What We Believe: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution

What We Believe: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution

by
Dcn. James Miles

The secular news in the United States has recently reported on a number of stories related to an ongoing debate in various regions of the country over Intelligent Design and whether it should be taught (or even mentioned) in science curriculums. It is expected that this debate will reach into local schools (parochial and public) as well as our social structures in the near future and we will be asked; What do you believe? It is for this reason the topic is being addressed.

It has been the long-standing tradition of the Catholic Church that the Theory of Evolution, which is based upon a scientific evaluation of facts, does not conflict with her teachings[1]. This would seem to indicate which side of the debate we should be on, but it is confusing.

The first thing we must understand is what the two sides of this debate are really saying. Let’s start with a good definition of Intelligent Design:

Intelligent design, theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Such biological structures are said to have intricate components that are so highly interdependent and so essential to a particular function or process that the structures could not have developed through Darwinian evolution, and therefore must have been created or somehow guided in their development. Although intelligent design is distinguished from creationism by not relying on the biblical account of creation, it is compatible with a belief in God and is often explicitly linked with such a belief. Also, unlike creationists, its proponents do not challenge the idea that the earth is billions of years old and that life on earth has evolved to some degree. The theory does, however, necessarily reject standard science's reliance on explaining the natural world only through undirected natural causes, believing that any theory that relies on such causes alone is incapable of explaining how all biological structures and processes arose.[2]

Now we need a comprehensive definition of Neo-Darwinism:

Neo-Darwinism is the modern version of Darwinian evolutionary theory: the synthesis of Mendelian genetics and Darwinism. Darwin knew very little about the mechanism of variation; he merely recognized that whatever its source, phenotypic variation allowed for natural selection to operate. It was modern genetics that provided the key insight into the means by which variation in biology originated.

Neo-Darwinism postulates that natural selection acts on the heritable (genetic) variations within individuals in populations and that mutations (especially random copying errors in DNA) provide the main source of these genetic variations. Because positive mutations seem to be rare, Neo-Darwinism contends that evolution will be a slow, gradual process.

Neo-Darwinism holds that the processes responsible for small-scale micro-evolutionary changes can be extrapolated indefinitely to produce large-scale macro-evolutionary changes leading to major innovations in form. Neo-Darwinism is also called the Modern Synthesis (as such, it synthesizes or brings together classical Darwinism with modern genetic theory).[3]

A recent New York Times article[4] seemed to indicate that the official view of the Church had changed and that Intelligent Design was somehow acceptable and Neo-Darwinism (The modern label for Evolution) was being challenged.

The Cardinal referred to in the Times article, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, has exceptional credentials and what he said, in part, is somewhat confusing and troubling to many as it seems to support the conclusions the Times drew. The article quotes the following statement made by Cardinal Schönborn; “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

It is also noteworthy that in the same document the Cardinal seems to be trivializing a document written by International Theological Commission called Communion And Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God* and approved by Pope John Paul II, supporting the position of Pius XII and the church’s view of Evolution.

The Cardinal has been challenged by some in the Catholic scientific community most notably Dr. Stephen M. Barr[5]. In his response to Dr. Barr[6] Cardinal Schönborn admits his initial work was not to be construed as supporting what he calls the “Ideology” of Intelligent Design nor was he critical of the science behind Neo-Darwinism. Rather he states, “In short, my argument was based on careful examination of the evidence of everyday experience; in other words, on philosophy.”

Cardinal Schönborn also brings to the fore the real source of the conflict between Creationists, Intelligent Design advocates and the scientific community. Just as he was criticized for proclaiming an Ideology as fact, he points to the scientific community and brings them to task on the same basis. He points out: “He (Barr) could have listed quotations from Darwinian scientists going on dozens of pages in which they make such ‘theological’ assertions, in bold and completely unqualified ways, assertions that evolution by means of random variation and natural selection is an unguided, unplanned process.”

Here at last is the real debate between the creationists, the intelligent design advocates, and the scientific community. When either side steps away from the facts in evidence and draws ideological conclusions about those facts, either supporting the existence of God or denying that existence, they have transgressed the other. To be fair, the scientific community was the first to cross that line and in defense Intelligent Design was born.

The whole purpose of this work is to help create a foundation in which the lay Catholic can understand this debate and make informed choices when addressing these issues with their children and with their schools.

It can be argued that Neo-Darwinism existed before Intelligent Design (there are some who say that the roots of this theory date back to William Paley in his book Natural Theology (1802) and before that to St. Thomas Aquinas’ Suma Theologica), but we need not quibble about that. What is important is that we understand that it is not the definition of Neo-Darwinism that caused the debate but rather the conclusions drawn by some scientists that took the issue to that point.

The scientific community itself has felt the difficulty with this issue. On one hand the scientist who is Christian (or even religious) would not draw a conclusion about creation or evolution that excluded divine involvement. On the other hand, an atheist would deny the same theistic involvement if the hand of God was discovered molding a new species. Faced with the choices one can understand how a scientist like Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University (and a Catholic) could become a spokes person for Intelligent Design. Especially when faced with a colleague like William Provine, a professor of biology at Cornell who is quoted as saying:

“Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces rationally detectable.”[7]

It is important to note that such statements made either publicly or in text books are not considered to be religious statements and therefore are immune to censorship. Given the polarizing affect this debate can have in the supposedly open minded academic community, what are we to tell our children?

As of this writing there has not been an official response to the question; What do I tell my children and how do I address this issue publicly? The appropriate official response then is, we teach what has been provided. That means we do not go forward with the advocates of Intelligent Design and we do not fall into the rational trap laid by the scientific right.

It is important that we keep in mind that this debate is on-going, even (especially) among the scientific and theological communities. As always, we are encouraged to stay informed on issues affecting the faith. The Church has historically not rushed to judgment on issues of this gravity.

We have been taught that God has created the rich tapestry of the universe and all that is in it. We have also been given, by that same creator, the intellect to understand some part of His creation. Hopefully we have also received some part of the humility of His Son, Jesus, so we know we can never hope to fully understand the marvels of our physical being.

It is through this lens of faith that we must view both the discovery of the physical world through science and the debate surrounding that discovery as different viewpoints collide over the implications. Until the teaching Magisterium of the Church comes down on the subject definitively we stay true to our faith.

[1] Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis, 12 August 1950
[2] This definition is taken from http://www.infoplease.com
[3] This definition is taken from http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Neo-Darwinism
[4] “Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution” Cornelia Dean and Laurie Goodstein, New York Times, July 9, 2005
[5] The Design of Evolution, Stephen M. Barr, Copyright (c) 2005 First Things 156 (October 2005): 9-12.
[6] The Designs of Science, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, Copyright (c) 2006 First Things 159 (January 2006): 34-38.

[7] Access Research Network, Origins Research Archives, Volume 16, Number 1 Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy? A debate between William B. Provine and Phillip E. Johnson at Stanford University, April 30, 1994