Home

TotB Text

Church Documents

Resources

Humanae Vitae

Articles

Essays

Links

 Email

My Flickr  

Does Evolution Rule Out God’s Existence: Opposing Views

Daniel Francis Good

I. Introduction

Religious thought and scientific thought have always had shaky friendship.  Many who are religious people think that science is absurd, because is “contradictory” to “God’s Word.”  Some scientists look at those who are religious and think, “you are a child, who believes myths and bedtime stories.”  Are religion and science opposed to each other? Is there really no God?  Is science really wrong?  The picture painted here expresses a viewpoint of looking at the relationship of religion and science, although this view is mostly closed minded and accepts no dialogue.  Biblical fundamentalists explain that the world is 6000 years old, while scientists explain it is 15,000,000,000 years old.  Who is right?  Fundamentalists are completely opposed to the Big Bang theory and to evolution, while scientists are completely opposed to creationism.  One should not fret however, there is more than just these views of the relationship between science and religion.  In fact, it is possible not only possible to accept evolution as a Christian, but there is plenty of reason to embrace evolution as a Christian. 

II. Four Views of the Relationship of Science and Religion

            Dr. John Haught poses four relations between science and religion: conflict, contrast, contact, and confirmation.  Each of these will have to be examined on a primary basis and then put to the test on how it treats the issue of evolution and God’s co-existence with it. 

            The first of the four views of the relationship between science and religion is that of conflict.  This was aforementioned in the above statements.  This view puts religion and science completely opposed to one another.  This works on both sides of the picture.  The Biblical fundamentalist believe that the words of Scripture are scientific, historical, and perfectly correct.  “Anything that is opposed to the Bible is wrong and that is that.”  On the opposing view certain scientists view those who hold religious beliefs as fools.  Haught says, “Their main reason for drawing this conclusion is that religion apparently cannot demonstrate the truth of its ideas in a straightforward way, whereas science can.”[1]  This view of conflict tends to be very closed-minded and bitter.

            The next view is that of contrast.  In this view science and religion are not opposed to one another.  Each field is valuable and welcomed to teach what it wants in its own right.  Scientists should not speak on religious or philosophical topics and theologians and philosophers should not talk about scientific thought.  The two fields are different and therefore do not belong together.  While, this view may seem to work, Haught says, “Instead of respecting the sharp differences between science and religion, conflation (contrast) weaves them into a single fabric where they fade into each other almost to the point of becoming indistinguishable.”[2]

            The third view is contact.  This view attempts to explain that religion and science can go together Haught says of this view, “It agrees that science and religion are logically and linguistically distinct, but it knows that in the real world cannot be as easily compartmentalized as the contrast position supposes.”[3]  Haught also says, “Contact proposes that scientific knowledge can broaden the horizon of religious faith and that the perspective of religious faith can deepen our understanding of the universe.”[4]

            The final and most unheard of approach is that of confirmation.  If God created the world, why would he make it appear as though he didn’t?  This view uses religion and science to explain each other.  The late Teilhard de Chardin SJ held this view of confirmation.  Haught explains, “religion’s claim that the universe is a finite, coherent, rational, ordered totality, grounded in an ultimate love and promise, provides a general vision of things that consistently nurtures the scientific quest for knowledge and liberates science from association with imprisoning ideologies.”[5]

III. Introducing Evolution

            We would like to welcome our friend evolution, who came 15 billion years to be with us here today.   The universe has been evolving for the past 15 billion years.  The land marking work on evolutionary theory is Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, published in 1859. Haught gives three main reason why Darwin’s theory rules out any interested God.[6]

1.      The variations that lead to differentiations of species are purely random, thus suggesting that the working of nature are “accidental” and irrational.  Today the source of  these variations  has been identified as genetic mutations, and most biologists still follow Darwin in attributing these to “chance.”

2.      The fact that individuals have to struggle for survival, and that most of them suffer and lose out in this contest, points to the basic cruelty of the universe, particularly toward the weak.

3.      The mindless process of natural selection by which only the better adapted organisms survive points to a universe that is essentially blind and indifferent to life and humanity.[7]  

When considering these possibilities, the universe can seem very cold.  These tenets of Darwin’s theories could make some not believe in God.  One could sympathize with the scientist who constantly sees this in his studies.  Each of the four views takes a different approach at looking at this theory. 

VI. Conflict’s View of Evolution and God

            This view still attracts much attention in the news.  It strikes at the heart of many people.  Scientists who hold this view would obliviously say that evolution is a great proof against the existence of God.  Haught states, “Evolution has once and for all purged any remaining intellectual respectability from the idea of God.”[8]  The other side in this view is that of Biblical Fundamentalism.  Creation science is the opinion that rejects evolution as unscientific and unfounded.  Haught calls this “creation science” annoying.    The Bible is the science book for the people who accept this theory.  Haught states, “It claims that the biblical text is more suited to the actual data of geology, biology and paleontology than is Darwinian science.”[9]  Haught disapproves, “Creation science, however, is not really science at all.  It does not seriously accept the self-revising method required true science.”[10]

V. Contrast

            Contrast looks at evolution as a scientific theory, and therefore should not be spoken about by theologians, because science and theology/philosophy are completely separate fields.  This idea works for about ten minutes.  You then have two groups teaching.  One group is the scientists who say evolution happened and the world is 15 billion years old.  The other group believe creation science; they say the world was created and is 6000 years old.  Now just suppose for a minute that a child hears this.  What is the child supposed to believe?  It would confuse any young child to them accepting one of the two theories and ending up being a supporter of the conflict theory.  The two groups try to ignore the problems with the other.  There is one quote from Haught that is completely necessary to be stated, “scientific creationism is theologically embarrassing.”[11]

VI. Contact

            The view of contact seems to be widely held in Roman Catholic Circles.  The mindset of such theologians is that faith seeks understanding in the world that God created, most probably by the means of evolution.  Haught quotes Hans Küng, “evolutionary theory now makes possible: 1) a deeper understanding of God – not above or outside the world but in the midst of creation; 2) a deeper understanding of creation-not as contrary to but as making evolution possible; and 3) a deeper understanding of humans as organically related to the entire cosmos.”[12]  Haught makes a very profound statement as to the reason of the random, struggle, and blind natural selection, “If… God truly cares for the well-being of the world, then it must be permitted to be something other than God.  …its being is fundamentally derived from God is has to have a certain amount of freedom or autonomy.”[13]

            How can chance be a factor with such a “providential” God?  Darwin’s theory provides for a great deal of chance and random/blind selection.  Haught answers this point from the idea of a loving God, “The reason is simple: love typically operates not in a coercive but in a persuasive manner.  It refuses to force itself upon the beloved, but instead allows the beloved – in this case the entire created cosmos – to remain itself, though in such a way as to imply intimacy rather than abandonment.”[14]  Love that is not forced is true love; love that is forced is RAPE.  Haught also states, “since divine creative love has the character of letting be – which in no way implies a deistic withdrawal but instead a self-effacing intimacy – we are not at all surprised at evolution’s strange and erratic pathways.”[15]  For people who accept this view God is very loving and giving.  This theory, more than the others that have been previously examined, shows forth a new look at the greatness of God.

VII. Confirmation

            Confirmation is the closest relation between science and theology.  This field of thought is very new.  Most of the greatest thinkers in this field are from the 20^th century, such as Whitehead, Rahner, de Chardin and Haught himself.   This field tends to almost mystical, but never in an unscientific way.  Some of the thought of Teilhard de Chardin will be examined here to explain this theory

VIII. Teilhard de Chardin

            Teilhard de Chardin bridged gaps between science and theology in the early to the middle of the twentieth century.  De Chardin joined the Society of Jesus, which is a religious order of Catholic Priests notorious for their vast training, especially in theology.  De Chardin also studied anthropology at Oxford.  He is a scientist and a priest.[16]  Teilhard viewed the evolutionary process as a process that is ultimately leading to God.  Teilhard says the evolutionary process works in “spheres.”  The first sphere is the geo-sphere.  During this sphere of evolution the world was created.  Rock formations were made and the cosmos were “ordered” (or unordered if you prefer).  The next sphere is the bio-sphere.  This sphere marks when the geo-sphere “jumped” forward and life was produced.  Survival of man is marked in this category.  The next sphere is the noosphere.  This is the sphere in which the human race is in.  The universe received consciousness – so to speak.  Teilhard says that consciousness was actually weaved throughout the earth.  The final sphere to come is the Christo-shpere.   Christ is the “Omega Point.”  He is where all creation is heading.  We are all heading for this “ultimate unity” of the Christo-sphere.  As a scientist and a Catholic priest, Teilhard received opposition from both sides.  At first the Church condemned Teilhard de Chardin.[17]  Scientists later criticized him for being too religious.  His views of the evolutionary process as ultimately leading to Christ is very mystical and complete connection of theology and science into one field.  To quote the notes of Fr. Thomas Gwozdz SDB on Teilhard de Chardin, “This is the centering of all centers of consciousness into a unified communal self reflection.  It will come about by means of LOVE.  It unites by what is deepest in us.”

IX. Conclusion

            There are many different ways of looking at religion and science.  Some are closed minded and retract away from God’s creative ability.  Others find God in science as something profound, full of love.  In Teilhard de Chardin’s radical view on evolution,  “God will be all in all.”[18]

Sources:

Haught, John F.  Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation.   Paulist Press,       New York; 2000.

All my information on Teilhard de Chardin is based on a class in Philosophical Anthropology, taught by Thomas Gwozdz in 2004 at Saint Joseph Seminary College, St. Benedict, LA.