https://www.abc.net.au/religion/pope-francis-was-man-of-god-and-man-of-science/105213744
Commentary
I couldn’t agree more with the title of this article. It has poise, presence, and praise to offer someone, who no doubt, rightfully left an indelible mark of universal appeal, transversing borders, boundaries, peripheries, margins, cultures, countries, states, nations, creeds, colours and every other kind of differentiating mark that distinguishes the varieties of human experience, one from another. And no doubt, there is a sincere desire on the part of the article’s author to in some senses, seek a certain knowledge of the truth insofar as he is drawn towards a topical exploration of the intersection between faith and science. But, there is though, along with this very public dissemination of endorsement for Darwinian evolutionary theory insofar as the origins of man are concerned, a proliferation of lies mixed with truth. And this is where this article leaves me problematized, perplexed.
At first reading “the Church never condemned Darwin’s work on evolution”, I gasped the following flurry of words in horror “Lies, Lies, and More Lies…!” Gee whizz, it sounds like I’m turning into a bit of a frenetic cynic dozer, that is, one who bulldozes the cynicism of sceptics from the terrain of civil society discussion forums 😆 But in all due respects, while the Church never did to Charles Darwin’s hypothesis what it did to that of Galileo, the absence of any formal injunction against Darwin’s published claims does not signify an (albeit unwritten) endorsement of his views on the matter. In other words, apparent silence does not automatically mean ‘agreement’. And besides, the Church later recanted the indictments against Galileo following a much more rigorous investigation of the intrinsically legitimate basis for the findings he published. From another angle yet again, the trial of Galileo could be seen to bear a similar comparison to that of St Ignatius of Loyola. For poor St Ignatius, the founder of the Jesuits, faced the Ecclesial Court of the Inquisition, since these scholars had never in their lives before, come across aside from the Gospels themselves, such nuancedly radical teachings on disciplining the interior life so that it can more readily conform itself to a thorough and robustly resolute discernment of God’s holy will. See, because the Gospels are the foundational blueprint wrought by God, the supplementary teachings of the Saints are not so much adding to the absolute revelatory nature of the Gospels in any way as they serve simply to expound, highlight, and exemplify the deeper thematic threads contained therein. But, because St Ignatius was essentially navigating previously unchartered terrain as seen from the perspective of those who held bastions of scholastic authority within the Church at that time, they were uneasy with the shock of the new! In a similar fashion to how those, in times prior unjustly condemned St Joan of Arc to death, these inquisitors in Ignatius’ time were also ruthlessly plagued by socio-cultural and political tensions brought about via the simmering of unrest prevalent at that time, one which was to eventually give rise to the onset of the Reformation.
While I can accept it that the author of the article cited above chooses to believe in the idea which we currently know as the Darwinian theory of evolution, and further that he chooses to accept it as though it is compatable with the faith, I cannot believe that the ABC chooses to publish such views since profuse public dissemination of them only causes a misleading fracticidal internicine-strife-fermenting atmosphere of spiritual confusion to reign in some hearts and minds, especially those gullible enough to believe anything and everything they read unquestioningly. The ABC is usually very well-balanced and a positive force in the dissemination of news and opinion. However, this has got to be the second time in a week where I have come across something that is more misleading than wholeheartedly and innocently truth-embracing. The first of these two instances was when I encountered a total mis-rendering of The Sound of Music and Julie Andrews’ performance¹, and now this!
That photo of Pappa Francesco for one thing, is nothing short of unflatteringly morose and too terse for an article that starts out sounding so laudible (see link to both image in question and article at the top of this post). And by the way, the article stridently says that he was a friend of science rather than a foe, which is on multiple levels nevertheless, unquestionably true. However, the article uses “science-speak” as a springboard to convey a subtly false impression, i.e. that Catholic doctrine accepts at that, and even lends support to, Darwinian evolutionary theory! But let the truth remain to be seen and said!! As Fr Benedict Groschel used to be fond of pointing out, Catholic doctrine is far more amicable towards and compatable with the likes of Lincoln Barnett, the author of The Universe and Dr Einstein, than it would be towards an indiscriminate and undiscerning embrace of Darwinian evolutionary theory insofar as Darwin’s Descentof Man and Origin of the Species goes re: natural selection. The problem lies not with the notion of evolution per se or even with natural selection. Because of course, life stages and states evolve as in progress from one stage or cycle to another and this is true on the microcosmic level inasmuch as it suffices to explain the various morphological machinations of the macrocosmic or societal level. That said, this does not in any way whatsoever lend credibility to the bizarre notion that one species essentially becomes another over a long period of time. And while to some extent, the idea of natural selection is merely an argument in favour of the understanding that one’s environment shapes certain adaptational variables to be either advantageous or disadvantageous to the survival of a species or a respective sub-branch or a certain kind of social modus operandi, this can bear legitimacy without it taking extreme turns in the shaping or presentation of arguments in favour of the idea that evolution, on certain levels is a determinative factor in the modelling and re-modelling of the ways in which species live their life. Hence the absolute inerrancy in the validity of statements quoted in the above article that were originally made by both Pope Francis and John Paul II on the subject of a divinely orchestrated and internally ordered disposition in-set within the created universe, that gravitates towards evolving through a series of natural life-stages or cycles. This however, does not contribute to a supposed agreement on the part of the Church’s magisterium with the concept of one species evolving into another or with the notion that God did not create the world in six literal days nor in the manner that the Genesis creation narrative articulates. The Big Bang theory as also delved into by Barnett in The Universe and Dr Einstein, is not to be trifled with as though it is a complete and utter stranger to the Biblical account of creation in Genesis. Rather, it is to be seen as coherently synonimous with the act of God creating light in Genesis 1 : 3. Then everything follows on logically from there as we see it recounted in the rest of the Genesis creation narrative. So, the Bible’s declaration of what happened at the dawn of creation upholds the Big Bang theory and the Big Bang theory validates and lends scientific support to this act of God in His creation of the entire universe by light. The Bible also tells us that God saw the Earth as a cosmic centrepiece in the universe’s grand design. This, by no means relegates the Sun to an ‘inferior’ position for the most gloriously resplendent place of the Sun enters the picture later on. My point here though is just to demonstrate that an acknowledgement of the reality of evolutionary process in the developmental blueprint of God’s ongoing creative process post-Primordial creation, by both pontiffs cited, is in no way meant to augment acceptance of extremist and/or unBiblical takes on how creation was first brought into being or how it continues to develop.
The other thing about this article is that its author has brought into the debate the Jesuit physicist, paleantologist, and theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. He, (alongside Benedict Groschel, Albert Einstein, Lincoln Barnett, and even Bertrand Russel), is another of my favourites. However, to see him being used as a prop for a mouthpiece in favour of the belief that ‘humans descended from apes’ and before that, land mammals came onto land out of the water by evolving from fish or other marine life is utter absurdity, a bombastic and incredulous load of clap-trap designed to lure people away from placing their trust in the Biblical Narrative towards believing the fantasies of Frankenstein’s science, a science that detracts from faith, instead of serving and upholding or propagating it.
For real, authentic science does not hesitate to serve the realm of faith by its witness to the insatiable quest for truth that moved those like Einstein, Pascal, and deChardin into asking questions because they wanted to know the God of the universe, the God Who is the Author of all Life, the Progentior of all that is sacred, the Alpha and the Omega. They were not so much abandoning raw faith in their search for answers but more to the point, they wanted to, in some respects prove that faith can be trusted as a complementary ally of scientific scrutiny rather than an obstacle or something obselete in view of scientific progress. And to that, I also think that Pope Francis would have absolutely no objections!
Footnote Citation/Additional Reference
Discover more from My Catholic Blog
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My Catholic Blog 