December 14, 2023 • 43 mins
Dan and Catherine discuss how to reconcile biological evolution with the Catholic faith. Particularly, how can we understand biological evolution in light of the human person as made in the image and likeness of God?
Have your call in questions be featured on the podcast:
Leave a voicemail at 949-257-2436
Learn more and read articles:
https://www.magiscenter.com/purposeful-lab
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to Purposeful Lab, a Modjust Center podcast.
I'm Catherine Hadrow with DrDan Kebler.
Here we are, start of seasonthree, episode one.
Great to see you again.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Good to see you again , Catherine.
I look forward to kicking off anew season.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Absolutely.
Again, new location for thosewho are watching and see a
different change of scene.
So this season we are delvinginto biological evolution.
Dan, can you give us a previewof what's to come and why we're
talking about this now?
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Yeah, I think this season we're going to focus on
biological evolution.
This evolutionary process hasplayed out the last four billion
years on the planet Earth.
And look at that in relation toa couple things.
One, what does that mean?
Does it have a directionality?
Is there a purpose underneathevolution?
And then, how does that relateto a Christian understanding of
(00:51):
creation?
So we'll have some guests onthat will look at genesis how do
you understand genesis properly, and does that conflict
inherently with an understandingof biological evolution?
We'll look at the evolution ofthe human brain and how that
affects what it means to behuman.
We'll look at hominid evolution, which is the evolution of
(01:16):
creatures that are more similarto us than, say, chimps.
So, recent human evolution Lookat what patterns do we see
there, what can we glean fromthat?
And so those are the sort oftopics we're going to sort of
focus on, all with trying tounderstand.
Does evolution undermine thesense of purpose that we've been
talking about on the podcast?
Speaker 1 (01:36):
In episode one we're going to kick off laying out the
church's position and view onevolution and what it is Really
important kind of framework, aswe're delving into this and
really know better person tospeak about this than you,
because you really are thisCatholic leading scientist on
the topic of evolution sograteful to dive into this topic
(01:57):
with you.
I want to just remind ourlisteners and viewers, so they
don't take you for granted,really your credentials on this
You've again been a professor ofbiology at Franciscan
University of Steubenville since2001.
You received your doctorate inmolecular and cell biology from
Berkeley, currently involved inclinical research, product
(02:18):
development and consultingprojects with a variety of
biotechnology firms in theregenerative medicine field.
But you've also written thebook on this.
You wrote the book theEvolution Controversy, a survey
of competing theories, and youhave a book coming out in 2024
with word on fire press againabout this topic of the Catholic
Church and human evolution.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
That's right.
I think that the book that willbe coming out and a lot of the
stuff we're going to talk aboutthis season sort of synthesize
my thoughts and thoughts of thechurch sort of, in that book.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
Well, if it's all right with you, let's just dive
in.
Let's dive into this topic.
So again, evolution is one ofthese areas and issues that
people have some difficulty orat least they think they need to
have difficulty reconcilingtheir Christian faith.
Why do you think this is?
How did that begin?
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Yeah, I think if you talk to people, hey, what the
issues that you see or strugglewith to try to reconcile, say,
science with faith, then I thinkevolution is that key issue.
I think another issue that comesup is sort of the problem of
evil and sin, but within science, how do I understand the
(03:33):
science of evolution in linewith the Catholic understanding
of the human person?
Because it really touches onwhat it means to be human, and
the answer to that questionaffects everything.
If I am just a material being,a chance conglomerate of
molecules, that is going to leadme in different directions
(03:57):
about what's the purpose of mylife, or is there anything that
we can call purpose?
But if you argue that you aremade in the image of likeness of
God, that is going to changethe way you view yourself, the
way you view other people, theway you view your actions in the
world.
So, from a Catholic perspective, to recognize we are made in
(04:17):
the image of likeness of God iscentral to our faith.
But if we're really actuallyevolved, how do you put those
two together?
Do you have to choose one orthe other?
And that's, I think, where thisconflict sort of resides,
because it fundamentallyaddresses who we are.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
Well, I'd love to get your personal take on this,
because, as a scientist, youstudy the biological
implications of human evolution,but again, you also are a
person of deep faith.
So how for you, do those twoperspectives interact, and does
your Catholic faith make iteasier or more difficult for you
(04:55):
to reconcile the two?
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Yeah, I think my Catholic faith certainly helps
me reconcile those, for a coupleof reasons.
One, from a Catholicperspective, I always teach that
the unity of knowledge thatthere isn't.
Oh, the knowledge you get fromscience over here, the knowledge
from philosophy, the knowledgefrom theology, and they all are
discordant and they'reconflicting with each other.
No, from a Catholic view, allthe disciplines are converging
(05:21):
on one truth, and so that givesme confidence that, okay, when I
approach this, that yeah, itmight be difficult, there's
going to be questions that arewell beyond me, that I'm not
going to really quite grasp, butI have this confidence that all
truths are leading in onedirection and they're all going
to converge and that there isn'tthis inherent conflict.
(05:42):
Now, the other thing that I wantto recognize is that, when you
look at questions of evolutionand creation, that instead of
saying evolution versus creation, we have to look at evolution
what question is it asking andhow is that different from the
questions that creation isasking?
So, for example, evolution froma scientific perspective is
(06:05):
going to answer specificquestions on a specific level
and our understanding of whatdoes it mean to be created at a
different level, and so they'renot actually competing for the
same sort of on the same level.
They can both be correctbecause they're answering
slightly different but relatedquestions, because they both
deal with the human person.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
And do you think that's where the confusion kind
of came in?
People just confused the twoand conflated the two.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
Yeah, and we can talk more about that, but I think
that people think that if youthink you are created okay, then
therefore you could not have ahuman person, could a human body
could not have evolved right.
And people think, well, ifevolution can explain the origin
of the human body, well then weweren't created right.
And so this is either or, andPope Benedict has written quite
(06:54):
a bit about this and I think Itake my lead from him because I
think he, more than any otherCatholic thinker, has been able
to address this fruitfully andclearly.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
And in modern times as well?
What do you say to people whoclaim well, doesn't evolution
just reduce man to just anotheranimal?
Because how do we see man asdifferent from an animal if man
also evolved via naturalprocesses?
Speaker 2 (07:22):
Right, and I think that gets the that question,
gets the heart of the matterright.
And so, well, just look atGenesis for a moment, and we're
going to have some guests on thenext few episodes that talk a
lot more about Genesis.
But I think I just want to pullone line out of Genesis, you
know.
And the creation of man?
Right, and so it's.
(07:43):
God takes the dust of the earthright, so there's this material
aspect, the dust of creation ofthis material part, and
breathes life into it.
Right, so you have the breathof God and this physical stuff,
right, so man is a unity of bodyand spirit, right, and it's
(08:04):
that unity which makes us ahuman person, right, so it is a
both, and we're not just thebreath of God and we're not just
dust, right, we're this unityof the two.
So when we step back and we say, well, what can evolution tell
us about this reality?
That's our starting point.
Man is this unity of body andsoul, right, and body and spirit
(08:27):
.
What is evolution?
Do evolution as a scientifictheory?
Right, can explain physicalthings.
Scientific theories aretheories about the material
world, right, and so we do havea material aspect to our person,
right, and so evolution canexplain that aspect, but we
(08:48):
could not expect evolution to dois explain the entirety of man,
right, because man is more thana physical being.
So if we think evolution canexplain all of man, we're going
to go down the dark alley, right?
And that there's something moreabout the human person, and
that is what Benedict talksabout.
The creation story in Genesisis pointing out the truth about
(09:09):
man that we're body and spirit.
They were made in the image ofthe likeness of God, were made
to worship God, and so forth.
Those truths don't underminethe fact that we share a body
that has very similar physiologyand evolutionary history with
other primates, right, but thatdoesn't exhaust what it means to
(09:29):
be human right.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Which you know.
That reminds me of somethingwe've talked about before
science can answer every singlequestion and that's why it's
important to bring in theology,to bring in philosophy, because
there are these big questionsthat, like you said, we'd get in
trouble if we turn to just thematerial.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Right, yeah, and the idea that, oh, we are just
material beings is not somethingthat science can answer.
So it's an open question inphilosophy, in debate are we
just a material being, or do wehave any material aspect, or we
body and soul?
Science can't answer thatquestion, that's not a
scientific question.
All science can do is explainthe proper functioning and
(10:08):
proper origin, evolutionaryorigin, of that body, of that
physical aspect, of what itmeans to be human.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Looking at the history of evolution and the
church's view on it.
Obviously, when you starttalking about evolution, one of
the pivotal players is Darwin.
I think that's a name that mosteveryone can recognize and it's
a controversial name, it seemslike in faith circles.
He, darwin, published his workit was back in 1859.
(10:36):
How did the Catholic Churchinitially respond to his
findings and his ideas aboutscience of evolution?
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Yeah, it's really, as with most historical subjects,
it's a very complicated andfascinating story.
So Darwin was not the firstperson to put forth evolutionary
ideas, but his work, the Originof Species the first edition,
like you said, came out in 1859,was probably it was the best
articulation of evolutionaryideas, and he had a sort of a
mechanism that might driveevolutionary change.
(11:07):
And so there was a lot ofdebates amongst Catholics at the
time of what to make up of this.
And the interesting thing to meis the church doesn't have any
official pronouncement on thetheory of evolution for almost
100 years after that.
So the church took its time toinvestigate.
What does this mean?
(11:27):
How do we reflect on this?
First of all, is the sciencemature enough that we can think
that, oh, did man really evolve?
So first it didn't just jump onboard recklessly, but it also
didn't immediately put up a walland say, no, this can't be true
.
Now there were certainlyCatholics that said both of
(11:49):
those things.
They wanted to jump right onboard, and others that said, no,
this can't be true.
Particularly, the Jesuits werevery adamantly opposed at the
time, particularly the ones thatRay and the Vatican newspaper
were adamantly opposed toevolution, but there were those
that Kurt and John Henry Newmanwho thought there's nothing
(12:12):
antithetical to the faith in thetheory of evolution.
So there was a lot of people inthe 1800s that took different
views, and so it was a time inwhich a lot of questions were
raised and details were tried towork out, tried to understand,
because there was a lot going onin terms of just understanding
(12:33):
the science of evolution at thetime, but also that was being
refined.
So was the theology as well.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
But the church, like you said, didn't rush a
statement.
It seems like took the time todiscern and listen, and it does
seem in more recent years thatrecent popes have made
statements discussing the topicof evolution.
What are the key points thatpeople should know about what
the recent popes have said?
Speaker 2 (12:59):
Yeah, I think, particularly if you look at Pope
Benedict and Pope John Paul II.
What have they said aboutevolution?
They are both very much open tothe science of evolution.
Pope John Paul II had thisfamous letter to scientists
where he said that evolution ismore than a hypothesis, that
(13:22):
there's strong convergingevidence from a lot of different
fields that evolution is awell-supported theory, a
scientific theory.
But every document and everytime a pope talks about
evolution, one of the thingsthat they always caution against
is that evolution cannotexplain the totality of man.
(13:42):
So evolution is not going toexplain the origin of the human
soul and the immaterial aspectof man.
So if you were to say what isthe church's position on the
science of evolution?
Church doesn't have a positionon that because the church is
not a scientific body.
So the church doesn't have aposition on cell theory and
quantum theory and so forth.
(14:03):
That's not what the church does.
It guards the doctrine andfaith and morals.
But what it does do and it hasto speak into the culture and
say look, if you start to arguethat evolution can explain the
totality of man, that is now aphilosophy.
That's not.
It goes beyond the science andit warns against that.
So Benedict does, pope Francisdoes, pope John Paul II in
(14:27):
particular did so that is sortof the key point that evolution
is.
Science cannot explain thetotality of man, even if the
science of evolution and theorigin of the human body, it can
be explained via sort ofnatural evolutionary processes.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
But they're not in conflict with one another and,
like we've been discussing,there are people, though, who
believe that there's conflictbetween the faith and biological
evolution, and there's a fewcommon questions.
I thought would be helpful ifwe tackle some of those top
questions people have on this inparticular.
So, for example, again,evolution seems to be driven by
(15:11):
chance mutations and chanceevents.
So if humans are the results ofchance, doesn't that conflict
with the notion that we talkabout a lot here, that humans
know humans are planned andwilled by God?
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Yeah, no, that's a common question.
I get that from my students alot.
You see, this juxtapositionbetween chance and purpose,
right.
So clearly, there's chanceenvironmental changes that can
affect the direction ofevolution.
There's chance and geneticchanges that occur that could
affect the direction ofevolution.
So therefore, god could havenever planned us from the
(15:47):
beginning, that there's nopurpose.
We're just here because of somelucky throw of the dice right
Now.
First thing to recognize is that, just on a philosophical level,
the chance and purpose are notjuxtaposed, they're not
opposites, right.
So you can have chance eventsthat you can use for a purpose,
right.
And so you know, casinos usechance events for a purpose to
make lots of money off people,right.
(16:08):
So that is a dozen to the twodon't have to necessarily be in
conflict.
God could use chance events forhis purposes, just like a
casino often uses chance eventsfor his or her purposes, right?
The second thing, and this issort of a philosophical point,
that we don't want to shrink Goddown to the level of you and I
(16:32):
right.
So God is the primary cause ofeverything that exists in the
universe.
So you often see, you know,people say, well, if we can
explain it via science, thenthat removes God from the
picture, right?
If we can explain something viayou know my actions, then God
had nothing to do with it.
Right Now, that is not theCatholic understanding of God's
(16:57):
role in the world.
God is the primary cause ofeverything that exists.
So anything that happens,whether it happens by human
action, by chance events, by,you know, the force of gravity,
by necessity, happens onlybecause God allows that to
happen and sustains that inexistence.
So Aquinas talks about, youknow, things that God deems to
(17:20):
happen by contingency or chancehappen by contingency or chance,
things that happen by necessity, that God deems that happen by
necessity.
So God allows everything toexist.
So this is an example.
Like this asteroid that hit theU-Cutan Peninsula about 65
(17:40):
million years ago, which isthought to have led to the
extinction of the dinosaurs andthen the radiation and
flourishing of mammals andeventually primates, you can say
, well, that's a chance event,right?
And if that had never hit, youknow, the U-Cutan Peninsula,
humans would have never beenhere.
So clearly we're just lucky.
But you know, from a Catholicperson like to say well, you
(18:05):
know, god created everything andis outside of time, new from
all eternity, what every eventin the universe knew.
The asteroid is doing whatasteroids do, following what you
know, the forces of gravity.
The Earth is doing what it doesand they happen to hit, and
that chance event was deemed forall eternity by God to do what
(18:27):
it was intended to do, right,and we probably don't even
realize when we put you know God, on our level, quote, unquote,
right, and we probably justnaturally impose kind of yeah,
we do it all the time, and we dothat with everything.
We anthropomorphize our dog.
You know everything.
We don't understand how dogsact.
We think of them as through thehuman lens.
You think about how God acts.
(18:48):
We have no other way but tothink through our lens, so we
tend to anthropomorphize God,put them down on our level and
bring dogs up to our level,right, because that's how we
think.
That's the only sort of way wecan think.
The other thing that I wouldpoint out, though, is that
evolution, it's always thoughtof as a chance, that often
thought of as just very chancey,but the reality is, evolution
(19:09):
is built on a benefit order,right, and there's this level of
order that's absolutelyessential for evolution to work,
and directs and moves evolutionin certain directions, and
that's that order, thatconvergent order that we've
talked about back on season onewith Simon Conway Morris, and
this order, at the level ofphysics, dictates the way we,
you know, atoms form, which thendictates how molecules form,
(19:31):
which can dictate, you know, thedirection of protein evolution
and form.
So there is a huge amount oforder in evolution that I think
is more fundamental than thesechance events, right.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Absolutely.
One of the issues that peoplealso raised as having difficulty
reconciling with evolution isbig topic original sin and the
introduction of death into theworld as a result of man sin, as
a result of the fall.
So how does death enter theworld after human sin if
extinction and death are anintegral part of the 4 billion
(20:08):
year-long evolutionary process?
How big question, again one ofthese fundamental human
questions.
But how do you begin to tacklethat?
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Yeah, I think you know.
I'm sure we'll discuss thismore with some of the guests in
the next couple episodes, butthe first thing to keep in mind
is, when you talk about deathentering the world, sin and
death, those are humancategories we're looking in.
Sin is something you know.
You have to have a human person, you have to have a person
(20:38):
there to introduce sin.
That's a free choice, and havean understanding of that.
And the death that's brought inis human death.
Right, so it's not as if youknow that you know everything
was perfect, you know, before ahuman fall, right, no, there's
death, there is, you know,extinction, there's change
(20:58):
that's going on throughout theentire cosmic and evolutionary
history.
Right, when the human personcomes onto the scene, right when
evolution reaches the point ofproducing the type of thing
that's fitting to have arational soul, the human person,
at that point that human personis capable of turning away from
(21:20):
God and sin.
And when that individual does,that allows that person now to
be subjective to death.
Right so it you know the churchdoesn't teach oh, everything
was perfect, and then the fall,and now everything's messed up.
In a sense that you know, theCatechism talks about how the
(21:40):
universe is on a journey and itwas in a state of incompletion.
We're moving towards perfection, right.
And that perfection is inChrist, right.
And so this idea of, oh,everything was perfect and the
lay down with the lamb orwhatever, is not something
that's part and parcel orCatholic understanding.
You know, you think about, youknow, in Genesis, just the text.
(22:02):
It says that God created good.
It's good, creation is good,but it's not perfect, right.
It doesn't find its perfectionuntil it culminates in the
beatific vision of Christ.
Exactly, exactly.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
What does you know on that same topic?
What does the church teachabout the fall in Adam and Eve?
You know, given that this doesseem to contradict the
evolutionary form?
Speaker 2 (22:29):
origin of man.
Yeah, right, so that's one ofthose big, big questions that
you know.
It's how do you make sense ofthat, right, and it's something
that we'll probably never know,right?
But it's interesting tospeculate on different ideas of
that and that you know.
That at certain point, you know, in the evolutionary process
(22:53):
and later on in the season we'lltalk about the evolution of
hominins which is the hominid,is just any fossil form that's
more similar to modern humansthan modern chimps.
So there was the idea, is therewas a common ancestor.
About 7 million years ago about, one lineage led to modern
humans, another lineage led tomodern chimps, so that hominid
forms.
We'll talk a little bit aboutthat later on this season.
(23:16):
But at some point that processproduces the type of thing that
is fitting to have a rationalsoul, what we say as a human
person.
It has this matter and form,that dust and breath of God that
we talked about earlier.
That is human, it is inrelation with God, right, and
(23:38):
that you know.
There may be sort of acontinuity in terms of its
biological nature, of makeup,but there's a discontinuity
there.
So it is a both and, becausethere is its transformed into,
with the rational soul intosomething other, a human person
(23:58):
that has a rationality,conceptual thought, you know the
ability of language, all thethings that we as humans have
that you don't see in, say,other primates, right.
And so once you reach that,though, you know at a certain
point, exactly how those firstindividuals fall or turn away
(24:19):
from God, and all that you knowis it's not clear.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Again questions that we don't have all the answers to
at this point.
There was a papal document andyou can speak more to this that
came out in 1950, called HumaneGenerous, and I believe this was
the first papal document tomention evolution, and this
document seemed to indicate thathumans must have originated
from an initial pair, sopresumably Adam and Eve that.
(24:48):
So what Does that issue posefor science?
Is that in conflict?
Speaker 2 (24:54):
Yeah, it's an interesting document and the way
Popeyes worded in the documentit seems to be it leaves it open
that it's possible it couldhave happened otherwise.
Because in the language he saysthat we're not free to
speculate on what he callspolygenism, which in this
(25:17):
context means that the humansoriginated as an initial
population.
Like you know, there's a groupof 100 first humans, right,
rather than just a single pairof first humans, which would be
monogenism.
And he says you can't speculateon that because it's no way
apparent.
He doesn't say because youcan't do that, but he says it's
(25:37):
no way apparent how you canreconcile polygenism with the
concept of original sin, right?
So what's the advantage ofthinking of original sin through
monogenism?
Well, if you have this initialcouple, adam and Eve or whoever
that turn away from God, right,they're now full of fallen
(25:58):
nature.
They pass on, you know, theiroffspring are all inherent, this
human nature, devoid of thepreternatural gifts, right, and
that's the idea that when humansfall, they lose the
preternatural gifts that God hasgiven, so they're left with
just what their bio-touchprovided them, in a sense, right
(26:20):
, which we all struggle with,right?
So, yeah, so you've got thisinitial pair and then everybody
defends from them.
So it's very simple, neat wayof original sin being
transmitted via generation rightNow.
The issue with that,biologically, is that you know,
(26:42):
if you start with twoindividuals, that's a very small
gene pool, right.
And so you have to have somesort of incest going on there,
right?
And we know from geneticresearch that you know, if you
have a bottleneck, like thehuman population went through
two individuals, you should seea genetic signature there, right
?
So if you look at sort ofpopulations, of the isolated
(27:06):
populations that are more inbred, you look at the genetic
diversity and that you can seethere's a genetic signatures of
there's a lack of geneticdiversity.
If you look at the amount ofgenetic diversity in the modern
human population, you know, anda lot of different studies have
looked at this, and it seemslike the smallest sort of gene
pool that it could have comefrom in the last few million
(27:28):
years is probably around athousand right, maybe 10,000.
So we couldn't have passedthrough this sort of small, to
come through two individuals andaccount Population yeah,
account for the amount ofgenetic diversity we have.
So that's what people say.
Well, maybe humans originatedin an initial population and
then all of those individuals inthat population turn away from
(27:50):
God, in fall, and so you know,then all of their offspring are
fallen.
So there's debate anddiscussion about that in terms
of how do we reconcile thegenetic diversity issue with the
need for some understanding oforiginal sin that doesn't
deviate from church teaching.
(28:11):
But again, these are thingsthat people speculate and think
about and it's not clear howthey all fit together.
And there's people activelyworking on this idea, because
Adam represents the head of ahuman family, that when he falls
they all follow him, so heleads them over the cliff in a
sense, and then the wholepopulation or something.
(28:32):
There's different ways thatmaybe this could be right.
So I don't claim to have allthe answers, but I think this is
an interesting, open question.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
And, like you said, the church doesn't have one
definitive.
Here's what the scientificbelief is Exactly so.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
okay, well, this is what science seems to say.
Well, let's think about thisthen.
What does that mean?
It doesn't jump on board andsay, okay, we got to throw this
away, the idea of my ownjudgment, okay, well, if that's
what the science seems to say,let's look at this and
investigate this.
And that's what I think thedialogue between and Pope Pius
(29:10):
mentions this in he may enjoy.
He said that there's a need fordialogue between men and women
who are learned in theologicaland philosophical sciences and
those that are learned in thebiological and evolutionary
sciences, to dialogue anddiscuss these and to try to
understand each other andunderstand the reality of how
(29:32):
these might fit together.
Right, the idea that there'sthis unified vision of truth,
that one truth in science is notgoing to contradict the truth
of theology, and with thatconfidence, then we can move
forward and freely investigatethese questions.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
Speaking of the fall and sin and soul.
Another big question for youhow do the first humans come to
even be in the evolutionaryprocess if humans have an
immaterial, rational soul?
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Right and it goes back to what I've mentioned and
what we've talked about, thatthe humans have a material
aspect.
I mean, that's undoubtedlyright, we have a material aspect
to ourselves.
But does that explain all ofthe human person?
(30:29):
And so the church teaches, andso that God creates, brings into
being the human person.
Anytime a new human personcomes into being, god is
creating.
Because God is creating theimmaterial rational soul that
(30:52):
comes into being, that doesn'tevolve.
My soul doesn't produce anothersoul, right, that comes in
being In a real sense.
God creates each and every oneof us in that sense.
But at the same time Ico-create with God when I have a
child.
So in a sense the evolutionaryprocess co-creates with God.
And again, you have to definethose terms.
(31:14):
But when humans emerge?
But God creates the firsthumans directly, because that
rational soul doesn't evolve, itdoesn't come from matter, it is
something that's immaterialthat informs the matter and
transforms it and gives itabilities that the animals don't
have.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
Right, as we begin, to just summarize the big ideas
and the big takeaways from thistopic and the church's
understanding of biologicalevolution.
Does Genesis and again I knowwe'll speak about Genesis more
in depth this season, but doesGenesis shed any light on the
science of the origin of thefirst humans?
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Yeah, and it doesn't necessarily tell us how it
happened or the material process, but it does help inform what
the science should be doing, andI think there's two things that
it does, and one I've alreadyhit upon is the idea that the
science isn't going to be ableto explain everything about me,
right, and that focuses ourscience of what it should do and
(32:11):
what it should do.
The other thing that I think isimportant about the Genesis text
that, to me, is amenable to theevolutionary process and
scientific understanding.
It doesn't explain the science,but it's consistent within the
Genesis text.
It says it in Genesis 1 thatGod said let the earth bring
(32:36):
forth right, let the seas bringforth.
So he's asking for creation tobring forth and produce things.
So in a sense, there's asecondary causality God's
bringing everything intoexistence, but he's allowing
creation to produce things, andthat's what the evolutionary
process is Now.
That means that the author ofGenesis has evolution in mind
when this is being written.
(32:57):
But it's striking to me thatthat idea of primary and
secondary causality is actuallyin the text itself.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
Chapter one yeah.
Speaker 2 (33:05):
Right?
So I think that you know, Ithink liberates the sciences.
Let me explain how creationcould bring forth some of these
things, right?
Speaker 1 (33:13):
Finally, you know again we've talked about, it's
okay that there are thesecompeting theories when it comes
to evolution and that there area range of acceptable positions
as a Catholic to have on thisvery topic.
Could you summarize what arethese competing theories and how
does one identify with whichone is the most fitting
(33:36):
proposition?
Speaker 2 (33:36):
Yeah, yeah, I know that's a loaded question and I'm
sure we'll get lots of feedbackon this.
But in terms of positions, thechurch doesn't say oh, to be a
good Catholic, you have tobelieve in seven-day creation
story.
To be a good Catholic, you haveto believe in biological
(33:57):
evolution and natural selectionand as being the explanation for
the origin of species.
So there's anywhere in thatrange.
You can still consider yourselfa good Catholic as long as you
are making the claim that withevolution, evolution is only
(34:22):
does what it does because God isthe primary cause behind it all
and God has intended evolutionto do exactly what it's done
over the past four billion years.
So that's the key, that youcan't give that up.
You have to hold on becausethat's part and parcel of our
Catholic understanding of Godand God planning us for all
(34:43):
eternity.
But within that, any of thosepositions would be considered an
acceptable Catholic position.
That said, the Catholic Churchand Pope John Paul II and Peter
Siratio talks about faith andreason, and one aspect of reason
is scientific reasons.
Not all.
There's philosophical reason.
There's lots of other ways ofknowing other rational arguments
(35:10):
besides scientific arguments.
But we as Catholics, I think,should have a healthy respect
for scientific discovery, and sowe would want to have an
understanding of the science andhave a proper understanding of
the science integrated into ourunderstanding of creation and
(35:31):
evolution.
People can debate back andforth about the science of
evolution and people do this,and there's interminable debates
out there but I think the keypoint is that we should have a
respect for the science and weshould at least look at the
scientific data and say, okay,how can we integrate this into,
(35:51):
like I said, this idea that Godis the primary cause of all
things?
Speaker 1 (35:56):
And I think in examining the science it really
I don't know, for me at least,puts me more in awe of God and
his creation.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Right, right.
And people have said what'smore miraculous at God who
directly creates things, or Godwho creates a creation that can
co-create?
Right, you know?
I think there's something aboutthat.
The way God works with us, heallows.
We have our freedom to be ableto do certain things.
We don't have unlimited freedom, but we have freedom to do what
(36:25):
humans do and it has freedom todo what creation does within
certain contexts.
And that freedom is only therebecause God allows that freedom
and knows where that freedom iseventually going.
Right.
Speaker 1 (36:37):
If I had to give my big takeaways from what you just
shared in this conversation.
Human evolution cannot explainthe totality of man.
Science is limited in what itcan tell us there that God is
the primary cause of evolution,that chance and purpose are not
opposed and good does not meanperfect.
Those are all the things thatkind of stood out for me and,
(37:00):
honestly, are good life lessonsas well.
Are there final takeaways,final thoughts on this topic of
the church's approach tobiological evolution?
Speaker 2 (37:10):
Yeah, I think the final takeaway is just you know,
be not afraid, that's what I'mgoing to do.
The church should not be afraidof science, people in the
church should not be afraid ofscience.
What we need to be wary of arethose who argue that science has
all the truth, that science canexplain everything.
And we need to, you know,oppose those ideas and oppose
(37:33):
those ideas with rational,philosophical arguments, because
there's very goodnon-theological, rational
arguments to say no, there'scertain things that science is
not going to be able to answerand that we have to use
philosophy and theology otherthings, to answer those
questions about purpose andmeaning, and that purpose and
meaning is not something that isantithetical to an evolutionary
(37:56):
understanding of the world.
So holding on to anevolutionary understanding of
the world doesn't mean I have togive up any notion of purpose
and direction.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
And might I recommend for our viewers and listeners
to read your book on this verytopic if they want to learn more
and look ahead to the bookthat's going to come out in 2024
.
Well, now that I you know,you've been in the hot seat on
this topic of human evolution.
Moving on now to some questionsfor the office hour segment.
Okay, so this caught myattention.
(38:26):
Recently.
You and your lovely wife Nelliewrote a joint op-ed in the
National Catholic Register andthe title was the Pro-Life
Movements Achilles' Heal, andthis immediately caught my
attention, because a lot of myprofessional work is in the
pro-life movement and reportingon the pro-life movement.
I was intrigued by this.
So why did you write thisarticle and what was your main
(38:49):
argument?
Speaker 2 (38:50):
Yeah, well, it's an article that we wrote that looks
at sort of you know, thepro-life in its totality in
marriage and that was, you know,this openness to life that
should be at the heart of aCatholic.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
Speaking of Genesis.
Speaker 2 (39:05):
Right and how.
I think you know thiscontraceptive mentality.
Right is something that strikesat the heart of this openness
to life.
And once you sort of adopt that, where I'm not open to the
other, fully open to the other,it doesn't mean have as many
(39:25):
kids as possible, but no, beingresponsible by being open to
life can lead one slowly andslowly to say, well, I need to
have abortion, even though itneeds to be rare, but I need to
have that as sort of backbecause I don't want to be fully
open to life, I want it on myterms, and I think this, the
contraceptive mentality, issomething that can work against
(39:48):
even people who claim to bepro-life.
If that mentality seeps in, itcan be problematic.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
Okay, moving on now to the second question.
This is a question that wassubmitted and really gets to the
heart of what our discussionsare about here at the podcast.
So how do you answer thisquestion?
Move to me.
That purpose exists in thenatural world.
Speaker 2 (40:12):
So it's exactly the question that we've been after,
right?
And so the question is prove.
What do you mean by that right?
Because scientifically youcannot prove that.
Right, it's not something thatis a scientific question that
there's purpose.
Science can measure the forceof the heartbeat and so forth
(40:36):
and things like that.
But if you say what's thepurpose of this ecosystem,
what's the purpose of humans,that is something that goes
beyond the science and that goestowards the nature of the thing
.
So, if you look at things, dothey act towards an end?
Is there an order that thingshave in the natural world and
this is something we'll talkabout with some future guests
(40:58):
but say, just the developmentalprocess, there's the
directionality and order duringdevelopment as the organism
matures to get to an end goal.
Right, there's a purpose there.
There's a purpose in theseasons, there's a purpose in
the way in which organismsoperate for survival or
(41:20):
reproduction and so forth.
And so this order anddirectionality that you see not
only in individual organisms butyou see in ecosystems, you see
it in human life, right?
All demonstrate that there is apurpose to what we see here,
right?
And the other thing that Ithink demonstrates this is that
(41:46):
purpose is hardwired into us,right, and that people that and
we see this in psychologicalstudies that people don't see a
purpose or meaning in theirlives, that their mental health
goes off the deep end.
So there's something about us.
We're having purpose and havingmeaning is hardwired into us
for our flourishing, whichsuggests that that is something
(42:12):
that we're meant to be at.
We're meant to find a purpose.
We're meant to find somethinggreater than ourselves to strive
for and to operate towards.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
I think that's a perfect note to end this episode
on as we launch season three.
I want to remind our listenersand viewers that you can submit
questions right here for officehours to hear Dr Kiebler answer.
You can email your questions atinfoatmogiscentercom.
You can also give us a call.
Leave a voicemail.
We can listen to your voicehere on the podcast.
Go ahead and call 949-257-2436.
(42:44):
Leave us a question.
Give Dr Kiebler a hard one totackle.
But that does it for thisepisode.
Make sure to subscribe to yourfavorite podcast platform and go
to mogiscentercom for thelatest updates.
We'll see you next time.
Welcome to Purposeful Lab, a Modjust Center podcast.
I'm Catherine Hadrow with DrDan Kebler.
Here we are, start of seasonthree, episode one.
Great to see you again.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Good to see you again , Catherine.
I look forward to kicking off anew season.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Absolutely.
Again, new location for thosewho are watching and see a
different change of scene.
So this season we are delvinginto biological evolution.
Dan, can you give us a previewof what's to come and why we're
talking about this now?
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Yeah, I think this season we're going to focus on
biological evolution.
This evolutionary process hasplayed out the last four billion
years on the planet Earth.
And look at that in relation toa couple things.
One, what does that mean?
Does it have a directionality?
Is there a purpose underneathevolution?
And then, how does that relateto a Christian understanding of
(00:51):
creation?
So we'll have some guests onthat will look at genesis how do
you understand genesis properly, and does that conflict
inherently with an understandingof biological evolution?
We'll look at the evolution ofthe human brain and how that
affects what it means to behuman.
We'll look at hominid evolution, which is the evolution of
(01:16):
creatures that are more similarto us than, say, chimps.
So, recent human evolution Lookat what patterns do we see
there, what can we glean fromthat?
And so those are the sort oftopics we're going to sort of
focus on, all with trying tounderstand.
Does evolution undermine thesense of purpose that we've been
talking about on the podcast?
Speaker 1 (01:36):
In episode one we're going to kick off laying out the
church's position and view onevolution and what it is Really
important kind of framework, aswe're delving into this and
really know better person tospeak about this than you,
because you really are thisCatholic leading scientist on
the topic of evolution sograteful to dive into this topic
(01:57):
with you.
I want to just remind ourlisteners and viewers, so they
don't take you for granted,really your credentials on this
You've again been a professor ofbiology at Franciscan
University of Steubenville since2001.
You received your doctorate inmolecular and cell biology from
Berkeley, currently involved inclinical research, product
(02:18):
development and consultingprojects with a variety of
biotechnology firms in theregenerative medicine field.
But you've also written thebook on this.
You wrote the book theEvolution Controversy, a survey
of competing theories, and youhave a book coming out in 2024
with word on fire press againabout this topic of the Catholic
Church and human evolution.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
That's right.
I think that the book that willbe coming out and a lot of the
stuff we're going to talk aboutthis season sort of synthesize
my thoughts and thoughts of thechurch sort of, in that book.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
Well, if it's all right with you, let's just dive
in.
Let's dive into this topic.
So again, evolution is one ofthese areas and issues that
people have some difficulty orat least they think they need to
have difficulty reconcilingtheir Christian faith.
Why do you think this is?
How did that begin?
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Yeah, I think if you talk to people, hey, what the
issues that you see or strugglewith to try to reconcile, say,
science with faith, then I thinkevolution is that key issue.
I think another issue that comesup is sort of the problem of
evil and sin, but within science, how do I understand the
(03:33):
science of evolution in linewith the Catholic understanding
of the human person?
Because it really touches onwhat it means to be human, and
the answer to that questionaffects everything.
If I am just a material being,a chance conglomerate of
molecules, that is going to leadme in different directions
(03:57):
about what's the purpose of mylife, or is there anything that
we can call purpose?
But if you argue that you aremade in the image of likeness of
God, that is going to changethe way you view yourself, the
way you view other people, theway you view your actions in the
world.
So, from a Catholic perspective, to recognize we are made in
(04:17):
the image of likeness of God iscentral to our faith.
But if we're really actuallyevolved, how do you put those
two together?
Do you have to choose one orthe other?
And that's, I think, where thisconflict sort of resides,
because it fundamentallyaddresses who we are.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
Well, I'd love to get your personal take on this,
because, as a scientist, youstudy the biological
implications of human evolution,but again, you also are a
person of deep faith.
So how for you, do those twoperspectives interact, and does
your Catholic faith make iteasier or more difficult for you
(04:55):
to reconcile the two?
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Yeah, I think my Catholic faith certainly helps
me reconcile those, for a coupleof reasons.
One, from a Catholicperspective, I always teach that
the unity of knowledge thatthere isn't.
Oh, the knowledge you get fromscience over here, the knowledge
from philosophy, the knowledgefrom theology, and they all are
discordant and they'reconflicting with each other.
No, from a Catholic view, allthe disciplines are converging
(05:21):
on one truth, and so that givesme confidence that, okay, when I
approach this, that yeah, itmight be difficult, there's
going to be questions that arewell beyond me, that I'm not
going to really quite grasp, butI have this confidence that all
truths are leading in onedirection and they're all going
to converge and that there isn'tthis inherent conflict.
(05:42):
Now, the other thing that I wantto recognize is that, when you
look at questions of evolutionand creation, that instead of
saying evolution versus creation, we have to look at evolution
what question is it asking andhow is that different from the
questions that creation isasking?
So, for example, evolution froma scientific perspective is
(06:05):
going to answer specificquestions on a specific level
and our understanding of whatdoes it mean to be created at a
different level, and so they'renot actually competing for the
same sort of on the same level.
They can both be correctbecause they're answering
slightly different but relatedquestions, because they both
deal with the human person.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
And do you think that's where the confusion kind
of came in?
People just confused the twoand conflated the two.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
Yeah, and we can talk more about that, but I think
that people think that if youthink you are created okay, then
therefore you could not have ahuman person, could a human body
could not have evolved right.
And people think, well, ifevolution can explain the origin
of the human body, well then weweren't created right.
And so this is either or, andPope Benedict has written quite
(06:54):
a bit about this and I think Itake my lead from him because I
think he, more than any otherCatholic thinker, has been able
to address this fruitfully andclearly.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
And in modern times as well?
What do you say to people whoclaim well, doesn't evolution
just reduce man to just anotheranimal?
Because how do we see man asdifferent from an animal if man
also evolved via naturalprocesses?
Speaker 2 (07:22):
Right, and I think that gets the that question,
gets the heart of the matterright.
And so, well, just look atGenesis for a moment, and we're
going to have some guests on thenext few episodes that talk a
lot more about Genesis.
But I think I just want to pullone line out of Genesis, you
know.
And the creation of man?
Right, and so it's.
(07:43):
God takes the dust of the earthright, so there's this material
aspect, the dust of creation ofthis material part, and
breathes life into it.
Right, so you have the breathof God and this physical stuff,
right, so man is a unity of bodyand spirit, right, and it's
(08:04):
that unity which makes us ahuman person, right, so it is a
both, and we're not just thebreath of God and we're not just
dust, right, we're this unityof the two.
So when we step back and we say, well, what can evolution tell
us about this reality?
That's our starting point.
Man is this unity of body andsoul, right, and body and spirit
(08:27):
.
What is evolution?
Do evolution as a scientifictheory?
Right, can explain physicalthings.
Scientific theories aretheories about the material
world, right, and so we do havea material aspect to our person,
right, and so evolution canexplain that aspect, but we
(08:48):
could not expect evolution to dois explain the entirety of man,
right, because man is more thana physical being.
So if we think evolution canexplain all of man, we're going
to go down the dark alley, right?
And that there's something moreabout the human person, and
that is what Benedict talksabout.
The creation story in Genesisis pointing out the truth about
(09:09):
man that we're body and spirit.
They were made in the image ofthe likeness of God, were made
to worship God, and so forth.
Those truths don't underminethe fact that we share a body
that has very similar physiologyand evolutionary history with
other primates, right, but thatdoesn't exhaust what it means to
(09:29):
be human right.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Which you know.
That reminds me of somethingwe've talked about before
science can answer every singlequestion and that's why it's
important to bring in theology,to bring in philosophy, because
there are these big questionsthat, like you said, we'd get in
trouble if we turn to just thematerial.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Right, yeah, and the idea that, oh, we are just
material beings is not somethingthat science can answer.
So it's an open question inphilosophy, in debate are we
just a material being, or do wehave any material aspect, or we
body and soul?
Science can't answer thatquestion, that's not a
scientific question.
All science can do is explainthe proper functioning and
(10:08):
proper origin, evolutionaryorigin, of that body, of that
physical aspect, of what itmeans to be human.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Looking at the history of evolution and the
church's view on it.
Obviously, when you starttalking about evolution, one of
the pivotal players is Darwin.
I think that's a name that mosteveryone can recognize and it's
a controversial name, it seemslike in faith circles.
He, darwin, published his workit was back in 1859.
(10:36):
How did the Catholic Churchinitially respond to his
findings and his ideas aboutscience of evolution?
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Yeah, it's really, as with most historical subjects,
it's a very complicated andfascinating story.
So Darwin was not the firstperson to put forth evolutionary
ideas, but his work, the Originof Species the first edition,
like you said, came out in 1859,was probably it was the best
articulation of evolutionaryideas, and he had a sort of a
mechanism that might driveevolutionary change.
(11:07):
And so there was a lot ofdebates amongst Catholics at the
time of what to make up of this.
And the interesting thing to meis the church doesn't have any
official pronouncement on thetheory of evolution for almost
100 years after that.
So the church took its time toinvestigate.
What does this mean?
(11:27):
How do we reflect on this?
First of all, is the sciencemature enough that we can think
that, oh, did man really evolve?
So first it didn't just jump onboard recklessly, but it also
didn't immediately put up a walland say, no, this can't be true
.
Now there were certainlyCatholics that said both of
(11:49):
those things.
They wanted to jump right onboard, and others that said, no,
this can't be true.
Particularly, the Jesuits werevery adamantly opposed at the
time, particularly the ones thatRay and the Vatican newspaper
were adamantly opposed toevolution, but there were those
that Kurt and John Henry Newmanwho thought there's nothing
(12:12):
antithetical to the faith in thetheory of evolution.
So there was a lot of people inthe 1800s that took different
views, and so it was a time inwhich a lot of questions were
raised and details were tried towork out, tried to understand,
because there was a lot going onin terms of just understanding
(12:33):
the science of evolution at thetime, but also that was being
refined.
So was the theology as well.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
But the church, like you said, didn't rush a
statement.
It seems like took the time todiscern and listen, and it does
seem in more recent years thatrecent popes have made
statements discussing the topicof evolution.
What are the key points thatpeople should know about what
the recent popes have said?
Speaker 2 (12:59):
Yeah, I think, particularly if you look at Pope
Benedict and Pope John Paul II.
What have they said aboutevolution?
They are both very much open tothe science of evolution.
Pope John Paul II had thisfamous letter to scientists
where he said that evolution ismore than a hypothesis, that
(13:22):
there's strong convergingevidence from a lot of different
fields that evolution is awell-supported theory, a
scientific theory.
But every document and everytime a pope talks about
evolution, one of the thingsthat they always caution against
is that evolution cannotexplain the totality of man.
(13:42):
So evolution is not going toexplain the origin of the human
soul and the immaterial aspectof man.
So if you were to say what isthe church's position on the
science of evolution?
Church doesn't have a positionon that because the church is
not a scientific body.
So the church doesn't have aposition on cell theory and
quantum theory and so forth.
(14:03):
That's not what the church does.
It guards the doctrine andfaith and morals.
But what it does do and it hasto speak into the culture and
say look, if you start to arguethat evolution can explain the
totality of man, that is now aphilosophy.
That's not.
It goes beyond the science andit warns against that.
So Benedict does, pope Francisdoes, pope John Paul II in
(14:27):
particular did so that is sortof the key point that evolution
is.
Science cannot explain thetotality of man, even if the
science of evolution and theorigin of the human body, it can
be explained via sort ofnatural evolutionary processes.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
But they're not in conflict with one another and,
like we've been discussing,there are people, though, who
believe that there's conflictbetween the faith and biological
evolution, and there's a fewcommon questions.
I thought would be helpful ifwe tackle some of those top
questions people have on this inparticular.
So, for example, again,evolution seems to be driven by
(15:11):
chance mutations and chanceevents.
So if humans are the results ofchance, doesn't that conflict
with the notion that we talkabout a lot here, that humans
know humans are planned andwilled by God?
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Yeah, no, that's a common question.
I get that from my students alot.
You see, this juxtapositionbetween chance and purpose,
right.
So clearly, there's chanceenvironmental changes that can
affect the direction ofevolution.
There's chance and geneticchanges that occur that could
affect the direction ofevolution.
So therefore, god could havenever planned us from the
(15:47):
beginning, that there's nopurpose.
We're just here because of somelucky throw of the dice right
Now.
First thing to recognize is that, just on a philosophical level,
the chance and purpose are notjuxtaposed, they're not
opposites, right.
So you can have chance eventsthat you can use for a purpose,
right.
And so you know, casinos usechance events for a purpose to
make lots of money off people,right.
(16:08):
So that is a dozen to the twodon't have to necessarily be in
conflict.
God could use chance events forhis purposes, just like a
casino often uses chance eventsfor his or her purposes, right?
The second thing, and this issort of a philosophical point,
that we don't want to shrink Goddown to the level of you and I
(16:32):
right.
So God is the primary cause ofeverything that exists in the
universe.
So you often see, you know,people say, well, if we can
explain it via science, thenthat removes God from the
picture, right?
If we can explain something viayou know my actions, then God
had nothing to do with it.
Right Now, that is not theCatholic understanding of God's
(16:57):
role in the world.
God is the primary cause ofeverything that exists.
So anything that happens,whether it happens by human
action, by chance events, by,you know, the force of gravity,
by necessity, happens onlybecause God allows that to
happen and sustains that inexistence.
So Aquinas talks about, youknow, things that God deems to
(17:20):
happen by contingency or chancehappen by contingency or chance,
things that happen by necessity, that God deems that happen by
necessity.
So God allows everything toexist.
So this is an example.
Like this asteroid that hit theU-Cutan Peninsula about 65
(17:40):
million years ago, which isthought to have led to the
extinction of the dinosaurs andthen the radiation and
flourishing of mammals andeventually primates, you can say
, well, that's a chance event,right?
And if that had never hit, youknow, the U-Cutan Peninsula,
humans would have never beenhere.
So clearly we're just lucky.
But you know, from a Catholicperson like to say well, you
(18:05):
know, god created everything andis outside of time, new from
all eternity, what every eventin the universe knew.
The asteroid is doing whatasteroids do, following what you
know, the forces of gravity.
The Earth is doing what it doesand they happen to hit, and
that chance event was deemed forall eternity by God to do what
(18:27):
it was intended to do, right,and we probably don't even
realize when we put you know God, on our level, quote, unquote,
right, and we probably justnaturally impose kind of yeah,
we do it all the time, and we dothat with everything.
We anthropomorphize our dog.
You know everything.
We don't understand how dogsact.
We think of them as through thehuman lens.
You think about how God acts.
(18:48):
We have no other way but tothink through our lens, so we
tend to anthropomorphize God,put them down on our level and
bring dogs up to our level,right, because that's how we
think.
That's the only sort of way wecan think.
The other thing that I wouldpoint out, though, is that
evolution, it's always thoughtof as a chance, that often
thought of as just very chancey,but the reality is, evolution
(19:09):
is built on a benefit order,right, and there's this level of
order that's absolutelyessential for evolution to work,
and directs and moves evolutionin certain directions, and
that's that order, thatconvergent order that we've
talked about back on season onewith Simon Conway Morris, and
this order, at the level ofphysics, dictates the way we,
you know, atoms form, which thendictates how molecules form,
(19:31):
which can dictate, you know, thedirection of protein evolution
and form.
So there is a huge amount oforder in evolution that I think
is more fundamental than thesechance events, right.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Absolutely.
One of the issues that peoplealso raised as having difficulty
reconciling with evolution isbig topic original sin and the
introduction of death into theworld as a result of man sin, as
a result of the fall.
So how does death enter theworld after human sin if
extinction and death are anintegral part of the 4 billion
(20:08):
year-long evolutionary process?
How big question, again one ofthese fundamental human
questions.
But how do you begin to tacklethat?
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Yeah, I think you know.
I'm sure we'll discuss thismore with some of the guests in
the next couple episodes, butthe first thing to keep in mind
is, when you talk about deathentering the world, sin and
death, those are humancategories we're looking in.
Sin is something you know.
You have to have a human person, you have to have a person
(20:38):
there to introduce sin.
That's a free choice, and havean understanding of that.
And the death that's brought inis human death.
Right, so it's not as if youknow that you know everything
was perfect, you know, before ahuman fall, right, no, there's
death, there is, you know,extinction, there's change
(20:58):
that's going on throughout theentire cosmic and evolutionary
history.
Right, when the human personcomes onto the scene, right when
evolution reaches the point ofproducing the type of thing
that's fitting to have arational soul, the human person,
at that point that human personis capable of turning away from
(21:20):
God and sin.
And when that individual does,that allows that person now to
be subjective to death.
Right so it you know the churchdoesn't teach oh, everything
was perfect, and then the fall,and now everything's messed up.
In a sense that you know, theCatechism talks about how the
(21:40):
universe is on a journey and itwas in a state of incompletion.
We're moving towards perfection, right.
And that perfection is inChrist, right.
And so this idea of, oh,everything was perfect and the
lay down with the lamb orwhatever, is not something
that's part and parcel orCatholic understanding.
You know, you think about, youknow, in Genesis, just the text.
(22:02):
It says that God created good.
It's good, creation is good,but it's not perfect, right.
It doesn't find its perfectionuntil it culminates in the
beatific vision of Christ.
Exactly, exactly.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
What does you know on that same topic?
What does the church teachabout the fall in Adam and Eve?
You know, given that this doesseem to contradict the
evolutionary form?
Speaker 2 (22:29):
origin of man.
Yeah, right, so that's one ofthose big, big questions that
you know.
It's how do you make sense ofthat, right, and it's something
that we'll probably never know,right?
But it's interesting tospeculate on different ideas of
that and that you know.
That at certain point, you know, in the evolutionary process
(22:53):
and later on in the season we'lltalk about the evolution of
hominins which is the hominid,is just any fossil form that's
more similar to modern humansthan modern chimps.
So there was the idea, is therewas a common ancestor.
About 7 million years ago about, one lineage led to modern
humans, another lineage led tomodern chimps, so that hominid
forms.
We'll talk a little bit aboutthat later on this season.
(23:16):
But at some point that processproduces the type of thing that
is fitting to have a rationalsoul, what we say as a human
person.
It has this matter and form,that dust and breath of God that
we talked about earlier.
That is human, it is inrelation with God, right, and
(23:38):
that you know.
There may be sort of acontinuity in terms of its
biological nature, of makeup,but there's a discontinuity
there.
So it is a both and, becausethere is its transformed into,
with the rational soul intosomething other, a human person
(23:58):
that has a rationality,conceptual thought, you know the
ability of language, all thethings that we as humans have
that you don't see in, say,other primates, right.
And so once you reach that,though, you know at a certain
point, exactly how those firstindividuals fall or turn away
(24:19):
from God, and all that you knowis it's not clear.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Again questions that we don't have all the answers to
at this point.
There was a papal document andyou can speak more to this that
came out in 1950, called HumaneGenerous, and I believe this was
the first papal document tomention evolution, and this
document seemed to indicate thathumans must have originated
from an initial pair, sopresumably Adam and Eve that.
(24:48):
So what Does that issue posefor science?
Is that in conflict?
Speaker 2 (24:54):
Yeah, it's an interesting document and the way
Popeyes worded in the documentit seems to be it leaves it open
that it's possible it couldhave happened otherwise.
Because in the language he saysthat we're not free to
speculate on what he callspolygenism, which in this
(25:17):
context means that the humansoriginated as an initial
population.
Like you know, there's a groupof 100 first humans, right,
rather than just a single pairof first humans, which would be
monogenism.
And he says you can't speculateon that because it's no way
apparent.
He doesn't say because youcan't do that, but he says it's
(25:37):
no way apparent how you canreconcile polygenism with the
concept of original sin, right?
So what's the advantage ofthinking of original sin through
monogenism?
Well, if you have this initialcouple, adam and Eve or whoever
that turn away from God, right,they're now full of fallen
(25:58):
nature.
They pass on, you know, theiroffspring are all inherent, this
human nature, devoid of thepreternatural gifts, right, and
that's the idea that when humansfall, they lose the
preternatural gifts that God hasgiven, so they're left with
just what their bio-touchprovided them, in a sense, right
(26:20):
, which we all struggle with,right?
So, yeah, so you've got thisinitial pair and then everybody
defends from them.
So it's very simple, neat wayof original sin being
transmitted via generation rightNow.
The issue with that,biologically, is that you know,
(26:42):
if you start with twoindividuals, that's a very small
gene pool, right.
And so you have to have somesort of incest going on there,
right?
And we know from geneticresearch that you know, if you
have a bottleneck, like thehuman population went through
two individuals, you should seea genetic signature there, right
?
So if you look at sort ofpopulations, of the isolated
(27:06):
populations that are more inbred, you look at the genetic
diversity and that you can seethere's a genetic signatures of
there's a lack of geneticdiversity.
If you look at the amount ofgenetic diversity in the modern
human population, you know, anda lot of different studies have
looked at this, and it seemslike the smallest sort of gene
pool that it could have comefrom in the last few million
(27:28):
years is probably around athousand right, maybe 10,000.
So we couldn't have passedthrough this sort of small, to
come through two individuals andaccount Population yeah,
account for the amount ofgenetic diversity we have.
So that's what people say.
Well, maybe humans originatedin an initial population and
then all of those individuals inthat population turn away from
(27:50):
God, in fall, and so you know,then all of their offspring are
fallen.
So there's debate anddiscussion about that in terms
of how do we reconcile thegenetic diversity issue with the
need for some understanding oforiginal sin that doesn't
deviate from church teaching.
(28:11):
But again, these are thingsthat people speculate and think
about and it's not clear howthey all fit together.
And there's people activelyworking on this idea, because
Adam represents the head of ahuman family, that when he falls
they all follow him, so heleads them over the cliff in a
sense, and then the wholepopulation or something.
(28:32):
There's different ways thatmaybe this could be right.
So I don't claim to have allthe answers, but I think this is
an interesting, open question.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
And, like you said, the church doesn't have one
definitive.
Here's what the scientificbelief is Exactly so.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
okay, well, this is what science seems to say.
Well, let's think about thisthen.
What does that mean?
It doesn't jump on board andsay, okay, we got to throw this
away, the idea of my ownjudgment, okay, well, if that's
what the science seems to say,let's look at this and
investigate this.
And that's what I think thedialogue between and Pope Pius
(29:10):
mentions this in he may enjoy.
He said that there's a need fordialogue between men and women
who are learned in theologicaland philosophical sciences and
those that are learned in thebiological and evolutionary
sciences, to dialogue anddiscuss these and to try to
understand each other andunderstand the reality of how
(29:32):
these might fit together.
Right, the idea that there'sthis unified vision of truth,
that one truth in science is notgoing to contradict the truth
of theology, and with thatconfidence, then we can move
forward and freely investigatethese questions.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
Speaking of the fall and sin and soul.
Another big question for youhow do the first humans come to
even be in the evolutionaryprocess if humans have an
immaterial, rational soul?
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Right and it goes back to what I've mentioned and
what we've talked about, thatthe humans have a material
aspect.
I mean, that's undoubtedlyright, we have a material aspect
to ourselves.
But does that explain all ofthe human person?
(30:29):
And so the church teaches, andso that God creates, brings into
being the human person.
Anytime a new human personcomes into being, god is
creating.
Because God is creating theimmaterial rational soul that
(30:52):
comes into being, that doesn'tevolve.
My soul doesn't produce anothersoul, right, that comes in
being In a real sense.
God creates each and every oneof us in that sense.
But at the same time Ico-create with God when I have a
child.
So in a sense the evolutionaryprocess co-creates with God.
And again, you have to definethose terms.
(31:14):
But when humans emerge?
But God creates the firsthumans directly, because that
rational soul doesn't evolve, itdoesn't come from matter, it is
something that's immaterialthat informs the matter and
transforms it and gives itabilities that the animals don't
have.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
Right, as we begin, to just summarize the big ideas
and the big takeaways from thistopic and the church's
understanding of biologicalevolution.
Does Genesis and again I knowwe'll speak about Genesis more
in depth this season, but doesGenesis shed any light on the
science of the origin of thefirst humans?
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Yeah, and it doesn't necessarily tell us how it
happened or the material process, but it does help inform what
the science should be doing, andI think there's two things that
it does, and one I've alreadyhit upon is the idea that the
science isn't going to be ableto explain everything about me,
right, and that focuses ourscience of what it should do and
(32:11):
what it should do.
The other thing that I think isimportant about the Genesis text
that, to me, is amenable to theevolutionary process and
scientific understanding.
It doesn't explain the science,but it's consistent within the
Genesis text.
It says it in Genesis 1 thatGod said let the earth bring
(32:36):
forth right, let the seas bringforth.
So he's asking for creation tobring forth and produce things.
So in a sense, there's asecondary causality God's
bringing everything intoexistence, but he's allowing
creation to produce things, andthat's what the evolutionary
process is Now.
That means that the author ofGenesis has evolution in mind
when this is being written.
(32:57):
But it's striking to me thatthat idea of primary and
secondary causality is actuallyin the text itself.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
Chapter one yeah.
Speaker 2 (33:05):
Right?
So I think that you know, Ithink liberates the sciences.
Let me explain how creationcould bring forth some of these
things, right?
Speaker 1 (33:13):
Finally, you know again we've talked about, it's
okay that there are thesecompeting theories when it comes
to evolution and that there area range of acceptable positions
as a Catholic to have on thisvery topic.
Could you summarize what arethese competing theories and how
does one identify with whichone is the most fitting
(33:36):
proposition?
Speaker 2 (33:36):
Yeah, yeah, I know that's a loaded question and I'm
sure we'll get lots of feedbackon this.
But in terms of positions, thechurch doesn't say oh, to be a
good Catholic, you have tobelieve in seven-day creation
story.
To be a good Catholic, you haveto believe in biological
(33:57):
evolution and natural selectionand as being the explanation for
the origin of species.
So there's anywhere in thatrange.
You can still consider yourselfa good Catholic as long as you
are making the claim that withevolution, evolution is only
(34:22):
does what it does because God isthe primary cause behind it all
and God has intended evolutionto do exactly what it's done
over the past four billion years.
So that's the key, that youcan't give that up.
You have to hold on becausethat's part and parcel of our
Catholic understanding of Godand God planning us for all
(34:43):
eternity.
But within that, any of thosepositions would be considered an
acceptable Catholic position.
That said, the Catholic Churchand Pope John Paul II and Peter
Siratio talks about faith andreason, and one aspect of reason
is scientific reasons.
Not all.
There's philosophical reason.
There's lots of other ways ofknowing other rational arguments
(35:10):
besides scientific arguments.
But we as Catholics, I think,should have a healthy respect
for scientific discovery, and sowe would want to have an
understanding of the science andhave a proper understanding of
the science integrated into ourunderstanding of creation and
(35:31):
evolution.
People can debate back andforth about the science of
evolution and people do this,and there's interminable debates
out there but I think the keypoint is that we should have a
respect for the science and weshould at least look at the
scientific data and say, okay,how can we integrate this into,
(35:51):
like I said, this idea that Godis the primary cause of all
things?
Speaker 1 (35:56):
And I think in examining the science it really
I don't know, for me at least,puts me more in awe of God and
his creation.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Right, right.
And people have said what'smore miraculous at God who
directly creates things, or Godwho creates a creation that can
co-create?
Right, you know?
I think there's something aboutthat.
The way God works with us, heallows.
We have our freedom to be ableto do certain things.
We don't have unlimited freedom, but we have freedom to do what
(36:25):
humans do and it has freedom todo what creation does within
certain contexts.
And that freedom is only therebecause God allows that freedom
and knows where that freedom iseventually going.
Right.
Speaker 1 (36:37):
If I had to give my big takeaways from what you just
shared in this conversation.
Human evolution cannot explainthe totality of man.
Science is limited in what itcan tell us there that God is
the primary cause of evolution,that chance and purpose are not
opposed and good does not meanperfect.
Those are all the things thatkind of stood out for me and,
(37:00):
honestly, are good life lessonsas well.
Are there final takeaways,final thoughts on this topic of
the church's approach tobiological evolution?
Speaker 2 (37:10):
Yeah, I think the final takeaway is just you know,
be not afraid, that's what I'mgoing to do.
The church should not be afraidof science, people in the
church should not be afraid ofscience.
What we need to be wary of arethose who argue that science has
all the truth, that science canexplain everything.
And we need to, you know,oppose those ideas and oppose
(37:33):
those ideas with rational,philosophical arguments, because
there's very goodnon-theological, rational
arguments to say no, there'scertain things that science is
not going to be able to answerand that we have to use
philosophy and theology otherthings, to answer those
questions about purpose andmeaning, and that purpose and
meaning is not something that isantithetical to an evolutionary
(37:56):
understanding of the world.
So holding on to anevolutionary understanding of
the world doesn't mean I have togive up any notion of purpose
and direction.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
And might I recommend for our viewers and listeners
to read your book on this verytopic if they want to learn more
and look ahead to the bookthat's going to come out in 2024
.
Well, now that I you know,you've been in the hot seat on
this topic of human evolution.
Moving on now to some questionsfor the office hour segment.
Okay, so this caught myattention.
(38:26):
Recently.
You and your lovely wife Nelliewrote a joint op-ed in the
National Catholic Register andthe title was the Pro-Life
Movements Achilles' Heal, andthis immediately caught my
attention, because a lot of myprofessional work is in the
pro-life movement and reportingon the pro-life movement.
I was intrigued by this.
So why did you write thisarticle and what was your main
(38:49):
argument?
Speaker 2 (38:50):
Yeah, well, it's an article that we wrote that looks
at sort of you know, thepro-life in its totality in
marriage and that was, you know,this openness to life that
should be at the heart of aCatholic.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
Speaking of Genesis.
Speaker 2 (39:05):
Right and how.
I think you know thiscontraceptive mentality.
Right is something that strikesat the heart of this openness
to life.
And once you sort of adopt that, where I'm not open to the
other, fully open to the other,it doesn't mean have as many
(39:25):
kids as possible, but no, beingresponsible by being open to
life can lead one slowly andslowly to say, well, I need to
have abortion, even though itneeds to be rare, but I need to
have that as sort of backbecause I don't want to be fully
open to life, I want it on myterms, and I think this, the
contraceptive mentality, issomething that can work against
(39:48):
even people who claim to bepro-life.
If that mentality seeps in, itcan be problematic.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
Okay, moving on now to the second question.
This is a question that wassubmitted and really gets to the
heart of what our discussionsare about here at the podcast.
So how do you answer thisquestion?
Move to me.
That purpose exists in thenatural world.
Speaker 2 (40:12):
So it's exactly the question that we've been after,
right?
And so the question is prove.
What do you mean by that right?
Because scientifically youcannot prove that.
Right, it's not something thatis a scientific question that
there's purpose.
Science can measure the forceof the heartbeat and so forth
(40:36):
and things like that.
But if you say what's thepurpose of this ecosystem,
what's the purpose of humans,that is something that goes
beyond the science and that goestowards the nature of the thing
.
So, if you look at things, dothey act towards an end?
Is there an order that thingshave in the natural world and
this is something we'll talkabout with some future guests
(40:58):
but say, just the developmentalprocess, there's the
directionality and order duringdevelopment as the organism
matures to get to an end goal.
Right, there's a purpose there.
There's a purpose in theseasons, there's a purpose in
the way in which organismsoperate for survival or
(41:20):
reproduction and so forth.
And so this order anddirectionality that you see not
only in individual organisms butyou see in ecosystems, you see
it in human life, right?
All demonstrate that there is apurpose to what we see here,
right?
And the other thing that Ithink demonstrates this is that
(41:46):
purpose is hardwired into us,right, and that people that and
we see this in psychologicalstudies that people don't see a
purpose or meaning in theirlives, that their mental health
goes off the deep end.
So there's something about us.
We're having purpose and havingmeaning is hardwired into us
for our flourishing, whichsuggests that that is something
(42:12):
that we're meant to be at.
We're meant to find a purpose.
We're meant to find somethinggreater than ourselves to strive
for and to operate towards.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
I think that's a perfect note to end this episode
on as we launch season three.
I want to remind our listenersand viewers that you can submit
questions right here for officehours to hear Dr Kiebler answer.
You can email your questions atinfoatmogiscentercom.
You can also give us a call.
Leave a voicemail.
We can listen to your voicehere on the podcast.
Go ahead and call 949-257-2436.
(42:44):
Leave us a question.
Give Dr Kiebler a hard one totackle.
But that does it for thisepisode.
Make sure to subscribe to yourfavorite podcast platform and go
to mogiscentercom for thelatest updates.
We'll see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com