1. The Message of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, presented on 22 October 1996 and published in L'Osservatore Romano dated the following day, caused a worldwide sensation. What was most noted by the secular media is the announcement that "new items of knowledge lead to recognizing in the theory of evolution more than an hypothesis" (de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaître dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse). While this statement was greeted with jubilation on the part of evolutionists everywhere, it caused no little dismay and confusion among traditional Catholic believers, who were at a loss to locate it within the context of their belief. It is in the hope of providing such a context that I present this article.
2. The historical background of the Message, as presented in the same 23 October issue of L'Osservatore Romano, can be summarized as follows. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences takes its origin from the Accademia dei Lincei, which was founded in 1603 by Federico Cesi and which counted Galileo Galilei among its first members. It was later made a pontifical academy, In 1870 some of the members split off to form the Italian Accademia dei Lincei, while the rest remained in what was then called the Pontifical Academy of the New Lincei. Pope Pius XI reorganized and relaunched this academy in 1936 as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and the occasion of the Message of Pope John Paul II which we are studying was the plenary assembly of the members celebrating the sixtieth anniversary of the refounding. The aim of the refounded Academy, as determined by Pope Pius XI, is to "promote the progress of the mathematical, physical, and natural sciences and the study of the epistemological problems related to them," and its purpose is thus to provide to the Holy See scientifically correct information regarding knowledge in these fields. Of the eighty members of the Academy at the time when Pope John Paul II presented this Message, twenty-six were holders of the Nobel Prize. According to the rules of the Academy, new members are chosen by the academic body and appointed for life by the Holy Father "regardless of race or religious creed."
3. The Message is a combination of dialogue and teaching. As regards dialogue, the Pope extends to this assembly of natural scientists a continuing invitation to inform the Holy See "in complete freedom" about developments in scientific research, "certain that we will be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science." The members of the Academy had chosen two themes for discussion during this plenary assembly, the first being "The Origins and Early Evolution of Life," and the other, "Science at the Dawn of the Third Millennium." Pope John Paul proceeds in his Message to express his esteem for both of these discussions as being important areas of concern also for the Church. Regarding the theme of evolution, the Pope begins by noting that "the Magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence," of which he here mentions two. a) Pope Pius XII declared in 1950, in his Encyclical Letter Humani generis, "that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of some solid points (quelques points fermes)." 1 b) Pope John Paul II says that he himself "had the opportunity, with regard to Galileo, 2 to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word," regarding which he went on to say: "it is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own object of study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results at which the natural sciences are arriving."
4. Regarding Humani generis, Pope John Paul notes also in his Message of 1996: "Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of in-depth research and reflection on a par with that of the opposing hypothesis (à l'égal de l'hypothèse opposée). Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain and proved doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I shall return."
5. Having taken into account these two past interventions of the Magisterium of the Church, Pope John Paul goes on in his Message to declare: "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical [Humani generis], new items of knowledge lead to recognizing in the theory of evolution more than an hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively established itself in the minds of researchers (se soit progressivement imposée à l'esprit des chercheurs),following a series of discoveries in various disciplines of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought after nor provoked, of the results of work that was conducted independently constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
6. Pope John Paul then addresses the significance of such a theory. "A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a collection of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory has validity to the extent that it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought. 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 theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the diversity of 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."
7. Pope John Paul then explains how the Magisterium of the Church regards the question of evolution. The Magisterium of the Church is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it touches upon the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he has been created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:28-29 [26-27]). ... It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubet" 3). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ... ... The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with ever greater precision and inscribe them on the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual is not an object of this kind of observation, which, nevertheless, can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs of what is specific regarding the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, of freedom, or, again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans."
8. Pope Pius XII, in Humani generis, spoke also of "that sound philosophy," which, "acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality, and finality, and finally the mind's ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth. ... Never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic." 4 Later in the same Encyclical Letter, Pope Pius XII goes on to say:
8a. "It remains for us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted." 5
8b. "For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, inasfar as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation, and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. 6 Some, however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question." 7
9. In analyzing the Message of Pope John Paul II, one first of all should note that the Pope does indeed say to the assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that in our day "new items of knowledge (de nouvelles connaissances) lead to recognizing the theory of evolution as more than an hypothesis," and he notes that "it is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively established itself in the minds of researchers , following a series of discoveries (une série de découvertes) in different disciplines of knowledge." And he immediately adds that this "convergence" (convergence) of discoveries in different disciplines of knowledge was neither sought after nor staged (nullement recherchée ou provoquée), but resulted from independent research, which, therefore, "constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory" (cf. no. 5 above). But Pope John Paul II was not teaching these affirmations to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He was rather repeating what he had heard from them in the context of "a trustful dialogue between the Church and science" (no. 3 above). Hence, the authority for these statements is not the Pope as authentic teacher of the Faith, but those members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences who have assured him that these judgments are true. The form of dialogue which is a common activity in the contemporary Church utilizes a certain degree of trust, but this trust is not in itself a guarantee of objective truth.
10. Yet, Pope John Paul II is speaking as a teacher of the Faith where he begins to say that "the Magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence," and he makes particular mention of the encyclical Humani generis of Pope Pius XII and of his own Address of 31 October 1992 to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (cf. no. 3 above). While Pope Pius XII "considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' a serious hypothesis" (no. 4 above), Pope John Paul II, almost half a century later, says that it is "more than an hypothesis," that it has become a "theory" which "has progressively established itself in the minds of researchers" (no. 5 above). Is, then, the theory of evolution now to be considered the preferred opinion in the outlook of the Catholic Church? Such a conclusion does not follow, but in addressing this question, certain distinctions need to be made.
10a. Pope John Paul II is obviously acknowledging that the doctrine of evolution is preferred among the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, whose opinion he trusts, and yet he limits it in terms of certain "solid points" ("points fermes") contained in the Magisterium of the Church (no. 3 above). Pope Pius XII spoke of opinions favorable to evolution and opinions unfavorable to evolution (no. 8b above), but he contrasted "hypotheses having some sort of scientific foundation" with "clearly proved facts" (no. 8a above), in the context of which a theory is simply a more widely based hypothesis, and this is what Pope John Paul points out where he says that "this theory has been progressively impressed upon the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in various disciplines of knowledge" (no. 5 above). And Pope Pius XII drew a line of discretion where he added: "Some, however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already certain and proved by the facts" (no. 8b above). And Pope John Paul II reaffirms this rule of procedure in his Message where he says that one should not "lose sight of several indisputable points, two of which are, he says, that "this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain and proved doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises" (nos. 3 and 4 above). Hence, the modification made by Pope John Paul II upon the teaching of Pope Pius XII in Humani generis seems to be as follows: Whereas Pope Pius XII declared that the doctrine of evolution of the human body may be studied as an hypothesis not based upon clearly proved facts, Pope John Paul II teaches that the doctrine of the evolution of the human body may be studied as a theory not based upon clearly proved facts. Granted, then, that the distinction made by Pope Pius XII was between hypothesis and historical fact, not between hypothesis and theory, the difference in the teaching of Pope John Paul II is virtually nil.
10b. When did the hypothesis of the evolution of species become a theory? Already in the time of Charles Darwin, who died in 1882, it was known generally among natural scientists as the "theory of evolution," and it has been called such ever since. One kind of theory seeks to explain a set of proven and certified data or phenomena, and this type of theory pertains to statistical science. Another kind of theory seeks to determine whether a particular event or set of events took place in the past, and this type of theory pertains to historical science. Historical facts pertain to concrete historical events, and what Pope Pius XII pointed out in Humani generis (no. 8b above) was that the idea (historical hypothesis) of a development of the human body from pre-existing living matter of any kind was not "completely certain and proved by the facts," that is, by the historical facts. Thus, two radically different kinds of theories are involved in this question. The theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin started out as a doctrine or scheme of things resting almost entirely on supposition and conjecture regarding the observed structure and habits of certain species. This scheme of things - a genetic interlocking of species - has never been verified as a law of evolution, but it has been widely accepted as a basis of experimentation, which has never, however, resulted in any clearly proved fact supporting the theory, and also as the basis of a search for proof which has never been found. It has thus become a hypothetical explanation of phenomena, namely, the observed structure of species of living things, based upon a hypothetical process of genetic transformation. All of this study and research pertains to the method of the statistical sciences, whose purpose it is to determine and formulate general laws, and to search for a law which, in this case, has never been verified. And, as Pope John Paul explains in his Message, "A theory has validity to the extent that it can be verified" (no. 6 above).
10c. The proposed evolution of the human body is not a question of statistical law but rather of historical fact. It cannot be deduced from or predicted by a statistical law, because no such law of evolution has ever been proved to exist. Pope John Paul notes the non-existence of any general law regarding the evolution of all things and in particular the evolution of man where he says: "Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God. Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man" (no. 7 above). Any belief, "scientific" or otherwise, in a blind force within physical nature having produced on its own the non-living and the living universe is implicitly excluded by these words. And any viewpoint that does not acknowledge the finality apparent in the natural world is explicitly excluded in Humani generis (no. 8 above). It should also be noted that, if materialist observers were to witness today the divine creation of a new biological species, they would tend to explain it as a spontaneous natural generation.
11. In his Message, Pope John Paul II, following Pope Pius XII, notes that the opinion in favor of evolution "should not be adopted as though it were a certain and proved doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises" (no. 4 above). Pope Pius XII was referring to demands on the part of some that the Church be more open to questions raised by the positive sciences in matters "more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith," and the exact words of Humani generis read: "This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted" (no. 8 above). Hence, to the extent that a theory of evolution is directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God it can in no way be admitted. But, if there can be any theory of evolution that is not either directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, it can be admitted for study or even acceptance, provided that it can also be proved by historical methods to be an historical fact. And, in determining that a theory of evolution is not directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, Pope John Paul says, exegetes and other theologians must exercise "a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the word of God" in order to "determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say" (no. 3 above).
12. But Sacred Scripture does intend to say what it says, and Sacred Scripture narrates the origin of man in the first three chapters of Genesis. "And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds .... And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness .... And God created man to his own image; to the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen 1: 25-27). "And the Lord God formed man (of) dust (Hebrew: aphar = dust; Septuagint: χoυv = dust or earth, thrown down or heaped up) from the ground, and breathed into his face the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen 2:7). "And the Lord God, having formed from the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them" (Gen 2:19). "Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam, and, when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman and brought her to Adam. And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken from man" (Gen 2:21-23). Indications regarding the proper sense of these words were given by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in its response of 30 June 1909 On the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis. The Commission declared a) that those pseudoscientific exegetical systems elaborated for the purpose of "excluding the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis" are not based upon solid arguments (DS 3512); b) that these three chapters contain "a narrative which corresponds to objective reality and historical truth" and not "legends partly historical and partly fictitious" (DS 3513); c) that we may not call into question the "literal and historical meaning" of facts narrated in these three chapters "which touch the fundamental teachings of the Christian religion, as, for example, the creation of all things which was accomplished by God at the beginning of time, the special creation of man, the formation of the first woman from man, the unity of the human race, ..." (DS 3514); d) that not each and every word and phrase in these chapters need necessarily be interpreted "in a proper literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when expressions are manifestly used figuratively, that is, metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and when reason forbids us to hold, or necessity impels us to depart from, the proper sense" (DS 3516); e) that, since it was the intention of the sacred author of the first chapter of Genesis "to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adapted to the senses and to man's intelligence," we are not strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters, "to seek for scientific exactitude of expression (scientifici sermonis proprietas)" DS 3518).
13. Similarly, in Humani generis (no. 38) it is declared that "the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do, nevertheless, pertain to history in a true sense, which, however, must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people."
14. How literally, then, are the words of Sacred Scripture to be understood: "And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground" (Gen 2:7), "and the Lord God, having formed from the ground all the beasts of the field and the birds of the air" (Gen 2:19), "and the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman and brought her to Adam" (Gen 2:22)? 8 Does the narrative of the creation of man and of woman show an anthropomorphic feature in the sense that God does not use hands to mold a living thing after the fashion of a potter or a sculptor? Is the time-frame implied in the description of this formation necessarily limited to a few seconds, minutes, hours, or days? Clearly, in a common, pictorial sense, and at first sight, a very short time seems to be implied, but not every level of meaning in Sacred Scripture is apparent at first sight. Still, the account in the first three chapters of Genesis provides, and has always provided, "a narrative which corresponds to objective reality and historical truth" (no. 12 above). And the whole of the first three chapters of Genesis, including the narration of the creation of man, form also the world-view of Christianity as well as of the Old Testament tradition. Hence, any theory of evolution which would seek to replace this world-view with a material process that denies creation by God and the finality which He has instilled into it is rejected by the Magisterium as an anti-Christian mental construct. Pope John Paul II alludes to this where he says: "The Magisterium of the Church is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it touches upon the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he has been created in the image and likeness of God. ... Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man." In fact, he adds, it is theology, and not empirical science, which brings out the "ultimate meaning" of life "according to the Creator's plans" (no. 7 above). But "God is a spirit, and those who adore him must adore him in spirit and in truth" (Jn 4:24). Thus, any theory of evolution which directly or indirectly excludes the role of God as the Creator of the universe and the Creator of man is incompatible with the truth about man. The pertinent question is, therefore,whether there can be a theory of evolution of the human body that is not incompatible with the teaching of Sacred Scripture.
15. Any theory of biological evolution admitting an upward transformation of species from non-living to living to man, even from molecule to man, but in accordance with a divine plan and potency either placed in matter by God from the beginning or instilled by subsequent creative interventions, is known as theistic evolutionism. The idea of theistic evolution is not contrary in itself to the notion of creation by God and was held tentatively in certain aspects by St. Augustine of Hippo, not as an upward transformation of species over immense periods of time, but as a kind of spontaneous generation from non-living matter into this or that living species. This theory was struck a severe blow from which it has never recovered when Louis Pasteur demonstrated that there is no observable spontaneous generation of living beings on any level in the natural world, in the sense that those instances which were thought to occur spontaneously were shown always to proceed from parents of the same species. In the absence of any observed spontaneous generation in biological nature, evolutionists were forced back upon the conjecture of a single occurrence in the far distant past in which one living cell was imagined to have sprung spontaneously to life as a result of an electrical shock or something similar, after which the whole ascending scale of biological beings is imagined to have arisen. However, not only is there no convincing evidence that such a series of events has occurred, but no one has even devised a plausible mechanism whereby such spontaneous leaps to different and more complex kinds of living beings could have taken place. Objective believers in evolution admit this. Thus, for instance, molecular biologist and evolutionist Michael Denton points out that, of the thousands of protein molecules needed to enable the life of the simplest living cell, most are composed of "several thousand atoms folded into an immensely complex spatial arrangement," while some of its DNA molecules "may consist of several million subunits." 9 The two fundamental assumptions of Darwinian evolutionary theory, he says, are that the design of all living species is the result of a blind random process of development and that there is a functional continuum of living species leading back to one primeval cell. In surveying all of the pertinent fields of empirical research, Denton announced in 1986 that "neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin's macroevolutionary theory ... have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859" (the year in which Darwin first published his Origin of Species). 10 It would, therefore, be interesting to see what new discoveries have been made since 1950 which would lead the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to advise the Pope to recognize that a transition has now taken place from the hypothesis of evolution to the theory of evolution. In particular, when Pope John Paul says in his Message that the plurality of theories of evolution "has to do with the diversity of explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution," he is not implying that there is an identified mechanism of evolution, but rather that there are several theories regarding a supposed mechanism of evolution that has never been verified by scientifically proven facts.
16.Theistic evolutionists in general allow for design in the conjectured evolutionary process, but they have no hard evidence for a functional continuum of living species bridging either the whole ascending series or even one major gap between species. Catholic theistic evolutionists tend to base their position, not so much upon a rigorous study of the evidence, as upon the mere deduction that the idea in itself of an upward spontaneous transformation of biological species does not necessarily conflict with the idea of creation by God. Theistic evolution thus is based more upon speculative thinking than upon a critical weighing of the historical facts revealed in Sacred Scripture or discovered by human research. Catholic theistic evolutionists, including those specialized in the empirical sciences, have tended to trust in their native ability to identify weaknesses in evolutionary theory, but they have on the whole never even seen the imposing array of contemporary arguments that exist in refutation of any actual evidence for an historic upward transformation of species. 11 Yet Pope Pius XII exhorted them to do so when he said: "However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation, and measure ...." (no. 8b above). Pius XII was referring especially to speculation on the origin of the human body, and, in this regard it is noteworthy that all of the major "missing links" that have been claimed since 1895 have in the meanwhile been discarded as errors, misconceptions, or shameful hoaxes. 12 Thus, W.R. Thompson, in his "Introduction to The Origin of Species," 13 made this overall assessment in 1956: "The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. ... A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before then a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus [Java man], who admitted, many years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human." 14
17. Pope John Paul II had already expressed his concern that the Church not experience another incident like the "Galileo case." In an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 31 October 1992, 15 he cautioned against two things: on the one hand, against undue extrapolations linking strictly scientific discoveries "to a vision of the world or to ideological or philosophical affirmations which do not at all follow as corollaries;" and against not making "a distinction between the scientific approach to natural phenomena and philosophical reflection on nature." Regarding this, he noted that Galileo, for his part, had refused to present the Copernican system "as an hypothesis, inasmuch as it had not been confirmed by irrefutable proof." 16 On the other hand, the Pope went on to say, "the majority of theologians [in Galileo's time] did not perceive the formal distinction between Holy Scripture and its interpretation, a fact which led them to transpose unduly into the domain of the doctrine of the Faith a question actually relating to scientific investigation." 17 And so, "the error of the theologians of that era, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our knowledge of the structure of the physical world was in a certain way impressed upon the literal sense of Sacred Scripture." The Pope pointed out that the principal task of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is "to promote the development of knowledge according to the legitimate autonomy of science," which means "to discern and make known, in the present state of science and in the domain which is its own, what can be regarded as a truth acquired or at least enjoying such probability that it would be imprudent and unreasonable to reject it." 18
18. In his same allocution of 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II quoted St. Augustine of Hippo as having written: "If it turns out that the authority of Holy Scripture is placed in opposition to a manifest and certain reason, this means that the one who(is interpreting Scripture)does not understand it correctly." 19 In fact, St. Augustine enlarges upon this teaching where he says: "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world ..., and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the Faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of Heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?" 20 Now, the theory of evolution has never been verified by reason or by experience, but Pope John Paul II is concerned that some day the evolution of the human body might possibly be proved to be an historical fact, so he warns against too quickly and too superficially concluding that such a possibility is excluded by divine Revelation. He pointed out in 1992, with reference to the Galileo case, the perception of St. Robert Bellarmine that "in face of possible future scientific proof that the earth revolves around the sun, it would be necessary 'to interpret with great circumspection' every passage of the Bible which seems to affirm that the earth is stationary and 'to say that we don't understand rather than affirm what has been shown to be false.'" 21
19. St. Augustine expressed a similar concern, and he took the example of Gen 1:3: "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and light was made." One person may see this as referring to material light, another to spiritual light. But could material light have existed before the heavens were made? Augustine answers: "There will be nothing contrary to the Faith in such a supposition until unerring truth gives the lie to it. And, if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture, but was an opinion prepared by man in his ignorance. On the other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion is unquestionably true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant something else no less true. And if the general drift of the passage shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teaching, the other, which he did intend, will not thereby be false; indeed, it will be true and more worth knowing. On the other hand, if the tenor of the words of Scripture does not militate against our taking this teaching as the mind of the writer, we shall still have to inquire whether he could not have meant something else besides. And if we find that he could have meant something else also, it will not be clear which of the two meanings he intended. And there is no difficulty if he is thought to have wished both interpretations, if both are supported by clear indications in the context." 22 This citation suggests that passages of Sacred Scripture may have more than one literal meaning, and St. Thomas concurs in this idea. 23
20. In the issue under study, is Gen 2:19, "having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and the birds of the air," to be understood by Christian faith as meaning that the various living species of things sprang up over an indefinite period of time from ordered potentialities sown by God within the ground at the first instant of creation, as St. Augustine speculated, 24 or did the Lord God immediately instill the various living forms of biological species into portions of the dust of the earth within a period of ninety-six hours, as a first impression would seem to imply? Let us examine the possibility of a double literal sense. On the one hand, the sacred writer has obviously intended to narrate the origin of the world in popular (simple and non-technical) words and in a somewhat anthropomorphic style. On the other hand, he seems also to have expressed his narrative in words that can also support (without teaching or unambiguously affirming) a technical interpretation that does not contradict what modern physical science has definitely ascertained. And the same biblical narrative would seem to fit (without teaching) a certain developmental view of creation. 25 But whether the text would allow some theory of the upward transformation of species is the point at issue, a question concerning which the Magisterium has not passed final judgment (no. 8b above). Nevertheless, in any study of a possible compatibility of evolutionary theory with the teaching of Sacred Scripture, certain established points must be kept in mind, including the following: a) God created the world and everything in it; b) every angel has been created directly out of nothing; c) God created the original matter of the universe out of nothing; d) God creates the spiritual soul of every man out of nothing (no. 10 above); e) the description of the creation of man in Gen 1-3 is an historical account (no. 12 above), and, therefore, the interventions of God mentioned in these three chapters really took place, however they may allow themselves to be interpreted; f) the separate events described in Gen 1-3 have real historical meaning both on a non-technical level and on any technical level that might be definitely ascertained; g) therefore, no technical discovery can rule out the truth and validity of the popular description as a popular description.
21. The possibility of a double literal sense in passages of Sacred Scripture has never been sufficiently explored by exegetes, but the relationship of the earth to the sun affords a good example. Since the theory that the earth revolves on its axis and around the sun is held to be a virtual fact by most educated people, it would be unwise for exegetes to claim today that this idea is contrary to the teaching of Sacred Scripture. As a visual phenomenon, the sun does in fact rise every morning, move across the sky, and set every evening, and this visual phenomenon forms part of the Christian view of the world, especially as regards certain historical episodes in the Old Testament and in its typological significance in relation to the coming of Jesus Christ (cf. Mal 4:2); also, in a tropological sense, the rising of Christ is the turning of the hearts of believers toward the light of his justice. The historical truth of the Scriptures allows one to hold the heliocentric theory on a technical level while, at the same time, recognizing the image of the sun rising and setting as factually true on a popular visual level and as providing a base for the spiritual senses that are rooted in it. The same might hypothetically be true for the creation of animals in Gen 1:24 and 2:19. Do these words necessarily exclude a graduated process over a long period of time or even a concatenated upward development from species to species? The fact that several Fathers of the Church read these words as depicting a kind of bursting forth of animals from the active power of the elements 26 would seem to indicate that the Scriptures do not per se exclude a graduated process, granted that neither do they teach this in their proper sense and granted also that solid evidence would be needed on an historical level. The same could be said for the origin of man in Gen 2:7 with due consideration being given to the creation of the first woman in Gen 2:21-22 and to the rest that is said about man in these three chapters. That the Lord God intervened miraculously in the process of nature to create the things described in these chapters, that these acts of creation are real historical events, would seem to be de fide. But doubt has been raised that it is de fide that the process that God used in preparing these acts of creation is the absence of all process which first comes to mind in reading the words of the inspired text. "We think the general teaching that the body comes ultimately from the earth is certain and of faith, but the Fathers in general do not specifically stress the immediate origin from the earth in such a way as to make it a certain point. They do not say that the immediate origin is de fide." 27
22. If it is not de fide that the origin of the human body is directly and immediately from the dust of the earth, the issue of evolution reduces itself to a question of world-view and a question of historical fact. The first three chapters of Genesis in their proper sense present the world-view of Judaism and of Christianity. Paramount in this world-view is the series of creative interventions by God. Thus, any conception of the origin of biological species which excludes these divine interventions or relegates them to a world of religious fantasy on allegedly "scientific" grounds represents a pseudoscientific world-view.
23. In evolutionary thinking, scientific theory is often confused with historical fact, and one reason for this is that natural scientists are usually not properly trained in historical method. Even natural scientists who are recognized to be historians of science are usually better trained in statistical method than they are in historical method, and this fact applies also to the membership of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. 28 Michael Denton points out that many of his peers adhere to one or another anti-creationist theory of evolution, not because they know it is true, but because it satisfies for them, a "deep psychological need for an all-embracing explanation for the origin of the world." 29 What he means is that non-theistic evolution provides a psychologically needed substitute for the world-view presented in Genesis 1-3. And this psychological need is emotionally based, causing many scientists to exaggerate the proven data and to minimize the unproven data regarding the theory of evolution, thus giving rise to a prejudice that is a frequent element of evolutionary thinking and which is not entirely absent from the membership of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, as is evident also from the fact that the members are chosen "regardless of race or creed" (cf. no. 2 above). Nor is evolutionary bias absent from the way in which the theory is taught in most classrooms, namely, not as a theory but as a certified historical fact, with little or no attention being given to the evidence against the theory. 30 This teaching method violates the directive given by Pope Pius XII, which is still in effect, that the theory of evolution may not be taught to be a proven historical fact and that, therefore, the arguments against the theory must also be presented. But the frequency of this bias among empirical scientists may help to explain why the theory of evolution "has progressively established itself in the minds of researchers, following a series of discoveries in various disciplines of knowledge." During the past half-century, with the advances made in molecular biology and in other fields, and with the uncovering of a series of misrepresentations in the presentation of "missing links," the already tenuous evidence for the theory of evolution has weakened even more. In the meanwhile, critics of the theory have advanced from the disproving of claims made for evolution to showing that in various disciplines believers in evolution admit that the theory does not stand up in their own field of expertise, but believe on human faith alone that it has "converging evidence" from other fields. 31
24. General Conclusions.
The following general conclusions seem to be in order.
a. In his Message of 22 October 1996, Pope John Paul II states in a spirit of trustful dialogue that there is "in the theory of evolution more than an hypothesis," but he does not teach this as Pope; he is simply repeating back to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences the opinion that they have given to him.
b. Pope Pius XII, in Humani generis, contrasts hypotheses, not with theories, but with historical facts, and Pope John Paul II in his Message implicitly adopts the rule of Pius XII that evolution, and in particular the evolution of the human body, may be studied as a theory but may not be considered to be a proven historical fact, always with the proviso that both opinions, pro and contra, be "weighed and studied with the necessary seriousness, moderation, and measure." The opinion given by members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to the effect that the hypothesis of evolution has become a theory due to impressive new discoveries made in various disciplines since the year 1950 provokes the question: What new discoveries?
c. In treating the theory of evolution, many natural scientists tend to confuse questions of concrete historical fact with speculation regarding a supposed general law of development, and they thus tend to step outside of their own field of expertise to draw conclusions which violate the rules of historical method. The narrative of creation in Genesis 1-3 presents the historic world-view of Judaism and Christianity, but many natural scientists use the theory of evolution as a quasi-religious substitute for this revealed outlook. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is not exempt from this frequent failure to recognize the whole truth about man and the universe, partly because its members are chosen "regardless of race or religious creed" and partly because many natural scientists cannot fully reconcile their professional outlook with the world-view given in divine revelation.
d. The idea of theistic evolution, taken to mean an upward development of biological species as planned by God, and allowing for creative divine interventions during the process, has been left open by the Magisterium of the Church for the serious study of competent persons. Many Catholic exegetes and other theologians favor the idea of theistic evolution on the ground that it does not seem to be excluded by the teaching of Sacred Scripture or of the Fathers of the Church, but almost invariably without seriously having looked into the factual arguments against it. Many books and articles have been published in recent years claiming to refute virtually every piece of concrete evidence for the theory advanced by evolutionists, even to the point of concluding that the idea of the transformation of species has not been validated "by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859," the year in which Darwin first published his Origin of Species.
e. Pope John Paul II declares in his Message that exegetes and other theologians must exercise "a rigorous hermeneutic" in order to discern "the proper sense of Scripture." Since, according to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the account of creation in Genesis 1-3 is "a narrative which corresponds to objective reality and historical truth," the literal historical sense must be maintained, but one is not always bound "to seek for scientific exactitude of expression" in the proper sense of the words. While both St. Augustine and St. Thomas suggest the possibility of a multiple literal sense, this possibility has never been sufficiently explored by exegetes. If there is an underlying technical sense in Genesis 1-3, any true elucidation of this sense could not contradict the basic historical truth inherent in the wording of the text.
f. Pope John Paul II's Message of 1996 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences can be understood also as a call to restore the Judeo-Christian world-view to the community of natural scientists, for so long deceived by the slogan: "Evolution is science, but creation is religion." Actually, creation is the point of departure of historical science, and it is an integrating concept of the scientific viewpoint taken as a whole. In recent decades an impressive number of researchers have been making new discoveries regarding the science underlying the doctrine of creation, but most natural scientists and most Catholic theologians and historians have chosen to disregard what scientists critical of evolutionary theory have to say. As a result, there seems to be at present no ordinary channel of this information to the Pope. It seems, then, that a dialogue needs to be established between theologians, exegetes, and evolution scientists on the one hand, and creation scientists on the other in the search for a possibly fuller exposition of Genesis 1-3 that will take all of the facts into consideration.