Pope John Paul II: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

[JohnR7]

According to Pope John Paul "Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation" He does not consider it to be a fact because the theory contains a lot of philosophy and is always in need of revaluation. Evolution theory change as new information become available. Also he warns that evolution alone can not explain life.

Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)
WITH GREAT PLEASURE I address cordial greeting to you, Mr. President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I offer my best wishes in particular to the new academicians, who have come to take part in your work for the first time. I would also like to remember the academicians who died during the past year, whom I commend to the Lord of life.
1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.
He asked those whom he called the Church's "senatus scientificus" to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science (cf. Address to the Academy of Sciences, No. 1, Oct. 28, 1986; L'Osservatore Romano, Eng. ed., Nov. 24, 1986, p. 22).
2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance. During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium," starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.
3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.
In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated 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 several indisputable points.
For my part, when I received those taking part in your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. 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 study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences (cf. AAS 85 1/81993 3/8, pp. 764-772; address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, April 23, 1993, announcing the document on the The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: AAS 86 1/81994 3/8, pp. 232-243).
4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven 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 will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not 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 several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different 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.
5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica I-II:3:5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22). It is by virtue of his spiritualsoul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take 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 iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). 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.
6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, 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.
7. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. This vision guided me in the encyclical which I dedicated to respect for human life, and which I called precisely "Evangelium Vitae."
It is significant that in St. John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude. To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quotes the great saying of Deuteronomy: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Dt 8:3; cf. Mt 4:4). Even more, "life" is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God. I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you.

</H1>

 

[shinbits]

that's a lengthy post John.

But wouldn't a man of such stature as Pope John Paul II saying that it's "worthy of investigation" just lend credibility to it?

 

[Im_A]

so what does this mean in disproving evolution?

do you hold that the pope is infallible to even have a point in bringing this up in discussion about evolution vs creationism?

 

[fromdownunder]

According to Pope John Paul "Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation" He does not consider it to be a fact because the theory contains a lot of philosophy and is always in need of revaluation. Evolution theory change as new information become available. Also he warns that evolution alone can not explain life.

1. The "Humani Generis" is a fifty year old Roman Catholic encyclial, not a science paper on Biological evolution.

2. The Pope also said in the paper you cited:

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, pr&#232;s dun demi-si&#232;cle apr&#232;s la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent &#224; reconnaitre dans la th&#233;orie de l'&#233;volution plus qu'une hypoth&#232;se.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

It seems from this part of the paper, he accepts that there is more evidence for evolution than there was 50 years ago.

3. "Evolution theory change as new information become available."

Well, yes to a degree all science changes as new information becomes available. The overarching theory, that living things change over time, and that there is competitiion for resources is unchanged from when Darwin first set it down. "The Devil is in the detail" What's your point?

4. "Also he warns that evolution alone can not explain life."

It never pretended to be able to, depending upon what he meant by "life". It explains a lot about how biological life forms have arrived at where we are today, but when it comes to metaphysical issues, that area belongs to religion, and not science.

I will add that to the best of my knowledge, the Pope was not a Biologist.

Norm

 

[Nathan Poe]

According to Pope John Paul "Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation"

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. . . It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

He does not consider it to be a fact because the theory contains a lot of philosophy and is always in need of revaluation.

The theory is not a fact, and yet evolution is a fact and a theory.

Evolution theory change as new information become available.

Only you and the other Creationists see this as a bad thing. The rest of us call it "learning."

Also he warns that evolution alone can not explain life.

Not human life, anyway.

The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers.

Indeed. The Church considers man unique among animals because of our ability to communicate and commune with God -- an ability it claims as an article of faith.

Now, if this is so, then evolution alone cannot explain this. However, the development of intellect and will, which are detailed in the article, can be explained through evolution, and these are the tools that man uses to form that relationship with God.

IOW, man has developed the capacity to think above and beyond himself and seek out a higher power. This capacity can be explained through evolutionary means -- We can try to talk to God.

Now, the Church assumes a priori that God exists, hears these communications, and answers. If this is so, then evolution alone certainly cannot explain it -- nor was it meant to.

For the 17,367th time, Johnny, evolution explains biology, nothing more. It is the various Lying Creationist Weasels (LCWs)who have tried to turn evolution into something it is not, for the purposes of knocking down a strawman.

(In all fairness, Militant Atheists Rabblerousers (MARs) have also tried to turn evolution into something it's not. Neither side is doing science any favors by misrepresenting it to push their own agendas.)

John Paul II was warning Creationist and Evolutionists alike of this very limitation: Evolution does not have all the answers, precisely for the reason that it was never meant to -- the Church, naturally, will claim that that's God's department.

Which is precisely why JPII speaks of "several Theories of evolution," because Militant Atheists and LCWs have both tried in the past to manipulate the theory into something it's not.

Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take 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 iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). 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.

From a Catholic POV, this is absolutely correct. But because such theories are trying to explain the existence of the spirit, they're not even science anyway -- Evolution is biology only, remember?

What Both Pius and JP were thus warning against were Militant Atheistic propaganda and LCW strawmen -- neither of which were compatable with the "truth" revealed by the Catholic Church.

Again, since they step outside the realm of scientific inquiry, neither of them are all that compatable with science either.

The gist of JPII's article was to remind us all that Evolution is not the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything -- it is a specific answer to a specific question, and because of what it does not address, it's certainly no danger to anyone's faith.

 

[JohnR7]

so what does this mean in disproving evolution?

So often I read in a post on here that the Pope accepts evolution as if he were a evolutionists. I do not feel that is accurate. We need to take a little bit close of a look at what he is really saying on the subject.

 

[JohnR7]

But wouldn't a man of such stature as Pope John Paul II saying that it's "worthy of investigation" just lend credibility to it?

Perhaps but the point that the Pope is making is that: "The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life". It is the Bible that he feels has credibility and is much more important to investigate compared to man's theorys.

 

[JohnR7]

The theory is not a fact, and yet evolution is a fact and a theory.

That is NOT the opinion of the Catholic Church. The Pope says: "to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based."

From there the Pope goes on to say we need to get into a discussion of Theology to see the true light and the contribution God has made to creationism.

The gist of JPII's article was to remind us all that Evolution is not the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything -- it is a specific answer to a specific question, and because of what it does not address, it's certainly no danger to anyone's faith.

That is still a long way from the people who would try to claim the catholic church accepts evolution as a fact, when they do not accept it as a fact.

 

[MewtwoX]

Quote mining John?

to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based."

From there the Pope goes on to say we need to get into a discussion of Theology to see the true light and the contribution God has made to creationism.

You do realize the passage you quoted has to do with the difference between Atheistic Evolution and Theistic Evolution, right?

The fact that you completely misconstrued it to mean acceptance of Creationism is incredibly dishonest.

 

[JohnR7]

Quote mining John?

Yet us know if you ever want to join us in the real world. Or are you comfortable in that pretend world that your living in?

 

[MewtwoX]

Yet us know if you ever want to join us in the real world. Or are you comfortable in that pretend world that your living in?

Ignoring my argument then?

I guess I have no choice but to assume I'm right for the time being...

 

[Nathan Poe]

That is NOT the opinion of the Catholic Church. The Pope says: "to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based."

Exactly, several theories. The real McCoy, and the LCW and MAR strawmen.

The real thing is more than a hypothesis, and as a scientific theory, has tons of evidence to support it -- off of which he had already claimed.

From there the Pope goes on to say we need to get into a discussion of Theology to see the true light and the contribution God has made to creationism.

Theology, yes, Creationism, no.

That is still a long way from the people who would try to claim the catholic church accepts evolution as a fact, when they do not accept it as a fact.

They accept the evidence which supports the theory. That evolution does occur is the undisputed fact which is a key piece of evidence to the theory.

The problem is, John, that JPII is referring to support of the real Theory of evolution, and then goes on to warn against strawmen.

 

[JohnR7]

They accept the evidence which supports the theory. That evolution does occur is the undisputed fact which is a key piece of evidence to the theory.

I do not think so. I think you are reading into it something that is just not there.

 

[JohnR7]

Ignoring my argument then?

Ok, I can do that if you want.

 

[JohnR7]

But wouldn't a man of such stature as Pope John Paul II saying that it's "worthy of investigation" just lend credibility to it?

Actually that was something he quoted from the encyclical Humani Generis OF POPE PIUS XII. I would imagine they give it some credibility in that they do not renounce is as false doctrine or false teaching. But I do not think they go as far in supporting it as some people would like to lead us to believe. His main statement seems to be that it is impressive that the theory has the support from science that it does. No where does he suggest that the church supports it to that degree.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I do not think so. I think you are reading into it something that is just not there.

Are you suggesting that the Theory of evolution doesn't rely on the fact that things evolve?

 

[JohnR7]

Are you suggesting that the Theory of evolution doesn't rely on the fact that things evolve?

What do you mean by evolve? Evolutionists define evolution anyway they want to define it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What do you mean by evolve? Evolutionists define evolution anyway they want to define it.

The biological definition: Change in alliele frequencies over time.

This happens -- there's no debate.

Now, the Theory of evolution explores the causes and effects of those changes -- why the frequencies change, and what happens when they do.

Similarly, gravity, insofar as "things fall down," is a fact. why they fall down and not to the right is what the theory of gravity explains using the data as it is known so far.

Really, Johnny, it's not all that difficult -- It's been explained so many times, one could only miss the point through concentrated effort.

 

[JohnR7]

The biological definition: Change in alliele frequencies over time.

This happens -- there's no debate.

If this is so much a "fact" then why are there so many species that remain the same from the beginning. Crocodile have not changed, Turtles have not changed. There are ancient plants that are still the same as they were from the beginning and have not changed.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

What do you mean by evolve? Evolutionists define evolution anyway they want to define it.

That's just a lie which you constantly repeat. It's been shown to you many times that its' false, yet you keep repeating it.

You are a liar.