Science and the Church - New Evangelizers

Bill Nye the Science Guy recently made news when he said that not teaching kids evolution is “harming” them. His exact words:

“And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them.”

How can we respond to that as Catholics? Is Catholicism incompatible with evolution? In part it depends on what he means by “evolution”. Most people hear evolution and think Darwin, but Darwin did not invent the idea, nor is his version the only theory of evolution.

For instance, Anaximander developed a theory of evolution around 500 BC. What made Darwin’s version unique was that he insisted that God had no hand in it. Of course, that’s something that is rather unprovable, but many people hold it to be “settled science.”

As Catholics we recognize that God gives us knowledge through various channels. One of these is divine revelation, as recorded in sacred scripture.

But He also gave us the natural world, and there is much we can learn about him through the study of science. The goal of both science and religion is truth, and truth cannot contradict itself.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), Pope Pius XII affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain points.

Pope John Paul II wrote of this also in his Message to the Pontifical Acadeny of Sciences: On Evolution:

Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of “evolutionism” as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return.

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”

And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.

As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.

Consequently we are not to disregard the truth revealed by science, nor the truth revealed by God, but to understand that each tells us different things about reality. Science can never resolve a question of morality any more than the Bible can decide the laws of physics. Catholics are free to believe in evolution provided we understand that God created us, and that we actually had a first mother and father.

Oddly enough, studies of mitochondrial DNA provide evidence that the entire human race did come from a single female at some point in time. Although some scientists are quick to add that there were other human females alive at the time (which, if true, just means that there was been an earlier “Eve”).

The fact is, some scientists will always proclaim Christianity to be “anti-science” when in reality it is they who are simply “anti-religious.”

For instance, one hundred years ago scientists were certain that the universe existed eternally, and that the Bible was therefore wrong. It was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, who showed that Einstein’s theories indicated that the universe must have a beginning. He was ridiculed by people like astronomer Fred Hoyle, who derisively labeled the idea “the Big Bang theory.”

Well, we know how that turned out. Hoyle not only had to eat his words, but eventually came to believe in God. Now, cosmologists like Sean Carrol claim that the Big Bang is just one way that science is doing away with the concept of God. But far from doing that, the beauty of the laws of physics point towards a creator, not away.

I’ll leave you with this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 159:

Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

Copyright © 2012, Michael Lindner

Michael Lindner

Mike is a scouter, a science geek, a dad, a husband and a Catholic. He earns a living as a software engineer in beautiful New Jersey. In his spare time (ha ha) he muses at his blog What Does Mike Think? He is not a writer (which will be painfully obvious after reading his posts) but feels called to apologetics and evangelization anyway. You have been warned.