Correspondent of the Day, June 17, 2009
Theories Aren't Bare Facts
Editor, Times-Dispatch: In his letter, "Evolution Isn't Fact -- Don't Present as Such," Ron Ellyson is absolutely correct in stating that the theory of evolution is not fact. In science, theories are not facts, nor do they ever become facts. Theories explain facts. They are not hunches or speculation; they are the method by which science explains observable laws and phenomena. Theories are not concrete, they are fluid and ever-changing.
And therein lies their beauty; as more facts are discovered, observed, and accepted, theories are either corroborated, modified to incorporate the newly discovered evidence, or discarded completely. Far from being anti-scientific, theories demand some of scientists' most challenging work.
St. Augustine, one of Christianity's most prolific and influential early writers, had no problem in understanding that the Bible was not a scientific document, and God's creation was not static and would continue to evolve. Augustine certainly had no knowledge of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, having lived some 14 centuries before Darwin -- but he was well acquainted with the sciences of his own day.
In his book On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine warned Christians not to expound on scientific subjects of which they were not knowledgeable lest they bring ridicule on the Christian community. Almost in anticipation of Darwin, Augustine elsewhere wrote: "The universe was brought into being in a less than fully-formed state but gifted with the capacities to transform itself, in conformity with God's will, from unformed matter into a truly marvelous array of physicals structures and life forms." Sure sounds like evolution to me.
Bill Humphrey.
Henrico.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
I have read both Bill Humphrey’s and Studebaker’s comments. I am more confused now than I was before.
Ken Ham, President, AiG-U.S. and the Creation Museum:
Ultimately there are only two ways to look at this: a person is either for Christ or against Him. That person walks in light or darkness. So, there are two religions in conflict: one which is based on the authoritative Word of God and one built on man’s fallible ideas/opinions. In fact, this is the real nature of the “culture war” in America. Yet it is really the same war that started in the Garden of Eden over 6,000 years ago when Satan tempted Eve—God’s Word was not accepted, and humans decided to determine truth for themselves.
MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: ON EVOLUTION: Pope John Paul II
In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation…
For my part, when I received the participants in the plenary assembly of your Academy on October 31, 1992, I used the occasion—and the example of Gallileo—to draw attention to the necessity of using a rigorous hermeneutical approach in seeking a concrete interpretation of the inspired texts. It is important to set proper limits to the understanding of Scripture, excluding any unseasonable interpretations which would make it mean something which it is not intended to mean. In order to mark out the limits of their own proper fields, theologians and those working on the exegesis of the Scripture need to be well informed regarding the results of the latest scientific research.
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
…With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised.
Moreover, the elaboration of a theory such as that of evolution, while obedient to the need for consistency with the observed data, must also involve importing some ideas from the philosophy of nature. And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution…There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.
As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.
With man, we find ourselves facing a different ontological order—an ontological leap, we could say. But in posing such a great ontological discontinuity, are we not breaking up the physical continuity which seems to be the main line of research about evolution in the fields of physics and chemistry? An appreciation for the different methods used in different fields of scholarship allows us to bring together two points of view which at first might seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator’s designs.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.


Advertisement