letters from our readers

In defense of evolution
Editor: In the December 2000 issue, Dr. Baumgartner again attacked my views on evolution. He used his Ph.D. in chemistry as his credentials. Unfortunately, he clearly lacks the knowledge in paleontology, general biology, biochemistry, and molecular biology which would prepare him to comment on evolution.

The biological sciences do not have all the answers on the origin of life or its diversification over time. Nevertheless we are certain that there has been no “magical creation” of every species from nothing. The fossil and molecular evidences indicate that currently living species have descended from previously existing species, most of which are now extinct. No one has ever seen a new species popping into existence out of nothing before his or her eyes. The whole idea is absurd. Yet that is precisely what radical creationists propose for the origin of all species.

Mainstream science believes that new life forms arose by changes in pre-existing life forms (e.g., that one type of bird evolved from another type of bird). This may be difficult for many lay people to grasp, but it involves no miracles. It requires no new laws of nature other than the ones with which we are familiar. Exactly how each species arose is something we are still learning about. Nevertheless, there is no need for supernatural explanations for the diversity of life. Postulating a “magical” origin is neither scientific nor logical. It is tantamount to a refusal to look for a rational explanation.

All evolutionary changes are micro-evolutionary changes in that they involve changes to DNA sequences by any of several mechanisms: mutation, chromosomal rearrangement, viral inclusions, and the expression of suppressed ancestral genes. Some “micro” changes may have “macro” consequences. Changes in behavior can precede changes in morphology so that new species may arise by reproductive selection. Speciation results when the changes become stable and/or irreversible.

Dr. Baumgartner claimed that all interspecies crosses are necessarily sterile, singling out horses and donkeys as an example. As any Sicilian peasant could tell him, not all horse/ donkey crosses are sterile. Some female hybrids can mate and have offspring, though this is very rare. There are numerous such examples of such fertile interspecies crossings. Many plants can form fertile crosses even at the genus level. That is how the pre-Columbian Indians developed maize (i.e., corn). They bred the teosinte plant with numerous wild grasses. The species distinction is not as clear cut as my opponent made it out to be.

As to the “abruptness” of the appearance of new species in the fossil record, we average one fossil preserved worldwide every 1000 years representing all existing land species. Some theorize that speciation may take 10,000 years or less (not the 10 million my opponent claims). Dr. Stephen Jay Gould favors longer speciation intervals measured in tens of thousands of years. Meanwhile the average species lasts from 3-10 million years in the fossil record. It appears then that the time needed for speciation is very much shorter than the overall “life-span” of the species. The fossil record is so choppy and incomplete that it might miss a speciation event all together.

My opponent brought up Michael Denton’s spurious argument about the differences in the sequence of Cytochrome-C between species. Denton claimed that the number of substitutions in Cytochrome-C were not much different between widely separated groups. But of course they couldn’t be.

Cytochrome-C is a critical functional protein in every cell. You cannot change the functional portions of its molecule without inactivating it and making the organism non-viable. There are only a certain number of structural portions of this molecule that can be altered without affecting its function. All lineages show changes in those same structural elements. If you look at the qualitative changes (i.e., what substitutions occurred in particular loci in different species) you can arrange an evolutionary lineage of Cytochrome-C by arranging the species in terms of accumulated changes. When this is done, it shows that distances on the Cytochrome-C sequence map match the postulated evolutionary distances between major groups.

My opponent makes the absurd claim that the avian lung would have had to evolve directly from a modern reptilian lung. Birds are descended from dinosaurs, not reptiles. They have an exotic lineage going through several intermediate groups for which we have no living analogues. Soft tissue organs are usually not preserved by fossilization so that we are dependent on comparisons with living species to determine how they may have evolved. We do not have access to all of the soft tissue evidence to explain avian lung evolution. This doesn’t mean that there is no explanation.

Dr. Baumgartner also mentioned Michael Behe’s claim for the “irreducible complexity” of biochemical systems. This has been widely criticized in the scientific literature. Behe claims that there is virtually no scientific work showing how the “irreducibly complex” biochemical systems evolved. This is inaccurate. For example, Roger Doolittle won the Nobel Prize for his work on the evolutionary origin of hemoglobin via the linear repetition of amino-acid pentamers in the same molecule. Much of molecular biology is actually concerned with this question. For detailed criticisms of Behe’s theory, see the website http://www.talkorigins.org.

Complex enzyme systems likely developed similar to the way that legs developed from fins. Fish fins, which had evolved for swimming, further evolved among the crossopterygians to do walking as well. Eventually in amphibians, they further evolved into legs which were adapted for walking primarily. This is also how we believe biochemical systems evolved. Different systems that had evolved for one purpose began to be used for other purposes. There are different biochemical systems that appear structurally related to each other and yet seem to have evolved from each other (e.g., the series of Catalase, Cytochrome-C, Cytochrome P-450, the Myoglobins, and the Hemoglobins).

My opponent makes numerous errors of fact about human evolution. The earliest Neanderthal remains are not 3 million years old, but at most 500,000 years old. The Neanderthals died out about 30,000 years ago. Modern humans appeared about 50,000 years ago. My opponent mistakenly claimed there was “not enough time” for humans to have evolved because he had several facts wrong and had overestimated the time necessary for speciation by 2 orders of magnitude.

As a Catholic physician, I deal daily with the consequences of our evolutionary lineage. The human body is prone to physiological and mechanical problems, which quite frankly could have been avoided by better design. Lay people are often dazzled by the complexity of their bodies so that they never realize just what the design flaws are. I find no evidence for a supernatural design of the human body. Consequently, I find no place in the science classroom, for “Magical Creationism.” The theories of Charles Darwin have stood up to scientific scrutiny. There are no ideas of comparable worth from the “Magical Creationism” advocates. If their opinions are not considered to be science by professional scientists, then they have no place in the science classroom.

All of the advocates of fringe opinions and pseudoscience — UFO buffs, conspiracy theorists, alien abductees, channellers, new agers and the like — would like to have their opinions taught in the public schools. Some fringe opinions may one-day be accepted in the mainstream. Until then, fringe advocates have no right to force their views into the public school curriculum as science. If these views have any credence, then scientific research will eventually recognize this. Only then can such opinions be included in school curricula.

No one would be happier than I would if we could say with integrity that Genesis was a literal eyewitness report supported by secular science. At this point in time, that is not possible. Based on what is now known, I don’t think it will ever be possible. While I always keep an open mind, I refuse to be credulous. It is the hallmark of Catholic academic discipline to recognize the legitimate autonomy of each area of study even from other areas such as theology and philosophy. This autonomy has its limits in the face of Magisterial teaching, but in the case of evolution, all of the modern Popes from Pius XII onwards have agreed that evolution is a theory permissible to Catholics within due limits. I claim nothing more than this.
Arthur C. Sippo, MD, MPH
Sparta, Ill.

Evolution and dogma

Editor: Any readers of HPR who feel that too much time and space has been devoted to the topic of evolution, would do well to obtain the December 16, 2000 issue of America, and study the cover story, “Creation and the Catechism” with great care. Calling the Catechism of the Catholic Church “an embarrassment both rationally and spiritually,” the author — described as a “Sister Scientist” — calls for a “uniquely American” national catechism which would show “how contemporary theology requires fresh expression in evolutionary terms.” And she assures readers that “an evolutionary perspective in theology can purify religion from obsolete dogma.” While providing no comprehensive list of what she perceives to be “obsolete” dogmas, sister tells us that “articles 374 to 421 in the Catechism . . . are yesterday’s theology” and “roadblocks to the truth.”

Since “the magisterial authors seem to be shining the light of Faith only backward,” and “the Curial concept of original sin needs a contemporary updating,” sister calls upon the American bishops “to join with professionals, men and women scientists and theologians” in revealing [sic] “that the creation account of Adam and Eve in Genesis does not relate actual historical facts.” In line with “theology today characterizing this doctrine as rationalized myth,” she proposes “rejecting the Roman catechism’s preternatural gifts of freedom from ignorance, pain, disease or death” to conform with this “modern theology.” And we are assured that “the preternatural gifts taught by the Roman catechism (are) historically impossible.”

While admitting that “the Council of Trent condemned anyone who denied this doctrine,” the author scatters selected quotations from Pope John Paul II throughout her article to give it a semblance of legitimacy. Even more ironic is the close similarity between sister’s scientific claims for evolution and those which have appeared in letters defending evolution printed in HPR. Perhaps the only significant difference is that sister — a winner of the Templeton Prize, has carried her modernist evolutionary arguments to their logical conclusion.

Sister obviously realizes that, if the claims of modern evolutionary science are true, then key teachings of the Church are not. Those who defend these naturalistic evolutionary ideas and claim — at the same time — to be orthodox Catholics, have yet to demonstrate how these two basically different concepts can be compatible. It is difficult — perhaps impossible — to conceive of a catechism which incorporates “evolutionary science” and “modern theology” and is also truly Catholic.
Joseph H. Gehringer
Manahawkin, N.J.

Coredemptrix: Yes or No?

Editor: I believe that Michael J. Miller’s article “Mediatrix, Si! Coredemptrix, No!” (February, 2001) exhibits skewed reasoning in at least two places. First of all, his examples of Nurse Reilly handing a scalpel to a surgeon and his own translating of a German work into English hardly are on a par with Our Lady’s “participation” in the salvific work of Christ. Mary did not hand Christ the cross on which to be crucified; she gave him his human nature. Presentation of an object, like Nurse Reilly, is quite different from presentation of a human nature by which the God-Man effects a theandric redemption of the human race. In the second place, Miller takes issue with Dr. Mark Miravalle’s listing of papal allusions to “co-redemptrix” as indicative of a papal, doctrinal approbation of all that that title implies. Yet, he turns around and does the same in attempting to interpret Pope John Paul II’s use of the word “co-redemptrix” in his Angelus Message on Palm Sunday, 1985.
In fact, Miller says: “Considering the audience, we can assume that this is not a doctrinal statement but a popular catechesis. It could be paraphrased: Young people, call on Mary for help when you call on Jesus, and imitate her generous compassion.”

It seems to me that while Michael Miller refuses to permit Dr. Miravalle to interpret certain papal statements of the past to enhance his belief in Mary’s being “Co-Redemptrix,” he privately interprets John Paul II’s papal statements to enhance his own belief that she is not. Well!
Msgr. Matthew G. Malnar
Independence, Wis.

Depopulation of the West

Editor: I thank Fr. John F. Kobler for an excellent, brief article on the depopulation of the Western world (February, 2001).

There was an excellent article in, of all places, USA Today, not too long ago. It is a topic generally ignored by not only abortion-right activists, but by so-called Catholic thinkers, too.

Fr. Kobler mentions three books of the accessible Fr. Schooyans translated into English by Fr. Miller. I would like to add two more: Bioethics and Population: the Choice of Life and Power over Life leads to Domination of Mankind.
Jan E. Fredericks
Rochester, N.Y.

A Catholic home school IS a Catholic school!

Editor: In his letter to the editor (HPR, December 2000) on Fr. Joseph Taphorn’s article about home schooling and the sacraments (HPR, August-September 2000), Msgr. Clarence Hettinger gently chides Fr. Taphorn for focusing on Canon 793 to the neglect of Canons 796-799 and 212, even though all these canons deal with parental involvement in the education of their children.

Perhaps Fr. Taphorn deliberately omitted the latter canons because they are derivative, not foundational as is Canon 793, and therefore not needed in an analysis of the basic right of parents to educate their children sacramentally as well as academically.

For example, Canon 796 addresses parental involvement in schools, cooperation between teachers and parents, parent organizations and activities, etc. This canon would be meaningless except that it derives from a prior inherent right of parents to educate their offspring. Msgr. Hettinger misapplies the principle of subsidiarity. If the basic unit of society, whether ecclesiastical or civil, is the family, then the basic venue for education would be in that family, not at another level unless the parents so decide.

While parents are indeed mandated to educate their children, they can choose either to do it themselves or to deputize people and institutions outside the family to do it for them. If they choose the latter, as the majority of parents do, then the canons subsequent to Canon 793 regulate the interactions and relationships that choice entails.

I believe the Monsignor misinterprets Canons 797 and 798. Because both derive from Canon 793, which establishes the primary right of parents to educate their children either inside or outside the family, both in fact uphold home schooling. While Canon 797 calls on the state to respect the educational choices of parents, Canon 798 “obliges parents to entrust their children to a school that provides a Catholic education.” Msgr. Hettinger overlooks an important point many others have missed, probably because it is so obvious: a Catholic home school IS a Catholic school!

Does this imply that Catholic homeschooling parents have no accountability? No, because all practicing Catholics automatically place themselves under the authority of the Church in determining the propriety and suitability of the spiritual formation program provided for their children, whether such formation is at home or in a parochial school or parish CCD program. In other words, in measuring doctrinal soundness, the Church considers the content of education, not its location.

For Msgr. Hettinger to say that 1) parents may not judge the suitability of a school to provide a Catholic education and substitute home schooling (ca. 798), but that 2) they should take their spiritual concerns and wishes to local religious authorities (ca. 212) is contradictory. On what grounds could parents possibly bring a concern to religious authorities if there was not a prior right to judge the suitability of Catholic education programs? Recourse implies judgment.

As more Catholic families become aware of their educational options, it is useful to explore the issues that may influence parental decisions, especially regarding religious education. Fr. Taphorn was right to emphasize only Canon 793 as the compass for that exploration.
Deborah L. Streckfus
Tyler, Texas

Questions about a homily

Editor: Father Joseph Wilson, in one of his homilies in the December 2000 HPR (pp. 45-48), discusses annulments.

He confuses serious psychological illness proven to be present at the time of exchange of vows (a rare occurrence) with the weak excuses used so often today — “one spouse has changed . . . ; the communion of spirit . . . is frayed, or fractured; . . . people grow apart.”

Spouses are not promised a successful nor a happy marriage, and Father Wilson’s homily leaves the impression that they are. He gives “the last word to Nancy, a lovely woman who had obtained the annulment and was now free to marry her fiancé.”

This sentence especially concerns me. Nancy was apparently so sure of obtaining an annulment that she already had a fiancé. She was divorced and dating. That doesn’t sound lovely to me. It sounds like a scandal.

All I see are the sad faces of children who want their parents together; they don’t care about “growing apart, communion of spirit, sharing what’s inside, or any of the other pitiful excuses for their parents to separate, bring in boyfriends and girlfriends, then stepparents and all the other sorrows of the modern blended family.

On the other hand, many divorced, annulled, remarried Catholics have no children. Why not? Is the annulment mentality an extension of the contraceptive mentality?

This is how Father Wilson’s homily struck me. I just wish he would give this whole issue some more thought.
Mrs. Sheryl Temaat
Monument, Colo.

Conversion takes a lifetime

Editor: Growing up in the Roman Catholic faith and graduating from a Catholic grade and high school, and attending a Catholic university, one recurring theme I heard in those schools, also in countless homilies and sermons, is the declaration that conversion takes a lifetime.

That statement may sound true at first glance, but is it? And it is theologically and spiritually safe? The homilist never explains what he means by a “lifetime.”

Since in the Church we have children, teenagers, and young adults who have become canonized saints, one case in Ireland in the early 1900s of a three- year- old girl to whom, it was reported, Our Lord regularly appeared, obviously the homilist isn’t referring to the biblical lifetime of three score and ten or seventy years. What then is he intimating?

It would seem that, for whatever reason, the homilist is sending the subconscious message to the congregation that delaying conversion until a late age is theologically and spiritually safe. But doesn’t scripture say, “now is the time of salvation,” indicating delay isn’t prudent? Even the great St. Augustine, who did ignore that scripture for a time, did not delay until what we would now consider as old age.

Wouldn’t it be more theologically and spiritually safe and more accurate for the homilist to say that conversion takes but an instant? However, it is sanctification after conversion that takes a “lifetime.”
Cosimo R. Nasca
Seattle, Wash.