Bill began by quoting from Philip St. Romain's book, Catholic Answers to Fundamentalist's Questions. St. Romain wrote this book by asking questions a "Fundamentalist" might be expected to ask of a Catholic, and then answering his questions. The question finally arises about evolution, "Why not simply scrap the theory of evolution and use as our model the theory of scientific creationism, which at least squares well with Genesis?" St. Romain gives a four part answer. I will give each of his parts in quotation marks; my comments will be in ( ).

"The Genesis account of creation should not be taken literally, owing to its mythical-literary nature. It is therefore unnecessary to look for scientific confirmations of its six-day account."

(The school of thought claiming that Genesis is a mythical and literary account is not the only school of thought. The Bible does not use figurative language in the creation passages, and there is no reason not to take this as a literal account of creation. To dismiss the Genesis description of creation as mythical and literary, and say based on this dismissal that it is "unnecessary" to look for scientific confirmation of the account, is arbitrary and capricious.)

"The theory of evolution is supported by data from a number of scientific disciplines, although many questions remain unanswered."

(For all practical purposes all scientists and laymen, be they creationists or Darwinists [evolutionists], have access to the same data. The difference lies not in the data, but in how the data is interpreted, and data is interpreted based upon one's preconceived notions, personal philosophy, and various other factors. A creationist and a Darwinist can look at the same piece of evidence and come to completely different conclusions. To say that evolution [or creation] is supported by data proves nothing, because it overlooks the all-important question of philosophy. It is true that many questions "remain unanswered," but this is one of the Darwinists 'favorite ways of evading disconcerting questions about the many shortcomings of evolution.)

"Scientific creationism is based upon weak and even erroneous bits of data, and it neglects numerous facts which contradict it "

(There is a kernel of truth in this statement. Creation science is a relatively new discipline, and naturally some of the data which supports it can be expected to be weak or incorrect. The same could be said of any new science. As it becomes better understood, and better developed, weak and erroneous data will be discarded, and better data will be obtained. I have found that some creationists [and Darwinists] do have a tendency to neglect, overlook, or gloss over facts [if indeed they are facts] which tend to contradict creation science. This does not mean creation science is untrue, only that some of its adherents have an unfortunate tendency to play fast and loose with the truth. [Some television evangelists have a tendency to play fast and loose with the truth too, but that does not mean Christianity is untrue.]

Darwinists also have their own definition of the word "fact." According to the Darwinist Alice Kehoe, "A fact is a generally accepted observation, not an eternally unalterable truth." [Kehoe goes on to say that it was once a "fact" that the sun revolved around the earth.] According to Webster's Dictionary, a fact is "something that has actual existence." This is quite different from a "generally accepted observation.")

"There is nothing in creation that suggests that the world was created by only one God, as scientific creationists contend. Nature religions are generally polytheistic, which points up the indebtedness of scientific creationism to an a priori conclusion based on Genesis. This is, at best, very sloppy science!'

(There is nothing in creation to suggest that the world was created by more than one god. Besides, there is only one God [Deut. 6,4]. Is St. Romain a polytheist? He certainly seems to object to the creationist 'contention' that there is only one God. The sentence about "Nature religions" makes no sense at all. Creation science is not a nature religion, it is a legitimate scientific discipline, albeit it one in its infancy. St. Romain seems to be suggesting that creationists have decided before the fact (a priori), based on Genesis, that there is only one God- and that they are in debt to Genesis because of this conclusion. Since there is in fact only one God this is not a before the fact conclusion. The only sloppiness is in St. Romain's reasoning.

Bill goes on to quote a National Catholic Register article of 8/2/92 that seems to derisively characterize creationists as believing that Genesis "has man made from a mud pie and woman from a bloody rib" and that this assessment simply invites the scorn of unbelievers." Such a belief would naturally invite scorn, but suffice it to say that no creationist believes in a mud pie or a bloody rib.

Finally, Bill cites Proclaiming the Gospel [Jan/Feb '97], which quotes Cardinal John O'Connor as saying that Adam and Eve may have been created in some other form and that God breathed life into them. This is completely at variance with Genesis. God made Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him, and then made Eve from Adam's rib. What is so difficult about that? It is intriguing to me the virtual obsession people in general have with denying the plain meaning of the text of Genesis.

Let us now turn to what John Paul II said, or appears to have said, about evolution. His "Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences," [Reprinted in The Quarterly Review of Biology (See Bibliographical Note] was delivered on October 22, 1996. In section three of the message, we find the sentence that caused so much turmoil. It reads, "Today, almost half a century after (Pius XII's encyclical Humani generis), new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution."

At this point, the editors of the Review insert a note stating that on November 19, 1996, Robert Dempsey, editor of the English-language edition of L'Osservatore Romano, had said that the pope's real meaning was that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis. (A theory is better grounded than a hypothesis.) But -- confusion abounds on what JPII said and meant, because his message was delivered in French, and there is a crucial ambiguity in the translation of a certain French word. The germane portion of the French text reads, ". . . plus qu'une hypotheses" In English this reads, ". . . more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution." But, the French word "une" can mean "a" or "one".

So, did JPII say the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis -- that is, is it better grounded (more reliable) than a mere hypothesis; or did he say that the theory of evolution is made up of more than one hypotheses?"

Attempts to clarify what JPII said seem to have served only to muddy the water. I would recommend that interested parties obtain his message on evolution, read it for themselves, and draw their own conclusions.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

I would like to thank Bill Jackson for his short but excellent review of the Catholic position on Darwinism (evolution). It prompted me to write this article. I read Philip St. Romain's book Catholic Answers to Fundamentalist's Questions (Liguori Press, 1984) about ten years ago, and found all of it to be rather weak, not just the section on Darwinism and creation science. Alice Kehoe's definition of "fact" is taken from her chapter in Scientists Confront Creationism (p. 10), (W. W. Norton, 1983). (In 1983, Kehoe was a professor of anthropology at Marquette University in Milwaukee, WI.) Confront is a 300 page collection of Darwinist apologetics by 15 authors.

John Paul II's message was reprinted in The Quarterly Review of Biology, (Vol. 72, No. 41- December, 1997.) According to the editors of the Review (p. 376), the Message was provided to them by the Apostolic Nunciature in the United States. (The pope delivered the Message in French, and the Review published this, and the English text [pp. 381-83]). The Review should be available at any large university library. If not, it can probably be obtained through Inter-library Loan.

One attempt to clear up the ambiguity surrounding what JPII said was posted on the web site of Answers in Genesis (AIG) (www.answersingenesis.org/hot/jan97.html). This analysis by a Philip F. Lawler was taken from EWTN News Features of Nov. 26, 1996.

Another AIG article with the French translation cited above will be found at http://www.christianAnswers.net/q-aig/aig-cOl7.html. This article explains the ambiguity surrounding the word "qu'une" (noted above), points out that JPII's message contradicts the teaching of Jesus, and very astutely says that "The Roman Catholic church makes it clear that Scripture is not a sufficient guide for life."

In summary, John Paul II did not say evolution is true, but so much confusion surrounds what he did say that it looks like he said evolution is true. Unfortunately, the manner in which events are perceived can influence people in a manner contrary to the events themselves. (Perception becomes more important than fact.)

* a creation science organization in Florence, KY

Back to the Home Page