To illustrate my point:

Everyday, we see the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Because of that regularity (almost ad infinitum) people once believed that the sun was actually moving around the Earth. Thus the inception of Geocentric Theory that the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun and all other planets and stars revolved around it. Geocentric Theory was formally formulated by Claudius Ptolemy sometime in the 4^th century A.D. Although, the same belief was echoed many centuries back by the Greeks, notable of which was the ancient Greek astronomer Hipparchus.

Since then, it had taken roots in the stream of scientific thought for the next 1500 years or so. Of course now, we have come to know that it is not actually the sun that revolves around the Earth, but the Earth and so with other planets in the solar system that revolves around the sun.  This just goes to show that perception is not the interpretation. Or, for want of a better term, perception is not the reality.

Here is another example:

“The illusion of solidity: Bang your hand on a table. Although the table feels solid, it is made almost entirely of empty space! Here’s why? “The atom, with a diameter 100,000 times of its nucleus, is almost all empty space (p. 264, Bennet, et. al., 2005).” Nearly, all the mass of the table is contained in the nuclei of its atoms. But the volume of an atom is more than a trillion times the volume of its nucleus, so relatively speaking the nuclei of adjacent atoms are nowhere near touching one another. The solidity of the table comes about from a combination of electrical interactions between the charged particles in its atoms and the strange quantum laws governing the behavior of electrons. If we could somehow pack all the table’s nuclei together, the table’s mass would fit into a microscopic speck. Although we cannot pack matter together in this way, nature can and does-in neutron stars…” (p. 107 Bennet, et. al., 2005)

(Source: The Essential Cosmic Perspective, third edition, Jeffrey Bennet, et. al., copyright 2005 Pearson-Addison Wesley, San Francisco U.S.A.)

On the other hand, on one occasion, the astronomer par excellence, Pierre Simon de la Laplace was discussing to Napoleon Bonaparte about the workings or movement of the heavenly bodies. He explained that the mechanism of which was governed by physical laws of nature. Then, in reaction, Napoleon asked: Where does God fit into the picture? He replied:  “Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis.”

Thus, began the perpetuation of the myth that God is a useless hypothesis, since as far as what can be observed in the events of nature everything has a natural explanation. Hence, atheists and the likes preemptively rule out all kinds of supernatural explanation that is used to explain the workings of the physical world. This, in effect, has put the reality of the existence of God in question.

But reality check we can never tell, whether events in nature can always be reduced in natural explanation. There is always a room for anomaly and even mystery at one point or the other. In fact, all the fundamental questions (the existence of God) still remain a mystery insofar as the scientific quest for truth is concerned. This is so because science can only offer a tentative or provisional view of reality.

Furthermore, the uncertainty principle states that the more we determine the position of a certain particle of matter (e.g. electron), then the less we know about its momentum, or vice versa. This implies then that if we cannot specify the exact condition of the present then neither can we determine the state of the future. So what does this make of reality?  This means that there is no way that we can predict the future.

Conversely, if we cannot make an accurate prediction of the future, then by the same we cannot assume the regularity of the laws of nature The Greek historian, Heraclitus could have never been right: The only permanent thing in this world is change. Since reality itself is in a state of constant flux.

According to Max Plank “We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”

The crux of the matter here is that the belief that God does not exist only holds true in the minds of atheists. Of course, we should know by now that Perception is not the interpretation or the reality.

The reality of God existing in three Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can be effectively compared with the three states of the substance “water.” Water comes in three states: solid, liquid and gas. But despite of whatever states it’s in, the essence or, for want of a better term, its chemical composition which is a composite of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, remains essentially and chemically the same.

On the other hand, we cannot infer that just because water comes in three states then we conclude that there are “three waters”. In the same way, that the mystery of the trinity of God: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot be taken to mean as there are three distinct Gods. Like water in its manifold states: solid, liquid and gas, the trinity of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, may not, after all, be at odds with human reasoning. Since, it has found its validation through the events in nature in the light of natural reason.

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.

To clear the coast, let us define the terms involved, to wit: faith and reason. Faith is defined as: “1. Confident belief or trust in a person, idea, or thing”.   It comes from the Latin word “fides” which means “belief”. Reason, on the other hand, is defined as “1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. 2. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurence. 3. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought…..” (pp. 308, 698 The American Heritage Dictionary Fourth Edition, 2004)

For want of a better definition, faith is: “The acceptance of the word of another, trusting that one knows what the other is saying and is honest in telling the truth. The basic motive of all faith is authority (or right to be believed) of someone who is speaking. This authority is an adequate knowledge of what he or she is talking about, and the integrity in not wanting to deceive.” (p. 142 Pocket Catholic Dictionary, 1985)

While, on the other hand, reason is: “the power of grasping concepts and inferences.” (p. 357 Indigo Dictionary of Philosophy, 2002)

Given the above mentioned definitions, and going deeper into the depths of the subject, nowhere can one earnestly find that it  entails a contradiction. If at all, a contradiction is so perceived, then it is only a seeming contradiction, not a real one. Real contradiction applies only to mutually exclusive proposition. According to the principle of golden mean and / or excluded middle, or more properly called as the law of “bivalence” a thing or proposition can either be true or the other is false. A mutually exclusive proposition does not admit middle alternatives or possibilities. It (the truth) is limited or exclusive only on the given proposition or premise. It means that such proposition cannot be true at the same time and in the same respect. For example: one cannot say that a door is closed and, at the same time and in the same respect, it is opened. Or to say that one is at two places at the same time and in the same respect.

Hence, it is not applicable for faith and reason. It is not the case that if one has faith then one’s reason is canceled out. . On the contrary, a man of faith can also be a man of reason, at the same time, and in the same respect. Examples abound to prove that such is the case. Among them are as follows: Nicolas Copernicus was a Polish Catholic Priest, and yet went on to found the Heliocentric Theory that states that the sun is the center of the solar system and the planets and all the objects in it revolves around the sun. Gregor Mendel was an Agustinian Monk, and yet is also the father of Genetics. Georges Lemaitre was a Belgian Priest and Physicist at the same time. He was noted to be the first to propose the theory of the Big Bang, which is the most widely accepted theory insofar as the origin of the universe is concerned. Roger Bacon was a Franciscan Friar but is considered as the father of modern science. Teilhard de Chardin was a Jesuit Priest and a notable philosopher so to speak.  In contemporary times, we have Dr. Francis Collins a born again christian and yet was the Director of the Human Genome Project, which is responsible for successfully decoding the human genome.

In the words of the great church father St. Agustine: “believe in order to understand; understand in order to believe.” This just goes to show that faith and reason only complement each other, rather than at loggerheads.