Origin of Man: Creation or Evolution?

Author: Walter Nuñez

Since the dawn of enlightenment or age of reason, not only that the “renaissance” man had gone against the institution of the Church questioning its very authority, its teachings, doctrines and dogmas, but as it is, it now threatens to shake and displace from the province of the Church, its very foundation and one of its core teachings: that  man is created by God. There has been a raging debate between creationists and evolutionists since then. It was even brought up to court for that matter. In this light, creationists claimed an initial success when it convicted John T. Scopes, a Tennessee teacher for teaching evolution early in the 20th century. But today the table is turned, it is now the evolutionists that have the last laugh, or so it seems… winning legal battles after legal battles: this time to prevent “scientific creationism” from being taught at schools.

According to Pope Benedict XVI creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive so as to cancel out the truth over the other. It is not the case that if one believes in creation then evolution is false. In contrast, if one believes in evolution, then creation would no longer be true. The case for creation and evolution permit a middle alternative or possibility for both of them to be true at the same time and in the same respect, that is, given the proper perspective.

Reality affords a good vantage point: case in point is the fact that light has a dual nature, it can be both a particle and a wave at the same time and in the same respect, depending on how an observer perceives it. Hence, we have the principle or law of the duality of light by Louis de Broglie. Also, we now know after Hans Christian Oersted discovered that electricity and magnetism are different manifestation of one and the same force. Thus, we have electromagnetism. That goes too with the electro-weak theory formulated by Abdus Salaam and Steven Weinberg where they have proven that electromagnetism and weak force are actually a unified force which means one and same.

On the other hand, the late Pope John Paul II explained that “the genesis does not teach us how the heaven is made but rather it taught us how to get there”. The story of creation as told in the book of Genesis should not to be taken literally or treated as if it is a scientific or historical account. One should bear in mind that the authors when it wrote the genesis used its human talent, though inspired by God, to put down in writing the message that they received from Him.

Further, the writers when they wrote their creation story based it in  the level of knowledge or “science” which was widely in used in its day. During their time, the way to explain the wonders of the world and make sense of it was through the use of mythology which makes used of telling stories often brandish with mythical or mythological symbolism. Thus, mythology is derived from the latin word “mythos” which means “narration”. Like it or not, this  is actually their brand of science, however, crude as had been widely accepted and adopted at their time.

“The Genesis accounts of creation focus on the why the meaning and purpose of everything. The bible does not teach how the heaven was constructed but how to get there, as John Paul II once remarked. The Genesis accounts neither teach nor oppose the scientific theory of evolution. The six “days” do not mean 24 hour solar days (the sun was not made till the “4th day”), they are simply the inspired authors way of presenting in a biblical poem the religious truths which Genesis proclaims.” (p. 93 Catechism For Filipino Catholics, 1997 CBCP)

As propounded in the encyclical, “Humani Generis” of Pope Pius XII  in 1950 that “if God uses evolution to create the first man it does not contradict to the deposit of faith as long as the soul is directly created by God. ” A word of caution though, that this should not be taken to mean that the Church has embraced or endorsed the truth about evolution. In the first place, this is only a hypothetical statement given the assumption that evolution is true. Secondly, the Church being the guardians of faith and morals, is not the proper authority nor is in the position to do such thing, since science is not its field of expertise. Let the men of science do their job. Let science deals and goes about its business with the corporeal things in the natural world. While, the Church does the same in its sphere of influence in the ethereal and supernatural world.

But, instead, in the spirit of objectivity and in the quest for truth, Pope Pius XII urged the authorities in the relevant fields of study to investigate and undertake research to find out whether or not man is descended from lower forms of animal.

Meanwhile, the Catechism of the Catholic Church made its point clear that, creation and evolution are equally complementary and necessary to explain the knowledge on the origin of man. It explains that the case is more like of a work of art. Some ask what and how the painting is made? While others ask why it is made in the first place? Noticed that both answers offer different perspective but equally necessary and complementary to explain different facets of reality. In the same way, the scientific account for the origin of man answers the what and how questions? While, the creation story of religion, in general and the Church, in particular, answers the question why? This, necessarily, provides the reason for being and the meaning and significance of the origin of man.

“The difference between those biblical accounts and scientific explanation of creation can be compared to two ways of describing a work of art, for example, a beautiful portrait painting. The “how” (scientific) explanation focuses on the material used, the size, weight, age, colors, and the whole mechanics of portrait painting”.  A different type of explanation is the “why” which interprets both the artist’s motivations and intentions, and the “meaning and truth” of the portrait itself. The portrait reveals the character and personality of the person portrayed. Both types of explanation are valid and necessary. They complement each other and together give a fuller understanding of the painting” (p.p. 92 Catechism For Filipino Catholics, 1997 CBCP)

For all this, let us be clear of one significant thing, evolution does not allege that man is descended from apes or from any other lower animals. It only claims that man is descended from man, while, apes, on the another hand, being his closest relative in the animal kingdom.

In the final analysis, the theory of evolution may offer the best possible explanation for the origin of man, but  one knows full well that science being only able to offer tentative or provisional view of reality, has not yet the final say or ultimate answer to such fundamental question as the origin of man. Whether or not, the origin of man is through the mechanism of evolution is still an open question in the ultimate sense.