Under the Microscope: An essay on evolution on July 7th, 2005, by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, in the New York Times suggests that the theory of evolution as proposed by science is incompatible with Catholic faith. Obviously Catholicism, and the other Christian churches, hold that God is actively involved in His creation, but Schönborn has identified a problem where none exists.
There is no necessary conflict between the theory of evolution and Catholic beliefs.
The central scientific theory in biology is the theory of evolution by natural selection. This theory propounds that those new characteristics that spontaneously arise in some members of a biological species and that confer a reproductive advantage on those members are naturally selected because they successfully compete with other characteristics less favourable to reproductive success and gradually replace them in the general population. In this manner, over time, a new species can gradually arise
There are two basic elements in this scenario, usually referred to as "chance" and "necessity". New characteristics spontaneously arise by chance. These new characteristics are then passed through filters that pick their fitness to thrive under natural physical law and environmental conditions. The best-suited characteristics are preserved by faithfully passing them on to future generations by genetics.
It is clear that biological species are designed to live in their environments. Prior to Darwin's and Wallace's theory of evolution (1858), this design was widely interpreted as pointing to the existence of a "Grand Designer" (ie God). However, natural selection unconsciously picks those biological forms that are best suited to their environments and in this manner "designs" the biological world without any scientifically discernible assistance from other sources.
Many biologists responded to this new insight by embracing atheism, which became ever more popular as science progressed to discover genetics and later its chemical basis - DNA. It became clear that random changes in DNA, called mutations, supply the ongoing trickle of novelty on which evolution depends. Biologists particularly emphasised the element of chance in evolution, memorably stated by the Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod in his 1972 book Chance and Necessity (Collins): "Man at last knows he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged by chance."
When I look at the world as described by science, I am principally struck by its stupendous fruitfulness. The universe was born about 15 billion years ago in a giant explosion called the Big Bang and it has been expanding outwards ever since.
Life began on earth about 3.8 billion years ago from lifeless molecules as a single simple form and has since evolved into the wonderful variety that we see today. Every environmental niche is occupied by life, from miles below the surface of the earth to high into our atmosphere. In recent evolutionary history, self-conscious animals have evolved to ponder whether or not God exists.
When I consider the stepwise development of the world, pulling itself upwards by its own bootstraps from energy in the beginning, through stars, elements, solar systems, life, evolution, consciousness and self-consciousness, my whole intuition screams at me that this fantastic fruitfulness is not the product of "blind chance" alone.
I fully accept scientific discoveries regarding evolution and genetics, but I personally do not subscribe to atheistic conclusions, which, in my opinion, make less sense than theistic conclusions. Of course, when I teach students I present the conventional scientific explanation of evolution - my personal opinions are not for the science classroom.
Consider for a moment how a loving creator would approach making the world. Being loving, the creator would grant the world some freedom as to how it develops, but He would also endow the world with properties to allow it to develop along fruitful paths of increasing complexity. Take biological evolution as an example. I accept that the fine details of how evolution has progressed have been determined by chance and necessity, but I believe that somehow the overall path has conformed to a general plan.
In other words, while I believe it was never inevitable that we would have five fingers on each hand, it was inevitable that evolution would produce intelligent life.
Now back to Archbishop Schönborn's article. He declares: "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."
I don't understand Schönborn's problem. Chance and necessity clearly operate in evolution and science believes this is sufficient to explain the process. Science can only propose natural explanations. The Catholic Church accepts the operation of chance and necessity in evolution, but adds a supernatural influence to explain its supernatural concept of the soul. This supplements rather than conflicts with science.
Science has nothing to say about the supernatural. Those scientists who deny the supernatural are expressing opinion, not science.
This is their right, as it is others' right to accept all that science uncovers and to sometimes add spiritual insights to interpret a bigger picture.
William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science officer at UCC. See http://understandingscience.ucc.ie