Lecture Review: Evolution and the Catholic Faith

• Lecture Review: Evolution and the Catholic Faith (Fifth Annual Conway Lecture)
• Lecturer: Stephen M. Barr, a University of Delaware physics professor, author, Bartol Research Institute member and president of the Society of Catholic Studies.  Barr is a frequent lecturer on the topic of science and religion, and is the author of Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (2003) and The Believing Scientist: Essays on Science and Religion (2016). He was awarded the Benemerenti Medal by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007 for exemplary service to the Church.
• Where: University of Cincinnati McMicken Hall, room 127
• When: 7-8:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 7, 2018
• Other Details: Fifth Annual Conway Lecture presented by Catholic Studies of University of Cincinnati.  Free and open to the public.  The Conway lecture is named in honor of Ruth J. and Robert A. Conway, who donated $2 million to establish the chair in Catholic studies at UC. M.C. was Jeff Zalar.  Housed within the Department of History in the College of Arts and Sciences, the Program in Catholic Studies explores the history, spirituality, literary and artistic traditions, and contemporary significance of Roman Catholicism. Through interdisciplinary teaching, student mentorship, and public lectures, it fosters greater understanding of Catholic beliefs, culture, and ethics to enrich the intellectual life of the university while contributing to the common good.[1]

I had just finished reading The Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley the day I attended this lecture.  To be honest the Wilberforce/Huxley debate was on my mind.  But, just to nip that in the bud, this was a lecture, not a debate.  I found out about the event just a few days before by reading an article in the March issue of the Catholic Telegraph.  My first impression when I arrived, which was fifteen minutes early, is this place is already full.  About 75% of the spaces were full.  In the next fifteen minutes, all the seats filled up, they brought in additional chairs, and people were sitting in the aisles.  Someone whispered something about fire code, but I think it was largely ignored.  I was sitting next to a young man whose name is Nicholas and he works for the Archdiocese and recently wrote an article for the Catholic Telegraph.  The M.C. came out and started introducing the guest speaker, Stephen Barr.  I did not who he was, probably everyone else did, but I did not.  I asked Nicholas and he told me it was Dr. Jeffrey Zalar.  Windows were opened to allow some air in the room as it was already getting very stuffy.  Zalar’s introduction was not long, and soon Barr was at the podium.  I readied my clip board and directed all of my attention to Barr.  I do not think his mic was working but his voice carried well, and everyone was very silent and attentive.

Barr stated he was going to discuss the Theory of Evolution from a Catholic perspective.  But first, what are we talking about?  He broke it down into three main classes: Evolution (Evolution of species, common descent), Evolution of Darwin (Natural selection), and Neo Darwinism (population genetics, modern understanding).  The modern contention between atheists and Fundamentalists is a phenomenon that is peculiar more to the United States than the rest of the world and is seen as a battle between Creationists and science.

According to Barr, almost all scientists, whether they are atheist, Christian, or whatever, agree on the evidence of Evolution and on the idea of Common Descent.  Anyone who is harboring the notion that these will be overturned is simply being naïve.  There is simply an irreconcilable difference between any science and any religion that denies the evolution of species happened. Fortunately, we as Catholics are not in that position.  On this point I would beg to differ with Barr.  His argument could have been used against William Harvey, and many other innovative scientists that have questioned the status quo.  At best we should welcome dissenting opinions and trust that the truth will always prevail.  To immediately call this naïve is like stating that just because most people believe something to be true it is.  Objective truth is true whether everyone believes it or on one believes it.  As a Catholic I believe we should always strive for that objective truth.

Barr talked about the Intelligent Design Movement.  To be honest I did not quite catch his argument on this other than he was against it.  He states that Neo-Darwinism is compatible with the Catholic Faith.  However, there is a battle going on between aggressive atheists and Creationists/Fundamentalists.  Biologist Richard Dawkins attacks all religions using Darwinism as his weapon.  Barr cites examples in early twentieth-centuries Catholic texts to defend the stance that Catholics are not anti-Evolution.  That this is not a new policy, but rather one that has developed over time and is even consistent with some of the earliest church writers.  He uses references from the Catholic Encyclopedia in an article titled Catholics and Evolution (1909) which summarized the theory of evolution as it stood at this time and that it was not contrary to Catholic Faith. In the Question Box (1929) by Bertrand Conway p. 8 the question “May a Catholic believe in Evolution?” is answered that “As the Church has made no pronouncement on Evolution, Catholics are perfectly free to accept Evolution either as a scientific hypothesis, or as a philosophical speculation.”  In other words (in my opinion) they did not think entertaining the idea of Evolution would be detrimental to our souls.  That the jury is still out.

Barr does go on to caution where the Church draws a very clear line.  That line is that the human Soul cannot be reduced to matter and therefore cannot be explained by any sort of evolution of the soul.  The evolution of the Body is okay with Catholic Faith.  The mechanism of evolution, which is purely a natural process, is not an issue for the Church.  Fundamentalists, according to Barr, say that Nature and God are in competition with each other.  So, the more we say that the creation of the universe pertains to nature the less we can ascribe to God.  More later about the objections to Neo-Darwinism.

I like Shakespearean references.  Barr uses Hamlet as an analogy to explain the difference between primary and secondary causes.  In the scene where Hamlet stabs Polonius through the curtain, he asks, did Polonius die because of Hamlet’s sword thrust or because Shakespeare wrote it that way?  The secondary cause would be the sword thrust and the primary cause would be Shakespeare writing the play.  Secondary causes are horizontal and are like natural causes.  Each animal and plant is a dramatis personae in the world’s stage.  The primary cause is seen as vertical, and this is God who created the world, and is the author.   God is considered to be outside of time.  He sees all of eternity.  One act, one will.

Barr finished up his lecture by stating eight reasons why the Fundamentalist/ Creationists Reject Neo-Darwinism.  He presented each one with a counter argument of how the Catholic Church or logic counters the objection.

1. Evolution disagrees with the biblical account of creation.

• The Bible is not a science textbook.
• Augustine and Aquinas did not take the six days of creation as a literal interpretation.

2. Takes away human dignity when we say that human beings are descended from apes.

• Saying we are created from dust does not grant us more dignity than saying we are descended from apes. Dignity comes from our spiritual level. God breathed in to man and he became a living soul.  Only human beings are made in the image of god.  Science agrees we came from dust.  Theologians say it is irrelevant whether we came from dust in several thousand years, or over many millions of years.

3. Evolution is only a difference of degrees of animal to human.

• Human beings have spiritual souls as well as bodies. Therefore this is a difference of kind.

4. Evolution is Naturalistic. This takes away the power of God.

• This is a failure to distinguish between primary and secondary causality.

5. Evolution is inconsistent with the Fall of Man. Death enters the world due to Adams sin. How did plants and animals die for millions of years before Adam?

• Human death is a consequence of the fall. Plants, animals, and humans as animals, are all subject to a natural death.  However, we were given a preternatural gift, by God, of life.  This gift was taken away after the fall.  It is just a reversion to the natural order. Sinfulness is only capable if one has rational thought.  Passion is not sinful.  Lust is confused with passion.  The sin of lust is not to be identified with sex instinct or attraction, which are not in themselves morally evil.  If they were, then animals would be sinful.  Sin comes from the failure to subject our passions to the control of reason.    Human passions may have evolved through evolution, but, reason is a gift from above.

6. The Bible says that mankind is descended from Adam and Eve, and yet, the Evolutionary Theory of Biological monogenism states that the human race appeared relatively suddenly and is traced to a population of several thousand individuals.

• Biological species do arrive and evolve. One can imagine that in the physical and biological process of human evolution was a slow progress.  However, the soul did not evolve.  One either had on or one did not.  God granted this gift to humans that did not destroy their animal nature, but rather raised it up and made them spiritual beings.  The spiritual soul is conferred on each person by god.

7. Evolution is opposed to the design argument.

• I will be honest, I did not quite follow Barr’s argument here. Not because of any fault of his, but it was getting late.  My notes mention: “Anthropic Laws of Modern Physics, Edward Whitt(?), Multiverse Idea, and Laws of physics have to be special.”

8. Evolutionary Biologists use the term random and it is often misinterpreted. Random is a technical/statistical term closely related to probabilities.  The term is not absolute chaos, but rather a word used to designate how a distribution of something may occur.

To conclude, Barr states the Catholic church has never had a problem with evolution, and they are free to follow the evidence.  I am quite pleased that I was able to attend this lecture and to listen to Barr. I think it is very important that we as a society continue to learn and I thank the University and the Conway family for providing this opportunity.

[1] University of Cincinnati. “UC Catholic Studies Presents Fifth Annual Conway Lecture ‘Evolution And The Catholic Faith’” UC.edu. http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.aspx?id=25952 (accessed March 10, 2018).