Reading: Which "Side" is the Catholic Church On?

Over here is an interesting timeline A History of Evolutionary Thought with links to short biographies of people through history who have contributed to the study of life. Like many sources, it has a bias in favor of modern scientific thinking, but unlike some sources, it does not merely repeat propaganda.

Also, here (below) is an excerpt from an article by a Catholic which sheds some light on how our church thinks about these things. I'll probably keep putting up excerpts as we keep studying biology, and also probably have you read some of the biographies and writings of some of the scientists who came earlier in history.

Read:

From Evolution: A Catholic Perspective by James Stenson

On newscasts and talk shows, partisans from both sides have had their say on camera. On the one hand, fundamentalist Protestants have insisted on an absolutely literal interpretation of Genesis: a "special creation" of each separate species in only seven days, beginning a few thousand years ago. Opposing them, some scientists-turned-celebrities have proclaimed with equal fervor the supreme triumph of chance: matter blindly developing from molecules to man, with no intervention by a Deity,and no need for One to explain anything. Thus the controversy has been reduced, in public perception, to a disquieting choice--"superstition" vs. "atheism."

What is a Catholic to make of this? To anyone who knows even a little theology and science, the choice presented here is clearly false. In this, as in so many other heated controversies, the first casualty is truth. The Catholic faith is dedicated to truth, indeed to Truth Himself. And science, open-mindedly and fairly exercised, is committed to the pursuit of truthful knowledge. A Catholic should suspect, therefore, even before studying the question closely, that faith and scientific knowledge must complement, not contradict, each other.

This suspicion is confirmed by fact. The more one studies what the Catholic Church teaches and what science knows for certain, the more clearly he sees that Catholic faith and scientific knowledge are wholly compatible. The conflicts being aired today are really a pseudo-controversy. Dogmatic fundamentalists do not reflect Catholic tradition, and dogmatic evolutionists do not fairly represent science.

Lesson 4 -- History of Biology

Aristotle was one of the first scientists to write about biology. He lived in the 4th century BC.

This is from his work On The Parts of Animals. Read it -- I hope you can understand most of it. It's OK if you don't understand every word since it's college level reading.

Every systematic science, the humblest and the noblest alike, seems to admit of two distinct kinds of proficiency; one of which may be properly called scientific knowledge of the subject, while the other is a kind of educational acquaintance with it. For an educated man should be able to form a fair off-hand judgment as to the goodness or badness of the method used by a professor in his exposition. To be educated is in fact to be able to do this; and even the man of universal education we deem to be such in virtue of his having this ability.

It will, however, of course, be understood that we only ascribe universal education to one who in his own individual person is thus critical in all or nearly all branches of knowledge, and not to one who has a like ability merely in some special subject. For it is possible for a man to have this competence in some one branch of knowledge without having it in all.

It is plain then that, as in other sciences, so in that which inquires into nature, there must be certain canons, by reference to which a hearer shall be able to criticize the method of a professed exposition, quite independently of the question whether the statements made be true or false. Ought we, for instance (to give an illustration of what I mean), to begin by discussing each separate species-man, lion, ox, and the like-taking each kind in hand inde. pendently of the rest, or ought we rather to deal first with the attributes which they have in common in virtue of some common element of their nature, and proceed from this as a basis for the consideration of them separately?

For genera that are quite distinct yet oftentimes present many identical phenomena, sleep, for instance, respiration, growth, decay, death, and other similar affections and conditions, which may be passed over for the present, as we are not yet prepared to treat of them with clearness and precision.

Now it is plain that if we deal with each species independently of the rest, we shall frequently be obliged to repeat the same statements over and over again; for horse and dog and man present, each and all, every one of the phenomena just enumerated. A discussion therefore of the attributes of each such species separately would necessarily involve frequent repetitions as to characters, themselves identical but recurring in animals specifically distinct. (Very possibly also there may be other characters which, though they present specific differences, yet come under one and the same category. For instance, flying, swimming, walking, creeping, are plainly specifically distinct, but yet are all forms of animal progression.)

Go on to NEXT SECTION