Adam, Eve, and Evolution
The controversy surrounding evolution touches on
our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Evolutionary theories
have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life,
and man. These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological
evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas
does not dictate what one believes concerning others.
People usually take three basic positions on the
origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous
creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution,
(3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing
did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The
second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state
or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position
claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone.
Related to the question of how the universe,
life, and man arose is the question of when they arose. Those who
attribute the origin of all three to special creation often hold that they
arose at about the same time, perhaps six thousand to ten thousand years
ago. Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer
time scale. They generally hold the universe to be ten billion to twenty
billion years old, life on earth to be about four billion years old, and
modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand
years old. Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold
dates used by either or both of the other two positions.
The Catholic Position
What is the Catholic position concerning belief
or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but
there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.
Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has
infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing.
Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess 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" (Canons
on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).
The Church does not have an official position on
whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that
time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath
of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church
would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this
still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture
records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their
host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).
Concerning biological evolution, the Church does
not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over
the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they
did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation
must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more
definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body
developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it
insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII
declared that "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 . . . 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—[but] the Catholic faith obliges
us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani
Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed,
we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul
is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our
parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special
creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances
permits belief in atheistic evolution.
The Time Question
Much less has been defined as to when the
universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined
that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but
it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few
thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.
Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s
age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "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" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).
The contribution made by the physical sciences
to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which
states, "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" (CCC 283).
It is outside the scope of this tract to look at
the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation
of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations
of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading
the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.
Chronological Reading
According to the chronological reading, the six
days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict
chronological order. This view is often coupled with the claim that the
six days were standard 24-hour days.
Some have denied that they were standard days on
the basis that the Hebrew word used in this passage for day (yom)
can sometimes mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Genesis
2:4). However, it seems clear that Genesis 1 presents the days to us as
standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, "And there was
evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning
are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the
meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours
are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days
to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as
24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to
be understood as a literal chronological account.
That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us,
"What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the
speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the
works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined
by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context;
the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote
centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology,
and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak,
the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact
did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their
ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use
today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What
those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance,
but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East"
(Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).
The Topical Reading
This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1
is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this
view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical
material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.
The argument for a topical ordering notes that
at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was "formless
and empty" (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness
problem by structuring different aspects of the environment.
On day one he separates day from night; on day
two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds),
with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below
from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form.
But it is still empty, so on the second three days
God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of
the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved
the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself,
God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.
Real History
The argument is that all of this is real
history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and
the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it
as such.
Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical
fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.
The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents
the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine
‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing
exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began
when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of
nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very
genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).
It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis
1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they
are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically
use.
Adam and Eve: Real People
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story
of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known
as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known
as polygenism).
In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however,
there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the
children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful
cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there
existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural
generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents
a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such
an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and
the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard
to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual
Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone
as his own" (Humani Generis 37).
The story of the creation and fall of man is
a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques.
The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses
figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place
at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty
of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault
freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).
Science and Religion
The Catholic Church has always taught that "no
real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided
each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement
. . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the
Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths
(as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to
salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a
scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these
matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner
of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday
life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus
Deus 18).
As the Catechism puts it, "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 the of the 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"
(CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.
NIHIL OBSTAT:
I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR:
In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
