Education and the Theory of Evolution

One of the jobs of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is to look at the various threads of American popular culture and to identify those that should be actively opposed by Catholics. According to a recent article at catholicnews.com, the U.S. bishops are starting to worry about a particular adverse influence of fundamentalist Protestantism on Catholics. The worrisome thing, from the Church hierarchy's point of view, is the occasional Catholic's public insistence---in the face of scientific facts that militate against it---on a literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. A child, of course, is not harmed by his learning the creation story, even though he is capable only of understanding it at the literal level. Even an adult who is ignorant of the observational evidence and who has no occasion for public discussion of things scientific is not harmed by imagining the creation stories literally to be true. The stories get some points, like God's creating only good things and man's responsibility for the presence of all evil in the physical universe, right on. However, for the Catholic, who is aware of the real scientific evidence and who has some measure of responsibility publicly to discuss the issue, to insist on a merely literal interpretation of the creation narratives is wrong; such a Catholic misrepresents the Church's position.

This subject is particularly interesting to me. I have posted elsewhere in this blog comments about religion, science, and evolution. Moreover, I have indicated that my serious consideration of the Church as a true authority began in my detailed investigation, ten or so years ago, of the Church's teaching on evolution. The debate over the teaching of evolutionary theory in the public schools is a debate that seems never to die for very long. And it is back in the headlines again:

In January, the public school board in Cobb County, Ga., voted to appeal a federal judge's order to remove stickers on science textbooks which said that "evolution is a theory, not a fact."

This quote, in my view, highlights the main reason for the continuing debate: Almost everybody is confused. In the midst of confusion, even more than in the midst of heartfelt disagreement, nothing can be settled. At least when there is a clear disagreement, everyone can see it, and there is little sense in trying to clarify it further. Unfortunately, the public debate over evolution is mired in confusion about what science actually is, even among practicing scientists, many of whom have never bothered to study the philosophy and history of modern science.

On the one hand, despite what the general public might have you believe, my agreement that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" does not make me a member of the anti-evolution camp. No right-thinking person actually believes that a particular evolutionary theory is true, just as no right-thinking person actually believes that general relativity is true. Rather, the person with his head on straight recognizes that, at present, for each proper subset of the available paleontological data there is some evolutionary theory that is the best theory to fit those data. Moreover, no matter how unlikely it might now seem, some future evidence could rule out the very idea of evolution as a useful concept.

The point is that no scientific theory can ever be proved true, and, if history is any guide, every scientific theory will eventually be proved false.

By scientists.

For example, Lamarck's theory of evolution was proved false. So was Darwin's theory of universal gradual evolution. So was Newtonian mechanics.

On the other hand, there are scientific facts. Every peer-reviewed, published, repeatable experimental result or observation is a scientific fact. And it's the pesky scientific fact that always eventually spells doom for any given theory, like a cosmology based on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Fortunately, according to the Church's position, the scientific anthropological community has the right authority to say what theory best fits the scientific facts about the origin of the human body. So the Church's position is consistent with modern science because the Church recognizes the right authority of the scientific community. The Church's position is also consistent with the Apostolic Tradition, according to which man is certainly not, in his entirety, a product of evolution: The human person is more than just a body. That is---the religious claims of the atheist notwithstanding---the human person has an immaterial soul, and the human soul certainly did not evolve, even if the human body did evolve.

Anyway, if you have read this far, then I thank you for putting up with me. My hope is to make clear and explicit what is usually, in public debate on this issue, expressed only vaguely and implicitly. My duty as a Catholic, following the direction of the U.S. bishops, is to represent the Church fairly, clearly, and precisely. I should very much be interested in any discussion on the matter, though I don't really expect much in this low-traffic blog. :^)