Theology Not Science
The Church has taught, since the time of Pius XII, in two
encyclical letters that:
(1) the bible is not a scientific document,
but rather, a theological one (Divino Afflante Spiritu – 1943) and
(2) that evolution is compatible with both the
bible and Church teaching (Humani Generis -- 1950)
The Church has long recognized that divine inspiration is not divine dictation.
When God inspires a biblical author, he does so through the biblical author’s human
powers, capacities, and categories. This means that when God
inspired the author of Genesis 1:1 ff, He would have used categories familiar
to a person about 2,800 years ago. These categories were decidedly not scientific.
Empirical,
mathematical Science was initiated by around the late 16th century by Francis
Bacon and others and has developed since that time. The formal
mathematics that we use in contemporary physics (the calculus in particular) was
developed by Newton and Leibnitz after that time. This means that
God could not have meaningfully given a scientific account of the creation or
the development of the natural world to the biblical author, and therefore, we
cannot try to make the biblical account be scientific in the strict sense.
So what was the biblical author doing? He was doing theology. He
is inspired to respond to the accounts of creation implicit in the myths of his
day (e.g. the Gilgamesh epic)*. These creation accounts speak about
many gods, and associates natural objects (such as the sun and the moon) with
gods. They also imply that the gods are capricious and frequently unjust and
that creation can be intrinsically evil. The biblical author is inspired to
redress these theological problems by creating a story which has one God.
This one God creates the sun, the moon, and the stars, and all other natural
objects (hence, they are merely creations). Furthermore, God is just and good (not
capricious) and creates things which are good.
The Intent of Genesis
Therefore, the biblical author’s use of “seven days” is to
be taken as a theological context for the story and not as an attempt by God to
suggest scientific fact. The same holds true for the age
of the universe which physics has very well established to be at
least 13.7 billion years old (since the big bang). One cannot
assert as scientific fact that the universe is a little over 5,000 years old
(by summing the generations in the bible as if the creation of human beings is
coincident with the creation of the universe itself), because the creation of
human beings on the seventh day is part of the theological context
of the story. This was never meant to be a scientific fact,
and it should not be treated as one. With respect to the point about evolution,
Humani
Generis allows Catholics to believe in natural evolutionary processes.
This would allow for evolution on a large scale. However, Humani Generis is
very careful to specify that the human soul is not a product of mere
material evolution. Certain features of the human body may have
evolved from other less developed species, but the human soul is not
matter, and it therefore could not have arisen from a merely
material process.
The Human Soul
There is considerable evidence for the
immateriality of human beings besides our Catholic and biblical
belief in a human soul. For example, there are excellent scientific studies of near
death experiences which indicate the survival of human self- consciousness
after bodily death – E.G., in the prestigious British medical
journal, The Lancet. There is
also evidence of a soul from the transcendental nature of human
understanding, conscience, love, beauty, and spiritual awareness
This kind of evidence (along with our belief in a soul) indicates that God
created the human soul and that this creation of the soul cannot be explained
by evolution (which is a material process). Even if the human body
arose in its early, middle, and late stages from an evolutionary process, it
would have been transformed by an infusion of the soul in its final state.
Darwinian Evolution
So what does this mean about “Darwinian evolution”? If this term
means pure evolution implying those human beings are merely material (and
therefore devoid of a soul and embodiment which is influenced by a soul) then
it would be inconsistent with Catholic teaching and also the biblical account.
However, if it means something else, then that “something else” would have to
be judged according to the Christian beliefs elucidated above.
Conclusion
One final point -- is the biblical account of creation
diametrically opposed to the scientific account of creation? It is not. There
are many parallels. Both accounts allow for a creator transcending our
universe (and even transcending time itself); both accounts see
stages in the unfolding of creation; both accounts recognize that the
universe is fine-tuned for the development of life and even human
beings; and both accounts see human beings (and human intelligence) as the
highest development in the created order of the universe. There are many
other parallels, but these are sufficient to show a general consistency between
scientific and theological accounts. We would not want to make this
general consistency into detailed, specific consistency because this would
force the biblical author (writing 2800 years ago) to be giving a scientific
account.
(*
Gilgamesh is the Priest-King of the
city of Uruk. He is a tyrannical king who works his people to death and takes
what he wants from them. He kills the young men at will and uses the women as
he pleases. The people of Uruk cry out to the gods for help so that they can
have peace.)
No comments:
Post a Comment