What did the Pope really say about Theories of Evolution

[Edwin_Taraba]

The Pope’s Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences entitled *“Theories of Evolution” *has been mistranslated. It behooves Catholics to fully examine the Pope’s statement to make sure we are understanding what he is saying.

Just as anti-God forces have twisted the First Amendment to the Constitution around to reverse its original meaning anti-God and anti-Catholic are twisting the Pope’s words to contradict church teachings.

According to Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International and James Akin of Catholic Answers it has been mistranslated.

Did the Pope say: “…new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis".

Or did he say: “…new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than one hypothesis."

The first translation has led anti-Catholics to make the following statement: “What the Pope has done, as you will see, is elevate Darwinian evolutionary theory to that of undeniable scientific fact, or truth. He then draws the conclusion that since evolution is indeed the truth, the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the biblical account of Genesis cannot contradict this now proven and accepted fact of evolution, and so church teachings must consequently be re-evaluated and amended. The Catholic church has faced this sort of predicament before.”

The second version on the other hand does not say the “new knowledge leads us to recognize” it says “new knowledge has led to the recognition”. In the first version he is speaking of himself and the Catholic church as recognizing the theory, but in the second version he does not state who is doing the recognizing. It could be interpreted to mean that it is true that some scientists have been portraying evolution theory as “fact” - a phrase which does not include the Pope or the churches teachings.

The second version also does not say the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis. It says instead that the theory of evolution is more than one hypothesis, a point which the Pope restates clearly when he says: “And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.”

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

All very well, but who cares? The Pope may be, as the saying would have it, a Catholic. I don’t recall him being a biologist or palaeontologist.

In other words, an expert on Catholic catechism he may be; an expert on evolutionary biology he is not. Therefore, while his opinion may be of interest, it is not a qualified opinion.

 

[The_Barrister]

Oolon Colluphid:

All very well, but who cares? The Pope may be, as the saying would have it, a Catholic. I don’t recall him being a biologist or palaeontologist.

In other words, an expert on Catholic catechism he may be; an expert on evolutionary biology he is not. Therefore, while his opinion may be of interest, it is not a qualified opinion.

I respectfully disagree.

We’re not talking about which nerve has to be reattached first when rejoining a severed limb to the body. We’re talking about generalized, broad theories that most people think have been at odds for years, when, in fact, the Pope demonstrated that the theories are complimentary (read the full document, and see below). As the supreme Pontiff and teacher/guardian of the faith, he has every right to speak on such issues.

By the way, the theory of evolution, at least in its micro form, does not supplant creationism. The world was created, man was created - but from that point there is no reason to believe that God did not build in a micro-evolutionary process into His creation. Despite the efforts of hundreds of thousands of paleontologists, sociologists and other scientists, no one has yet found any physical evidence that proves the world and man were not created by God.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

The Barrister:

I respectfully disagree. We’re not talking about which nerve has to be reattached first when rejoining a severed limb to the body. We’re talking about generalized, broad theories that most people think have been at odds for years, when, in fact, the Pope demonstrated that the theories are complimentary (read the full document, and see below).

I don’t disagree with that, therefore I don’t think you were disagreeing with me.

As the supreme Pontiff and teacher/guardian of the faith, he has every right to speak on such issues.

Where did I say he could not have an opinion on it? Where did I say he had no right to voice that opinion? I’m just saying that as a theologian, he is not automatically any more qualified to speak on the matter than Joe Bloggs. Opinions are like bum-holes: everybody has one. The Pope is a relevant authority on matters of Catholicism. He is not (necessarily) an authority on biology. (I’d have thought that was patently obvious. Do we ask plumbers to fix computers?)

By the way, the theory of evolution, at least in its micro form, does not supplant creationism.

You ought to define ‘created’ then.

The world was created, man was created - but from that point there is no reason to believe that God did not build in a micro-evolutionary process into His creation.

Sure. And billions of years of ‘micro’, plus a few meteorites and ice ages, accumulates into ‘macro’.

Despite the efforts of hundreds of thousands of paleontologists, sociologists

Sociologists?

and other scientists, no one has yet found any physical evidence that proves the world and man were not created by God.

Define ‘created’. If you mean that God used evolution as his chosen mechanism of creation, then fine. If you mean poofed into existence rather than evolved, then you are plain wrong. But if the latter, let’s not clutter up another thread. I suggest you post your objections (and substantiate the claim of ‘no physical evidence’) in the other evolution/Creation poll thread, or a new one.

 

[Jillian]

If you are going to assert that this translation is incorrect, you should provide a bit more substantiation than just “this guy says so”. Where is an excerpt of the original text in the original language? Where is the officially accepted English version, contrasted with the alternate translation the authors of this (I’m sure extremely impartial and unbiased ) website are proposing? And more importantly, if the translation of a Papal encyclical is so egregious as to be misleading, why hasn’t anyone brought it to the Vatican’s attention? Why hasn’t the Vatican corrected it yet? This was originally issued in 1996…you think they would’ve gotten around to it by now.

And why do you use the term “hypothesis” when both proposed versions of the translation clearly use the term “theory”?

 

[Edwin_Taraba]

Jillian:

If you are going to assert that this translation is incorrect, you should provide a bit more substantiation than just “this guy says so”. Where is an excerpt of the original text in the original language? Where is the officially accepted English version, contrasted with the alternate translation the authors of this (I’m sure extremely impartial and unbiased ) website are proposing? And more importantly, if the translation of a Papal encyclical is so egregious as to be misleading, why hasn’t anyone brought it to the Vatican’s attention? Why hasn’t the Vatican corrected it yet? This was originally issued in 1996…you think they would’ve gotten around to it by now. And why do you use the term “hypothesis” when both proposed versions of the translation clearly use the term “theory”?

Thank you very much for your excellent questions. Here is an exerpt of the original text in the original language.

“Aujourd’hui, près d’un demisiècle après la parution de l’encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaître dans la théorie de l’évolution, plus qu’une hypothese.”

I didn’t say “some guy” is claiming a mistranslation I refer to statments made by Robert Sungenis, M.A., (Ph.D. cd) President of Catholic Apologetics International and by James Aiken of Catholic Answers.

If you are interested in further research on this issue I would recommend the article by Robert Sungenis entitled “Creationism, Pope John Paul II, and the Case Against Theistic Evolution” which you can find at http://www.kolbecenter.org/sungenis.wanderer2.htm

Or go to www.kolbecenter.org and click on “Articles and Essays” and page down to about the 14th article in the list.

Also the Jimmy Aiken interview is at:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm

Another interesting point made by Sungenis is that the Pope did not personally author the encyclical. It was penned by a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences acting as a ghost writer. If anyone can provide a means to verify this claim I would be interested. I think Dr. Sungenis is going to discuss this point in detail as well as provide verification in his upcoming book Not By Science Alone: Modern Science at the Crossroads of Divine Revelation, due out in 2004.

 

[promethius]

i agree, the pope did not expressly state that evolution is the correct theory. what he DID state, however, is that it is possible, and is not contradictory to the tenets of faith.

twisting the pope’s words around either way is wrong… on the part of both sides.

 

[PhilVaz]

No one has claimed the Popes have said evolution is an undeniable scientific fact, what they have said is that there is good scientific evidence for evolution, and that it does not conflict with the Catholic Christian faith, provided certain restrictions are placed on the theory. That’s what I’ve been saying as well.

For example, a philosophical materialist/naturalist interpretation of the theory is wrong, since it leaves God out of the picture. And there is a distinction to be made between methodological naturalism in science (studying nature by the scientific method, leaving the supernatural for theology), and philosophical naturalism (excluding God altogether which is basically atheism).

What Pius XII and John Paul II have said is that evolution is worthy of study and investigation, that there is excellent scientific evidence for the theory, and that it is compatible with Catholic Christianity. Jimmy Akin has an article showing “more than a hypothesis” is what the French translation should read.

Evolution: What the Pope Said

"…new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

TRANSLATION: there is good scientific evidence for evolution.

And here is that evidence once again

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

continued…

Akin’s understanding is that the Pope is not necessarily including himself in the above endorsement of biological evolution, but he is stating it is well recognized by science.

And despite the Pope being personally not an expert on the science, that’s why he has the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, those who have the requisite Ph.D.'s in the scientific fields can inform him of the latest developments and research.

Akin writes that the Academy is “an honor society made up of scientists who are appointed to membership by the pope. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences was organized (based on a previous group) in October 1936 by Pope Piux XI, and its purpose is to foster research in the sciences.”

Evolution: What the Pope Said

Translation from the French

And please don’t recommend Robert Sungenis for his scientific views, in case folks don’t know, he is a geocentrist (the earth does not move or rotate, it is “fixed” – he gets this from the Psalms and other biblical texts). He would prefer to take the Church back to the days before Copernicus and Galileo. I still recommend his Not By Scripture Alone (critiques sola scriptura) and Not By Faith Alone (critiques sola fide) since there is good theology in there, but his Not By Science Alone is bound to be not very useful judging his other writings on evolution, young earth creationism, and geocentrism. The Kolbe Center as well is young-earth, so they aren’t very scientific.

Let’s stick with the Popes who said again: there is good scientific evidence for evolution, and it is compatible with Catholic Christianity given certain philosophical restrictions.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Edwin << The second version also does not say the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis. It says instead that the theory of evolution is more than one hypothesis, a point which the Pope restates clearly when he says: “And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.” >>

Akin has confirmed from the French that “more than a hypothesis” is the correct translation of that first paragraph I quoted above. The following paragraphs suggest we should speak of “several theories of evolution,” referring to the different mechanisms proposed (natural selection, etc) and the different interpretations such as materialist, spritualist, etc. Its not that hard to follow. Here is that later paragraph:

“Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy. And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.”

You have interpreted “natural philosophy” as “atheism” in an earlier thread, but that’s not correct either. The Pope is simply saying, first (A) there is good scientific evidence for evolution (more than a hypothesis, etc), and second (B) there are different interpretations of evolution that people from various perspectives put on it – materialist, reductionist, spiritualist or “theistic” interpretations. That’s how I understand him.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Another point, from one of Edwin’s articles…

Sungenis << Conversely, the scientific advances of Creation science, in particular the work of Catholic sedimentologist Dr. Guy Berthault, who has shown through field research and laboratory experiment that geological strata are not formed chronologically over thousands or millions of years but within days or months, has been virtually ignored by the scientific establishment, since, if true, it reverses every theory concerning the geologic column that evolutionists have depended on for so long. >>

Dr. Berthault claims he is not a young-earth creationist, response by Dr. Henke

Dr. Henke has dealt with other Catholic young-earthers from the Kolbe Center in the past, check out his pages here. I believe he is a former creationist Fundamentalist himself, this is what happens to some people when they discover real science…don’t worry it won’t happen to me

Phil P

 

[georgeaquinas]

I must say, I do not understand the controversy about evolution. Science, but its nature has nothing to say about God. We cannot empirically prove the existence of God. In a similar manner, we cannot empirically disprove the existence of God.

The idea that one cannot be a good Catholic, or even a traditional Catholic, and accept the theory of evolution is a fallacious one.

To quote the CCC:

283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly entriched 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.

as to what these scientific investigations lead to, the CCC continues,

284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domian on the natural sciences…of discovering the meaning of such an origin."

The problem is not with the theory of evolution, rather the problem is with people who take the theory of evolution into realms where it does not belong, ie. the philosophy of science, the philosophy of religion, and, most importantly, theology. By this I mean the empirical facts themselves, not the questions such facts may generate.

I would strongly encourage a reading of ‘In the Beginning…’ A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, no flaming theological liberal. He makes the point I am trying to make much more clearly and skillfully. Talking of the apparent contradiction between science and the Creation account he says: “One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is potrayed. The form would have been chosen from what was understandable at the time…thus Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun and the moon and the stars were established. Its prupose unlitmately would be to say one thing: God created the world.”

 

[Trad_Catholic]

Evolution contradicts the Laws of Thermodynamics in light of E=mc2.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Evolution contradicts the Laws of Thermodynamics in light of E=mc2. >>

Not that again, you gotta read something besides creationist protestant or creationist traditionalist literature

All About 2nd Law of Thermo and Creationism

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

<< I would strongly encourage a reading of ‘In the Beginning…’ A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger >>

Mike Behe quotes it in the recent book Uncommon Dissent, definitely sounds like a good Catholic source to get, along with any introduction to evolutionary biology text.

Phil P

 

[promethius]

<< Evolution contradicts the Laws of Thermodynamics in light of E=mc2. >>

i’ve already gone into this proof twice here on this forum, and was promptly ignored each time.

suffice it to say, from a physics student, that the arguement of the second law of thermodynamics being opposed to evolution was composed by a scientific nit-wit. furthermore, the addition of the E=mc^2 line is just a ploy to look smart, since the theory of rest mass/energy has nothing to do with the debate on evolution OR the original line of stupidity trying to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics as proof that evolution could not exist.

 

[Edwin_Taraba]

<< Evolution contradicts the Laws of Thermodynamics in light of E=mc2. >>

i’ve already gone into this proof twice here on this forum, and was promptly ignored each time.

suffice it to say, from a physics student, that the arguement of the second law of thermodynamics being opposed to evolution was composed by a scientific nit-wit. furthermore, the addition of the E=mc^2 line is just a ploy to look smart, since the theory of rest mass/energy has nothing to do with the debate on evolution OR the original line of stupidity trying to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics as proof that evolution could not exist.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics relates to evolution theory in so far as the evolutionists that take Darwin’s thinking to the extreme back to the big bang and come up with their own story that encompasses all of life and the universe and gives us our current popular world view. The world-view we all, scientists and non-scientist alike, learned in school and PBS shows and just by living in this society.

Everything started with the big bang and energy particles eventually developed into elements and chemicals and molecules formed through a random process with no meaning or guidance. All this eventually led to the first “simple” cell as Darwin called it. And then the process of mutation and natural selection, unguided by any being, created all the diversity of living things.

According to Webster’s Dictionary “Naturalism”: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.

That’s about as close to a definition of atheism as I can come without using the word God.

 

[Edwin_Taraba]

Again, it all comes down to whether you believe in the super-natural power of God or not. Could God create a chicken from nothing, fully functioning that hits the ground running? Or did he have to have it hatch from an egg that was laid by a slightly different species of bird that developed through a very gradual process of development of slight modifications over millions of years?

I believe God could have created the chicken from nothing – poof there’s a chicken – just as easily as he could have created the DNA string in the first single cell. It is man’s limitations that come into the picture that require this concept of millions of years. And if God could create the chicken from nothing there is absolutely no point to the whole subject of evolution. Science, including biology could get along just fine with out it.

Scientific method involves observation of phenomena – and we can not observe creation or evolution – and science requires repeated experimentation – which can not be done with creation. You guys are tied up into naturalist philosophy posing as science – because you do not believe that God has super-natural power. Shame on you. Until a scientist creates, from chemicals, a life form and proceeds to coax it into more and more complex species one tiny step at a time, in a laboratory with each step of the way documented and recorded and repeated by independent laboratories, you have no basis to your whole subject. I know I will never see that, but if I ever did, only then might I start to consider evolution theory to have any merit. Until then all you have is unsubstantiated stories.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Edwin Taraba:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics relates to evolution theory in so far as the evolutionists that take Darwin’s thinking to the extreme back to the big bang

Please cite where Darwin mentions the origins of the universe. Come to that, I don’t recall Darwin saying anything about the origins of life even. Once again, we see that the quarrel some theists have is not merely with evolution, but with all of science.

Everything started with the big bang and energy particles eventually developed into elements and chemicals and molecules formed through a random process with no meaning or guidance. All this eventually led to the first “simple” cell as Darwin called it.

Not quite. The first self-replicating molecules. Which would have been vastly simpler things than even modern DNA, let alone cells.

And then the process of mutation and natural selection, unguided by any being, created all the diversity of living things.

Not at all. It may well have been that way, and the erratic path life’s history has taken suggests that the guidance was somewhat inscrutable, but a deity’s guiding hand is certainly not ruled out.

According to Webster’s Dictionary “Naturalism”: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.

The point of science is to offer explanations that are verifiable. That means not assuming that the supernatural is involved, because the supernatural is innately unverifiable. But that does not mean that the supernatural was not involved, merely that we can’t tell. Bear in mind, though, that naturalism has trumped supernaturalism over and over, from the origins of diseases to the causes of thunderstorms. So it is a good, tried-and-tested default position.

That’s about as close to a definition of atheism as I can come without using the word God.

Not requiring gods does not disprove them. I don’t see what the problem is.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Edwin Taraba:

Again, it all comes down to whether you believe in the super-natural power of God or not. Could God create a chicken from nothing, fully functioning that hits the ground running?

If there is such a thing as God, then yes. Demonstrate there is a God, then we can talk about what it did or didn’t actually do.

Or did he have to have it hatch from an egg that was laid by a slightly different species of bird that developed through a very gradual process of development of slight modifications over millions of years?

He didn’t have to do it that way. But the evidence is that (if ‘he’ did anything) that is the way it was done.

I believe God could have created the chicken from nothing – poof there’s a chicken – just as easily as he could have created the DNA string in the first single cell.

Sure. But the question is, according to the evidence, which method was used? The historical traces left by the two methods would not be the same, and so by looking at those traces we can check which hypothesis is right.

It is man’s limitations that come into the picture that require this concept of millions of years.

I don’t see how positing millions of years is a limitation. If anything, it is far harder to imagine those timescales. Rather, it is man’s limitations that make poofing into existence plausible. Creationism saves having to think.

And if God could create the chicken from nothing there is absolutely no point to the whole subject of evolution. Science, including biology could get along just fine with out it.

Take a look at that online Webster’s of yours. I think you’ll discover there is a subtle difference between ‘could’ and ‘did’.
Could I have visited Quebec in 1994? Yes.
Did I visit Quebec in 1994? No.

See the difference?