Angels & Directors

Since the movie "Angels and Demons" has opened, I thought I would make some comments about it.

I have not read the book by Dan Brown or seen the movie directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks, nor do I have intentions of doing so. But I have read reviews and seen the History Channel's "Angels and Demons Decoded," which spent two hours describing the novel's claims and supposedly secret codes.

The main theme is that the Church has been (and still is) in conflict with modern science. The presumption is that science threatens the message of the Church: that God made heaven and Earth and the creatures therein.

The history of Galileo and Copernicus are supposed to be our basis for learning about past mistakes. Both scientists claimed the sun to be the center of our solar system (called heliocentrism, he-lee-oh-CEN-trism). The Church at the time did not accept this scenario. But those who would point that out in support of the present-day equivalent of the problem, the Theory of Evolution, are missing the greater lesson. The Church at the time was following what most scientists believed. Copernicus and Galileo were among a minority of scientists coming to this conclusion, building on increasing evidence. These two scientists were overturning the theories held by those of the Greek Aristotle and Roman Ptolemy who both had their own logical reasons for thinking the Earth was at the center. The majority of scientists believed these old theories. Then came the telescope, an instrument with which Galileo could be much more sure of Copernicus' idea of heliocentrism.

So, the scientists of today who recognize the legitimacy of Intelligent Design Theory are actually much more similar to Galileo and Copernicus than the ones who stubbornly hold onto Darwin's theory no matter what new experiments reveal. The IDists are in the minority, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

Church authority are not scientists. They weren't then and they aren't now. Neither are movie directors or fiction authors (at least most of them). Why should we expect expert statements about the scientific status of evolution from the Pope? Actually, I think Pope Benedict has handled the situation pretty well. He has sponsored intellectual inquiry into the subject in one of his annual meetings with former students. A book about that event is by Stephan Horn, Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo (Ignatius Press, 2008). I reviewed it in several posts you can find through the CR-EV REVIEW label at the bottom of the post. As I said in the last of the posts about it:

The Pope thinks that although science has discovered great things, its "findings lead to questions that reach beyond its methodological principles and cannot be answered within science itself" (163).

Directors such as Howard have great influence on our culture. He is probably sure he is promoting the cause of true science. How ironic that he follows the crowd whose faith in "old" science actually impedes the correct analysis of new discoveries.

Creation and Evolution 4

The book by Stephan Horn Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo (Ignatius Press, 2008), is a record of a meeting of Pope Benedict XVI with former graduate and post-graduate students in 2006. The group has been meeting annually for years to discuss various subjects, but this is the first to be presented in book form. The book was compiled by Stephan Horn, SDS, and Siegfried Wiedenhofer. This review continues from a previous entry (to see all of them, click CR-EV REVIEW label at bottom of post). The numbers in parentheses are page numbers for your reference.

The discussion starts with several questions to Professor Peter Schuster who had given one of the presentations. He is asked about the large leap organisms would have to take by evolution if totally materialistic, naturalistic evolution were true.

Schuster tells about one of the first leaps after Origin of Life that organisms would have to take--the change from simple bacteria that live without oxygen (anaerobic) to a cell that does use oxygen (aerobic). He tells about a global increase of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere. He says, "evidently a species of bacteria developed that was able to deal with oxygen, and that species made its way into our cells as mitochondria" (110).

Though there is much more content in the book, I must stop right here to comment. And, I'll add that I won't be covering the whole book, since I'd like to go on to other things. I hope I will have given enough of an overview by the end of this entry that you can decide whether it is within the scope of your own interests to read Creation and Evolution.

In his presentation, Peter Schuster did all in his power to make evolution sound easy, and even states it is adequate to explain all life (58). But he glosses over the tremendous changes needed in the organism to do so. Later in the book, Fr. Paul Erbrich brings him to task with questions and comments about the complex mechanisms needed for life (147-149). Erbrich talks about the mutational doubling of the gene, a favorite crutch of evolutionary explanation, as being inadequate to produce new information needed for things such as photosynthesis (147). He cites the complex structures of ATP as being incapable of formation by (other physical) mechanisms alone (149).

Indeed, there are many new structures and pathways needed for evolution from an anaerobe to an aerobe for which Schuster's comments are inadequate. Michael Behe, in his book The Edge of Evolution (Free Press, 2007) lists a few: "The innovations include such fundamental features as sexual reproduction (meiosis and recombination), the organization of DNA into chromatin, and the provisioning of a cellular protein 'skeleton'" (Behe, 172). All these take tremendous amounts of new information. Behe shows that Darwinian evolution is not up to the task given the amount of time in which the changes would have had to take place.

Pope Benedict XVI, who joins the discussion toward the end, reasons that evolution can’t be tested experimentally because “we cannot bring 10,000 generations into the laboratory” (162). Unfortunately, Benedict is incorrect in this assessment—a paper was just released by a group of scientists from Michigan State University that have been following the genetic activity of E. Coli for over 40,000 generations: Blount, et al, “Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli.”, PNAS, 105, 23 (June 10, 2008): 7899-7906. Actually, Schuster had mentioned this study but he puts a different "spin" on it than Behe would have. Schuster makes evolution sound like a fact, while the scientific evidence is showing more and more information against evolution. (2019 Update: Michael Behe writes about the Michigan State study as backing his own conclusions of major limits to natural evolution HERE). Though Schuster is no doubt successful in his own scientific areas of expertise, the undercurrent of dissenting opinion from the other participants in my opinion is not well-answered by him.

The Pope thinks the question of evolution belongs to philosophy, which as I wrote in the last entry is where Cardinal Schönborn puts it. Benedict, like Cardinal Schönborn, has a sense of the design of nature. A good quote from the book, I think, is from our Pope. He gives a great answer to the “God of the Gaps” argument that continues to come up in discussions between science and religion. Those who talk about God creating certain things are accused of cutting science short—that God explains a phenomenon until scientists discover the “real” reason for its existence. The Pope talks about questions that remain open, and then says, “Not as if I wanted now to cram the dear Lord into these gaps: He is too great to be able to find lodgings in such gaps” (161).

The Pope thinks that although science has discovered great things, its "findings lead to questions that reach beyond its methodological principles and cannot be answered within science itself" (163). The Pope ends in the same place as Cardinal Schönborn, with theology. He addresses the "component of terror" with which we are faced in the brutality of nature:

Here philosophy calls for something more, and faith shows us the Logos,who is creative reason and who incredibly at the same time was able to become flesh, to die and to rise again (174).

Creation and Evolution 3

The book by Stephan Horn, Creation and Evolution, A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo (Ignatius Press, 2008), is a record of a meeting of Pope Benedict XVI with former graduate and post-graduate students in 2006. The group has been meeting annually for years to discuss various subjects, but this is the first to be presented in book form. The book was compiled by Stephan Horn, SDS, and Siegfried Wiedenhofer. This review continues from a previous entry (to see all of them, click CR-EV REVIEW label at bottom of post). The numbers in parentheses are page numbers for your reference.

Christoph Cardinal Schönborn presented "Fides, Ratio, Scientia; the Debate about Evolution" (84). He reflects on the great scientist Isaac Newton who always saw the divine in the beauty of nature. Newton believed God actively supported the planets in their orbits and produced the great variety of natural things. The Cardinal relates the reaction to his article, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, "Finding Design in Nature," New York Times, July 7, 2005, to the passion all humans feel about life's meaning.

Cardinal Schönborn asserts that Darwin's theory has left the level of science and become an ideology of materialism. He believes that "the decisive question...is found...on the level of natural philosophy" (91). He feels the debate is oversimplified to "creationists" vs. evolutionists. Here he defines  creationists as those who literally believe in a 6-day creation. He states that Catholics allow that the Creator could have used the instrument of evolution. However, he wonders whether "evolutionism (as an ideological concept) is compatible with belief in a Creator" (92).

The Cardinal notes that many scientists and scholars these days feel theology is either incompatible with evolution or separate from it. Many are satisfied with what is called methodological materialism, which says that scientists should experiment and theorize as though there is no supernatural element in nature. Schönborn calls this "methodological option" an "intellectual act" (93). It excludes God from nature which is antithetical to theology. Theology proclaims the Lord can be seen from what is made.

Cardinal Schönborn states, "Development of scientific theory is an intellectual process" (93). Human activity is goal-oriented, including investigations of science. And goals speak of purpose. Observation of nature sees order and design, but who recognizes it? He argues that philosophy and reason can recognize design. Using the metaphor of language, he points out that scientific objectivism "mistakes the letter for the text" (102).

He asks why, with its obvious shortcomings, evolution remains so well established. He answers, "Because so far there is no better theory." Yet evolutionary theory is a worldview (103). Anyone who thinks we were created (by God) also acknowledges a Creator who makes claims on us. We go from there to accepting ethical responsibilities.

Another reason for preference of evolution is observation of the long times and cruelties involved in our world's formation and nature. The answer here lies in accepting God's wisdom that gives meaning though we don't understand it all. His conclusion is that "The cross is the key to God's plan and counsel" (105).

I admire Cardinal Schönborn for bringing this discussion between religion and science into the open. He has been a leader of the Catholic Church and I enjoy reading his thoughts and thinking about his arguments. After this article appeared in the New York Times, he had several articles in the periodical, First Things, debating various persons, notably physicist Stephen Barr.

My impression of the Cardinal's arguments at that time have been reinforced by his presentation in this book. He presents the tensions between the modern science mindset and religion in general as one of philosophy. My opinion is that these differences stem from theology and I believe the Cardinal himself mixes theology in with his arguments. It can be hard to separate them, since philosophy relates to reason. How do we correctly evaluate and describe faith without an effort of reason? But the Cardinal's presentation in the end appeals to the cross, resurrection and God's wisdom as answers to the ultimate questions--those of meaning and purpose. This is theology, and what he can't reach with his philosophy arguments is that the problem is really about faith. For example, in the Intelligent Design movement there are many people who see design but do not accept God as the Creator. They think another intelligence or aliens of some different makeup than ours (they themselves being naturalistically evolved) have designed us. Can Aristotle or Plato change the minds of these people? Perhaps if all of us saw things as the Cardinal would wish to teach, but I'm afraid in our era he would (and does) meet minds closed to his arguments.

As for the appearance of life as we know it, there is a much better fit with the facts than naturalistic evolotion: that we were created directly in a supernatural way. This is called "special creationism." It's just that evolution is the only naturalistic theory to which non-believers can cling.

I will review the discussion part of the book in the next entry.

Creation and Evolution 2

The book by Stephan Horn, Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo (Ignatius Press, 2008), is a record of a meeting of Pope Benedict XVI with former graduate and post-graduate students in 2006. The group has been meeting annually for years to discuss various subjects, but this is the first to be presented in book form. The book was compiled by Stephan Horn, SDS, and Siegfried Wiedenhofer. This review continues from a previous entry (to see all of them, click CR-EV REVIEW label at bottom of post). The numbers in parentheses are page numbers for your reference.

The next speaker to be presented in the book is Robert Spaeman (61). He talks about the differences between the natural sciences and philosophy. He seems to take evolution for granted (not all the participants do). Spaeman uses the metaphor of double codes in one of Bach’s Sonatas to infer that the code of biological evolution can be accompanied by a more purposeful code—that of human self-awareness (68).

Fr. Paul Erbrich, SJ, calls his presentation “The Problem of Creation and Evolution” (70). He distinguishes between ideas of “chance” held by biologists vs. those held by the critics of evolution. For biologists, evolution is by chance alone. The critics see evolution as “goal-oriented," and materialistic explanations are not sufficient for the “innovations that must come about in some other way” (72). I think he refers to the many genes in DNA that are in specific molecular order so that they can produce the organs and cellular functions of the body.

Fr. Erbrich also discusses the term, “mechanism.” He asserts that scientists of disciplines which can’t be explained totally by mathematics, such as biology, use this term to express causality. The term and its implied meaning keep the discipline separated from exploration into mental causality and the body-soul problem (77). To the materialists, bodies are simply a conglomeration of mechanisms.

When it comes to explaining the origin of the innovations needed for life, some biologists say complex systems can self-organize. Erbrich shows we cannot have the self composing itself. The beginning of an original totality must be a creation from nothing by God (82-83).

I would add here that theories of self-organization are about all the biologists have at present as a resort for their own resistance against supernatural creation. The probability that molecules of life have formed by chance is amazingly remote. Of course, scientists seem to hope for a spectacular experiment or discovery of a physical law which would explain everything and make the possibility of creation go away. They have thought in times past they have had it, such as the 1952 experiment by Stanley Miller which was to prove that lightning in the "primordial soup" created life. Over 50 years later, much has been discovered to deflate the hopes of that particular experiment, including the probable atmosphere of Earth at the time and the lack of molecules of the necessary complexity. Also, any recourse to self-organizing physical laws would need the same explanations as the fine-tuning laws of the universe collectively known as the "anthropic principle."

Next entry: the presentation by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn.

Creation and Evolution 1

The book by Stephan Horn, Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo (Ignatius Press, 2008), is a record of a meeting of Pope Benedict XVI with former graduate and post-graduate students in 2006. The group has been meeting annually for years to discuss various subjects, but this is the first to be presented in book form. The book was compiled by Stephan Horn, SDS, and Siegfried Wiedenhofer. I will give a review in my next few entries (to see all of them, click CR-EV REVIEW label at bottom of post). The numbers in parentheses are page numbers for your reference.

An introduction was given by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn  (7). He is among the former students of Pope Benedict and is well known as editor of the most recent Catholic Catechism. The Cardinal started an international discussion, as is reported on the book jacket, by his Opinion article, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, "Finding Design in Nature," New York Times, July 7, 2005, about creation and evolution. He seems very interested in the current design arguments, as do other participants in the symposium. The introduction (forward) extensively quotes previous statements by Pope Benedict about the nature of human "being" that is special because we are made to know God. The spirit is of first importance with the material as its support. The human is special as soon as s/he has an idea of God, whether we are "made" from direct molding or evolutionary descent (15). The details of the material are left to natural science (8).

Pope Benedict points out the dangers of evolutionary philosophy, in which naturalistic, materialistic evolution is claimed by some to answer all of life's questions (9-10). He believes it is of utmost importance for Christians to frame a proper discourse to address this matter. That is one of the main goals of their conference with its presentations and discussions presented in this book.

The first speaker was Professor Peter Schuster of the Institute of Theoretical Chemistry of the University of Vienna (27). He uses charts and pictures to give some scientific background to his talk, but does not complete his presentation with actual proof of molecular evolution. His conclusion that evolution can now be explained by material, naturalistic means (58) is therefore not convincing. Perhaps he feels it is too complicated to present to laypersons.

I must here point out there are many scientific articles which paint a different story. They have much more detail and demonstrate that there are still many hurdles yet to be overcome to explain how life could have evolved by chance. One is by a leading origin-of-life proponent, Leslie Orgel, "The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth," PLOS Biol. 6, 1 (Jan. 22 2008).  This is just one example of problems of life starting with random atomic movements.

I will continue this review in the next (chronological) entry.