The Evolution Debate

When the topic of Evolution comes up, there are two extreme opinions. One side says that no evolution could have happened because everything was created by God in 6 days. So Evolution is completely impossible. The other side regards Evolution as established truth. For people in this second category, Evolution has conclusively proved the Bible wrong. It seems that one has to choose between the two views. I beg to differ.

Evolution and the existence of God

There is a major confusion about the connection between Evolution and the existence of God. I say that Evolution need not exclude the possibility of God's existence. Rather, it is completely compatible with the existence of God, the Creator. It is not Evolutionists, rather materialists that take the extreme view that Evolution has proved the Theistic claim false.

There is an interesting point that is worthy of note about the compatibility between the so called book religions or Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and Evolution. In both, there is a progression from simple forms to more complex creatures, not the other way around. Only one stream of evolution, a materialistic evolution that happens ultimately by chance is incompatible with belief in a Creator. But evolution is not limited to that interpretation.

Insufficient data

The survival of the fittest presumes the arrival of the fit. Natural selection gives a reasonable explanation about why animals with particular characteristics like moths of a given colour, give way to those having a different colour over a period of time. This much can and has if I'm not mistaken, been measured and observed. But for one species to lead to another is quite another matter - it is a giant leap to take, not backed by sufficient data. And to conclude that this "Origin of Species" happens by complete chance, just on its own? Someone explain the rationale behind this kind of assumption.

We are speaking as if Evolution is established fact. This is not completely true. The test of any scientific theory is empirical data. Anthropologists have found some fossil records of species with different levels of development. However, they have not found sufficient intermediate species to show a clear progression from simple to complex life forms. When the relationships between different elements was expressed as the periodic table, there was some data to show it possible. Later, when missing elements were found, it corroborated what was earlier a possible and plausible explanation. Honest examination of the data for Evolution does not yield the same clarity and prove it indisputable.

Mind over matter?

Here's a mock dialogue with a blind chance Evolutionist:

Evolutionist: Evolution has proved the Bible wrong

Rebel: So you're convinced Evolution is proven fact. You say we all came from apes?

Evolutionist: Yes, we are all products of Evolution. Accept defeat.

Rebel: Why should I?

Evolutionist: You ought to be convinced. It's clean enough to my mind? Doesn't yours.

Rebel: Ah, so you trust your mind, and expect me to trust mine? And you say these evolved by blind chance?

Almost every sane person (in fact even an insane person) trusts his mind. So we believe our minds have a positive ability to understand and know truth chance. It begs the acceptance of deliberate intentional design to direct a possible Evolution to yield our human species.

The Great Mind and our existence

In the true scientific spirit, the search for evidence to verify Evolution - exploring, discovering and examining the data that corroborates or refutes it will continue. Nevertheless, the fact that we exist here on earth and can think and reason bears witness to the fact that there is a Great Mind that willed us to be here. We are deliberately bestowed with intelligence - to be able to think, reason, invent, improve our lives, both individual and collective.

The Galileo Controversy

Many people believe that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for his heliocentric theory, forcing him to recant. I recently read an excellent article about the Commons - software, literary and artistic products here. While praising the sharing of ideas, and intellectual freedom, the author writes:

Scientists learn from very early in their training the faults of suppressing information, perhaps most iconically in the person of Galileo Galilei, who published evidence supporting the Copernican theory that the planets orbited the Sun (primarily his observations of Jupiter’s satellites), and was proscribed and forced to recant his beliefs by the Catholic Church.

Scientists view Galileo in heroic terms, and the Church’s resistance to the Copernican theory was ultimately futile. Without the Copernican theory, we’d have never made it to the Moon. So it is fitting that Galileo’s famous hammer and feather experiment was actually demonstrated by Cmdr. Dave Scott at the Apollo 15 landing site on the Moon.

Galileo is presented as the person who proved the Copernican theory, and the Church as anti-scientific and out-dated. Since neither you nor I were present then, we can only understand about the facts if we delve a little deeper.

Myth #1: The Catholic Church hates science

Scientific discoveries require funding to be sustainable. The Church funded many scientific discoveries over the centuries and many eminent scientists where priests, for example, Georges Lemaitre, who proposed the big bang theory; or religious or sponsored by the Catholic Church. Nicholas Copernicus, who proposed the heliocentric theory was a canon of a Cathedral, and dedicated his work to Pope Paul III. These are just a couple of examples from a whole list of priest scientists.

Myth #2: The Church was afraid that science would prove the Bible wrong

The Church did not immediately endorse Copernicus theory, because She decided to proceed with caution until things were proved conclusively. This is because the Church believes She has been entrusted with the mission by Jesus Christ, to safeguard the truth, so that people may not be misled. So proceeding with prudence, She did not change her stance before time.

The Church does not say that the Bible is a scientific or historical book. Though it contains these aspects, it was written with the intention of showing God's creative, redemptive and salvific action in human history, containing stories, wisdom and lessons to teach people. So interpretation of Scripture should be in the context of what it was written.

Myth #3: Though scientists knew that heliocentric theory was true, the Church rejected it

The accepted theory, not within the Catholic Church at the time, but among scientists, was towards geocentricism. Even Copernicus delayed the publication of his work because he feared ridicule from his colleagues. The Church did not interfere with science first. It was Galileo who interfered with religion first. He said that on the basis of his theory, the Bible is wrong. This was what the Church officials took exception to, not the theory itself. Even so, his trial and arrest were unwarranted.

Myth #4: Galileo was attacked though he did not provoke anyone

Galileo went to Rome to get Church approval, since this would guarantee good publicity for his work. The then pope, Urban VIII, was a friend of Galileo, and agreed.

Galileo placed a character of his making, called Simplicio in the book, who was a kind of joker and fool, and had Simplicio speak the Pope's words. The Pope felt mocked and insulted and Galileo was tried by a court.

Myth #5: The Pope's reaction contradicts papal infallibility

First, papal infallibility is applicable when the Pope is speaking in his public and official capacity as spiritual head of the Universal Church. This happens rarely, for example in the case on a canonization or the promulgation of a dogma. It is not applicable outside this realm, and certainly not in Galileo's case.

Second, the subject of the proclamation should be with regard to faith and morals, which was certainly not true in this case.

Also, the Pope should make a solemn proclamation to be held by all the faithful, and there are well defined, unambiguous formulas in which such teachings are made.

Finally, Papal infallibility is a charisma, personal to the Pope, not communicated to another. But in Galileo's case, the Pope did not personally conduct the trial, rather a certain Cardinal Bellarmine conducted it.

Myth #6: Galileo was tortured into submission by the Church

The reason matters went to such a stage was because of the personal reaction of Pope Urban to what he perceived as Galileo's mockery. Yet, quite contrary to belief, Galileo was treated very well when under house arrest, and was well provided for. The Church does not deny that Galileo's case should not have resulted in arrest and recently, Pope John Paul II apologised for the mistreatment of Galileo, though it was just a personal overreaction of a previous Pope, acting on his own, and outside the scope of his role as pastor of the Church.

Read more at Catholic Answers