galileo and theistic evolution

JHOFMANN@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU
Sun, 24 Sep 1995 21:47:49 -0800 (PST)

On the similarities between the Galileo case and evolution:

As has been pointed out by numerous historians, Galileo set an
interesting precedent for subsequent arguments by theistic
evolutionists. Galileo extensively cited Augustine to the effect
that traditional interpretations of scripture should be amended in
light of new conclusive demonstrations brought forward by empirical
research. He argued unsuccessfully that a conclusive demonstration
of the earth's motion was available and thus should evoke a
revision of any scriptural interpretation that affirmed that the
earth is stationary. He was unsuccessful partly because Catholic
theologians and astronomers such as Bellarmine realized that at
that time there was no "conclusive demonstration" of the earth's
motion. Given the tense situation during the Counter-Reformation,
it is not surprising that Catholic theologians refused to yield
their authority over scriptural interpretation to a mathematician
and erstwhile physicist.
Similarly, theistic evolutionists such as Ernan McMullin have
often cited Augustine as the basis of their position that the
results of modern research on evolutionary theory support a
metaphorical reading of Genesis. There is an interesting disanalogy
to the Galileo case in that, while Augustine had little to say
about the motion of the sun and/or earth, he made extensive
comments on how Genesis should be read metaphorically and how God
created life through the sowing of "seed principles" (rationes
seminales) which gradually brought various life forms to actuality
at different times.
There is also a second disanalogy in that in Galileo's time,
scientific methodology was just parting from the earlier
Aristotelian insistence on "conclusive demonstration"; the more
humble criteria of modern fallible science can be used to make the
appeal to Augustine more accessible.
Given that I know more about history of science than modern
theology, I suspect that there are radically divergent
interpretations of Augustine; I recall some Reflector discussion
about this in the recent past, and I apologize for not taking it
into account here.

Jim Hofmann
Philosophy Dept
Cal State Fullerton

jhofmann@ccvax.fullerton.edu