Faith and evolution: an argument at cross-purposes with right on both sides
It is quite common to see the term “evolution” used in two different senses and this, I feel, is what is happening here.
If I am right, then both Mr Fitzgerald and Mr Hayes are correct in their own way, but are arguing at cross-purposes.
I suspect Mr Fitzgerald, like myself, when writing about evolution, means mainly microevolution (eg, the development of resistance in bacteria) and an openness to looking at the evidence when it is claimed that one species has changed into another.
Though there is very little solid evidence at present to prove that one species has changed into another over time, it seems a reasonable enough assumption, and there is no reason to exclude it as a method that God might have used for his creative activity.
Mr Hayes appears to mean Neo-Darwinism when writing about evolution. Neo-Darwinism involves the notion that matter/energy originated in some unspecified way or, perhaps, was always there. It goes on to say that, at some point, non-living matter produced a living, reproducing entity, and this living entity then gradually changed, by the agency of natural selection, into all the life forms we see today, including ourselves. It is entirely materialistic and atheistic, with no room whatever for design or purpose. Needless to say, it is totally incompatible with belief in a creator God or, indeed, any kind of a non-material being. One concern I have that I may be misreading Mr Hayes is his statement that evolution was an established fact in 1950. Microevolution, of course, was known long before 1950, but Neo-Darwinism is far from being an established fact, even in 2007.
Even Richard Dawkins, the great apostle of Neo-Darwinism, admits there are areas that are very difficult (impossible, I’d say) to explain — the anthropic principle, the origin of life from non-life, the formation of the eukaryotic cell, the amazing difference between apes and humans even though they share so much DNA — and he goes in for wild speculation in an attempt to explain how they could have come about.
And if you look at the fossil record with an open mind, what you mostly see is stasis and not the gradual change required by Neo-Darwinism. As of now, Neo-Darwinism is mainly atheistic philosophy masquerading as science. When Mr Hayes states it would be nice if intellectual differences could be settled by fiat, he is clearly giving a little rub to us Catholics.
However, atheists are not averse to the odd fiat themselves, especially when it comes to ruling out evidence for anything supernatural (miracles, apparitions, etc).
As Chesterton said: “There are only two kinds of people, those who are dogmatic and know it, and those who are dogmatic and don’t.”
Oliver Broderick
Ashe Street
Youghal
Co Cork
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
