Adam, Eve, and Evolution

The term evolution is generally understood to mean the process by which the
present world came about. The historic meaning of "to evolve" is simply "to
develop," meaning that the process of evolution is nothing more than the
process of development. But in modern usage "evolution" is an emotionally
loaded word which often causes people to choose up sides and begin issuing
verbal blasts against each other.

Many different theories come under the heading of evolution. These attempt
to show a process by which things originate from simpler forms and develop
into more complex ones. We will look at some of these theories and the
Catholic position on them.

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 cosmic 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. These three positions are special creation, theistic
evolution, and atheistic evolution. Special creationism holds that something
did not develop, but was suddenly and directly created by God. Theistic
evolution holds that a thing did develop from a previous state or form, but
that this process of development was under the impetus and guidance of God.
Atheistic evolution claims that a thing did develop, but not under the
impetus or guidance of God; it happened due to random forces.

Because the questions of how the universe, life, and man arose are separate
questions, one can take a different position on each of them. Some say that
all three were products of special creation. Others say that, after the
universe was specially created, God used theistic evolution to produce life
and man. Others say that, although non-human life was produced by theistic
evolution, man himself was a special creation. And, finally, some attribute
the origin of all three to atheistic evolution.

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 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 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 theistic evolution
hold dates ranging between those of special creationists and atheistic
evolutionists.

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution?
The question has not been finally settled, and may never be finally settled,
but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmic 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, from the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss).
However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did
develop over time, their development 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" (Gen. 33:6).

About 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. The
Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "God wills the interdependence of
creatures. The sun and the moon, the cedar and the little flower, the eagle
and the sparrow . . . There is a solidarity among all creatures arising from
the fact that all have the same Creator and are ordered to his glory" (CCC
340, 344).

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 theistic
evolution on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in
atheistic evolution--that is, development according to purely random forces
which are not controlled by or not part of the plan of God.

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 a young or an old universe 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" (CCC 159).

The scientific evidence and the biblical evidence for the age of the
universe therefore harmonize, and they do so on a level that is within the
reach of humans, since God gave us both the supernatural revelation of the
Bible and the natural revelation of the universe. This means that a Catholic
wishing to do justice to the issue of the universe's age must seek to
harmonize both the biblical and the scientific evidence rather than ignoring
one or the other.

It is outside the scope of this pamphlet to look at the scientific evidence,
but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis. There
are basically two methods of reading the account of the six days of creation
in Genesis one: a chronological reading and a topical reading.

The 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, though not always, coupled with the claim that the six days
of creation were standard 24-hour days.

Some have denied that they were standard days on the basis that he Hebrew
word used in this passage for day ("yom") can sometimes mean a
longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Gen. 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
longer periods of time than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night.
Furthermore, the terms "evening" and "morning" are in the correct order for
the Hebrew system of time-keeping, since their day begins at sundown
(evening) and is followed by sunrise (morning), rather than beginning at
midnight as do "clock" days. Genesis is presenting these days to us as
sidereal 24-hour days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour
days, it's because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal
chronological account.

That is an actual possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us: "It is absolutely
necessary for the interpreter to go back in spirit to those remote centuries
of the East, and to make proper use of the help given by history,
archaeology, ethnology and other sciences, in order to discover what
literary forms the writers of those early ages intended to use and did in
fact use. For, to express what they had in mind, the ancients of the East
did not always avail themselves of the same forms and expressions as we do
today; they used those that were current among people of their own time and
place. . . . The sacred books need not exclude any forms of expression that
were commonly used in human speech among the ancient peoples, especially the
East, so long as they are not incompatible with God's sanctity and veracity.
. . ." (Divino Afflante Spiritu).

The Topical Reading

This leads us to the other possible interpretation of Genesis 1--the topical
reading. Advocates of this view point out that in ancient literature it was
common to order historical material by topic rather than in strict
chronological order. This can be shown in the difference between Mark's and
Matthew's accounts of cursing and the withering of the fig tree. Mark's is
ordered chronologically, while Matthew's has been grouped topically. In Mark
11:13

Advocates of the topical reading of Genesis 1 argue that it displays a
topical structure and groups real historical events (the creation of light,
the sun, the atmosphere, birds and fish, etc.) topically rather than
chronologically.

The argument for a topical ordering of Genesis 1 notes that at the time the
world was created, it had two problems--it was "formless and empty." 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. On day four he populates the day and the night
with the sun, moon, and stars; on day five he populates the sky and the sea
with birds and fish; and on day six he populates the land with animals,
lastly creating man. 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.

The argument is that all of this is real history; God really did all of
these things--he set up the day/night cycle and the hydrological cycle and
the atmosphere and the existence of dry land; he created the sun and the
stars and the birds and fish and the land animals. All of that is absolutely
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.

Real History!

Even if Genesis 1 records God's work in an other than chronological 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 therefore impossible to dismiss
the events of Genesis 1 as a mere myth. They are, in fact, accounts of real
history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing we no longer
use today.

Adam & Eve: real people

It is equally impossible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall
(Gen. 2monogenism) rather than a pool of early human couples (the position
known as polygenism).

This was made clear by Pope Pius XII: "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).

Science and Religion

The Church is neither hostile toward science, nor does it uncritically
accept religious or philosophical propositions asserted by people on behalf
of science. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 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. With Solomon they can say: 'It is he who gave me unerring
knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the
activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things,
taught me' (Wis. 7:17-22)" (CCC 283).

Thus Catholic Church has historically 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)

As the Catechism puts it, "Consequently, 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.
END***************************************************************************