Evolution
and Religion

ft

'fTSSVn-

Facing the Facts

By REV. JOHN A. OBRIEN, Ph.D.

THE PAULIST PRESS
401 West 59th Street



<o»

Charles H. Metcalf,

Censor Librorum.

Imprimatur:

J H. SCHLARMAN,

Bishop of Peoria.

Peoria
,
December 26, 1930.

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED IN THE U. S. A.

BY THE PAULIST PRESS, NEW YORK, N. Y.

DeaOMWid



Evolution and Religion

qA Genetic Study in Contemporary Religious Thought

By Rev. John A. O’Brien, Ph.D.

Chaplain of the Catholic Students at the University of Illinois

“By identifying the new learning with heresy, you
make orthodoxy synonymous with ignorance —Erasmus.

NO
thoughtful person who is alive to the stirring of

contemporary thought can deny that there exists

in the minds of many sincere people the lurking sus-

picion of a latent antagonism between the findings of

modern science and the content of Biblical revelation.

Like certain trouble zones in the Balkan states where

the smoldering fires of racial animosity burst period-

ically into flame, so this viewpoint maintains, there

are certain areas along the border line of science and

religion where the antagonism flares occasionally into

open warfare. The efforts that were made in recent

years in several southern states to enact legislation to

prohibit the teaching of evolution in the public schools

point clearly, it would seem, to one area where the

conflict has been unmistakable. The fact that A. D.

White’s History of the Warfare between Science and

Theology has passed through at least fifteen editions,

is grim evidence of the widespread character of this

impression of conflict.

The trouble zone that has been the scene of most

the Facts



2 Evolution and Religion

of the fighting since 1859 when Darwin published his

epochal work, The Origin of Species, has been that of

evolution. The findings of comparative anatomy, ge-

netics, embryology, taxonomy, serology, and paleon-

tology point to the progressive ascent of life on this

planet from the lowest and simplest forms to the

highest and most complex, reaching up to and includ-

ing man. Science tells us that millions of years were

required for the development of the various species of

plant and animal life, and that the antiquity of the

human race itself is greater by hundreds of thousands

of years than the brief span of six thousand years

which was generally accepted up to seventy-five years

ago.

In other words the curtain has been lifted some-

what upon the prehistoric past, and there is gradually

filtering through into the mind of the man in the

street the concept that all forms of life upon the earth

trace their roots far back to preexisting organisms

which have evolved slowly through the ages in re-

sponse to the play of inner forces and of changing

external environment. The world of living organisms

is thus seen to be dynamic, eternally changing instead

of being static, with form, structure and function re-

maining forever fixed and constant, as was formerly

imagined. The species of plants and animals that

now exist were not created directly and immediately

by God, but are the results of progressive evolution

from simple rudimentary organisms through many

millions of years.

A New Outlook

These new findings of modern science concerning

the approximate antiquity of the earth and of life

upon it, including human life, and of the factors in-

fluencing their development are undoubtedly effect-



Evolution and Religion 3

ing profound changes in the Weltanschauung or

world view of millions of educated people at the pres-

ent day. But is there a single finding of modern sci-

ence concerning evolution which undermines any of

the foundations of the Christian religion, or lessens

the need for a Supreme Intelligence behind all the

processes of nature and of the universe? Is the truth-

ful character of Biblical revelation brought into ques-

tion by the findings of evolution? Does evolution pos-

sess intelligence and does it act as a causal agency or

is it merely a method, a process whereby a Supreme

Intelligence—acting in conformity with laws which
He has established and infused into the very nature

of the physical universe and of organic life—has
guided the development of all botanical and zoological

life upon the planet to higher and more perfect ad-

justments, and therefore to a richer and fuller life?

These are questions which are agitating the minds

of millions of thoughtful people today. Alike un-

willing to discard the most treasured teachings of the

Christian religion, and to ignore the unmistakable

findings of modern science, they are anxious to effect

a rational and not a merely emotional harmonization

of their religious faith with their scientific creed.

Such a concordat can be effected not by ignoring the

evidence on one side and focusing the attention on

the other side but only by frankly facing all the evi-

dence and following it to its logical conclusions. It

is becoming increasingly apparent that undisturbed

acquiescence in one’s religious faith is not to be se-

cured by constantly seeking to minimize the force of

the clearly established facts of evolution, much less

by denying them outright. Back in the sixteenth cen-

tury Erasmus significantly observed: “By identifying

the new learning with heresy, you make orthodoxy

synonymous with ignorance.” The observation of



4 Evolution and Religion

Erasmus applies with equal force to our day and to

the new body of knowledge furnished by the various

evolutionary sciences already mentioned.

“The real enemies of the Christian faith,” says a

profound student of contemporary religious life, “are

not the evolutionary biologists; it is those who in-

sist on setting up artificial adhesions between Chris-

tianity and out-grown scientific opinions and proclaim

that we cannot have the one without the other.”

Most of the controversy on this subject in the past

has been characterized by a strong partisan bias with

much questioning of the motives of opponents and

with a pronounced tendency to ridicule and disparage

the evidence cited. The controversies have usually

yielded more heat than light because the impartial ob-

jective attitude was lacking and the writer too often

sought to make his case by riding roughshod over the

evidence, either ignoring it or holding it up to ridicule.

It will be the endeavor in this discussion not to blink

the facts, but to look them fairly in the face and to

appraise them at their true value. In determining

whether a principle of science has been definitely es-

tablished or is merely a conjecture or an hypothesis,

the verdict of men of science who are speaking within

their own domain will be given more weight than the

word of theologians, while in matters of scriptural

exegesis and in those questions which lie in the prov-

ince of the philosophy of religion, the opinion of

scholars specially trained in these fields will be

weighed accordingly. It is thought also that it will

conduce greatly to the clarification of the discussion

if a sharp line of demarcation is drawn between the

scientific facts cited and the philosophical interpreta-

tion of these facts which is so often given by the scien-

tist. In this way we will know at least where science

ends and philosophy begins.



Evolution and Religion 5

The Meaning of Evolution

The fundamental meaning of evolution is that

there has been a development from simple rudimen-

tary organic life to higher and more complex forms.

Functions which were originally performed by a sin-

gle protoplasmic cell are now discharged by separate

organs highly specialized for that specific task. Thus

an amoeba, a unicellular organism that floats about in

a drop of water, so infinitesimally small as to be in-

visible to the naked eye, manages with its one cell to

assimilate food and to propagate its kind though it

is completely lacking the special organs which are

usually associated with such functions. Evolution

represents a progressive march upwards from simple,

rudimentary, homogeneous organisms to higher, com-

plex, heterogeneous organisms with specialized or-

gans for different functions. That, in brief outline,

is the general picture of evolution.

Darwinism which is generally associated in the

mind of the layman as synonymous with evolution is

used by the scientist to describe the particular causal

agency advanced by Darwin to explain evolution,

namely, natural selection leading to the survival of the

fittest. While the majority of scientists today no

longer admit the sufficiency of natural selection alone

to explain evolution, and may be said therefore to
have discarded Darwinism, there is probably no scien-

tist of repute in the world today who does not admit

the fact of evolution in the sense of a progressive de-

velopment to higher and more complex forms of life.

Evolution cannot be demonstrated in the same

manner as a principle of mathematics or a theorem of

geometry. It is arrived at inferentially as a result of

the observation of a great number of facts scattered

over many fields. It gives unity and significance to



6 Evolution and Religion

data in such widely different fields as paleontology,

embryology, comparative anatomy and biology, which

otherwise would be incoherent and meaningless. As

most of the evidence relates to changes in the remote

past, it must by its very nature be indirect and largely

circumstantial since no living eyewitness was present

to note the happenings, and no documents were then

written in human language. Corroborative evidence

is gleaned from changes which are occurring in living

species within our own day, but most of the data must

be dug from the strata of the rocks in the form of the

fossil remains of plants and animals.

Evidence from Paleontology

Paleontology, which probably offers the strongest

evidence for evolution, has clearly established the ex-

istence of a gradual progression from simple rudimen-

tary organisms to higher and more complex forms as

one advances from lower to higher strata of rock.

The evidence indicates that higher structures of ani-

mal life, such for example as the vertebrates—animals
having a backbone—did not exist during the early
stages of animal life but made their appearance only

at a comparatively recent date.

Old estimates as to the age of the earth and of life

upon it must be revised radically in the light of re-

cent scientific evidence. According to the most recent

computations based on the rate of radium emanation,

a period of approximately 1,000,000,000 years has

elapsed since the earth attained its present diameter.

Estimates concerning the length of time that has

elapsed since life first appeared upon the globe range

from 50,000,000 years upwards to approximately ten

times that figure. These are, of course, only estimates

but they represent the general drift of scientific



Evolution and Religion 7

thought on the subject, and the writer sees no reason

for constantly seeking to minimize them. The age of

the earth and of life upon it, no matter what antiquity

be imputed to both, does not disturb any principle of

the Christian faith or of the Biblical revelation when

the latter is properly understood. This reference to

the age of the earth and of life upon it is made to show

that geology offers abundant time for the slow grad-

ual transition to constantly increasing higher forms

of which the paleontologist finds a written record, and

for each step of which he postulates vast periods of

geological time.

Evidence from Comparative Anatomy

Comparative anatomy reveals that in the animal

kingdom there are several distinct main types of

architecture, each of which characterizes one of the

main divisions of the kingdom. “Within each of these

great assemblages of animals characterized by a com-

mon plan of organization,” says Professor H. H. New-

man, Professor of Zoology at the University of Chi-

cago, “there are almost innumerable structural diver-

sities within the scope of the fundamental plan.

These major or minor departures from the ideally

generalized condition remind one of the variations

upon a theme in music: no matter how elaborate the

variation may be, the skilled musician recognizes the

common theme running through it all. This funda-

mental unity amidst minor diversity of form or of

function is looked upon as a common inheritance

from a more or less remote ancestor. In animals be-

longing to the same group and therefore having the

same general plan of organization we find many or-

gans having the same embryonic origin and the same

general relation to other structure, but with vastly



8 Evolution and Religion

different superficial appearance and playing quite di-

verse functional roles.’’ 1

Vestigial structures which are found both in ani-

mals and in man point significantly to an ancestor-

ship in which these were functional and useful. They

are meaningless and incoherent except on the assump-

tion of evolution. Few laymen realize how numerous

these lingering echoes of a remote past are in the body

of man. According to Widersheim there are “no less

than 180 vestigal structures in the human body, suf-

ficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum

of antiquities. Among these are :—the vermiform ap-
pendix; the abbreviated tail with its set of caudal

muscles; a complicated set of muscles homologous

with those employed by other animals for moving

their ears, but practically functionless in all but a

very few men; a complete equipment of scalp muscles,

used by other animals for erecting the hair but of

very doubtful utility in man even in the rare instances

when they function voluntarily; gill slits in the em-

bryo, the homologues of which are used in aquatic

respiration; miniature third eyelids (nictitating mem-

branes), functional in all reptiles and birds, greatly

reduced or vestigial in all mammals; the lanugo, a

complete coating of embryonic down or hair, which

disappears long before birth and can hardly serve any

useful function while it lasts. These and numerous

other structures of the same sort can be reasonably

interpreted as evidence that man has descended from

ancestors in which these organs were functional.

Man has never completely lost these characters; he

continues to inherit them though he no longer has

any use for them. Heredity is stubborn and tena-

cious, clinging persistently to vestiges of all that the

iH. H. Newman, Chapter on Animal Evolution in Contributions of

Science to Religion. Edited by S. Mathews. Appleton, N. Y., 1927,

p. 176.



Evolution and Religion 9

race has once possessed, though chiefly concerned in

bringing to perfection the more recent adaptive fea-

tures of the race.” 2

Evidence from Embryology

Embryology is the science which studies the vari-

ous stages through which the fetus passes in its de-

velopment from a single celled fertilized ovum to its

appearance at birth. Students of this science have

long noted that closely related adult species keep step

most of the way through their ontogenies and diverge

only toward the end of their courses. On the other

hand distantly related species diverge early in their

developmental paths, while unrelated forms usually

have little or nothing in common from the beginning.

In the embryonic development of members of the

higher species, a sort of rough repetition of the char-

acteristic features of many lower groups has been

noted. This has been embodied in the so-called bio-

genetic law : ontogeny is a recapitulation of phylogeny.

In less technical language this means that the differ-

ent stages in the development of the individual reflect

in a dim vestigial manner some of the principal an-

cestral forms from which the species is descended,

the earliest embryonic stages resembling the most re-

mote ancestors and the later stages being like the

more recent ancestors. Professor H. H. Newman

phrases it thus: “The developmental history of the

individual may be regarded as an abbreviated resume

of its ancestral history.”

There is no denying that there are many gaps and

ragged edges in the evidence on which the so-called

biogenetic law is based. Probably the most that can

be said for the embryological evidence is that it is sug-

gestive in a general way and not demonstrative of

2Ibid., p. 179.



10 Evolution and Religion

ancestral relationships. It is to be observed, however,

that the resemblances noted have no meaning or co-

herence save on the postulate of an evolutionary past.

“The embryology of man,” says Professor New-

man, “is now pretty thoroughly known in spite of the

great difficulty of obtaining the early stages. Step for

step it is almost precisely like that of other primates,

especially like that of the anthropoids, and it is only

in the latest stages that it takes on distinctly human

characteristics. This is not equivalent to saying that

the expert embryologist is in any doubt as to the diag-

nosis of a human embryo no matter how early the

stage, for there are specific features about all embryos

from the egg stage on to the end of development that

may be distinguished by any one sufficiently versed in

the subject. In spite of these specific differences,

however, there can be no question that the embryol-

ogy of man and that of any of the anthropoid apes

show the closest of resemblances at every stage and

diverge sharply only in the late stages of prenatal life.

So close a resemblance in developmental histories is

found only in species that are members of the same

ancestral stock, for they have both inherited the char-

acteristic features of their development from their

common ancestors.” 3

The Fossil Pedigree of Man

Opponents of evolution often refer to it derisively

as “the monkey theory” of man’s descent. But no

scientist of repute in the world today maintains that

man is a lineal descendant from the monkey, the ape,

the gorilla or the chimpanzee. “Setting entirely aside

these abandoned ape-monkey hypotheses of descent,” 4

says Professor H. F. Osborn of Columbia University

zlbid., p. 193.

4H. F. Osborn, Evolution and Religion in Education. Scribner’s,

N. Y., 1926, p. 143.



Evolution and Religion 11

and the former President of the American Association

for the Advancement of Science, “modern anatomy,

anthropology, and paleontology are demonstrating in

the most irrefutable manner that man has a long and

independent line of family ascent of his own reaching

far back to the Age of Man through the Pleistocene,

Pliocene, and even Miocene epochs into Upper Oli-

gocene time, a geologic period estimated not in hun-

dreds of thousands but in millions of years/’

Professor Osborn summarizes the following as

“the outstanding irrefutable facts” concerning the

geologic antiquity of man: “First, that man with a

human form and human attributes has been on the

earth over 500,000 years, according to the least esti-

mates of geologic time. Second, that man belongs to

a family of his own, called the Hominidae, which has

a history entirely independent of all other families

for an incalculable period of time—two and a half
millions of years at the least geologic estimate. Third,

that this human and prehuman family, composed of

the existing and prehistoric races of man, has from

the first divided into many branches more or less

rapidly progressive and intelligent. Fourth, that we

have indisputable records of the early dispersal of

these branches in central, southern, and eastern Asia,

in all except the northern parts of Europe, in the Brit-

ish Isles. Fifth, that our present knowledge both of

the anatomical characters and of the cultural unity of

even the earliest known branches of the human race

points to descent from a single geologically remote

human stock, the blood and heritage from which con-

stitute a prehistoric brotherhood of man. Sixth, that

convincing evidence of these outstanding facts of early

human history rests, first, on the indestructible flint

and stone industry interpreted; second, upon abso-

lutely consistent anatomical evidence clearly inter-



12 Evolution and Religion

preted by four generations of expert and conscientious

observers drawn from the ranks of laymen, of learned

professions, and of the clergy, especially of the Ro-

man Catholic Church.” 5

While the fossil remains relating to prehistoric

man and to the alleged transitional forms through
which man emerged from animal ancestors have re-
ceived divergent interpretations at the hands of vari-

ous scientists, this should not blind us to the fact that

there is practically unanimous agreement among them

that the evidence points clearly in the direction of

such a transition. There is disagreement as to the

interpretation of the details in the story but no sub-

stantial disagreement as to the general direction in

which the evidence points.

Additional evidence of the fact of evolution might

be drawn from: 1. taxonomy, the science of classifica-

tion; 2. serology, the science of blood tests; 3. geo-

graphic distribution, the study of the horizontal dis-

tribution of species upon the earth’s surface; 4. ge-

netics, the analytic and experimental study of evolu-

tionary processes going on today. It is thought, how-

ever, that the evidence which has been briefly outlined

from paleontology, comparative anatomy, and embry-

ology will be sufficient to indicate the chief lines of

converging data which have led scientists to regard

evolution no longer as a conjecture or a hypothesis,

but as a principle inferentially but validly established.

Evolution—Theory or Fact?

Anti-evolutionists are wont to point to disagree-

ments among scientific specialists as to the causo-

mechanics of evolution, thus seeking to give the im-

pression that there is widespread disagreement among

scientists themselves as to the fact of evolution. If

5Ibid., pp. 189, 190



Evolution and Religion 13

one will, however, read the works of the scientists in

question, he will find that practically without excep-

tion they are in general accord concerning the fact of

evolution. The discord concerns only the relative sig-

nificance to be attached to the various detailed factors

in the causo-mechanics of evolution. Such variety of

opinion among experts concerning the relative impor-

tance of various factors in bringing about a result

which is universally recognized is to be found in all

the natural sciences.

Professor Newman offers the following striking

parallel from embryology: “At the present time de-

scriptive embryology is a mature science. We have
detailed information as to the development of a large

number of different organisms from the egg to the

adult stages. Not only the fact of individual develop-

ment in general has been established and can be dem-

onstrated even to a child, but we have a great deal of

technical information as to the modes and mechanics

involved in growth and differentiation. In spite of all

this knowledge of observed phenomena, we are almost

totally in the dark as to the real causes underlying

development. We do not know anything about the
motive power of development nor why any particular

adult form is assumed. We are as yet unable to de-
termine just what role the environment plays in de-

velopment, nor yet the exact mechanism of heredity.

These and other technical difficulties have absolutely

no bearing on the plain facts of development. In ex-

actly the same way we are justified in claiming that

the fact of evolution is in no sense weakened because

advancing knowledge has revealed to us some elusive

and intricate features associated with the causo-

mechanical explanations of the facts .” 6

A prolific cause of misunderstanding among the

6H. H. Newman, Contributions of Science to Religion, p. 164.



14 Evolution and Religion

opponents of evolution has been the failure of many

of them to appreciate the two widely different senses

in which the term Darwinism is used at the present

time. As already pointed out, Darwinism is generally

regarded by the man in the street as synonymous with

the general theory of evolution, while to the scientific

specialist it signifies only the particular causal theory

which Darwin advanced to explain the origin of the

species, namely, the theory of Natural Selection. The

opinions of scientists as to the adequacy of this par-

ticular theory to explain in causal terms the phenom-

ena of evolution differ widely. There are almost as

many different opinions as there are scientists. Some

attach even greater importance to this theory than did

Darwin, others regard it as totally discredited, while

the majority range in between these two extremes. It

is a not uncommon practice of anti-evolutionists to

use a quotation from a scientist expressing strong dis-

agreement with Darwinism in its technical sense, to

convey the general impression to the popular mind

that scientists themselves are discarding evolution.

That this practice of anti-evolutionists has not

made a favorable impression among scientists either

as to their capacity for discernment or as to their in-

tellectual honesty is evident from the following ob-

servation of the distinguished scientist, H. H. New-

man: “Some of the leading opponents of evolution,

with what I am forced to believe amounts to disin-

genuousness, refuse to see that there is a sharp dis-

tinction between Darwinism used as a synonym for

the Principle of Evolution and Darwinism used in the

narrower technical sense as merely the mooted theory

of Natural Selection. Taking advantage of the dual

use of the term Darwinism they make the unqualified

claim that most of the leading evolutionists of the

present time have lost confidence in their theory, and



Evolution and Religion 15

are on the point of abandoning it. Unless they hold

that the end justifies the means, it is difficult to un-

derstand how honest men could allow themselves to

descend to so obvious a form of verbal trickery. The

plain truth of the matter is that never before in the

history of science has there been so nearly a unani-

mous acceptance of the Principle of Evolution and so

little consensus of opinion as to its causes/’ 7

The reaction of university students and of edu-

cated people generally to such polemical methods is

distinctly unfavorable to the anti-evolutionists. For

such people, knowing as they do, that the authorities

cited regard evolution as a thoroughly established

principle of natural science, though they disagree

among themselves about the causo-mechanical details

of the process, cannot fail to conclude that a case

which has to be bolstered up by such dialectical tac-

tics is a mighty weak one indeed. The reaction does

not stop with its unfavorable impression of such dis-

ingenuousness on the part of the opponents of evolu-

tion but generally extends to the cause they seek in

this misguided manner to advance, which is not in-

frequently the cause of religion itself. Instead of

helping religion they tend to bring it into discredit

among educated people.

The Answer of Scientists

Is evolution a theory or an established law of sci-

ence? Henry Fairfield Osborn, Professor at Colum-

bia University and one of the most eminent living au-

thorities in the world on evolution, who was honored

by his fellow scientists by being elected President of

the American Association for the Advancement of

Science for 1928 answers: 8 “No living naturalist, how-

ever, so far as I know, differs as to the immutable

7Ibid., p. 165.

8H. B. Osborn, Evolution and Religion in Education, pp. 29-33.



16 Evolution and Religion

truth of evolution in the sense of the continuous fit-

ness of plants and animals to their environment and

the ascent of all the extinct and existing forms of life,

including man, from an original and single cellular

state . . . Evolution is the most firmly established truth

in the natural universe” Speaking of the scientists

who are working in the fields contributing data on

evolution, Professor Newman states: “Certainly not
less than ninety-nine per cent of these accept the

broad principle of evolution and consider it to be ade-

quately established as a law of nature. The differ-

ences of opinion are not at all concerned with the fact

of evolution, but with a far more difficult and purely

technical matter, the exact causes and modes of evo-

lution.” 9

Professor Bateson of England is often quoted by

anti-evolutionists because of certain statements made

in the course of his address before the joint meeting

of the British and the American Associations for the

Advancement of Science at Toronto as having dis-

carded belief in evolution. Yet if one reads the ad-

dress he finds that the doubt was concerning the

causo-mechanics of the process and not at all con-

cerning the fact of evolution. The newspapers gave

great prominence to the doubt expressed, conveying

the impression that the doubt concerned the general

principle of evolution while they passed over in si-

lence the following significant statement made by

Professor Bateson after expressing the difficulties in

the causo-mechanics of the process which still remain

to be solved : “I have put before you very frankly the

considerations which have made us agnostic as to the

actual mode and processes of evolution. When such

confessions are made, the enemies of science see their

chance. If we cannot declare here and now how

9H. H. Newman, Contributions of Science to Religion, p. 164.



Evolution and Religion 17

species arose, they will obligingly offer us the solu-

tions with which obscurantism is satisfied. Let us

then proclaim in precise and unmistakable language

that our faith in evolution is unshaken. Every avail-

able line of argument converges on this inevitable

conclusion. The obscurantist has nothing to suggest

which is worth a moment’s attention. The difficulties

which weigh upon the professional biologist need not

trouble the layman. Our doubts are not as to the

reality of evolution but as to the origin of species, a

technical, almost domestic, problem. Any day that

mystery may be solved” 10

In the judgment of that eminent scientist, Edwin

G. Conklin, Professor of Zoology at Princeton Uni-

versity, the evidences of evolution “are so numerous

and come from so many sources that no intelligent

man can study them at first hand and not be im-

pressed with their importance. As a consequence

there is probably not a single biological investigator

in the world today who is not convinced of the truth

of evolution. The fact that these evidences accumu-

late year after year, often coming from fields which

Darwin and his contemporaries never dreamed of, is

still more convincing. I once heard Lord Kelvin, the

great physicist, say that any hypothesis or theory if

true should find new support continually as knowl-

edge advances. This is just what happened in the

case of evolution.

“The Hotspurs who demand that evolution be re-

enacted ‘while they wait’ should emulate the example

of Josh Billings who said that he had heard that a

toad would live 400 years; he was going to catch one

and see for himself! The evidences for the major

transformations in the evolution of man are not per-

sonal demonstrations since they do not fall within the

loConklin, Evolution and the Bible, p. 9. The American Institute

of Sacred Literature, Chicago, 1929.



18 Evolution and Religion

lifetime of a single individual, nor indeed within the

era of recorded history, but they are the same sort of

evidences as those for mountain-building, stream ero-

sion, glacial action or any other change involving long

periods of time.”
11

Perhaps the most authentic and impressive expres-

sion of the mind of scientists on this subject was that

which was given to the press of the nation during

Christmas week of 1922 by the Council of the Amer-

ican Association for the Advancement of Science

which was then holding its seventy-sixth meeting at

Boston. The Council sought to reflect the conviction

not only of the 2,000 scientists there assembled but

also of its total membership of 11,000. The state-

ment reads: “The council of the association affirms

that, so far as the scientific evidences of the evolution

of plants and animals and man are concerned, there

is no ground whatever for the assertion that these evi-

dences constitute a ‘mere guess.’ No scientific gen-

eralization is more strongly supported by thoroughly

tested evidences than is that of organic evolution.

“The council of the association affirms that the

evidences in favor of the evolution of man are suffi-

cient to convince every scientist of note in the world.

The evidences are increasing in number and impor-

tance every year.”

The writer is not aware that any member took ex-

ception to this statement as not reflecting accurately

and honestly the mind of the membership of the asso-

ciation. While similar expressions of scientific en-

dorsement could be presented almost indefinitely, the

ones already mentioned will suffice to show the reader

the answer which scientists give to the query: “Is evo-

lution a theory or an established principle or law of

science?”

lllbid., pp. 6, 9.



Evolution and Religion 19

Who is in a position to give a competent answer to
this question, a scientist on the one hand, or a phi-

losopher or theologian on the other? Since the mat-

ter is one which lies clearly in the domain of natural

science concerning which a Divine revelation has nev-

er been given, it is obviously within the jurisdiction

of the scientist. It is a question of fact. The scien-

tist proceeds by gathering data from every possible

source. He assembles *all the evidence, and carefully

examining it, says : Evolution alone enables us to un-

derstand all these multitudes of facts gathered from

many different fields of natural science; without it

they are meaningless and incoherent. Since it offers

the only satisfactory explanation of all these facts,

and is the only solution which at the present time has

any basis in factual evidence, we regard it as a well

established principle or law of nature.

That, after all, is all that any law of natural sci-

ence is—the explanation which best fits the known
facts. If new facts are discovered which do not agree

with the existing law, science proceeds to modify the

statement of the law until it fits all the known facts.

That is the character of the law of gravitation, the law

of motion, the law of the conservation of energy and

of all the other laws of natural science. They are all

established laws, only in the sense that they fit the

known facts. They are not established as metaphys-

ical laws in the sense that they are absolutely im-

mutable and beyond the possibility of modification

by the finding of new evidence from the physical sci-

ences. This then is the sense in which the scientist

maintains that evolution is an established law or prin-

ciple of natural science.

The spectacle of the philosopher or the theologian

invading the premises of natural science and under-

taking to lecture the scientist as to what is a theory



20 Evolution and Religion

and what is a law or principle of natural science, as

those terms are used by the scientist, is not calcu-

lated to impress favorably the impartial observer. It

is the case of a theorist unfamiliar with the concrete

realities essaying to combat a man armed with the

actual facts. Carlyle aptly describes the inevitable

result of such an encounter: “The man of theory

twangs his full-bent bow; nature’s fact ought to fall

stricken; but does not; his logic-arrow glances from

it as from a scaly dragon and the obstinate fact keeps

walking its way. How singular!”

The Warning of St. Augustine

Such encounters are not new but have been with

us throughout all history. Back in the fourth cen-

tury St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, scriptural schol-

ar and theologian that he was, cautioned his fellow

Christians against lecturing the naturalist on the phe-

nomena of nature: “It very often happens that there

is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the

other elements of this world—respecting which one
who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from

most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very

disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be

carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such

matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures,

should be heard by an unbeliever talking such non-

sense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide

from the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain

himself from laughing.”

“And the real evil is not that a man is subjected

to derision because of his error, but it is that to pro-

fane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred au-

thors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and

are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score

of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of



Evolution and Religion 21

people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these pro-

fane people happen upon a Christian busy in making

mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly;

how, then, will they believe these holy books? How
will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and

in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of

heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption,

these books seem to them to have as their object those

very things which they, the profane, know by direct

experience or by calculation which admits of no

doubt? It is impossible to say what vexation and sor-

row prudent Christians meet with through these pre-

sumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day

for their silly and false opinion, and realizing them'

selves on the point of being convicted by men who are

not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish

to defend their assertions so thoughtless, so bold, and

so manifestly false. For they then commence to

bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or

again they attribute to them from memory that which

seems to support their opinion, and they quote nu-

merous passages, understanding neither the texts they

quote, nor the subject about which they are making

statement.”12

Undoubtedly one of the greatest scholars in the

Catholic Church on the subject of evolution was the

late Canon Henry de Dorlodot, D.D., D.Sc .,13 Director

of the Geological Institute at Louvain University in

12De Genesi ad litteram, lib. I. cap. XIX.

i 3The writer acknowledges his indebtedness to Dr. Dorlodot for

sending him several lengthy communications explaining in greater

detail than in his published writings the basis of his interpretation

of evolution in the light of the data of modern science and Biblical

research. Written during the last three years of his life, his letters

give evidence of the most painstaking scholarship and reflect the re-

sult of a lifetime of scientific study of this question and of its phil-

osophical and religious implications. Dr. Dorlodot was quick to per-

ceive that evolution far from minimizing the expression of the Cre-

ator’s power, gave a grander and more exalted manifestation of it.



22 Evolution and Religion

Belgium, and Foreign Correspondent of the Geological

Society of London. In addition to being a geologist of

international reputation he achieved the distinction

of being recognized as an eminent Biblical scholar.

Dr. Dorlodot observes that the wise admonition of St.

Augustine just cited may be applied likewise to the

scriptural scholars of his own day who “oppose Dar-

winism in the name of religion, or seek to hinder

Catholics from professing it openly.” Pointing out

that religion is placed in an unfavorable light by peo-

ple who insist on regarding the principles of the

Christian religion as incompatible with evolution, he

says: “People usually content themselves with pious

wishes: ‘Be careful: at the very least, do not affirm

anything. Darwinism has done so much harm! It

has been so much exploited against religion! And

then there is the question of man!’

“We shall deal another time with this latter ques-

tion. But why, then, has it been possible to exploit

Darwinism so successfully against religion, if not be-

cause there have not been lacking Catholic authors

who have compromised the Christian religion in false-

ly representing it as irreconcilable with scientific theo-

ries? And why has Darwinism kept certain scholars

away from religion, if not because, seeing clearly

themselves the truth of these theories, they have not

even dreamt of studying the foundations of a reli-

gion which was made to appear to them as hostile to

what they know to be the truth? In speaking in this

way, I have before my eyes concrete instances, and I
could also mention cases of scholars, and great ones

at that, who have become converts because we our-

selves have never been willing to listen to these timid

recommendations.”14

14H. de Dorlodot, Darwinism and Catholic Thought, Benzlger

Brothers, 1922, p. 62.



Evolution and Religion 23

Dorlodot’s Praise of Darwin

It is cause for rejoicing that the Catholic Univer-

sity of Louvain did not follow the cautions of such

timid people who would make rejection of scientific

truth the necessary condition for membership in the

Christian faith, but followed the wise counsel of Leo

XIII of “welcoming every wise thought and every use-

ful discovery, whatever its origin may have been,”

and sent Dr. Dorlodot as the official representative of

the University to the Darwinian Centenary at Cam-

bridge University in 1909. On that occasion Dr. Dor-

lodot, in behalf of Louvain University paid the follow-

ing notable tribute to the great contribution of Dar-

win : “It is no exaggeration to say that, in showing us

a creation more grandiose than we had ever suspected

it, Charles Darwin completed the work of Isaac New-

ton; because, for all those whose ears are not incapable

of hearing, Darwin was the interpreter of the organic

world; just as Newton was the voice from heaven

come to tell us of the glory of the Creator, and to pro-

claim that the universe is a work truly worthy of His

hand. And of these two illustrious interpreters of

nature, who were nurtured by your glorious univer-

sity, it is permissible to say with the psalmist

:

“
‘There is no speech nor language, where their

voice is not heard.
“
‘Their line is gone out through all the earth, and

their words to the end of the world.’
”



24 Evolution and Religion

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Coulter, J. M., and Coulter, M. C., Where Evolution and Re-

ligion Meet, Macmillan Co., New York, 1926.

Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species, and the Descent

of Man, Collier & Son, New York, 1901.

Dorlodot, Canon Henry, Darwinism and Catholic Thought,

Benziger Bros., New York, 1922.

Dwight, Thomas, Thoughts of a Catholic Anatomist, Long-

mans, Green & Co., New York, 1912.

Haeckel, Ernst, Last Words on Evolution, Peter Eckler, 35

Fulton Street, New York, 1905.

Husslein, Joseph, S.J., Evolution and Social Progress, P. J.

Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1920.

Lane, H. H., Evolution and Christian Faith, Princeton Uni-

versity Press, Princeton, 1923.

Le Conte, Joseph, Evolution and its Relation to Religious

Thought, D. Appleton & Co., New York, 1911.

More, Louis T., The Dogma of Evolution, Princeton Uni-
versity Press, Princeton, 1925.

Millikan, Robert A., Evolution in Science and Religion,

Yale University Press, New Haven, 1927.

Newman, H. H., in Contributions of Science to Religion,

edited by S. Mathews. D. Appleton & Co., New York,
1927.

Osborn, Henry Fairfield, Evolution and Religion in Edu-

cation, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1926.

Thomson, J. Arthur, Science and Religion, Charles Scrib-

ner’s Sons, New York, 1925.

Wallace, Alfred Russell, The World of Life, Moffat, Yard

& Co., New York, 1911.

Wasmann, Erich, S.J., Modern Biology and the Theory of
Evolution, B. Herder & Co., St. Louis, Mo.

Zahm, J. A., C.S.C., Evolution and Dogma, D. H. McBride

& Co., Chicago, 1896.



1

Europe
AND THE

Faith

By

HILAIRE BELLOC

•

$1.50

Published by

THE PAULIST PRESS

401 West 59th Street

New York. N. Y.

"FOR THOSE WHO REVERE
CANDOR IN HISTORY”

•

A brilliant student and original
thinker, Hilaire Belloc, in his

EUROPE AND THE FAITH out-
lines the nature of the Roman

Empire and of the Catholic

Church within the empire before

that civilization in its maturity

accepted the Faith: lays before

the reader the transformation and

material decline which has erro-

neously been called “The Fall” of

the Roman Empire
;

presents a

picture of what society must

have seemed to an onlooker just

after the crisis of that trans-

formation from Pagan to Chris*

tian times and proves how the

acceptation of the Faith pre-

served the Roman Empire when

in the fourth and fifth centuries

it was in peril of full decay. He

then carries one from the Dark

Ages to the Middle Ages through

the supreme test and temptation

of the fifteenth century showing

Ireland alone of those nations

which the Roman Empire had

not bred, preserving through the

Reformation, the continuity of

Christian tradition. His conclu-

sion is a startling one.