The popes and evolution, part II

Last updated on: January 30, 2013 at 5:11 pm by tmatt

The popes and evolution, part II 2013-01-30T17:11:03-05:00 tmatt

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

It would be hard to name two more radically different men than the late Pope John Paul II and New York Times columnist Frank Rich.

Nevertheless, the acerbic culture-beat scribe did his best to say something positive when biding the pope farewell. At least, said Rich, John Paul II had seen the light on the “core belief of how life began.”

“Though the president of the United States believes that the jury is still out on evolution,” he wrote, “John Paul in 1996 officially declared that ‘fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis.’ “

America’s newspaper of record underlined this in its obituary, claiming that the pope believed “the human body might not have been the immediate creation of God, but was the product of evolution, which he called ‘more than just a hypothesis.’ “

Thus, the cultural powers were flummoxed when Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, an editor of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, wrote a recent New York Times essay that included this statement: “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.”

Schonborn emphasized 1985 remarks by John Paul about the “evolution of all things” in which he said it is impossible to study the universe without concluding there is “a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”

John Paul II continued: “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.”

In the wake of Schonborn’s essay, a circle of scientists petitioned Pope Benedict XVI seeking a clarification. The letter was written by Case Western Reserve University physicist Lawrence Krauss, author of an earlier New York Times essay on the compatibility of Christian faith and Darwinian orthodoxy.

“The Catholic Church,” the letter said, must not “build a new divide, long ago eradicated, between the scientific method and religious belief.” It was especially crucial to reaffirm that “scientific rationality and the church’s commitment to divine purpose and meaning in the universe were not incompatible.”

Part of the problem is the 1996 papal address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, with its familiar quotation that “new knowledge leads us to recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis.”

The question is whether John Paul said “theory” or “theories.” According to official translations, the pope said: “Rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.”

The pope then rejected all theories arguing that humanity is the product of a random, unguided process of creation. Thus, he said that “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.”

At the time John Paul II spoke these words, the National Association of Biology Teachers had officially defined evolution as an “unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process … that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.” Critics said this definition veered beyond science into theological speculation. Thus, in 1997 the association’s board reversed itself and removed the words “unsupervised” and “impersonal.”

This is still the crucial issue today, said Michael J. Behe, author of “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.” He is a Catholic who teaches at Lehigh University.

“The problem is that people can’t agree on what ‘evolution’ means,” he said. “Common origins are not the problem. What the church has never accepted is the idea of a blind, random, meaningless process of creation. The church cannot accept that, because that would be atheism.”

Previous Post

July 13, 2005

The popes and evolution, part I

Next Post

July 27, 2005 Studying the Faithful Consumers

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Anglicanism Announcements books Catholics doctrine evangelicals family life First person Godbeat Islam Judaism Mainline churches Marriage mass media movies Orthodox Politics popular culture religion sex Social issues Uncategorized Web/tech World World religions worship young people

Select a Month July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 October 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 May 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 January 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 February 2000 January 2000 December 1999 November 1999 October 1999 September 1999 August 1999 July 1999 June 1999 May 1999 April 1999 March 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 September 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 May 1998 April 1998 March 1998 February 1998 January 1998 December 1997 November 1997 October 1997 September 1997 August 1997 July 1997 June 1997 May 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 November 1996 October 1996 September 1996 August 1996 July 1996 June 1996 May 1996 April 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 December 1995 November 1995 October 1995 September 1995

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, what did the wise bring?

Select your answer to see how you score.

New clothes Bread Extra oil Wine