A FATHER SCOTT PAMPHLET hs-ipS A3>V 7 33. S' m n — ;g a SCIENCE! HELPS I CHURCH! iCHURCH FAVORS SCIENCE llll MARTIN J. SCOTT, S.J AMERICA PRESS QUIZ (For study clubs and discussion groups) 1. Why is the Catholic Church the greatest friend of Science? 2. What is the Pontifical Academy of Science, founded by Pius XI? 3. Why is the Church sometimes accused of being opposed to science? 4. Specify some distinguished Catholic scientist of modern times. 5. Does not the Galileo case show that the Church is opposed to science? 6. Why did the Church interfere in the Galileo case? 7. Does not the Galileo case show that the Church erred? 8. Is not the Bible in error by stating that the sun stood still? 9 . Is not the Church opposed to Evolution? 10. Why is materialistic Evolution opposed to science as well as religion? 11. Why do some prominent scientists proclaim Evolution to be a fact? 12. How has the doctrine of Evolution caused great social evils? 13. Why could not the origin of the universe be matter only? 14. Why does the fact of man’s intelligence postulate a personal God? 15. Is there any scientific evidence for the natural change of one species into another? 16. Does not the change of the caterpillar into the butterfly prove a change of one species into another? 17. What is determinism and why is it false? 18. What is the teaching of the Church with regard to a) theistic evolution—b) materialistic evolution? Nihil Obstat: Arthur J. Scanlan, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur : * Francis J. Spellman, Archbishop of New York. July 19, 1941. Copyright, 1941, by The America Press. SCIENCE HELPS THE CHURCH The Church Favors Science Martin J. Scott, S .J. You ask me why the Church is opposed to science. Now, I know you are a very busy man and have little time for historical or scientific study, but I must say that I am, nevertheless, surprised at your assump- tion. Why surprised ? Because in ordinary matters you are so critical. Yet in such an important matter as this, you take for granted that what some opponents of religion allege must be true. Just a moment, please, you have me wrong there. I am taking nothing for granted. Some of the best informed persons are my authority for be- lieving that the Church is opposed to science. Well, let’s see how the views of your best informed persons square with facts. It is historically certain that from the beginning of Christianity to the present day the Catholic Church has been the great- est friend and supporter of science. Indeed if it were not for the Church the treasures of science would not have been transmitted down the ages. The learning of antiquity was preserved and handed 1 2 Science Helps The Church down to modern times by Christian scholars. It was the Church that founded most of the universities of the Middle Ages, in which were inculcated all the sciences then known to man. Oxford and Cam- bridge, now the pride of England, were, up to their seizure by the Reformers, Catholic universities which as far back as the twelfth century numbered thousands of students. I grant you that formerly the Church was the friend of science, but I’m talking of things as they are today. I understand that perfectly, but in order to rectify your false notions it is necessary to show that from her past record it would be all but impossible for the Church to be opposed to science now. Well, go ahead, there’s something in what you say. Not only something but a good deal. Before the Re- formation there were eighty-one universities in Eur- ope. Prominent among them were : Paris with seven thousand students ; Bologne with six thousand ; and Vienna, Cologne, Leipzig, Prague and Salamanca, each with thousands of students. These universities, mostly founded by Papal authority show the Church’s concern for the arts and sciences. That’s all right, but I refer mainly to modern sci- ence and the Church’s present attitude to it. Very well, since you want to come right down to the The Church Favors Science 3 present day without preliminaries, you have heard, perhaps, of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences founded by Pope Pius XI in October, 1936? I can’t say that I have. I thought so. Frequently it happens that people are fed up on everything that supports a passing attack on the Church but give little or no attention to the abundance of data obtainable for its refutation. Please don’t hit me so hard. Well, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences embraces seventy of the most distinguished scientists in the world, regardless of creed or nationality. In found- ing this Academy, the Pope said: “Science never finds itself in contradiction with the truth of the Christian Faith. It is true that, in recent times, it has been erroneously affirmed that between science and Divine Revelation there was conflict. But today there are very few among the followers of the posi- tive sciences who persist in this error.” The seventy members of the Pontifical Academy were chosen from fifteen nations, the Pope’s sole purpose being to assemble the best scientific minds of the world in order to promote scientific research. Other present- day evidence of the Church’s desire to promote sci- ence is the fact that Pope Leo XIII opened the Vati- can Library even to scholars who were hostile to re- ligion. It is a well known fact that many opponents of Christianity, while searching for matter to dis- 4 Science Helps The Church credit the Church, have been converted to Cathol- icism. The Church welcomes all the light that history and science can throw on her, but it must be the white light of truth, not the distorted light of error. Again let me say that what my remark referred to was not so much scholarly attainments as to what is known as modern science, such as astronomy, chemistry, biology, etc. It is with reference to these sciences that the Church is supposed to be at variance. Yes, I understand that it was to the physical sciences you referred, and I was leading up to that point, but I wanted you to know that the Church whose whole history has been characterized by devotion to the preservation and encouragement of science, would be the very last to take a stand in opposition to sci- ence. What then accounts for the accusation not infre- quently heard that the Church is opposed to sci- ence? I am glad you asked me that question, for it leads to the very heart of the matter. That false accusation arises from either a wrong understanding of science or of the Church. At the present day when persons refer to science they mean, ordinarily, physical science, that is, sci- ence which deals with material things, that is, with The Church Favors Science 5 things perceivable by the senses, things which may be seen, weighed, measured, etc. An important thing to keep in mind in this inquiry is the difference between fact and theory. Nearly all the misunderstanding with regard to science in its relation to religion comes from a failure to realize the difference between fact and theory. A fact is an established truth. A theory is a working supposi- tion, a speculation, an hypothesis. The error of not a few scientists is that they are apt to mistake sup- position for fact. They become so absorbed in a theory that, before it is corroborated by sufficient evidence, they proclaim it to be a fact, and then erroneously affirm that it contradicts religion. Then they declare that science is opposed to religion. Let it be said that whenever science is opposed to Cath- olicism it is pseudo-science. Science which is really science cannot be opposed to Revelation, for God is the Author of both science and Revelation. A theory, as a working hypothesis, is often a very good thing and may lead to excellent results. But until supported by evidence a theory is only a guess. To give you an example, Columbus believed that by sailing west he would reach India. That was a sup- position, but it led him to the discovery of America. Later Magellan by sailing west reached India. With Columbus it was a theory; Magellan, however, es- tablished the theory to be a fact. The danger with theories is that too often they lead 6 Science Helps The Church to wishful thinking and cause a person to see cor- roboration where it does not exist. But, surely, you would not say that scientists would indulge in such procedure? Yes, even scientists may be carried away by the de- sire to see confirmation of their theories. A few years ago, some advocates of the evolution of man from the brute reported that they had found a skull which was midway between that of man and brute. This wras proclaimed to be the missing link so long desired and sought after. The fossil was sent to various learned scientific bodies for inspection, and in the end turned out to be the knee-cap of an ele- phant. It is because the Church refuses to accept claims as proved which have insufficient evidence to support them that she is accused by some persons of being opposed to science. She is not opposed to science but to the false claims of some scientists. In acting thus she is following scientific procedure, which demands that evidence must support a claim. Why is it, then, that there are so few Catholic scientists of note. It looks as if there was some sort of opposition between the Church and science. Why, my dear sir, some of the very greatest scien- tists were and are Catholics: Pasteur, founder of bacteriology; Mendel (an Abbot) discoverer of the laws of heredity ; Fabre, the world’s greatest natural- ist; Schwann, founder of modern histology; Mueller, The Church Favors Science 7 founder of modern physiology ; Vesalius, founder of modern anatomy; Copernicus, founder of modern astronomy ; Laplace, renowned astronomer ; Lavois- ier, founder of modern chemistry; Roentgen, dis- coverer of x-rays ; Marconi, inventor of radio trans- mission. Some of these scientists have given new words to our language. We speak of pasteurized milk, the Mendelian laws of heredity, Roentgen rays and Marconigrams. That’s a very imposing catalog, and in view of it I certainly don’t understand how I got the notion that great scientists were not Catholics. Perhaps it was because I was thinking of electricity in which field you find no distinguished Catholic names. On the contrary, it is in this field that Catholics have been most prominent. Luigo Galvani invented the Galvanic battery ; and galvanized iron takes its name from him ; we measure electric current by amperes, named after Andre Ampere ; we speak of volts and of voltage, named after Allesandra Volta. Possibly the two greatest contributors to science in modern times were Pasteur and Marconi. By the discovery of germ transmission Pasteur has saved millions of lives, while Marconi by his invention of radio com- munication has made the ocean and the air compara- tively safe for navigation. Perhaps the notion that the Church and science are opposed comes from her antagonism to evo- lution ? 8 Science Helps The Church That is a subject we shall discuss presently. Very well. I am particularly desirous of a right understanding of the Church’s attitude on evolu- tion. But here and now it occurs to me that an argument to show that the Church is opposed to science is furnished by what is known as the Gali- leo Case. You have anticipated me. I was about to bring up that matter. On examination, it will be found that the Galileo Case furnishes splendid evidence of the Church’s truly scientific attitude and procedure. Huxley, a distinguished scientist, and not a Catholic, stated that in the Galileo Case the Church had the better of it from the standpoint of scientific proced- ure. Would you mind giving me an outline of the Galileo affair, for I’m afraid I have been misin- formed on it. Fifty years before Galileo, Copernicus, the father of modern astronomy, broached the theory that the sun was stationary, while it was the earth that moved. He gave his view as a theory only, for as a true scientist he realized that he did not have sufficient evidence to confirm it. Galileo proclaimed it to be a fact that the sun did not move. Some of the greatest scientists of the day opposed his views, notably Francis Bacon and Tycho Brahe. As the contro- versy divided the scientific world, the Church ap- pointed a commission of most learned men to hear and weigh the arguments of both sides. This The Church Favors Science 9 Church commission, on the evidence submitted, de- cided against Galileo. Didn’t the Church condemn Galileo as a heretic and imprison him? A scientific commission is not the Church ; and Gali- leo was not imprisoned. What happened was this. The commission forbade Galileo to proclaim his theory to be a fact while it was still controverted. He bound himself to abide by the decree, but failed to observe his solemn pledge. He was then ordered to reside in the home of one of the Cardinals, and this retirement was termed imprisonment by his sup- porters. But why did the Church restrict the liberty of Galileo by confining him to custody simply because he spoke his mind? At that time, owing to the tremendous religious up- heaval in Christendom as a result of the Reforma- tion, the theory of Galileo occasioned a controversy concerning the interpretation of the Bible. An un- proved theory, which seemed opposed to the Bible, would only add to the religious conflict, and it was deemed advisable to forbid its teaching. But was not that opposing science ? No. For at the time Galileo was welcome to pro- claim his views as a theory, but he insisted on declar- ing his opinion to be a scientific fact. Well, it was a fact wasn’t it? 10 Science Helps The Church In the light of further evidence, produced later, it was established to be a fact. Once the evidence was presented, the fact was acknowledged, Galileo was honored, and the scientific world accepted a new solar system. Throughout the entire procedure the Church acted in the most scientific manner, demand- ing evidence before accepting claims which revolu- tionized the astronomical system that had prevailed from the beginning of the world. But what business was it of the Church to inter- fere in the controversy ? It was owing to the statement in the Bible that the sun stood still on a certain occasion. This implied that the sun moved while the earth was stationary. Galileo affirmed the contrary. Hence it seemed that, if Galileo was right, the Bible was wrong. It was the Church’s business to be concerned with a matter which related to the meaning and interpretation of Scripture. Was not the Bible wrong, then, since Galileo was right ? By no means. You understand, no doubt, that every human document is written to be understood by the people of its time. The Israelites at that period, and all the people of the world up to the time of Galileo, believed that the sun moved and that the earth stood still. Consequently, the Bible used the language of that time. Any other way of speaking would have been meaningless to those to whom it was addressed. The Church Favors Science 11 Isn’t that an admission that the Bible erred and that consequently it is not the Word of God ? Not at all. Every literature known to mankind em- ploys language in a literal and also a figurative sense. In the Gospels, for instance, it is stated that Jesus was the light of the World, the Good Shepherd and the Vine. He called His disciples the Salt of the Earth, Fishers of men, etc. We know that Je6us did not tend sheep, and that the Apostles were not salt. The language used is termed a figure of speech. Now, every literature is subject to interpretation. The Constitution of the United States was worded with extreme care, yet its authors knew that it would be subject to various interpretations, and therefore the Supreme Court of the United States was designated as the sole interpreter of that docu- ment. The Divine Founder of Christianity designated His Church to be the infallible interpreter of everything pertaining to His teaching. Since the Bible is God’s Word to mankind it pertains to His religion and the Church, accordingly, is its interpreter. Up to the time of Galileo the statement about the sun was never in question. When it was known to be a fact that the sun does not move in the way previously supposed, the Church simply declared that the ex- pression was not to be taken literally but in the sense adapted to the understanding of the people of that period. Nevertheless, it looks as though that’s only a clever way out of a compromising situation. 12 Science Helps The Church You mean, I presume, that the Church had recourse to verbal juggling in order to avoid a damaging ad- mission ? Precisely. In reply, let me say that if you open a modern scien- tific book, and if it speaks of the length of daylight at certain seasons of the year, it will say that the sun rises at a definite hour and minute and sets at a specified time. Now, the sun does nothing of the kind. It neither rises nor sets. Would you call this statement in a scientific treatise juggling with words ? Well, no, not exactly, for I suppose that’s the way people generally understand sunrise and sunset. The characteristic of a true scientist is to demand and present evidence for a claim. This has always been the procedure of the Church, and in no instance is it better shown than in the Galileo Case, in which, as Huxley said, the Church followed a truly scien- tific course. Then as now, the Church proclaims that fact and Faith cannot be opposed. Whenever science is opposed to Revelation it is pseudo-science. The Church has always been and always will be the greatest friend and supporter of science that is truly such. What answer would you give to the accusations against the Church alleging her discouragement of scientific investigation and progress? That is a difficult matter, and no general answer can be given. Each accusation must be taken up separ- The Church Favors Science 13 ately and carefully examined. This presupposes a wide and deep knowledge of history which the aver- age person does not possess. Unless you are per- fectly conversant with the facts, it is best to say that you do not know the data required to consider the point in question. A frank acknowledgment of that kind often im- presses an objector favorably, for he will conclude that you know what you are talking about, and that what you state has data and logic to confirm it. Well, that’s that. When I asked you about evolu- tion you said that you would discuss it later. Evo- lution is now one of the things which seems to justify the accusation that the Church is opposed to science. May I ask you frankly if the Church is opposed to evolution? One of the most important questions of the present day is evolution. It seriously affects man’s outlook on life and also his conduct. Evolution is a theory which seeks to explain the origin and existence of living things as they are today. It maintains that present species were not always what they are now but are descended from former different and extinct species. And what is the attitude of the Church in this matter ? It all depends on what one understands by evolution. There is evolution and evolution. In general it may be pointed out that there are two kinds of evolution : 14 Science Helps The Church 1) Materialistic; 2) Theistic. Materialistic evolu- tion holds that everything that exists is matter only, and that matter is the sole origin of everything. This kind of evolution is incompatible with science as well as religion. Theistic evolution holds that if evolution be a fact its origin or first cause must be an intelligent being. Theistic evolution, excluding man, may possibly be a fact, but so far there is not sufficient scientific evi- dence to support it. How do you explain the fact that so many promi- nent scientists proclaim that evolution is an estab- lished fact ? For the most part it is wishful thinking. People readily believe what they wish to believe. But why should anyone wish to believe that evolu- tion is a reality? For this reason, among others. It is something new and has attraction for inquiring minds. More- over, the evolution which is most generally acclaimed is Materialistic, which maintains that man is de- scended from the brute and that he is consequently only a high-grade animal. But why should anyone desire to believe that he was a high-grade animal? The attraction in that belief is that man, if but a higher animal, would be dominated by animal in- stincts and consequently free to follow his inclina- The Church Favors Science 15 tions without any restrictions whatsoever, except fear of being detected and punished. As a clever writer has put it, the only thing such a person would have to be on the lookout for would be the cop around the corner. I hope you do not attribute that motive to the many distinguished persons in our universities who profess belief in evolution. Certainly not. I am only giving you the logical con- sequence of belief in Materialistic evolution. Re- spectable people are often drawn into a movement without realizing the motives of those who have originated it. As a matter of fact, a person, if logical, cannot be- lieve in Materialistic evolution without renouncing belief in a Personal God. If one does not believe in a Personal God, it is logical to live by the law of the jungle whereby force and cunning prevail. Doubt- less all those who believe in evolution do not advert to this fact, but when we consider that the logical outcome of Materialistic evolution is atheism, and Communism, and that as a result of these doctrines the world is now very much dominated by force and cunning, it must make thoughtful people realize that, even though some persons do not carry out the logi- cal consequences of this belief, it has, nevertheless, so seriously affected society, generally, that as a re- sult we find nations and individuals at one another’s throats. Isn’t that putting it rather strong? 16 Science Helps The Church Not if you look at things as they are right before our eyes. Reflect for a moment on how the country is overrun by gangsters, racketeers, forgers, perjur- ers, arson-rings, murder-rings, vile literature, vice panderers, open indecency, etc., etc. Vice no longer hides its head. Cruelty, injustice and disregard of authority abound. Is not this the law of the jungle where might is right and cunning replaces justice? Do you attribute that condition of morality to evolution ? Not directly, perhaps, but surely as a logical con- sequence. And this consequence manifests itself in nations as well as among individuals. Never among civilized people was there such disregard for solemn treaties and national justice. Never among civilized people was might enthroned instead of right, as it is now before our very eyes. What is this but the law of the jungle, the worship of brute strength ? You certainly make a strong point against prevail- ing morality. Yes, and thoughtful people are beginning to realize it, as we see by the various means now being em- ployed to stem the torrent of vice which is rushing so many to ruin. I see now that Materialistic evolution, logically carried out, has dreadful consequences. I am de- sirous, however, of knowing why this evolution is not sound from the scientific standpoint. You said that it was opposed to science as well as re- The Church Favors Science 17 ligion. May I ask you to demonstrate this asser- tion? Materialistic evolution is opposed to science on two fundamental grounds : first, it denies an intelligent First Cause of the universe; and second, it fails to support its claims by evidence. With regard to the first point let me refer you to the treatise on God* wherein it is proved that the law and order of the universe postulate a designer and lawgiver. A de- signer and lawgiver must be an intelligent being, hence it is scientifically established that the origin of the universe is an intelligent Being, a Personal God. Now for the second point, that evolution fails to pre- sent proof for its claims. We must bear in mind that evolution is a theory only. Like every theory it is a supposition or specu- lation until it is confirmed by evidence. A proof that it is a theory only, is that it is constantly changing. A fact never changes. Evolution has gone through three major changes and is still in the process of changing. Darwinism was the first theory. It was almost uni- versally acclaimed. Now it is rejected by the highest scientific authorities. Listen to Virchow, one of the greatest modern anthropologists: “A hypothesis may be discussed, but its significance can be estab- lished only by producing actual proofs in its favor. This, Darwinism has not succeeded in doing. In *Confer: Have You a God f The Scott Series of Pamphlets, No. I. 18 Science Helps The Church vain have its adherents sought for connecting links which should connect man with the monkey. Not a single one has been found.” (Address to the Twenti- eth Century Congress of the German Anthropologi- cal Association.) That is news to me. I had the idea from hearing university lecturers and science professors that no one with pretense to learning could doubt of evo- lution’s basic claims. There are always persons who follow in the wake of an intellectual movement and who persist in it after it is discredited. They echo the opinions of others long after those others who are real scientists have rejected their views. As evidence that not only Darwinism but evolution itself is now being discarded by the great scientists let me give you the statement of Professor Paul Kammerer of the University of Vienna, an eminent authority on this subject : “The theory of evolution at the present time is pointing in a new direction. Celebrated biologists like Kurt Herbst of Heidel- berg, and William Bateson of Cambridge, openly deride the concept of evoluton in their lectures.” ( Literary Review, February 24, 1924.) Despite the fact that authoritative scientists declare that evolution is a theory only, many modern edu- cators take for granted that it is an established fact. That evolution is far from a fact, I shall now pro- ceed to show. The Church Favors Science 19 And I am all attention, for what I have chiefly wanted is scientific grounds why the opponents of evolution reject it. The essential postulate of evolution is a change of species. Unless a former species of plant or animal life has naturally developed into a distinctly differ- ent species, evolution is not a fact. It is important to know just what is meant by species. A species is a group of living beings having a common inheritable type, with no major difference among themselves, and capable of surviving and propagating indefi- nitely in the natural state. So far, there is no evi- dence to show that one species has ever naturally de- veloped into another. I notice that you lay stress on naturally. Yes, for it is not evolution when by artificial means variations are developed in a species, as for example with regard to size, color and other variations of fruit or flowers. Variations do not change a species. Man is man whether he be white, black or yellow, tall or short, handsome or ugly, savage or civilized. Neither is evolution growth. An acorn, for example, develops into the majestic oak; an infant into a man; a caterpillar into a butterfly; a tadpole into a frog. Growth is one thing, a change from one species into another is something altogether different. I understand that scientists claim that they have evidence for the transition of one species into an- other. 20 Science Helps The Church Yes, they claim, but without furnishing the evidence. They have long been looking for that missing link to show the transition of one species into another, but the link is still missing. This fact is now so evi- dent that during this very year (November, 1940) a new theory has been put forward which would not necessitate a missing link. This latest theory is open admission that no evidence has been found to show a connection between a present and former species. How about the exhibit in the New York Museum of Natural History, showing the various stages of man’s evolution from the brute to present civil- ized man? That exhibit is truly a caricature of science. It is nothing more than wishful thinking. It has been termed by anthropologists a crime on biology. The best that can be said of it is that it is a splendid tribute to human imagination. Yet the so-called caveman is taken for granted by many persons on the strength of such and similar evidence. Does this mean that you absolutely deny the theory of evolution? By no means. All that the Church denies is that up to the present there is no sufficient scientific evidence to support the theory. Christians hold that if evolu- tion should be a fact it owes its origin and process to an intelligent First Cause, the Creator, God. This is termed Theistic evolution. It is not opposed in principle to Divine Revelation, provided it does not The Church Favors Science 21 include the human soul. The soul being a spiritual substance cannot evolve from matter* As evidence that the Church is not opposed to evolution itself, but only to the materialistic theory of it, there are distinguished Catholic scientists who hold the possi- bility of evolution and devote their time and energy to research and experimentation regarding it. Materialistic evolution, however, is absolutely op- posed to both religion and science, for it holds that everything owes its origin to matter only, and that God has no place in the universe. Evolution as gen- erally taught and understood is materialistic. Of course, if you eliminate God from creation you are a law to yourself, or rather you are a mere bundle of physical and chemical elements which absolutely de- determine your actions and conduct. Is that what is meant by determinism ? Yes. By this doctrine a man is an automaton. He has no will power, no immortal soul, no responsibil- ity except what is occasioned by social codes. By that system, I don’t see why a gangster should be regarded as a criminal. A gangster, by the doctrine of determinism is logi- cally not a criminal since he is not responsible for his conduct; nevertheless, society must protect itself, and so it punishes offenses against its code. If a person is not responsible, is it not unreason- able to punish him for his deeds? *Confr.r: Prove There’s a Soul! The Scott Series of Pamphlets, No. II. 22 Science Helps The Church Erroneous doctrine is always unreasonable. The very persons who profess determinism are the first to demand punishment of the criminal. I understand that determinism is now taught in many of our colleges and universities. How is it possible that learned men can hold such an un- reasonable doctrine. You’ll have to ask them. The fact of the matter is that there is no intellectual fad too crazy to find ad- herents from the ranks of so-called intellectuals. Determinism affords its adherents the comfort of doing as they please without any responsibility ex- cept to social codes. Perhaps this doctrine accounts for the dominance of crime in the world today. If people need have regard only to avoiding detection and being pun- ished by society it opens the way to every form of vicious procedure. You have struck the nail on the head. Never before in the history of the world was education so general as at present ; nevertheless, crime was never so ram- pant. Evolution has proclaimed that man is only a high-grade animal. No wonder, therefore, that so many persons act as animals without the guidance and restraint of animal instinct. Force and cunning are the logical code of those who believe that they have monkey ancestry. I understand, therefore, that you hold Material- istic evolution to be against reason as well as re- ligion. The Church Favors Science 23 Yes. Theistic evolution, provided it exclude the soul of man, as a scientific theory, is not opposed to rea- son or Revelation. I emphasize scientific theory be- cause such a theory postulates evidence in its sup- port. Physical science deals only with data percepti- ble by the senses. We have no such data of the origin of species. Sir Oliver Lodge said: Science knows nothing about the first cause of things. ( Literary Review, February 23, 1924.) How then can some evolutionists affirm that matter is the origin of everything? Since they have no data they can only speculate. But even their speculation results in error in this case, because they infer that intelligent action can come from a non-intelligent agent. When scien- tists leave the field of observation for that of specu- lation, they are very apt to go astray. Yet they dog- matize as if they were infallible. I infer from all you have said that the Church ad- mits the possibility of Theistic evolution but not its reality. Yes. As a theory only, Theistic evolution may possi- bly be true, and if it should be proved a fact it would not be opposed to Christianity. Lest it be thought, however, that modern scientists are a unit in favor of evolution, here are some distinguished scientists who deny that it is a fact : Fabre, the greatest mod- ern naturalist ; Loeb, expert biologist of the Rocke- feller Institute; Milliken, one of the most eminent physicists of today ; Burroughs, the famous natural- ist—these and many other scientists have denied that 24 Science Helps The Church evolution is a fact. Others, among them Alexis Car- rel, of the Rockefeller Foundation and Professor Henderson of Harvard, and Professor Richet of the University of Paris, deny that there is evidence for the evolution of man. Yet despite these authori- ties, not a few of our colleges teach authoritatively that man is descended from the brute. The most progressive scientists are at present in accord with the Church in the matter of evolution. Whenever you hear that the Church is opposed to science, you may be sure that either the Church is misrepresented or that the science in question is pseudo-science. The Church rightly understood and science that is truly such will never be at variance. The next pamphlet in this series discusses the Papacy : The Church and the Pope FATHER SCOTT'S BOOKS The present series of pamphlets will awaken the desire to search further into these vital questions. We recommend the following books, all by Father Scott: Why Catholics Believe $0.35 Christ's Own Church .35 Religious Certainty .35 The Church and the World 35 Happiness (Cloth Binding) 2.00 Jesus as Men Saw Him (Cloth Binding) 2.00 Introduction to Catholicism 35 Things Catholics Are Asked About 35 Religion and Common Sense 35 Christ or Chaos .35 Credentials of Christianity 35 God and Myself 35 The Hand of God 35 You and Yours 35 Convent Life 35 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. .35 The Virgin Birth (Cloth Binding) 2.00 THE AMERICA PRESS NEW YORK. N. Y.53 PARK PLACE FATHER SCOTT PRESENTS A NEW SERIES OF TEN DYNAMIC PAMPHLETS No. I HAVE YOU A GOD? WHAT IS HE LIKE? No. 2 PROVES THERE’S A SOUL THAT WILL LIVE FOREVER! No. 3 MATTHEW MARK LUKE JOHN WERE THEY FOOLED? DID THEY LIE? No. 4 THEY SAID HE BLASPHEMED HE SAID HE WAS THE SON OF GOD WHAT SAY YOU OF JESUS CHRIST? No. 5 HUNDREDS OF CHURCHES BUT ONLY ONE IS CHRIST'S No. 6 SCIENCE HELPS THE CHURCH THE CHURCH FAVORS SCIENCE Other titles to be announced later 15 for $1.00 50 for $2.50—100 for $4.00 1,000 for $30.00 Postage extra on bulk orders Single copy 10 cents THE AMERICA PRESS 53 PARK PLACE NEW YORK, N. Y.