play a harmonious
fusion between faith and reason. The
whole remainder of this discussion will emphasize that very thing. In doing so, I will also be contrasting some
of Zmirak’s positions – particularly those where he asserts that Catholic
doctrine and evolutionary theory have no conflict – with what the Church really
says, and I want to preface that first.
When Zmirak makes the assertion that Catholic doctrine and
evolution are not naturally exclusive, he does take care to note that theistic
and Darwinian evolution are two different things and that Darwinian evolution does conflict
with the Church. Of course, he is
correct, but it also poses some problems – for instance, what if a theistic
evolutionist embraces Darwinism, as many indeed have? Darwinian evolution, as Zmirak correctly
points out, is very secular and even dangerous, as it has been the driving
force behind many of the more nasty policies of some tyrannical regimes in the
last century. It is also the main
impetus behind the eugenics movement, from which the abortion industry has its
roots. What Zmirak fails to note,
however, is that the man who advanced and taught theistic evolution among
Catholics, the late renegade Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), was an
avid proponent of many of those things as well.
Chardin’s influence is oddly absent from Zmirak’s discussion of science
and faith, and that to me was puzzling.
Given that the widespread acceptance among many Catholics of theistic evolution
is due in part to Tielhardism, I find it odd that Zmirak omits any mention of
him in the discussion. Of course, Zmirak
is not by any means a Darwinian evolutionist either, whereas Chardin was, and
maybe as a benefit of the doubt that is why Zmirak doesn’t really include
anything about him in the discussion.
But, here is the fundamental problem:
Although Zmirak rightly rejects Darwinian evolution, he is also
appearing to fail to understand that even the milder theistic evolutionary
views held by otherwise orthodox Catholics are at odds fundamentally with
traditional Catholic teaching and this will now be addressed.
In the year 1959, Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini published a
landmark text evaluating evolutionary theory from a classic Catholic perspective
entitled The Theory of Evolution Judged
by Faith and Reason (historical reprint republished by - Boonville, NY:
Preserving Christian Publications, 2008).
In it, Ruffini provides a lengthy, thorough evaluation of the idea of
evolution in light of historical Magisterial teaching, and his work is
revolutionary in regard to refuting many of Teilhard de Chardin’s errors. On page 85, Cardinal Ruffini gives a very
succinct affirmation of Biblical creation when he affirms that the fact of the creation of all things is
certainly an object of special divine revelation – by that, he means that human
understanding cannot fathom the miracle of creation in entirety, as it preceded
humanity’s creation later. But, as the act of creation sets time in motion, it
gives certainty to the fact that everything started from a certain time. On the following page (86), Ruffini goes on
to note that the distribution of creation
(as he terms it) was a product of divine revelation as well. In short, Ruffini is affirming that the account
in Genesis is historically accurate.
Reading further, Ruffini makes an important point which leads into the
next part of the discussion – the purpose of Creation and its order is arranged
by the Creator for dogmatic/moral reasons and not as a scientific fact. However, that being said, Ruffini also notes
that scientific evidence - often cited by evolutionists in terms of “epochs” –
would affirm the Genesis record. If that
is the case (and I believe it to be so), it provides clarification then for another
argument. Zmirak attempts to make a
point on this based on St. Augustine’s writings, but he both misses the point
as well as affirming Biblical creation without realizing it. It is a well-worn argument used by many over
the years which sort of relegates the Bible to the realm of faith and divorcing
it from reason, which is a fruit of Enlightenment influence we see reflected in
such statements as “the Bible is not a science or history book,” and it is an
argument that has its roots in the secularized mentality of people like Baruch
Spinoza, the philosopher who claimed the Bible is only a religious book and
therefore has no relevance in other areas.
The modern manifestation of that fallacy, which even Zmirak holds, is
that the Bible is not to be relied on for matters of history or science, but
rather is a “book of faith” only. It is
time to address and debunk that now, as it’s a very prevalent argument used by
even some Catholics as well as Evangelical Protestant scholars to diminish the
authenticity of Scripture. We will now
examine that argument.
Zmirak, on page 222 of his book in the gray box entitled
“Fourteen Centuries Before Darwin,” uses St. Augustine to buttress the
assertion that the Bible was only written to teach us faith, not science. People who utilize this argument often state
that the Bible is not a science text or a history book, which we will examine
more shortly. As for now though, let us
deal with Zmirak calling upon the authority of St. Augustine. To counter this, we turn back to what Ruffini
says on page 171 of his book when he notes that St. Augustine studied Genesis
for over 30 years before formulating his insights on it, and in the time he
wrote his many works, St. Augustine demonstrated levels of maturity of thought. Ruffini contrasts, for instance, Augustine’s
thoughts in AD 389 in De Generi Contra
Manacheos, as well as his last work on the subject in AD 415 entitled De Genesi ad Litteram – in the latter,
Ruffini states further on page 176 to note that there is a distinction between
the concepts of creation and administration – God created all in an instant, in
Augustinian theology, but never ceased being sovereign over Creation. What we see here in that context is that God
made living things with the ability to grow and adapt, which a theistic
evolutionist will see as their “aha!” moment.
But, this does not prove progressive evolution, and if anything it
affirms scientific fact that variations within species do exist but that no
species can evolve into a completely different species. So, getting back to Zmirak’s text, we will
take his assertions and respond now.
- 1. Zmirak notes that St. Augustine originally didn’t hold to the idea that the “days” in Genesis were literal 24-hour days. There is some merit to that, but that does not make St. Augustine a theistic evolutionist either. If Zmirak would read this in context, he would see that Augustine did believe in divine creation, and his view is somewhat unique in that it leaves leeway for either a “Young-Earth” or “Old-Earth” Creationist interpretation – Augustine held that the act of creation was simultaneous, but was ordered in minute detail. Rather than making this support for Augustine embracing an early form of theistic evolution, at best it would more likely make him closer to what the ID or “Old-Earth” Creationist proponents hold. This is why we really need to exercise caution using either Scripture or Tradition selectively, as that serves no one well. The overall consensus of the Church for over 2000 years is that a special creation happened – God created everything that exists – and although there were debate and differences in opinion among the Church Fathers themselves over minor details, the conclusion reached by all of them is still the same. So, whether one reads St. Augustine’s works, or those of St. Lawrence of Brindisi (who was a literal six-day Creationist), the end result affirms a cardinal belief – God the Father Almighty is the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things visible and invisible, as the Creed we say at Mass every Sunday clearly states. Again, let me reiterate that no Church Father I have read has ever endorsed theistic evolution, and its prominence is a rather recent phenomenon.
- 2. In attempting to make the case from St. Augustine that Scripture only teaches truths of the faith and not scientific facts, Zmirak makes some errors. First, while it is true that Scripture was not intended to be a science manual or a history book, we also need to remember the principle of non-contradiction, which in metaphysics is based on a Thomistic perspective that we note in Fr. Norris Clarke’s book The One and the Many – Aquinas and Bonaventure, among others, held that God authored two books, Revelation and Nature. Nature affirms Revelation, and Revelation perfects Nature. For the sake of this discussion, this is what it all means – while it is true that the Bible is not a scientific text or a history book per se, true history and true science do bear out the truths of Scripture nonetheless. And Scripture was not designed to be comprehensive history or a science manual, granted – its actual purpose is the revelation of God’s plan for the redemption and salvation of mankind. That is a major reason why in certain parts of Genesis certain historical details are omitted – they are not relevant to the story, and there are other sources to “fill in the gaps” if one is interested in doing so. By reading these other sources (Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees, etc.) it gives a “bigger picture” of what one sees in Scripture and does provide a point of context. Even today, other historical texts are written the same way – for instance, if you were studying World War II and you came across two different histories (for sake of context, one is written by an American soldier, while the other by a Luftwaffe officer who served in Germany), both would be accurate, but both would have omissions of certain details because they would not be relevant to the particular account. But, in putting both together, you get a fuller picture of the event. That is what Scripture is – the focus in it is on salvation history, but the history it records is still accurate and can be corroborated with other sources to get a fuller picture of a particular time.
On these two points, Zmirak’s assertions for theistic
evolution fall apart even more, for in saying that Augustine promoted it he
neglects to read further in Augustine’s works, as Ruffini illustrated. The reality is that Augustine’s views on
variations contradict evolution as he states clearly that a man cannot “evolve”
from a bean, etc. But, a bean can adopt
a different character, and in some areas grow bigger or taller – that is
commonly called microevolution, and microevolution is definitely a reality that
is scientifically proven. So, no, apes
are not “relatives” to us as Zmirak asserts, but they do have a common
Designer, which we, of course, believe to be God.
This also begs another question that a former Anglican priest friend of
ours raised, and I find it valid – if apes “evolve” into people, then why do
apes still exist? I mean, chimps,
gorillas, and orangutans are still around, and no one has even tried to examine
if they “evolved” or what they “evolved” from – it is amazing that only humans seem to be a product of evolution
but time seems to have miraculously stood still for Cheetah while Tarzan
“evolved” into himself – hmmmm!!! A
chimp fossil from antiquity is still a chimp, regardless of if one thinks it is
thousands or millions of years old. That
merits a discussion of its own at some future date.
This now leads to a discussion on first principles. Zmirak and other theistic evolutionists try
to have this both ways in that they acknowledge God is creator and source of
all that is but then they take almost a Deistic approach of demoting God to a
mere clock winder – he created it all, set it in motion, and then sat back to
let it “evolve” on its own. Fr. Chad
Ripperger, in his book The Metaphysics of
Evolution (Norsterstad, Germany: BOD), uses Wovlner’s definition of First
Principles on page 7. It is a three-part
definition, and essentially is set up like this:
- 1. That from which something in some way follows
- 2. Any cause
- 3. Anything that is in any way first even if it has no relationship with later members
On page 8, Fr. Ripperger further talks about “real
principle,” defining such as the principle from which being proceeds. Then there is “logical principle,” meaning a
truth from which other truth proceeds – the last, Ripperger notes, is one that
governs how we come to know a thing, and it is built into the very structure of
our intellect. As God is the ultimate truth,
it is logical to conclude that he is the source of all other truth. That important distinction, as noted on page
15 of Ripperger’s text, is in regard to evolution, and her is why evolution is
not a compatible view with Catholic teaching – evolution dictates that the
existence of a being comes from something lower than itself, but Divine
Revelation suggests a greater intelligence than ourselves is the true source of
our origins (that would be God, if you just tuned in). The violation of the evolutionary position is
in regard to what is called priority of act of potency, which means an act had
to precede the creation essentially.
Despite Zmirak’s assertion on page 219 that Catholic beliefs about
creation do not contradict evolution, in reality, that non-contradiction is
superficial and involves a common observable natural law – this means
procreation of species, etc. In this
area, as we will discuss next, the Darwinian variety of evolution contradicts
itself while many theistic evolutionists have a false assurance that causes
self-delusion on that issue.
While Catholic teaching is certainly not harmonious with
evolutionary theory on a very fundamental level, there are some things where
intersectionality does happen though.
One of the most obvious is the process of procreation. A true evolutionist who accepts the idea of
“natural selection” therefore would technically by their own ideological system
be incapable of supporting things like the LGBT agenda, abortion on demand, or
even the most radical forms of feminism.
If survival and continuity of a species is important (and no question it
is), the evolutionist would naturally have to oppose “same-sex marriage” and
abortion on the grounds that neither of those things does anything to
perpetuate the survival of the species. In
fact, both of those things violate a fundamental principle of evolution, either
of the Darwinian or theistic variety – if you don’t have proper sexuality and
you keep killing your young, you essentially cancel your own existence. What is so odd about that, however, is that
many who believe in what is called “more” evolution (whatever that is!) are
often involved in things that defy the own basic premises they supposedly
embrace. Of course, this is where things
such as eugenics and transhumanism, not to mention the various “third sex”
theories hawked by early homosexual activists such as Karl Heinrich Ulrichs
(1825-1895), a German lawyer who was openly homosexual himself and adopted
Darwinian principles to justify his own sexual preferences. One way he did this was by formulating a
“third sex theory,” which essentially stated that male homosexuals and lesbians
were the way they were because they were “evolving” into a “third gender.” Much of that is still being advocated by the
rise in transgenderism we see in recent years too. Eugenicists such as Margaret Sanger also used
Darwinian evolution to justify abortion – abortion was seen by her and others
like her as a means of removing the “human weeds” from the human gene pool and
thus ensuring the “survival of the fittest” with a little help to accelerate
the process – we see how that ended
with the demonic policies of Hitler’s Nazis.
Although a typical theistic evolutionist such as Zmirak would find all
of this repulsive (and rightly so), in reality, if any evolutionist were honest,
they all should see the actions of Ulrichs, Sanger, and the Nazis as contrary
to basic evolutionary principle – the natural law that supposedly dictates
evolutionary theory could not afford to allow the possibility of a forced
“culling of the herd,” as technically even the weakest member of a species can
supposedly adopt. On pages 220-221 as a
matter of fact, Zmirak actually devotes a very fluent section to repudiating eugenics-based
racism on the same premise. He is right,
of course, but his understanding is still incomplete of the whole
argument.
Any commonalities that evolution and Catholic teaching share
are in reality just verifiable facts that empirically belong to neither. Both do accept the basic facts but come to
different conclusions regarding them.
Any belief system (including evolution) has at its core some truth that,
over time, is elaborated upon but the thought processes of its proponents into
something totally different, although the kernel remains. Many things mentioned earlier we can note in
early cultures – legends of dragons, etc. – can be easily substantiated but
established facts. For instance, the
dragons of folklore are possible references to various species of what we know
as dinosaurs, and the universal flood in Genesis also has corroborations in
other cultures too as a historical reality – in other words, something happened. So, in the same way, we must also be fair to
the evolutionary theory in the same way – we accept what can be verifiable
truth and reject the rest.
What evolution accepts as empirical fact (and it is) on some issues – the necessity of
procreation for a species to survive, for instance – has at its core a
universal principle, and Catholic teaching does not deny that at all. However, we have a fuller understanding of it
from a Catholic perspective due to the metaphysical principles of proportionate
causality that Fr. Ripperger discusses in his book. It also ties into another principle –
resemblance – that Fr. Ripperger discusses in that logically life begets life, and this is where evolution differs
dramatically with the Judeo-Christian perspective of Catholic teaching. In essence, evolution gets the following two
things wrong in this regard:
1. Evolution violates
this principle in that, for the evolutionist, lower life that is different
evolves into a more diverse higher life.
2. Evolution also
gets the process backward in saying that lower – and even non-living substance
– evolves into higher living organisms.
- a. This would violate the principle of resemblance, as nature dictates only a thing can produce something in its own form (or largely similar at the most)
- b. It also violates proportionate causality, in that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. In other words, the cause must be nobler than the effect.
Hence, the reason why I must fundamentally disagree with
Zmirak concerning his assertion that Catholic teaching is compatible with
evolutionary processes because it clearly is not. While it is true that science is not in conflict with the Catholic faith, it is also
fundamentally an error to call evolution “science” in the strictest sense, as
in reality, it is a set of theories based on a non-theistic worldview. While I understand this can be murky territory
(thanks in part to heretical views that have gained tacit acceptance, in
particular, those of the late Teilhard de Chardin), it really should not be at
all – God created the natural order of things, and it is only logical that he
also is the origin of the laws by which Nature operates. For instance, two hydrogen atoms and one
oxygen atom together produce water, and if you heat water at a certain
temperature, it turns from liquid to gas.
On the other extreme, if you freeze water at a certain temperature, it
solidifies to ice. These are observable,
empirical facts that no one could dispute.
Likewise, if you drop a ball off a roof, it goes downward instead of up
– simple gravity, another empirical scientific reality. On a more complex level, design too has
mathematical and physical laws that determine different things – a snail shell,
a sunflower blossom, and the structure of the Milky Way Galaxy, for instance,
can all be calculated using what is called the Fibonacci Sequence, and the
proportions of the human face can be measured using what is called the “Golden
Ratio” (equaling 1.618). Many of these
fundamental principles of chemistry, geometry, etc., were discovered by men of
faith, and today they are universally accepted and readily observable. So no, Judeo-Christian faith is not anti-science; it is just through
supernatural grace we have a fuller understanding of how it works, that is all.
Now, seeing it from that perspective, the Church tells us
that we can discuss evolution and other systems of thought without accepting or
agreeing with them. It is important to
know what these things are (a “know thy enemy” principle if you will) so that
we may more intelligently address them.
But, the Church has never espoused or presented a dogmatic official
position on evolution, although many wrongly assume that Catholics accept
theistic evolution. On the contrary,
people need to understand more clearly what the Church actually says, and
essentially it can be reduced down to two things (CCC 159, 2293, 2294):
1. We cannot
ignore that these views exist, but we must also inform ourselves as to what they truly entail.
2. While
accepting evolution is not fully possible, it is acceptable to find common
areas with it and use these as
both a tool of education and evangelization
(also true with other beliefs and traditions).
3. The basis
of the Church’s belief is enshrined in the historic Creeds, and they all affirm
God as Creator of all, visible and
invisible.
If we understand the above properly, then encountering a
person who believes the evolutionary view should not be threatening, but rather
an opportunity for debate, discussion, and even evangelization. Many people who hold to false views on
anything do so because they have a skewed understanding of God, Christianity,
or the Bible. Our witness to them, as
Catholic Christians, is to show them the truth, and it opens doors when we do
so. But, a great responsibility is
entailed – we must present accurate truth,
and not one tainted with bad theology.
This is why, as II Timothy 2:15 admonishes, we are to “study to show
ourselves approved.”
In conclusion, I now want to offer a few closing
thoughts. First, I concur with Zmirak
that faith and science are not mutually exclusive and are not in conflict. However, I also would assert that the theory
of evolution, in particular, is not compatible with Catholic faith, as evolution
is a theory only and not viably scientific.
Third, although I think that Catholics who believe in theistic evolution
do so in error, if they are orthodox in other aspects of faith then they are
still validly Catholic. Zmirak’s book is
a good example of this – aside from the theistic evolution discussed in some
sections, his book is indeed a valuable resource. Fourth, although some writers (including
Zmirak) attempt to justify their views on theistic evolution by appealing to
St. Augustine and other Church Fathers, in reality, many of the Church Fathers
would actually reject theistic evolution – there were legitimate areas of
debate and difference among the Church Fathers regarding how the term “day” in
Genesis was interpreted, but no Church
Father in their writings ever endorses any form of evolutionary theory. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of
the Fathers were very much creationist in their thinking, as they all would
quickly affirm that they believe God created the universe. Many may have possessed what we would call
today an Intelligent Design approach to creation, but there were certainly none
of them who would have said men came from monkeys. And, further, all would maintain that humanity
is a special and unique creation in God’s image. Fifth, metaphysics suggests that evolution is
not possible, as it is not logical for something to “evolve” from a lower life
form into a higher one that is completely different. A higher intelligence, a “Designer” if you
will, is evident in all creation, from the tiniest atoms to the most massive
star in the universe. That all being
said, it is, therefore, conclusion to note that it is illogical to even
entertain the notion that one species “evolves” into another, and
macroevolution is not scientific in that it is not observable. That being said, variations within species
(microevolution) is an observable
fact and is also scientifically verifiable, but despite how one member of a
species may be bigger or a different color, it is still the same creature. Finally, where commonality does exist with
the Judeo-Christian worldview regarding some aspects of evolutionary theory, it
is perfectly fine to acknowledge it, and it is also acceptable to examine and have
a good knowledge of evolutionary claims.
However, despite apparent commonalities, those should always be viewed
as being from a supernatural source for the natural law that made such
commonalities a reality and does not validate evolutionary theory in
totality. These points will therefore
both summarize a response to some of Zmirak’s content, as well as providing
further detail on the difference between these matters by appealing to both
faith and reason, Revelation and Nature, and in the end one confirms what the
other perfects. Thanks again for
allowing me to share it with you.
(Originally written 9/20/2019)
