Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
By CHRISTOPH SCHNBORN
Vienna
EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define)
was more than !ust a h"pothesis, defenders of neo#$arwinian do%ma have often
invo&ed the supposed acceptance # or at least ac'uiescence # of the Roman (atholic
(hurch when the" defend their theor" as somehow compati)le with (hristian faith*
+ut this is not true* ,he (atholic (hurch, while leavin% to science man" details a)out
the histor" of life on earth, proclaims that )" the li%ht of reason the human intellect can
readil" and clearl" discern purpose and desi%n in the natural world, includin% the world
of livin% thin%s*
Evolution in the sense of common ancestr" mi%ht )e true, )ut evolution in the neo#
$arwinian sense # an un%uided, unplanned process of random variation and natural
selection # is not* -n" s"stem of thou%ht that denies or see&s to e.plain awa" the
overwhelmin% evidence for desi%n in )iolo%" is ideolo%", not science*
(onsider the real teachin% of our )eloved John Paul* /hile his rather va%ue and
unimportant 1996 letter a)out evolution is alwa"s and ever"where cited, we see no one
discussin% these comments from a 1901 %eneral audience that represents his ro)ust
teachin% on nature2
-ll the o)servations concernin% the development of life lead to a similar conclusion*
,he evolution of livin% )ein%s, of which science see&s to determine the sta%es and to
discern the mechanism, presents an internal finalit" which arouses admiration* ,his
finalit" which directs )ein%s in a direction for which the" are not responsi)le or in
char%e, o)li%es one to suppose a 3ind which is its inventor, its creator*
4e went on2 ,o all these indications of the e.istence of 5od the (reator, some oppose
the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter* ,o spea& of chance for a
universe which presents such a comple. or%ani6ation in its elements and such
marvelous finalit" in its life would )e e'uivalent to %ivin% up the search for an
e.planation of the world as it appears to us* In fact, this would )e e'uivalent to
admittin% effects without a cause* It would )e to a)dicate human intelli%ence, which
would thus refuse to thin& and to see& a solution for its pro)lems*
7ote that in this 'uotation the word finalit" is a philosophical term s"non"mous with
final cause, purpose or desi%n* In comments at another %eneral audience a "ear later,
John Paul concludes, It is clear that the truth of faith a)out creation is radicall"
opposed to the theories of materialistic philosoph"* ,hese view the cosmos as the result
of an evolution of matter reduci)le to pure chance and necessit"*
7aturall", the authoritative (atechism of the (atholic (hurch a%rees2 4uman
intelli%ence is surel" alread" capa)le of findin% a response to the 'uestion of ori%ins*
,he e.istence of 5od the (reator can )e &nown with certaint" throu%h his wor&s, )" the
li%ht of human reason* It adds2 /e )elieve that 5od created the world accordin% to his
wisdom* It is not the product of an" necessit" whatever, nor of )lind fate or chance*
In an unfortunate new twist on this old controvers", neo#$arwinists recentl" have
sou%ht to portra" our new pope, +enedict 8VI, as a satisfied evolutionist* ,he" have
'uoted a sentence a)out common ancestr" from a 9::; document of the International
,heolo%ical (ommission, pointed out that +enedict was at the time head of the
commission, and concluded that the (atholic (hurch has no pro)lem with the notion of
evolution as used )" mainstream )iolo%ists # that is, s"non"mous with neo#
$arwinism*
,he commission<s document, however, reaffirms the perennial teachin% of the (atholic
(hurch a)out the realit" of desi%n in nature* (ommentin% on the widespread a)use of
John Paul<s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that the letter cannot )e
read as a )lan&et appro)ation of all theories of evolution, includin% those of a neo#
$arwinian provenance which e.plicitl" den" to divine providence an" trul" causal role
in the development of life in the universe*
=urthermore, accordin% to the commission, -n un%uided evolutionar" process # one
that falls outside the )ounds of divine providence # simpl" cannot e.ist*
Indeed, in the homil" at his installation !ust a few wee&s a%o, +enedict proclaimed2 /e
are not some casual and meanin%less product of evolution* Each of us is the result of a
thou%ht of 5od* Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessar"*
,hrou%hout histor" the church has defended the truths of faith %iven )" Jesus (hrist*
+ut in the modern era, the (atholic (hurch is in the odd position of standin% in firm
defense of reason as well* In the 19th centur", the =irst Vatican (ouncil tau%ht a world
newl" enthralled )" the death of 5od that )" the use of reason alone man&ind could
come to &now the realit" of the >ncaused (ause, the =irst 3over, the 5od of the
philosophers*
7ow at the )e%innin% of the 91st centur", faced with scientific claims li&e neo#
$arwinism and the multiverse h"pothesis in cosmolo%" invented to avoid the
overwhelmin% evidence for purpose and desi%n found in modern science, the (atholic
(hurch will a%ain defend human reason )" proclaimin% that the immanent desi%n
evident in nature is real* ?cientific theories that tr" to e.plain awa" the appearance of
desi%n as the result of chance and necessit" are not scientific at all, )ut, as John Paul
put it, an a)dication of human intelli%ence*
(hristoph ?ch@n)orn, the Roman (atholic cardinal arch)ishop of Vienna, was the lead
editor of the official 1999 (atechism of the (atholic (hurch*