UPDATE: I wish to rescind, and I disavow, the following paragraph, which remains in the body of the work, but now in strike-through text only. I stand by my statement in the paragraph previous to that one, that the Holy Father and bishops in union with him certainly have both the freedom and the authority to criticize the natural sciences on either moral or ethical grounds (but have no ecclesiastical authority to criticize the findings of the natural sciences, if these were honestly arrived at).
Moreover, the evidence is scant that the natural sciences are fundamentally corrupt at present. It remains highly profitable, especially in the long term, for natural scientists to successfully overturn even the most respected and venerable theories. Indeed, revolutionary scientific work, having held up to criticism and experiment, typically results in prestigious awards and academic sinecures. In short, over the long term, successfully overturning the theory of evolution would almost certainly result in tremendous prestige and historical fame for the scientists who accomplished it -- which is not exactly the hallmark of a natural science in the throes of fundamental corruption.
[Text begins]
Design can be malevolent. The logical plausibility of the theory of "Intelligent Design" is not affected in the least if the Intelligent Designer is evil. If the cosmos is intelligently designed to torment us, make us insane, dash our hopes, and bring us death, then that too is an Intelligent Design.This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that one fate comes to all; also the hearts of men are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. [Eccl 9:3]The theory of Intelligent Design holds only that the cosmos was designed; but it is mute as to whether the design was for good or ill. Whether it be deemed sound or unsound scientifically, the theory of Intelligent Design will forever be of trivial import religiously. The theory can not tell us, for example, whether the Intelligent Designer intelligently designed us to be killed like flies, for sport. A theory that can not distinguish Baal from Shiva, Zeus from Quetzalcoatl, is not a theory with outstanding religious potential.
Any man, to be in full union with Jesus the Christ and his one and only Bride, the Catholic Church, must profess wholeheartedly that "[t]he existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason." [CCC 286, quoting Vatican I] Yet, as has just been shown, the theory of Intelligent Design can not enable man to make this profession. A man who is firmly convinced of the truth of Intelligent Design can just as logically worship Satan as the Most Holy Trinity.
Which is less horrifying, a cosmos with no plan at all, or one in which we are deliberately tormented and then killed for the Intelligent Designer's amusement? Yet the latter scenario is in no way ruled out by the theory of Intelligent Design. The Intelligently Designed cosmos can be unspeakably evil, or simply uncaring, or even, malevolent toward man in particular, yet beneficent toward some other being within it.
Religious proponents of the scientific theory of Intelligent Design should realize that the theory has a very high potential "ickiness factor," if they accept and admit, as they must logically, that the putative Intelligent Design can in fact be deeply malevolent. They must stop comparing apples and oranges: the "mad" "meaningless" randomness of the theory of evolution, to the "beautiful" "order" of Intelligent Design. By comparison to an Intelligent Designer who tortures us for sport, the evanescent beauty of aimless flecks of sunlight on water sounds pretty good. In fact, the theory of Intelligent Design is, formally, logically, religiously trivial. The Paschal Sacrifice, the Event of the New Covenant, is in no way its default position.
This is no special feature of the theory of Intelligent Design. All properly scientific theories are religiously trivial in the same respect, Newton's theory of gravitational attraction no less than either Darwin's theory of evolution or the theory of Intelligent Design. By argument similar to that which has just been deployed, all proper modern scientific theories leave the reality of the Paschal Mysteries entirely open.
Momentarily it will be demonstrated that the fundamental religious triviality of proper modern scientific theory is known to the Church. But does being always and everywhere religiously trivial make man's scientific investigations therefore trivial? No, of course not. It makes them properly humble.
In the modern natural sciences, humility does not imply subservience, but rather explicit connection to the work of others, and a willingness, come what may, to allow reality (through one's own experiments, and the experiments and theorizing of others) to expose the limitations of one's investigations.
By the argument above, proper modern scientific theories are religiously trivial, and by extension, proper scientific experiments are also religiously trivial. From the viewpoint of the believer, this means that no proper modern scientific experiment or theory can, in itself, draw man toward the sacraments. As previously stated, that does not imply that experiment and theorizing within a natural science in good order is trivial. The Catholic Church professes that the world is fallen, but not totally corrupt. There is inherent humility, but no inherent triviality, in any work of man, including science.
From the scientific side, the discovery that the products of the natural sciences are religiously trivial simply means that the Mystery of Faith is formally outside the domain of the natural sciences. The discovery of this inherent limitation in the natural sciences is a real discovery, the free result of a proper argument, not a subservience imposed on the natural sciences from the outside. That the Mystery of Faith is inherently outside the investigative domain of the natural sciences does not mean that the Event of the New Covenant is trivial, nor that the natural sciences are inherently antagonistic to the Eucharistic One Sacrifice. It merely means that the natural sciences, inherently, of their essence, have no way to investigate the Paschal Mystery in a way that would not distort, deform, or eliminate its reality.
The magisterium of the Catholic Church is aware that the proper domain of the natural sciences is strictly limited. For example, the Church notes and celebrates the proper modern scientific investigation of the history and origin of man and the cosmos, and then makes this astute observation:
The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it? [CCC 284]
The essential humility of the natural sciences in the face of the Paschal Mysteries is of course most evident to the Church in her very heart, regarding the Real Presence of her Lord in the Eucharistic elements. In the Catechism, the bishops, in union with the Holy Father, (quoting St. Thomas Aquinas) profess that this mystery "cannot be apprehended by the senses." [CCC 1381] The most Real Reality in the natural universe (for it is central to Catholic faith that the Lord's presence is not separate from the natural universe) is utterly unavailable to scientific apprehension; or, in other words, it is outside the proper domain of the natural sciences.
Thus it is unnecessary to show rigorously, case by case, that the argument which has been shown to apply to the theory of Intelligent Design applies to all possible scientific experiments and theories. One could argue quite suggestively, as has been done here, that if even the theory of Intelligent Design does not in itself lead man anywhere near the sacraments, then no other scientific theory or experiment could. In fact, the demonstration, strong and suggestive as it is, was performed merely to illustrate a reality already professed by the Catholic Church: the natural sciences, when properly ordered, possess a natural humility which prevents them from taking the Event of the New Covenant as their proper domain of investigation.
Conversely, the natural sciences are "properly ordered" when they possess their natural humility, which prevents them from taking the Event of the New Covenant as their proper domain of investigation.
As has been seen, in themselves, the fruits of scientific investigation, even arrived at with proper humility from within a natural science in good order, can not draw man to worship. This affirms the age-old truth handed on by the Catholic Church: man can not draw himself out toward God; even his most honest investigations leave him with a sense of his essential impoverishment. On the contrary, only God's activity toward man in the fallen, natural world, even to death on a cross, can save man. But once man responds to God's call, man's work can, in the One Sacrifice, be a worship. Within their natural humility, the natural sciences are fallen works of man, but not corrupt. Therefore, they can, despite their inherent religious triviality, lead man to worship in Spirit and in Truth, for what work of man is not religiously trivial, if not in Christ, and what work of man is not an acceptable offering to the Father, if offered in Christ? Thus, regarding the discoveries of man's origins and how the universe began, the Church professes in CCC 283:
The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements... for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me." [Wis 7:17-22]
What is religiously trivial in itself can yet "invite" us to worship. Had CCC 283 said "force us to conclude" or "logically compel us," rather than "invite us," it would have been far different. All human and natural goods "invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator...." CCC 283 need not imply any more than this.
It would be a simple mistake -- not a heresy, a mistake -- for the magisterium of the Catholic Church to endorse, even by implication, any possible modern theory of Intelligent Design. As has just been shown, any possible version of such a theory is religiously trivial, and can not in itself, even in principle, lead man to pray as Solomon prayed.
The Church can be confident that any natural science in good order can never be incompatible with the Church's professions and worship. The only possible novelty in the argument here is adding two and two and getting four: the impossibility of any incompatibility is due to the essential religious triviality -- the natural humility -- of any natural science in good order. The Church can also with confidence correct the practitioners of any natural science who, through envy of God or any other sin, begin to neglect or to ignore their science's natural humility.
The essential religious triviality of all of the natural sciences is known to the Church, as has been shown here, but this knowledge arrives mixed with historical philosophical and theological systems and methodologies, even of pagan origin, that are, properly and forever, subject to question and revision.
The modern group of theories known collectively as "the" theory of evolution almost certainly contradict many philosophical and theological ideas well-known to the Church, and they can be troubling to some faithful Catholics. But the theory of evolution is so central to modern natural science that to attack the theory per se is to make the very serious charge that modern natural science is fundamentally corrupt, unable to see and correct even its most basic and obvious mistakes.
The Holy Father and bishops in union with him can certainly make this criticism if the Lord leads them to it, but it would be best for everyone to be aware of the implicit charge of widespread and fundamental scientific corruption inherent in it.
Moreover, the evidence is scant that the natural sciences are fundamentally corrupt at present. It remains highly profitable, especially in the long term, for natural scientists to successfully overturn even the most respected and venerable theories. Indeed, revolutionary scientific work, having held up to criticism and experiment, typically results in prestigious awards and academic sinecures. In short, over the long term, successfully overturning the theory of evolution would almost certainly result in tremendous prestige and historical fame for the scientists who accomplished it -- which is not exactly the hallmark of a natural science in the throes of fundamental corruption.
My own opinion is that the theory of evolution is notably at odds with certain philosophical and theological ideas well-known to the Church. However, I think that is a good thing. I think those long-standing philosophical and theological ideas deserve to be challenged.
I have argued that the results of any natural science in good order have a natural humility which makes them religiously trivial, and thus never a threat to the professions and worship of the Catholic Church. I have also pointed out that the magisterium is the ultimate judge of whether the natural sciences are in sufficiently good order to manifest their natural humility.
If the natural sciences at present are in reasonably good order, then the Catholic Church can be serene that the theory of evolution is religiously trivial, no threat at all to her professions, her life, or her worship.
Indeed, it is completely accurate to note that the truer the theory of evolution is, the less of a threat to man's worship it automatically is. It is interesting that very few of either the current proponents or the current opponents of the theory of evolution appear to remember this fact. Yet it is ancient in the Church that the truth can never be any threat to the Church's worship of Truth Himself. On the other hand, that the theory of evolution can not be reconciled with certain theologies seems evident to me. Again, to me, that is a good thing. The theory of evolution deservedly challenges inadequate theologies that are venerable merely.
Properly humble scientific experiments and theories are religiously trivial of their essence, yet they can be deployed, by mistake or by sin, outside their proper domain. The Catholic faithful, in union with the magisterium, must object to and defend against these deployments, in and out of season. The natural sciences are inherently unable to put the Paschal Mysteries in issue in any way whatever, and any attempt to do so is a refusal of the essential humility of the natural sciences, a move which at very least is a drastic misunderstanding and mistake on the part of proponents.
For example, the argument from 'Evolution' can have no Catholic interest, because its very first move must be the proclamation that Jesus is not the Lord, but rather, that Jesus himself is subject to some principle or concept more substantial, more eternal, more real, than he. This is heresy, plain and simple.
What is not so readily seen, but equally true, is that the argument from 'Evolution' can have no proper scientific interest, either. The natural sciences have no ability whatever to trivialize religion. To the contrary, unless a natural science is itself abjectly religiously trivial, it is guaranteed not to be good science. Strict humility regarding its proper domain is essential to the good order of any natural science.
On the other hand, it is not the responsibility of properly humble scientific investigators to reconcile their results with intellectual, philosophical, or theological systems.
I have argued here that the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, if it wishes to criticize the theory of evolution per se, would of necessity also be making the very serious charge that modern natural science is fundamentally corrupt. I then presented evidence that modern natural science is not fundamentally corrupt.
On the other hand, and using the same criteria, it would appear that modern Catholic theology is sizably corrupt, unable to see and correct even its most basic and obvious errors. In the United States, and in several other countries, awards and academic sinecures typically go to Catholic theologians who disintegrate the Faith, rather than to those who defend it. It may be noted that the episcopate has been relatively unsuccessful in arresting this corruption; to the contrary, some prominent bishops have actively supported it.
Dissenting Catholic theology can have no Catholic interest, yet, as I have implied above, I suspect that the theory of evolution may also challenge the philosophical frameworks, assumptions, and methodologies of non-corrupt, faithful Catholic theology. Since I think that many of those philosophical underpinnings are questionable at best, I am untroubled by the idea that the theory of evolution would place them under stress.
One of these highly questionable notions, of course, is the assumption that the fruits of the modern natural sciences in good order are not, of their essence, religiously trivial, in the sense developed here. Rather than attack the opinion directly, by proceeding as if the claim needed examination rather than assent, I have hoped to suggest that the assertion makes no sense and gets us nowhere. Any success in this endeavor of course implies damage to even broader philosophical notions common to traditional Catholic theology. If so, I am delighted, and for the same reason.
What is the difference between the so-called "postulatory atheism" of the natural sciences and their "natural humility," a term that I have developed here? One way of noting the chasm between them is that the scientist who practices "natural humility" knows a priori, as a matter of fundamental method, that his investigations are inherently limited, and that their fruits will automatically be religiously trivial. In other words, "postulatory atheism" has the option of making fallen creation qua fallen normative, while "natural humility" properly closes off this false "option."
There is in the end an unbridgeable distance between natural humility, which is the true default position of the natural sciences, and "postulatory atheism." Within natural humility, man begins and ends daily by acknowledging his poverty before God, yet man's complete freedom to continue to search and learn more in Christ. Within "postulatory atheism," man envies God, and therefore seeks to make Him unnecessary. In this context it is worthy of note that since the natural sciences are currently in good order, when even a fiercely unbelieving but honest natural scientist asks even the simplest religious question, he receives, not a confirmation of his atheism, but a simple blank -- a straight inability to see any further. In truth, as a scientist, he can not tell Baal from Shiva, or from the Void, and that is all he can say with complete honesty.
Another unalterable gap between the two terms is of course the person of the scientist himself, whose heart, whose secret and comprehensive self, can never even be recognized, let alone encompassed, by "postulatory atheism." A scientist with the natural humility essential to a natural science in good order, by knowing in advance that his investigations -- man looking at himself -- can never encompass him, never even really recognize him, at least as the Trinity sees him, can remain naturally humble about the fruits of his investigations, and thus deliberately keep his heart, his full, real self, open to God, even in the inherent poverty, the fundamentally incomplete richness, of this fallen world.
On the other hand, it has certainly not been obvious to many faithful Catholics that the natural sciences possess a "natural humility," as the term has been developed here, and perhaps especially not obvious that hence the fruits of natural science are religiously trivial of their essence. Such a proposal therefore deserves harsh skepticism. Even if true, its proclamation may unnecessarily disturb the faithful. Moreover, the idea may be completely false, and as I have noted, even if true, it may put in issue venerable philosophical notions, even whole philosophical systems, well-known to faithful Catholic theologians.
Still, I presented evidence that the Catholic Church already knows and understands much about the inherent religious triviality of the natural sciences, and that she appears to understand the most about it in the matter closest to her heart, the Eucharist itself. If the Church, in her professions and worship, knows far more than her theologians about something important, it would not be for the first time.
But how, in the Economy of Faith, is the profession that "[t]he existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason" [CCC 286] related, for example, to the profession that the reality of the Eucharist "cannot be apprehended by the senses"? [CCC 1381]
I don't know, exactly; nor do I have to. I simply point out that the fruits of modern natural science in good order are religiously trivial of their essence. Even in theory, it is not the case that any proper modern scientific investigation can lead man to know the existence of God the Creator with certainty. Any attempt to force a proper modern scientific theory to be other than religiously trivial -- whether in support of religion or against it -- immediately becomes extra-scientific. The natural sciences as we know and practice them are simply far too humble to bear any but the very weakest religious weight. Theological professionals are welcome to work out the implications of this argument, if they wish. I have, however, tried my best to show that it would not be prudent for those professionals to dismiss the argument out of hand.
In sum, if the truth is being pursued, then the Church can well afford serenity regarding the theory of evolution, even if her faithful theologians can not fit the theory into their existing philosophical schemes. And it would be a mistake -- not a heresy, a mistake -- for the magisterium of the Catholic Church to endorse, even by implication, any possible modern theory of Intelligent Design, since any possible truly scientific version of such a theory (and also any possible truly scientific version of the theory of evolution) is religiously trivial, and can not in itself, even in principle, lead man to worship in Spirit and in truth.
At worst, a scientist practicing the inherently false and arrogant "postulatory atheism" is forced to deny all religion a priori, but even at best, within the natural sciences' true inherent natural humility, the scientist can only leave all important religious questions open. As has been suggested here, even at their best, in themselves, the natural sciences can not even tell Baal from Shiva, Zeus from Quetzalcoatl. Indeed, it is only when modern natural scientists are at their best that they admit that even this elementary bit of detection is utterly elusive for them as scientists. In the end, this is to say nothing more than that man needs Christ fundamentally, not peripherally or intermittently, even to distinguish with certainty some demon from the Father who loves man as a son. Even at their best, the fruits of the natural sciences are a very weak reed on which to build any sort of Catholic faith.
On the other hand, the Church should defend herself vigorously from extra-scientific use of scientific fruit, such as the use of the theory of evolution to cast aspersions on the professions and worship of the Church, since such a use of scientific results is contrary to the essential humility of the natural sciences, which are religiously trivial not by the Church's fiat but of their essence.
Finally, since (some sort of) theory of evolution is fundamental to current natural science, criticism by the magisterium of the theory of evolution per se, while certainly within the purview of the teaching authority of the Church, is inevitably also an implicit claim that the natural sciences as presently constituted are fundamentally corrupt, unable to see and correct even their most basic and obvious mistakes.
Return to The Old Testament in the Heart of the
Catholic Church main page
Return to the Easter Eggs page