Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
skulls on a shelf

Is Evolution Compatible with Faith in God?

October 22, 2024

Share

“I believe in evolution. I’m an atheist.” This was the declaration of one young man upon meeting him recently. Unfortunately, I suspect he is one of many who think that faith in a Creator God is incompatible with the theory of evolution. And because science provides some evidence of evolution, it seems that faith in God must go. But is it a case of either evolution or faith in a Creator God, or can it be both/and? 

This “either/or” choice is based on two fundamentalist and irreconcilable positions that are pitted one against the other. The first is the theory of creationism that holds that God created human beings in their present form, less than 10,000 years ago. The timeframe of ten millennia approximately corresponds to the number of biblical generations, making the theory of creationism compatible with Scripture. The opposing theory is that of pure evolution, where natural processes take place without any divine intervention as one life form changes slowly into a higher life form over time.

These opposing and polarizing views are held by many. In a recent Gallup poll, 37 percent of American adults identify themselves as pure creationists, holding that God created humans in their present form less than ten millennia ago. No doubt this is influenced by many Protestant and Pentecostal churches who interpret the Bible literally. This percentage, although still significant, has decreased since the beginning of the 2000s and reflects the lowest level in four decades. On the other hand, 24 percent of American adults support evolution without divine intervention, a notable increase that has almost tripled since 1999. Significantly, 34 percent of the population accept both theories, believing that any changes in life forms are under the direction of the Spirit of the Creator.

What this survey reveals is that an “either/or” position is not the only one to hold and that more than a third believe in some form of evolution that is unfolding under divine providence. This is the position of the Catholic Church and is based on two distinct and clear principles.

They seem to suggest that processes themselves are responsible for the objective realities and things that precede them.

The first of these principles asserts that the Bible is not a scientific but a theological document. The creation accounts contained in the Bible are works of theology and not science—a fact pointed out by Pope Leo XIII as far back as 1893 in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus. This teaching was repeated and developed by Pope Pius XII in 1943 with his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. In the light of reason alone, even if the authors of Genesis wanted to write a scientific account of creation, they did not have the tools to do so. Rather, the authors of Genesis were doing theology. They were expressing their faith in how creation relates to the Creator—how it originates from its Creator, is independent of the Creator and yet is radically dependent on the Creator. These central truths are stated in the creation accounts in a literary and not scientific way. They were clarified with Israel’s contact with other cultures where faith in multiple gods was common, as was the belief in some cases that creation was corrupt. In contrast, the creation accounts in Scripture clarify the Judeo-Christian faith that God is one, just, and good, and that his goodness is reflected in what he has brought into being. They also state that the high point of creation is humankind, made in the image and likeness of God himself and thus endowed with freedom and the ability to love.

An important clarification needs to be made regarding the Creation account that records the universe was made in six days after which God rested on the seventh. The expression of time here is not in the chronological sense of six periods of twenty-four hours as we understand it today. Early Christian interpreters of the Bible such as Origen and Augustine were clear on this point. This is crucially important because a literal interpretation of six days to create the universe is widely ridiculed given the evidence that the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old.

The second principle that allows Christians to accept both the theory of evolution and faith in a Creator God is stated clearly in another encyclical by Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, published in 1950. This magisterial document accepts the evidence of evolution as seen in matter, but since the human soul is immaterial, it could not have arisen from a merely material process. As the giver of life, God infuses the soul or life principle directly into every human being.

It may come as a surprise to many that the Church accepted evidence for evolution as far back as the late nineteenth century and has wisely chosen not to go to war with science as we discover more about the origins of life. In fact, in 1996 Pope St. John Paul II moved the Catholic Church closer to an endorsement of evolution, proclaiming it to be “more than a hypothesis” (Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996). That said, evolution remains a complex theory not without challenges that were pointed out even by Darwin himself.

An Introduction to Prayer - Bishop Barron
Get This $2 Book!

Having clarified these two principles that will help us engage in conversations, it is important to identify a difficulty with the argument that glibly supplants faith in a Creator God with acceptance of evolution. Here I think of scientists who are so enthusiastic for the evolutionary process that they suggest it gives rise to creation itself. For example, Terence Deacon states: “Evolution is the one kind of process able to produce something out of nothing . . .  An evolutionary process is an origination process. . . . Evolution is the author of its spontaneous creations.” This is also the position of Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design.

Similarly, the late physicist Stephen Hawking answers the question of why there is something rather than nothing with this response: “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” He continues: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” He concludes: “I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science.”

These philosophical conclusions from otherwise brilliant scientists appear weak at best—something Bishop Barron has pointed out in a previous article. They seem to suggest that processes themselves are responsible for the objective realities and things that precede them. When they speak about “self-creation” and “spontaneous creation,” they move beyond the domain of science to make broad claims that apparently don’t need to appeal to a source of existence of all there is. But this position is impossible to accept. It is like explaining the Big Bang with the laws of physics only to discover that the laws of physics were created with the Big Bang, or trying to explain the existence of gravity without the interaction of objects (such as planets) that gives rise to gravity in the first place. With respect to these scientists, this is ideological indoctrination masquerading as science that is determined not to let a divine foot in the door. Therefore, as a process, evolution cannot be invoked as a cause of creation. We must acknowledge what science tells us but also look beyond science to explore why there are processes to begin with and who is ultimately responsible for them all. We need both science and faith to answer the questions of how and why things exist.

As a Church, we need to do a far better job to educate our children and communities that the question of evolution and faith in a Creator God is not a choice of “either/or” but “both/and.” I hope this article helps.