1 2 3 4 5 6

Robert Sungenis Responds

Philip Porvaznik (Theistic Evolutionist)
vs
Robert Sungenis (Six-Day Creationist)

P. Porvaznik: Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth, a Catholic Perspective

The purpose of this article is to reveal the scientific evidence in favor of an old earth and (more controversial) macroevolution (defined as "the theory of universal common descent with gradual modification"). Much of my material I have borrowed from the comprehensive TalkOrigins.org site, as well as the books I have listed below. I will be quoting a young-earth Catholic creationist (who takes the first chapters of the book of Genesis quite literally) and respond to some of his criticisms and confusion over science, Catholic theology, and the Bible.

Popes John Paul II and Pius XII on Evolution and Origins

In October of 1996, Pope John Paul II addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences with a statement on science, evolution, and its implications for philosophy and theology. The message reads in part:

 

R. Sungenis: There are two things to consider in reading the pope’s statements to the Pontifical Academy of Science. First, they hold no binding authority on any Catholic, but are simply statements of pastoral of advice to the PAS, mainly because the PAS is made up of scientists, many of them either agnostic or atheist. Second, the speeches to the PAS are usually not written by the pope himself, but are drafted by the PAS president, and then given to the pope to read. Hence, they often contain scientific assertions that reflect the status quo of modern science as understood by the PAS (which is almost invariably bent toward evolutionary theory). We should not expect the Academy to say anything differently to the pope, since all 80 of them, which elect their own members without reference to “race or religious creed,” are evolutionists, with not a single Creationist permitted in their ranks. That being the case, we can understand Archbishop Luigi Barbarito when he spoke for John Paul: “About this body I would say that it has no authority in matters of faith and doctrine and expresses only the views of its own members who belong to different religious beliefs.”

To show the bias of the Pontifical Academy of Science, in 1982 it made a general statement to the public: “...we are convinced that masses of evidence render the application of the concept of evolution to man and other primates beyond serious doubt.” Yet just two years prior, the two leading evolutionists in the world, Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge, after taking account of the utter failure of modern science to show any credible evidence of intermediate fossils between one species and another, stated most succinctly: “the lack of intermediate fossils is the trade secret of paleontology.” In 1977, Gould wrote in the American Museum’s monthly magazine, Natural History, an article titled “The Return of the Hopeful Monster,” in which he admitted that Goldschmidt’s former theory would have to be embraced due to the lack of fossil evidence.

Since then, and just prior to 1996 when the pope gave his address to the PAS, still, no one has found any intermediate fossils. So it remains a mystery as to what “new evidence” is making evolution “more than a hypothesis.” In fact, so much “new evidence” has been accumulated against evolutionary theory, including Catholic Guy Berthault who has clear evidence refuting evolution’s interpretation of the geologic column, that one would have to hide from it not to see it. Yet time and time again, the PAS simply refuses to consider any other “evidence” than their own evolutionary “hypothesis.” Not one scientist who holds to Creationism is allowed to be a member of the 80-member PAS. Obviously, Pius XII’s words are not being heeded.

The pope continues:

"Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani Generis [Pope Pius XII, 1950] considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return."

R. Sungenis: Here is the first indication that someone slipped wording into the PAS address that Pius XII did not say. Pius XII did not say that evolution was a “serious hypothesis” and neither did he say that a six-day Creation (the only other option) was an “opposing hypothesis.” The only time Pius XII uses the word “hypotheses” is in a caution against allowing the assumptions of science to determine truth. He writes in Humani Generis:

35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of HYPOTHESES, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

Porvaznik: JPII begins this section by reminding us that the encyclical of Pius XII considered the theory of evolution worthy of investigation and in-depth study, but on the condition that evolution should not be considered "certain" or "proven" or that it contradicts or totally prescinds divine revelation. Before I continue with the JPII message, I want to summarize the teaching of the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. Pope Pius XII can be summarized as follows:

R. Sungenis: Pius XII neither said that evolution is “worthy of investigation” or “in-depth study,” since those words are not found in the encyclical Humani Generis. He simply said “Church does NOT FORBID that...research and discussions...take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution. He did not encourage it, or consider it “worthy” or require an “in-depth study,” but simply allowed those who wished to investigate it to do so.

Here is what he said:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”

In fact, Pius XII said, if one is going to do an investigation, he must reveal the evidence for AND against evolution. Is this what we see today in Catholic circles? Not anything close. Evolution is accepted as fact among most “investigators,” yet it doesn’t have any proof. Pius XII noted this himself:

“However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Porvaznik: (1) The question of the origin of man's body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church's right to define matters touching on Revelation.

(2) Catholics must believe, however, that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.

(3) All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism," the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans [that there were many Adams and Eves].

R. Sungenis: Unfortunately for Mr. Provaznik’s appeal, most Catholics who believe in evolution and teach in our seminaries and universities believe in polygenism.

Porvaznik: Now we continue with the 1996 JPII message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the [Humani Generis] Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

R. Sungenis: Unfortunately, the pope didn’t specify what “new knowledge” he has been told by his advisors that makes evolution “more than a hypothesis.”

The pope continues:

"What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified, it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

R. Sungenis: And thus, the tenets of the theory of evolution must be “rethought,” since it has been 150 years running since Darwin proposed his theory but which theory has produced none of the required evidence – intermediate fossils. Darwin himself said in 1859 that if the intermediate fossils could not be found, then evolution was false.

The pope continues:

"Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy. And, to tell the truth, 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. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology."

(Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996)

R. Sungenis: If there are “several theories of evolution,” then evolution cannot be “more than a hypothesis,” since the latter would require one theory that has ascended above all the rest and to which neither the word “theory” or “hypothesis” can be used to describe it.

Porvaznik: One translation of the above text can be found at the Catholic Information Network site -- another translation from the French is James Akin's Nazareth site. NOTE: Some translations read: "more than one hypothesis" -- James Akin has confirmed that "more than A hypothesis" is the correct translation -- the original French reads: "Aujourd’hui, pr Ps d’un demi-si Pcle apr Ps la parution de l’encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent B reconnaître dans la théorie de l’évolution plus qu’une hypoth Pse." A Vatican news report from 1996 clarifies:

"VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The English-language edition of the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, has pointed out a discrepancy in its translation of a message by Pope John Paul II on evolution...U.S. Father Robert Dempsey, editor of the English-language L'Osservatore, said Nov. 19 that the newspaper had published an overly literal translation of the French-language message that 'obscures the real meaning of the text.' The pope's real meaning, he said, was that it is now possible to recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis. This was also the meaning provided in the official Italian translation, published Oct. 23 by the daily L'Osservatore Romano."

The translation from the French that the theory of evolution is "more than a hypothesis" lines up with the context of the next sentence which states that "this theory [singular] has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge" and further that the convergence of the results of independently-conducted scientific work "is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory" [again singular]. JPII does later suggest "we should speak of several theories of evolution" but in the sense of the possible mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, etc) and the various philosophical constructs and viewpoints of people who accept biological evolution (materialist/naturalist, reductionist, spiritualist/theistic, etc).

R. Sungenis: It makes little difference, since there is no “new evidence” that makes evolution “more than a hypothesis.” A “hypothesis,” according to the dictionary is: “something assumed because it seems likely to be a true explanation.” So if evolution is MORE than a hypothesis, that means it is a definition even closer to fact than a hypothesis. As such, what other level of supposition is there between a hypothesis and a fact? And what other “new evidence” has pushed evolution out of the hypothetical realm and either into or closer to the factual realm? Would Mr. Provaznik care to tell us?

Porvaznik: The relevant sections in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) on origins, faith and science read:

159. Faith and science: "...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." [ Vatican II GS 36:1]

283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers....

284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....

According to the Catechism, there is no conflict between honest science and faith because God is the creator, ruler, and sustainer of both: the things of the world and of faith derive from the same God; science has splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age of the cosmos and the development of life; and religion, faith and revelation provide us with the meaning of our origins which is beyond the proper domain of natural science.

R. Sungenis: That’s right. True science will never conflict with theology, but that just begs the question, does it not? Whether evolution is true science is the question at issue.

But now let us look at what the Church has said before the statement “evolution is more than a hypothesis” was uttered to the PAS in 1996.

Lateran Council IV and Vatican Council I assure us that all things, visible and invisible, were created in the six days of Creation week, and there is nothing being created by God at the present time.

Lateran VI says: Firmly we believe and we confess simply that the true God is one alone, eternal, immense, and unchangeable, incomprehensible, omnipotent and ineffable, Father and Son and Holy Spirit: indeed three Persons but one essence, substance, or nature entirely simple. The Father from no one, the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from both; without beginning, always, and without end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the Holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal and omnipotent and coeternal; one beginning of all, creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body. For the devil and other demons were created by God good in nature, but they themselves through themselves have become wicked. But man sinned at the suggestion of the devil.

Vatican Council I says: If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, or, shall have said that God created not by a volition free of all necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves Himself, or, shall have denied that the world was created to the glory of God: let him be anathema.

In 1441, the Council of Florence stated in its decrees: "God...is the creator of all things visible and invisible, who, when he wished, out of his goodness created all creatures, spiritual as well as corporal; good, indeed...since they were from nothing..."

In 1860, the Council of Cologne condemned the idea of human evolution in very straightforward words: "Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that...those who...assert...man...emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.”

Pope Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, remarks how the theory of biological evolution has infected theological studies:

"First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact change, and in this way they pass to what may be said to be the chief of their doctrines, that of Evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject - dogma, Church worship, the books that we receive as sacred, even faith itself..."

Pope Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus in 1893 stated:

"The commentator...must carefully observe the rule...not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires, a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate."

Accordingly, the 1994 Catholic Catechism, in quoting St. Thomas Aquinas from the Summa Theologica, says in paragraph 116:

"The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and... ‘all other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.'"

Pope Leo also explained in the same encyclical:

"Moreover, the literal sense itself frequently admits other senses, adapted to illustrate dogma or to confirm morality."

1 2 3 4 5 6