Truths so profound they cannot be told in ordinary language
This does not mean that it contains less truth but, on the contrary, that it contains more truth. These truths are so profound they cannot be expressed in ordinary language, less still the languages of science or mathematics. Such reductive discourses, while valid in their limited respective spheres, are totally inadequate for disclosing the deepest mysteries of human existence.
Mr Hayes also neglects to mention the very features in the Genesis narrative that point to its uniqueness and divine inspiration.
Of all the accounts of origins that have come down to us, only in Genesis are we presented with a world-transcendent God who creates the universe out of nothing for no other reason than that “it was good”. Likewise, in contrast to the polytheism found in every other ancient culture, no matter how highly developed, only here do we encounter a consistently monotheistic God. Again, only in Genesis is the creation of man and woman placed at the pinnacle of creation.
These features, so absent in the other origin stories, at least hint at a more-than-human inspiration.
Mr Hayes is at least right when he states that the Catholic Church is “neutral” with regard to the question of evolution.
However, he must be aware that evolution is a fluid and multilayered term with at least two major conceptual subdivisions: microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution refers to the minor adaptive changes occurring within a given species largely as a result of environmental stimuli. This was the kind observed by Darwin when he referred to the theoretical idea that species evolve into new forms over time, especially as a result of natural selection. This latter concept is often used as an ideological weapon in public discourse to enforce an atheistic worldview.
Macroevolution can still be harmonised with a Christian worldview. However, despite Mr Hayes’s protestations to the contrary, since, as Pius XII wrote, it is the special creation of the soul and not the body that differentiates man from the animals.
This is not to say that the theory of evolution, however considered, is not without several significant problems. The most obvious is the gaps in the fossil record. What we would expect to find is the gradual development of new species. Instead we find the sudden appearance of new species followed by static periods which in turn are succeeded by the appearance of more new species.
Even scientists in favour of evolution cannot explain a phenomenon like the Cambrian Explosion where countless new species seem to appear out of nowhere. Evolution further cannot explain irreducible complexity, as admitted by Darwin himself in the piece cited by Mr Hayes. This refers to the fact that some organs such as the eye and organisms such as the bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex and could not have come about as a result of the step-by-step process described by Darwin, since each part is intrinsically necessary for their function.
As regards man, organ parts formerly thought to have been vestigial, leftovers from evolution, such as the tailbone and appendix, have since been found to be functioning parts of the human body. Finally, we could ponder why evolution has failed to equip our primate ‘cousins’ with those specifically human capacities such as rational thought and free will.
Michael O’Driscoll
John Paul II Society
154 Blackrock Road
Cork
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
