The Church and the Theory of Evolution

1. The Church and the Theory of Evolution

2. Statements of the Magisterium • Pope Pius XII in Humani generis: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.“ • Pope John Paul II: "In his Encyclical Humani generis [1950], my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576)." • The Church allows that the Theory of Evolution may be found to be scientifically valid as long as it only attempts to explain how the current human form might arise from pre-existing living matter, with the assumption that it does so as God’s instrument • This would be consistent with a metaphorical, rather than literal, interpretation of Genesis

3. Micro vs Macro Evolution • Evolution within species, Micro evolution, is accepted by nearly everyone based on historical evidence and breeding experiments • Antibiotic resistant bacteria • White vs dark peppered moths • Evolution of one species to another, Macro evolution, is widely accepted but still a matter of some dispute • Incomplete fossil record • Lack of transitional forms • Not accepted by Biblical literalists and a few scientists

4. Evolution of Complex Behaviors • Why do people tend to have a fear of heights across cultures? • Why are animals generally afraid of fire even if they’ve never experienced it? • Why do humans have a powerful, inborn horror of killing their genetic kin? • Conclusion: complex behaviors which have a powerful effect on survival can be genetically encoded and pass down by heredity, thus be subject to evolution • These are all examples of Micro evolution

5. Warning: Sensitive Topics Approaching! • Evolution has implications for some modern social issues • This discussion is focused solely on the implications of evolution for these issues, not the moral questions they raise

6. The “Roe Effect”Is Abortion Non-Adaptive? Assumptions • Liberals have more abortions than Conservatives • Women do not invariably go on to have a child later to “make up for” an abortion • Children have a tendency to follow the values of their parents • Upbringing • Genetics—earlier examples Conclusion • The population will grow gradually more conservative as time goes on due to micro evolution • Abortion is non-adaptive in the evolutionary sense

7. Roe Effect Data • Estimated abortions since 1973 have reduced the ranks of both major parties but Democrats worse than Republicans • There are 19,748,000 Democrats who are not with us today. (49.37 percent of 40 million). • There are 13,900,000 Republican who are not with us today. (34.75 percent of 40 million) • In the 2000 elections, Gore lost Florida by only 537 votes, but if no abortions had been performed over the last 30 years, he would have won by 45366 votes

8. Genetic Component • For any given conceived genetic individual, abortion is the most likely cause of death before reproductive age • Any genes which tend to make it less likely for a person to choose abortion are more valuable than genes for strength, intelligence, beauty, or anything else • From the perspective of evolution there is no difference between born and unborn individuals, except that until recently it has been difficult to kill one and easy to kill the other • Therefore, until just recently evolution has not “bothered” to address abortion • People now have a horror of infanticide because any genes which did not include this made it less likely for those who carried them to survive • The same is going to happen with abortion

9. Zero-Population Growth • Some environmentalists choose to reduce children to save the environment • The immediate result is fewer genes for environmentalism in the next generation • To an extent this can be countered by teaching the next generation these values, but in the end a “genetic resistance” to such ideas will develop • The same applies to those who choose to have few children for ANY reason • It doesn’t matter what wonderful things a person does in life or how great they are, if they don’t have multiple children there will be fewer of whatever genes made them great in the next generation

10. Birth Control? • Generally non-adaptive • Might be adaptive in limited circumstances as long as the evolutionary fitness of overall children is enhanced • Hard to argue that, given the modern state with all its public benefits, it could ever really be non-adaptive to have an additional child • It would have to entail the substantial risk that one already-existing child would actually die from lack of resources, or fail to reproduce because of insufficient upbringing • Thus, evolutionary pressure exists to encourage those genes that make users “not want” to use birth control, for whatever reason • Impulsive behavior • Love of children • Others?

11. Church Teachings • Are Church teachings on abortion, contraception, and other issues on the “right” side of evolution? • Do these effects have any moral implications for individuals? • Is evolution an essential part of a “fallen” world?

12. Discussion Questions • Do you believe in evolution as a scientific theory? How about Micro vs Macro evolution? Why or why not? • Do you think evolution can influence complex behaviors such as desire to have an abortion or use birth control? Why or why not? • Okay, assume evolution can influence these behaviors. Does that have any implications for moral behavior, or is it just a scientific observation? That is, are we as individuals under any sort of moral obligation to “assist evolution”, aside from other reasons we might choose to avoid abortion or birth control?