Sears Recital Hall was filled to capacity Friday afternoon for Fr. James Heft's annual address, this year titled 'Evolution and Creationism: The Relationship between Science and Catholicism.'

The audience filled every seat, covered the aisle-ways, crowded every available space in the back and even spread across the stage around the podium to hear Heft speak.

'There's a hundred people outside,' shouted Dr. Steve Dandaneau from the back as more audience members attempted to squeeze into the small lecture hall.

Clearly, Heft's reputation precedes him. Chancellor of the university and professor of faith and culture, he has written over 100 articles and books and he challenges and inspires the students and faculty at UD each day.

'Everyone who has spent a significant amount of time with [Heft] knows he is a rare man,' said Dr. Chris Duncan, professor and chair of the department of political science.

Heft covered three main points in his address in an attempt to explain why evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive beliefs.

The first was the necessity of clarifying labels so that it is understood what exactly is meant by 'evolution' or 'creationism.' The interpretation of these terms can make a significant difference in how a person views either idea.

Secondly, he noted both science and Catholicism can overstep their boundaries. Each has its own responsibility, and it is necessary to be clear about the role each plays.

Finally, he stressed accepting scientific theories as valid does not necessarily diminish the validity of religious beliefs, or, as he phrased it, 'Leaving God out of science need not mean leaving God out of creation and life.'

Quoting heavily from both scientific and theological sources, Heft demonstrated the Catholic Church ,on the whole, accepts the theory of evolution so long as it is not stated to be an 'unguided' process.

The real battle, Heft said, is between evangelical Protestants and evolutionary theorists. Roman Catholics don't have to read the Bible literally, meaning the creation story in Genesis does not necessarily conflict with the findings of science.

Addressing the issue of the human soul, Heft quoted Pope Pius XII, who said while the human soul is not the product of evolution, the human body can be.

He followed this with the words of Pope John Paul II, who agreed evolution is more than a hypothesis and said Christians should welcome whatever science can tell them about nature.

Heft said this is consistent with the Catholic teaching that one of three ways God is revealed is through the world.

'There is a compatibility, in principle, between science and Catholicism,' Heft explained.

Careful use of words is important, Heft said, because either evolution can describe only the physical evolution of plants and animals or it can attempt to say there's no God in the process. Creationism, similarly, can either mean God created the world, or God created the world in six days, challenging scientific estimates of the age of the earth.

Heft also addressed the idea of Intelligent Design (I.D.), the argument which states there is an irreducible complexity in certain biological structures which can only be explained by a Creator.

While not taking a definite stand on I.D., Heft said that he was 'uneasy with the arguments made by proponents of I.D.'

If their argument rests on certain structures being unexplainable, he reasoned, then what happens if science is someday able to explain them?

'This is a debate scientists must settle among themselves,' Heft said, 'not with theologians.'

He went on to talk about the role that reason plays in faith.

'Christian theology should have about itself a historical and existential ring,' Heft said.

He pointed out religion, while emphasizing believing without seeing, is nonetheless concerned with facts: If Jesus' body were found tomorrow, that would have serious implications for the Christian faith.

'I like to speak of evidence, not proof, for believing,' Heft said. 'We could not and should not try to prove God's existence.'

In essence, faith and science are not the same, but neither are they necessarily contradictory.

'The problem is where people needlessly create an opposition,' Heft explained in the question and answer session following his address.

He said that each side should learn from each other, being clear about the terms they are using and each not overstepping its boundaries.

For example, he does not believe I.D. should be brought into biology classes. As long as science adheres to observable evidence and explanations of what is known, there is no reason for religion to get involved. It would be comparing apples to oranges, what he called 'legitimate science' to 'something that is not science.'

On the other hand, those same science classes must take care not to take explanations to the level of becoming a kind of religion of its own.

'If the empirical is presented as an explanation of everything, then I would call it 'religion,'' Heft said. 'Let intelligence go as far as it possibly can ' but not farther.'