Louder Fenn

Part III: I Am Not the Walrus

So a God-fearing man cannot believe in evolution? Yes: but to be precise: He cannot believe in an evolution that says: Man arose spontaneously from something not-Man. One must distinguish between adaptive evolution and evolution of species. Man may become taller on the savannah or more portly on the floes of ice; but he'll never become a gazelle or a walrus.

Man cannot become a walrus.

Yeah, yeah: Smirk all you want. "This Fenn is so dim. He has no understanding of the subtleties of evolution. Son-of-a-gun, no one says that a four-limbed land mammal could become a seagoing... Oh, wait. They are saying that."

Of course my remark about walruses is silly. So let me say this: Lemur-like primates cannot, by any path, become humans; chemical soups cannot become life. Yes, that is my assertion. It is my philosophy. I don't deny that I have accepted certain ideas that presented themselves to my Reason and which, by my Reason, I have acknowledged and which, having been acknowledged, prevent acceptance of certain other ideas. That is in the nature of belief. If you believe anything, you must disbelieve the contrary.

Why else do you suppose the most ardent Evolutionist is always an atheist?

Part IV: Dem Bones, Dem Bones

You cry: "But what about the fossils!" What about them? I know that the interpretation of the fossil evidence is false, because I have knowledge of other things. You retort: "Well, your 'other' knowledge is false." Perhaps it is. But the argument is about our a priori knowledge, not the fossils as such.

And I say again: What about them? Even among the Evolutionists of this world, the meaning of the fossils is a matter of conflicting interpretations and dissent -- and every interpretation is only a struggle to reconcile the meager facts to the Evolutionary faith.

Never forget: When a scientist asserts something, years later another scientist may assert the opposite. Newton was wrong about the absolute nature of space. Even when a hard scientist like a particle physicist has a table of figures and can, step by step, seemingly prove it all to you: Well, that doesn't mean he's right. Don't be cowed. Study his premises. Always look to what he believes.

Part V: A Bump in the Road?

Do I mean to say, then, that because Evolutionists operate from a faith, we should reject their interpretation of the facts? No, no, and no. My point -- which I hope I am not belaboring -- is that Evolutionism is not science. Science can serve Evolutionism -- it might even succor the Evolutionist in his faith; but Science can just as well serve Catholicism and succor the Catholic in his faith. Science, properly considered, is not an end in itself: It is meant to serve the Truth, whatever that Truth may be; and in no way can it encompass all Truth.

But -- says the Devil's Advocate -- consider this: St. Augustine himself says that if the facts and our interpretation of Scripture conflict, we must heed the facts and change our interpretation. Is not a Doctor of the Church therefore saying that if science tells us so, we must abandon Scripture?

No. He is saying only that if newly established facts are indeed true and seem to deny Scripture, our understanding of Scripture must have been imperfect.

Well, then: Let us say the facts someday do prove evolution of species. Wouldn't that belie the Catholic interpretation of Genesis? Would the Church not be obliged, per Augustine's counsel, to rethink its interpretation of the creation verses? No; for if it suddenly seemed that Adam and Eve were an utter myth after all, I would know that the factual proof is somehow wrong. The privileges of facts go only so far: Our interpretation of them must be wrong, if they seem to deny fundamental, unequivocal Teaching.

Notice well: Augustine does not anticipate the abandonment of Scripture. He knows that Scripture is Holy; that it was inspired by God. You could never convince Augustine of the falsity of Genesis by seeming to prove some Ape became Man. Similarly, you could never convince an Evolutionist of the truth of Genesis by seeming to prove that Apes have always been Apes and only Apes. I wouldn't try to use the fossil facts or microbiological facts -- whatever they may currently be -- against the beliefs of the Evolutionist. It would make no difference anyhow. He would persist in his materialism. Even if he accepted the newly found facts, he would simply rethink the mechanics of evolution.

His faith -- like mine -- would be undeterred.

Part VI: Proof of the Creator?

The strength of Intelligent Design (ID) comes in its criticism of the theories of evolution. Its weakness comes in its attempt to prove a Creator.

Say the IDers: No current theory of evolution could possibly account for the complexity -- the irreducible complexity -- of, for example, a cell. Anyone with a clear mind can recognize the just-so nature of all evolutionary tall tales. Natural selection -- the pre-eminent theory of evolution -- simply cannot handle the microbiological facts.

And so on.

But because, as I have said, Evolutionism does not proceed from the facts, ID theorists are misapplying themselves. The Evolutionist simply will not listen to you. And, in fact, I hope I have made it clear that I wouldn't ask him to. He has his faith. You want to disabuse him of it, you have to engage him philosophically. You're not going to convince the Evolutionist that he's wrong until you convince him that God exists -- and no presentation of cellular black boxes will prove the existence of God.

As a matter of fact it's actually a mistake to equate IDers and Creationists. Creationists assert that God and only God created us. Some IDers, however, think the "intelligent designer" in question could just as well be a race of aliens from Alpha Centauri.

At best the IDer can show that the Evolutionist is gravely ignoring or misinterpreting the facts. That, to be sure, is no small achievement. To destroy the self-satisfied superiority of a whole class of pseudo-scientists would be a boon to mankind. But the IDer has not yet shown that no spontaneous mechanism could give rise to complex cells. I understand that certain mathematical proofs are being made, that purport to show that irreducible complexity is a fact, evolution an impossibility, and a Creator unavoidable. But I am not going to rely on even these, true or not. While I trust mathematics far more than I trust paleomicrobiology, a mathematical proof of a Creator is as quixotic as any "scientific" proof.