The Origin of the human Family (part III)
§ And thus we must conclude that evolution in no way can be called an objective science. I see it even standing in a long tradition of ‘magical’ thinking like astrology, alchemy and the idea of spontaneous generation of lifeforms, which incidentally was only really discredited by the great catholic scientist Louis Pasteur in the 19th centure; so around the same time the evolution idea took off…
But then why do so many still cling to the 'truth' of evolution? [NB according to CS Lewis even ”the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehoods that now rule our lives,” see:
www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/memories-letters-that-clarify-c-s-lewiss-dismissal-of-evolution-central-and-radical-lie-donated-to-belfast-u]
A complete answer to this is undoubtedly complex, but I think the following statements by some prominent scientists already paint a pretty good picture:
* Richard Dawkins: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually accomplished atheist.”
✓ Michael Ruse (prof of Zoology and Philosophy, University of Guelph): “Evolution has been portrayed by its proponents as more than just science. Evolution has been proclaimed as an ideology, as a secular religion, as a mature alternative to christianity, with a purpose and a moral. I am a convinced evolutionist and an ex-christian, but I must admit that regarding this one charge the critics are right. Evolution is a religion. This was the case from the beginning and it is to this day of today.” [NB I cannot avoid the impression that for many Christian scientists, on the other hand, there is a (misplaced) 'Galileo trauma' at play...]
◦ Ken Miller: ”the whole notion that biology is wrapped up in the idea of evolution is extremely important to experimental biologists because otherwise, to paraphrase another scientist, biology is nothing but stamp collecting.” [NB see: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defense-evolution.html; the ”other scientist” is Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937 AD) who arrogantly claimed at the beginning of the 20th century: “all science is either physics or stamp collecting."]
∆ Thomas Dwight (anatomy prof, Harvard, 1843-1911 AD): “The Zeitgeist's tyranny regarding evolution is overwhelming to an extent unknown to outsiders; it has not only affected our way of thinking, but there is oppression as in the days of terror; how few science leaders dare to speak the truth about the state of their own thoughts; how many feel compelled to publicly pay lip service to a cult they don't belong to or believe!"
¶ Richard Milton (about Dawkins): “He is the classic example of a boss of the Brain Police. The Western scientific establishment and the mass media pride themselves on having open forums for the public, without any prejudice or censorship. However, neither in America nor in England has there ever been a TV program giving attention to the weaknesses of Darwinism. A scientist who writes a critical story about Darwinism, can be sure not to have it get published anywhere."
Fortunately, there are also hopeful signs:
• the (slightly) growing critique of the evolution paradigm that will hopefully lead to a snowball effect (see e.g. the different critical books mentioned in this post)
• the petition launched in 2001 to express a dissent from Darwinism has meanwhile been signed by more than 800 (PhD) scientists from all over the world
• Anthony Flew (an important atheist and philosopher, 1923-2010 AD) converted to deism because of design arguments [NB the logic that no new information can arise from chance, and that for an information-rich design intelligence is needed] from DNA research.
III) Theological Origins Reflections
Now that Evolution has been proven to be untenable scientifically, we can take a fresh look at the theological & moral aspects of the origin of the human family and highlight the positive message conveyed by traditional faith [NB what does the church say? The subsequent appendix contains a comprehensive list of statements that together form a clear teaching (the rejection of Darwin and the direct supernatural creation of Adam from the earth and of Eve from Adams side), although it does not (yet?) constitute a dogma and more recent statements with little authority have brought more confusion than clarification]:
∗ man (the human family) is a perfect creation, in which God was and is directly involved;
† our body forms a unity with our (spiritual) soul,
• is sacred and deserving of respect from conception to death;
* this death is a clear sign of the need for redemption (and a physical church with a magisterium and tangible sacraments);
∆ God's good creation originally contained no death and imperfections; suffering is not willed by God;
◦ our physical sexuality is a picture of the Trinity and thus something sacred, husband & wife are given to each other as protector & co-worker, the basis of the indissolubility of marriage;
† respect for our parents through whom God gave us life (we are not superior to them because further evolved)
• and the 'commandment' of charity as participation in God's loving
creative gift (no 'struggle for life');
* man is placed above nature, as the guardian of the earth. Moreover, God, His Word and the church that reveals it have proved to be reliable as to the origin of the human family, contrary to science (scientific claims) that oppose this.
As Vatican I stated (in Dei Filius, 1870): science is free, but the church takes care that it doesn't get infected with errors that are contrary to the divine teaching or that it goes beyond its own limits.
The results of science are namely relevant for the faith, they can give good reasons for it and help to make faith tangible, to better understand and appreciate it, and to help it take root (see also the blog post Why Science & Religion?).
So let's spread this positive message of the origin of the human family, which the combination of (true) science and ecclesiastical doctrine offers us, to lead our human family back to the house of the Father, our true destiny {:-)
Appendix
Church Tradition on the Origin of the Human Family [NB with special thanks to the book by Michael Chaberek OP ”Catholicism and Evolution (a history from Darwin to pope Francis)” (2015)]
* St Ireneus †202 Adversus Haereses: The Creation of Adam from matter is analogous to the birth of Jesus from the Virgin and the opposite of the decomposition of a body after death; it is also an argument for the resurrection of the body.
* St Peter of Alexandria †311 On the Soul and the Body: Adam's body was created from the dust of the earth and not like the others animals; at the same time his soul was breathed into him by God.
* St Cyril of Jerusalem †387 Catechesis XII: The Creation of Adam from dust and Eve from his side are arguments against the Jews for the virgin birth of Jesus.
* St Gregory of Nyssa †394 Oratio II: Genesis says what God did and how: with dust of the earth.
* St Ambrose †397 De Paradiso: Eve was created from a rib of Adam; so there is one origin of the bodies of man and woman.
* St Hieronymus †397 In Epist Ad Phm: that Eve was created from the side of Adam is a truth of faith.
* St John Chrysostom †407 Homily XIII: The body of Adam was created from nothing but dust, the least thing on earth.
* St Augustine †430 De Genesi versus Manichaeos: God has breathed the soul into a clay substrate of a human body.
De Genesi ad Litteram: Explicitly affirms that Adam was created of clay or of mud and as an adult, and Eve from Adam's side; they are not born of parents.
De Civitate Dei: God did not create man like an artist creates, His power cannot be measured by the customary and daily works. To compare is the disbelief in human reproduction of those who do not know this.
* St Cyril of Alexandria †444 De Incarnatione Domini II: to clay he gave beauty and soul at the same time.
* P Pelagius 557 Public confession of faith: Adam and Eve are not born, but created (respectively from the earth and from Adam's side).
* St John of Damascus †794 De Fide orthodoxa: Adam's body and soul are created at the same time; creation is not production; that was necessitated by the penalty of death by original sin.
* St Thomas Aquinas †1274 Summa Theologia, question 91: Adam's body is made of clay and not of more perfect elements; nor by any created power, but immediately by God. The rationales seminales (an idea of Augustine because for him a perfect creation is instantaneous) can have only passive potency, so it makes no difference in the having been created immediately by God. The soul is the form of the body (so the breathing in of the soul does also change the body?!).
Question 92: Only God could have (supernaturally) made man out of the slime of the earth and woman out of his rib [NB moreover, wide acceptance of a theory is the weakest of all arguments].
* St Bonaventura †1274 In secundum Librum sentent: the first woman is supernaturally made; the first man was also created directly.
* St Albert the Great †1280: Both the saints and the faith testify that the body of Adam was made by God Himself (and not due to secondary causes).
* Council of Vienna 1312: The Church was born from Christ's side as Eve was formed from Adam's side in his sleep.
* Fransisco Suarez (“Doctor Eximius” according to P. Benedict XIV) 16th-17th century: for scholasticism it is self-evident that the formation of Adam's body had not taken place by natural generation.
* Synod of Cologne 1860 (praised and confirmed by the Vatican): Our first parents were created directly by God, so the evolution of the body of the first man is opposed to the Scriptures and Church Doctrine.
* 1st Vatican Council 1870 dogm const Dei Filius: God has in the beginning created everything "in its whole substance" from nothing.
De Doctrina catholica (never adopted because of the Italian invasion of the Vatican): the breath of life was breathed into a body created from the slime of the earth and Eve was created by God's power from his side. (this 2nd draft is more explicit than the first)
* Bl P Pius IX 1877 private correspondence: The Errors of Darwinism, this repulsive system (even to reason) with its absurd delusions borrow the mask of science and must therefore be disproved by real science.
app const Ineffabilis Deus: The beginning of the world involved the creation of all things, of Adam and Eve and original sin (cf Mark 10:6).
* P Leo XIII 1880 encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae: identical
to the quote from the 2nd draft of De Doctrina catholica; moreover it is well known to all as the origin of marriage and as the uninterrupted teaching of the Church.
* Matthias Scheeben 1888 Handbuch der Katholische Dogmatik (which formed the basis of the teaching to German-speaking clerics): the Church teaches that the formation of the human body is not arbitrary or that the combined action of natural forces took place, but that the first man was created by direct divine action. Healthy philosophy will never claim that a change of species is possible.
* dissertation De hominis Orgine quoad Corpus 1899 (from the later P Pius XI): the creation of our first parents was a direct and single act (both in soul and in body), and did not take place by any cooperation.
* Congregation of the Index convicted: Raffaello Caverni's book on
theistic evolution (1878 and declared that Darwin teaches pantheism); Dalmace Leroy's idea of limited evolution (1895, but didn't publish it! Leroy himself wrote in a French magazine that especially his thesis on the origin of the human body was untenable); the advanced theistic evolution of John Zahm (1898, through an extensive campaign by his Congregation Superior et al., this conviction was also not published).
* Christian Pesch (top theologian and historian) 1908 Praelectiones dogmatics: the ancient theologians never had any doubt that Adam was created from the dust of the earth and Eve from his side (because of dogmatic reasons); therefore, almost all theologians had directly ruled that evolution is incompatible with Catholic teaching.
* Pontifical Bible Commission 1909 (part of the magisterium similar to a congregation until its status was changed in 1971): Genesis is not an allegory, symbolic story, or legend; the special creation of man, of woman from the first man and their immortality are literal historical truths. A free discussion is possible about the 'day of creation' as to whether it is a natural day or is an indefinite period of time.
* Rev Ernest Messenger 1932 Evolution and Theology: Though He teaches the essence of theistic evolution, he yet claims that the Creation of Eve is so surely and so clearly taught in Scripture and the Tradition that it may as well be De Fide.
* P Pius XII 1941 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: Man was formed from the dust of the earth and the breath of life was breathed into him; only from a person can other people come forth, and the woman is flesh of his flesh. Only science guided by revelation can potentially provide certain and definitive answers to origin questions. In the hands of people science becomes a double-sided sword that can bring health or death.
1950 encyclical Humani Generis: continuous evolution of the world is a pantheistic opinion. Research into the origin of the human body is not forbidden to those who are expert in theology and natural science, but they must be willing to subject to the judgment of the Church. Evolution should not be taught. (Comparably to the discussion on birth control that allowed P Paul VI to reaffirm Catholic teaching; also with Vatican I 1870 Dei Filius: science is free, but the Church takes care that it doesn't get infected with errors that go against the divine teachings or goes beyond its own limits).
* Spanish Jesuits 1952 Theology textbook: evolution of the human body is untenable and cannot be scientifically validated; so scientists would have to prove that the first human beings could not have originated in any other way.
* Athanasius Miller (on behalf of the Papal Bible Commission) with
P Pius XII 1955 instruction: to the norms of Humani Generis, which have been heavily emphasized, little heed is given and theories condemned by the magisterium are again put forward or even for the literal meaning of Genesis a symbolic or spiritual meaning is suggested.
* Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini 1950 l'Osservatore Romano: The Catechism teaches the direct creation by God of the human body.
1959 Evolution judged by reason and faith: the immediate creation
of the body of Adam has always been a truth of faith. Also the Church Fathers were unanimous in the literal creation of Eve from Adam's side.
* P St John Paul II 1985-1986 catechesis: effective evolution (also with regard to the human body!?) does not conflict with Holy Scripture.
1996 speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (consisting exclusively of evolutionists according to prof M. Giertych): evolution is more than a hypothesis (scientifically speaking), but serves to be reconsidered if it does not explain the facts. There are also different theories with their respective underlying assumptions.
* International Theological Commission 2004 Communion and Stewardship: the only document that positively taught evolution, but it is not part of the official magisterium. It confuses the teaching about chance and purpose. Is (remarkably) co-signed by Cardinal Ratzinger.
* Cardinal Schönborn 2005 NY Times article: The Church has never accepted Darwinism; instead, obvious evidence for design is to be recognized; Neo-Darwinism is a deus ex machina.
2005-2006 catechesis: divine design does not have to be perfect (?); the existence of different species is a certainty, not a appearance; creatio continua concerns only the preservation of things, not the emergence of something new; life and species need a creative deed (however, later he seems to contradict this); theologians have too much reverence for science.
* P Benedict XVI common line of his view: there must be clear boundaries for the theory of evolution; the world is not a result of chaos, but of the Logos as St Basil says: "deceived by atheism some imagine a universe subject to the grace of chance”; Schönborn's article was prompted by Providence to start a new debate; has (deliberately) ignored the Vatican Darwin conference of 2009.
* P Francis 2014 Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: too vague to draw conclusions from, but has, unfortunately, caused confusion.
Comments
Post a Comment