Finding Design in Nature

By CHRISTOPH SCHNBORN
Vienna
EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define)
was more than !ust a h"pothesis, defenders of neo#$arwinian do%ma have often
invo&ed the supposed acceptance # or at least ac'uiescence # of the Roman (atholic
(hurch when the" defend their theor" as somehow compati)le with (hristian faith*
+ut this is not true* ,he (atholic (hurch, while leavin% to science man" details a)out
the histor" of life on earth, proclaims that )" the li%ht of reason the human intellect can
readil" and clearl" discern purpose and desi%n in the natural world, includin% the world
of livin% thin%s*
Evolution in the sense of common ancestr" mi%ht )e true, )ut evolution in the neo#
$arwinian sense # an un%uided, unplanned process of random variation and natural
selection # is not* -n" s"stem of thou%ht that denies or see&s to e.plain awa" the
overwhelmin% evidence for desi%n in )iolo%" is ideolo%", not science*
(onsider the real teachin% of our )eloved John Paul* /hile his rather va%ue and
unimportant 1996 letter a)out evolution is alwa"s and ever"where cited, we see no one
discussin% these comments from a 1901 %eneral audience that represents his ro)ust
teachin% on nature2
-ll the o)servations concernin% the development of life lead to a similar conclusion*
,he evolution of livin% )ein%s, of which science see&s to determine the sta%es and to
discern the mechanism, presents an internal finalit" which arouses admiration* ,his
finalit" which directs )ein%s in a direction for which the" are not responsi)le or in
char%e, o)li%es one to suppose a 3ind which is its inventor, its creator*
4e went on2 ,o all these indications of the e.istence of 5od the (reator, some oppose
the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter* ,o spea& of chance for a
universe which presents such a comple. or%ani6ation in its elements and such
marvelous finalit" in its life would )e e'uivalent to %ivin% up the search for an
e.planation of the world as it appears to us* In fact, this would )e e'uivalent to
admittin% effects without a cause* It would )e to a)dicate human intelli%ence, which
would thus refuse to thin& and to see& a solution for its pro)lems*
7ote that in this 'uotation the word finalit" is a philosophical term s"non"mous with
final cause, purpose or desi%n* In comments at another %eneral audience a "ear later,
John Paul concludes, It is clear that the truth of faith a)out creation is radicall"
opposed to the theories of materialistic philosoph"* ,hese view the cosmos as the result
of an evolution of matter reduci)le to pure chance and necessit"*
7aturall", the authoritative (atechism of the (atholic (hurch a%rees2 4uman
intelli%ence is surel" alread" capa)le of findin% a response to the 'uestion of ori%ins*
,he e.istence of 5od the (reator can )e &nown with certaint" throu%h his wor&s, )" the
li%ht of human reason* It adds2 /e )elieve that 5od created the world accordin% to his
wisdom* It is not the product of an" necessit" whatever, nor of )lind fate or chance*
In an unfortunate new twist on this old controvers", neo#$arwinists recentl" have
sou%ht to portra" our new pope, +enedict 8VI, as a satisfied evolutionist* ,he" have
'uoted a sentence a)out common ancestr" from a 9::; document of the International
,heolo%ical (ommission, pointed out that +enedict was at the time head of the
commission, and concluded that the (atholic (hurch has no pro)lem with the notion of
evolution as used )" mainstream )iolo%ists # that is, s"non"mous with neo#
$arwinism*
,he commission<s document, however, reaffirms the perennial teachin% of the (atholic
(hurch a)out the realit" of desi%n in nature* (ommentin% on the widespread a)use of
John Paul<s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that the letter cannot )e
read as a )lan&et appro)ation of all theories of evolution, includin% those of a neo#
$arwinian provenance which e.plicitl" den" to divine providence an" trul" causal role
in the development of life in the universe*
=urthermore, accordin% to the commission, -n un%uided evolutionar" process # one
that falls outside the )ounds of divine providence # simpl" cannot e.ist*
Indeed, in the homil" at his installation !ust a few wee&s a%o, +enedict proclaimed2 /e
are not some casual and meanin%less product of evolution* Each of us is the result of a
thou%ht of 5od* Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessar"*
,hrou%hout histor" the church has defended the truths of faith %iven )" Jesus (hrist*
+ut in the modern era, the (atholic (hurch is in the odd position of standin% in firm
defense of reason as well* In the 19th centur", the =irst Vatican (ouncil tau%ht a world
newl" enthralled )" the death of 5od that )" the use of reason alone man&ind could
come to &now the realit" of the >ncaused (ause, the =irst 3over, the 5od of the
philosophers*
7ow at the )e%innin% of the 91st centur", faced with scientific claims li&e neo#
$arwinism and the multiverse h"pothesis in cosmolo%" invented to avoid the
overwhelmin% evidence for purpose and desi%n found in modern science, the (atholic
(hurch will a%ain defend human reason )" proclaimin% that the immanent desi%n
evident in nature is real* ?cientific theories that tr" to e.plain awa" the appearance of
desi%n as the result of chance and necessit" are not scientific at all, )ut, as John Paul
put it, an a)dication of human intelli%ence*
(hristoph ?ch@n)orn, the Roman (atholic cardinal arch)ishop of Vienna, was the lead
editor of the official 1999 (atechism of the (atholic (hurch*