Go to: => TOP Page; ROAD MAP; Search Page; What's New? Page; Emmaus Ministries Page
[COMMENT: The points below about the sedimentary layers and Christians regaining the intellectual initiative (by reestablishing our own worldview) are crucial to the evolution debate. I am no expert on sedimentary layers, but I am (in my humble opinion) on worldview. The sedimentary layer issue below will really raise the intensity of debate. And when Christians start marketing our worldview again, that will do so even more. I hope to have my own two contributions, Personality, Empiricism, & God and Yahweh or the Great Mother? out in 2007. E. Fox]
Interview with Dominique Tassot
By John L. Allen Jr., NCR senior correspondent
On Aug. 22, 2006
NCR: Can you describe the Centre d’Etude et de Prospectives
sur la Science?
TASSOT: It was formally founded in 1997, though that was really
the transformation of a preexisting informal group of people into an
organization. We’re mainly a French-speaking association. We publish an in-house
quarterly, CEP, and sponsor an annual conference. We have 700 members, with
about half of them being scientists. There are also historians, religious men
and women, and others. We publish some materials on the history of science. The
main axis around which our interest revolves,however, is a critical approach to
evolutionary theory.
Would you say it’s a Catholic organization?
Yes. Not all members are Catholic, but certainly the most
influential members are Catholics.
What is your scientific training?
I graduated from the Paris School of Mines, which is an elite
school of engineering. I studied mathematics, physics and chemistry. In my
professional career I worked in metallurgy plants, not in a teaching or research
centers. Many members of CEP, however, are involved in full-time teaching and
research.
Do you have any relationship with the French bishops?
Yes. Bishop Henri Marie Raoul Brincard of the diocese of Le
Puy-en-Velay, for example, is a friend. (Le Puy-en-Velay is an important Marian
shrine and pilgrimage destination in France). In fact, it was through Brincard
that I was able to get a letter to Benedict XVI about evolution directly on the
desk of the pope. I wrote the letter before the New York Times article on
evolution by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, but sent it afterwards.
What did you say in this letter?
I made two points. First, I reminded that the pope that Pius XII
in the encyclical Humani Generis in 1950 suggested a debate inside the Catholic
Church on evolutionary theory, but it has never happened. I said that it’s now
time to open the debate, because in each discipline we can find people on both
sides, which was not the case in the 1950s. Second, I said that the impact of
this debate is not just scientific. In itself, evolution is a scientific
question, but it has consequences on a much larger scale. It opens a possibility
for the church to regain the initiative in the field of culture. Right now,
Catholic intellectuals spend their time explaining that such-and-such a theory
is or is not compatible with the faith, which means that the initiative is
always coming from other groups or movements. What’s important is the
possibility for the church, for Christians, to re-establish an autonomous world
view. The concept of creation is important in this regard. Today, most people
believe that truth is given by science and the church reacts to it. If you
accept that science gives the truth, inevitably Christian intellectuals will all
move inside a scientific worldview which is actually foreign to Christianity.
What was the pope’s response?
He responded very positively, offering a blessing for our members
and encouraging us to continue with our contacts with the scientific world. He
didn’t say anything, however, about the idea of creating a commission or some
other vehicle for launching a debate.
What was your reaction to the op/ed piece of Cardinal
Christoph Schönborn in the New York Times last July?
Schönborn didn’t say that Darwin was or was not compatible with
the Christian faith, but that Darwinism was wrong. From a theoretical point of
view, that’s quite different. He affirmed that it was possible for philosophy
and theology to attain certainties which were higher than scientific
certainties. That’s something new from theologians. For three or four
centuries, theologians have generally followed the scientists, taken their lead
from the sciences. This is a question of intellectual authority, and of course
it stems from the Galileo case and so on. Little by little, authority has
shifted from theologians to the scientists.
Once again, the question is whether it’s possible to recover an
autonomous Christian worldview, within which science has its own very important
place. To have a place, however, is very different from being the frame within
which everything is set.
What are your thoughts on the Sept. 1-3 meeting of Pope
Benedict’s Schülerkreis?
In my letter to Benedict XVI, I advised him that he should remain
the master of this debate. By that I meant that he shouldn’t delegate it to the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences, even though I couldn’t quite say it that way.
Even though it’s not possible for me to see all the influences behind the
Schülerkreis, I suspect the pope has the aim of using the Schülerkreis to test
new opinions and to review them. For me that’s very important, though I don’t
know what the result will be.
What are your concerns with the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences?
The problem is that it’s not a Catholic academy. Instead, it’s
the place where the scientific worldview can enter inside the Catholic Church.
Two-thirds of its members are not Catholic. It’s also the pontifical academy
with the greatest number of Noble Prize winners, who are very well known in
their disciplines. I’m not questioning the quality of these people, but the
meaning and use of this academy inside the church.
Do you see the Centre d’Etude et de Prospectives sur la
Science as an alternative to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences?
I wouldn’t say that. I would say instead that it’s a place where
the debate that has gone on for many years can take place. My concern is simply
that the Pontifical Academy for Sciences exists almost by itself, and I’m not
sure it’s the tool for the pope that it should be.
Can you cite any prominent scientists who belong to your
group?
I’d mention Guy Berthault, whose work on the dating of
sedimentary remains is highly relevant for this debate, as well as interesting
from the point of view of the history of science. Evolution relies from the
beginning on an extremely long chronology of the earth, which is based in turn
on sedimentary theory. Basically, the idea is that when you find many different
strata of sedimentary rocks, the strata at bottom is older than those on top,
and the whole complex took an extremely long time to form. It seems so obvious
that for two centuries geologists didn’t question the underlying principle. But
if you think about it, the question of what’s on top and what’s on bottom
doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with comparative ages. If you pour
mercury, oil and water into a glass, the mercury will end up on the bottom, and
not because it’s older. Physical principles operate. Density is the causal
factor that determines position; chronology has nothing to do with it. The same
thing applies to the different strata of sedimentary remains. The strata have
been deposited where they are, and it’s not necessarily the case that the oldest
material is on the bottom. That’s akin to thinking that the sediments basically
fell from the sky. Instead, they were carried by horizontal currents. The layers
were formed by density, speed, and geometry, not time. Berthault first
published these findings in a publication of the French Academy of Science in
1990. He then went to the University of Colorado at Boulder, and did experiments
using very sophisticated equipment there which is capable of simulating water
currents and related physical phenomena. In effect, he’s created a science of
sedimentation, and we can actually calculate the time necessary to deposit what
we observe. There’s a Russian team of scientists who have picked up on these
experiments and are publishing their findings with the Russian Academy of
Science. In effect, it means that the usual geological chronology has been
destroyed.
What are the consequences for the theory of evolution?
It means that the time scale we use to think about evolution has
no scientific basis. It’s now possible to calculate the time it took to produce
particular sedimentary remains, and it’s a question of days, not millions of
years. Hence, for now, fossils can tell us where an animal died, not necessarily
when it lived. As fossils are the rationale for evolution theory, Berthault’s
experiments seriously question, if not refute, the theory.
Did you come to doubt evolution on scientific or religious
grounds?
When I was in school studying mathematics, my favorite book was
by Teilhard de Chardin. I studied with Jesuits who were all in favor of
Teilhard’s very positive approach to evolution. I was a Teilhardian. I didn’t
question that at all. I saw no contradiction between my faith and what I was
studying in science. But later I read a book by two French scientists written
during the Second World War, in which they questioned evolution on scientific
grounds. My doubts began at that time.
What convinced you?
Originally, it was the argument from probability, meaning the
extreme improbability of positive mutation in the sense that evolutionary theory
suggests. Later, of course, I have also been persuaded by Berthault’s refutation
of the geological chronology. At bottom, theological, philosophical, and
scientific truth must be in accordance. All truth must function together. Thus,
if evolution does not have a sound scientific basis, it’s not necessary to waste
time arguing over whether
it’s compatible with Christian theology.
When you say that evolution does not have a sound
scientific basis, are you talking about micro-evolution (development within
species) or macro-evolution (development from one species to another)?
I mean macro-evolution. This, by the way, is what makes the book
Truth and Tolerance (2003) by then-Cardinal Ratzinger so interesting, because
he’s one of the few theologians who understands this distinction. Normally
people talk about ‘evolution’ but they don’t distinguish, and it’s impossible to
say anything meaningful that way. You may remember that in his New York Times
piece, Cardinal Schönborn said something fairly incredible about the 1996 text
of John Paul II that termed evolution ‘more than a hypothesis.’ Schönborn called
that text ‘rather vague and unimportant.’ Many people were surprised to hear him
talk about a papal text that way, but it’s actually very easy to understand.
‘Evolution’ is never defined in that text. In philosophy, we are supposed to
define everything, but that was not the case here. The phrase ‘more than a
hypothesis’ was actually a reference to Humani Generis. [Note: Pius XII in that
encyclical referred to evolution as a ‘hypothesis.’]
But what does this formula mean? What does it mean to be
‘more than a potato’?
It means nothing without further definition and distinction.
What do you mean by macro-evolution’?
I mean the appearance of an organ in the offspring which did not
exist in the parent. When you put it that way, you understand immediately that
it’s impossible. The continuing dominance of evolutionary theory depends upon a
voluntary confusion between micro and macro-evolution. Darwin himself relies
upon micro-evolution, giving many examples of it, but then he switches to making
generalizations about macro-evolution. This is philosophically incorrect.
If the evidence against ‘macro-evolution’ is as compelling
as you say, why do most scientists still support it?
They live in this confusion, and in general they don’t think
about it. Very few people, in reality, make these distinctions. I think they
live and think inside the paradigm of evolution. As Thomas Kuhn explained [in
the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions], theories are accepted or
rejected in order to defend the dominant paradigm. Information which conflicts
with that paradigm is set aside, it doesn’t get published. Psychologically, this
is all quite normal. It’s not just scientists who behave this way.
Do you believe scientists defend evolution because it does
away with the need for God?
In the States, people are quite conscious of the religious and
political dimensions of evolutionary theory. In Europe, I have the impression
that most scientists just don’t think about it. Evolution is the accepted
paradigm, and that’s it. They think inside this scientific vision of the world.
They’re forced to question it only when they find themselves in front of a fact
that’s clearly incompatible with the paradigm.
You said Pope Benedict is one of the few theologians who
distinguishes between micro and macro-evolution. What do you know about his
thinking on the subject?
For one thing, Pope Benedict became familiar with the discoveries
of Professor Berthault many years ago, from the time he was a cardinal. He met
Berthault at a conference center and spent several days with him quite by
accident. This is a center in the Alps that Ratzinger used as a meeting place
for a theological conference, and Berthault was one of the directors of the
association that owned the place. Ratzinger came several times over a period of
years and got to know Berthault. I think that has had some influence on him. It
was an opportunity for him to see that even on the scientific questions
surrounding evolution, debate is possible. Most people think that the findings
of science are completely established and are beyond discussion. They think it’s
the way it’s presented in textbooks in school. But those textbooks are the
result of a long process, which in itself is not so simple. Science doesn’t
give definite certainties.
Are you a ‘creationist’?
No, because we arrived at our position before we even knew about
creationists. Our position is different, first of all because we’re Catholics.
From what I can see, creationism is mainly a movement of evangelicals. Their
approach to religion is different. We once had a lecture by an evangelical
scientist who works in genetics and considers himself a creationist. On
scientific grounds, good relations with the creationists are possible, but it’s
a different position. We are not committed, for example, to a literal reading of
the Bible. Catholics read the Bible in terms of church tradition, the fathers of
the church, and so on. Quite often, Biblical literalism means that each person
interprets the Bible for himself.
What do you think of ‘intelligent design’?
We discovered the intelligent design movement some years ago, and
we study it with interest. Certainly on the idea of design in nature, we agree.
Several articles that we have published in our quarterly come from intelligent
design sources. Once again, the difference is that we are Catholics. In
general, the intelligent design movement intentionally tries to stay away from
the question of religion. If it’s a matter of an intellectual approach to
explaining nature as the result of intelligent design, I would agree with that.
But we believe that this designer can be known from religion.
What do you expect from the Schülerkreis meeting?
I expect that the debate will go further. Some months ago,
Cardinal Schönborn published an essay in First Things on this subject that I
found interesting, and I translated it into French. I sent it to him along with
my letter to the pope. In reply, Schönborn said that the debate is going on, and
he’s delighted with that. At the time, I was unsure of what Schönborn was
thinking, because what he was saying at that time was unclear. What I hope the
meeting at Castelgandolfo means is that this scientific debate will interest
philosophers and theologians more and more. For many theologians, the very fact
that there’s a debate within science is something new.
Do you think Benedict XVI will make a formal statement on
evolution?
I think it is too early. I think he’s using the meeting of his
Schülerkreis to give a broader extension to the debate. But even if he himself
knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take more time. Most
Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution is obviously true
because most scientists say so. To show that debate is possible on scientific
grounds, and also on philosophical and theological grounds, is more than a
question of a few months. In the meantime, what I see is that in his normal
daily teaching, Benedict is providing some glimpse into the importance of
creation and so on. I do not expect, however, an official theological statement
quickly.
You say you think you know where the pope wants to go.
Where is that?
In the past, Cardinal Ratzinger was convinced that evolution was
true, and being an intelligent man, he devised a way to make it compatible with
theological truth. Today, I think his view is different. Some years ago, he
began to understand that there was a difference between micro and
macro-evolution, which was an important point for him. At a conference in
Germany, he actually said that this was one of the most important experiences of
his life. The fact that he devoted three pages to the subject of evolution in
Truth and Tolerance is by itself abnormal. He grasps that micro and
macro-evolution are not the same, and I think he believes people accepted an
atheistic world view in relation to evolution because they accepted the
confusion between micro and macro-evolution. He wants people to understand this
important truth.
If he doesn’t make a statement, how will he do this?
I think he will use Cardinal Schönborn once more, or perhaps
several more times. They know each other well, Schönborn understands where the
pope wants to go, and together they are devising a way. Sometimes the best way
to get from A to B is not by a direct path. The first thing is to let people
know that debate is possible. Ultimately, the solution will be given by science,
because evolution in itself is a scientific question. But it’s important to let
theologians know that within the scientific world, debate is not only possible,
but it’s happening right now. For the moment, only that will change the minds of
theologians, because in too many cases their thoughts are subordinate to
science.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *