Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https://archive.org/details/creationevolutio00haub_1



Creation and Evolution

A Catholic Opinion on the

Evolution Theory

By ULRICH A. HAUBER, Ph.D.

Third Edition

New York

THE PAULIST PRESS
401 West 59th Street



Nihil Obstat:

A. J. Burke, S.T.D.,

Censor Librorum.

Imprimatur:

Ralph L*. Hayes,

Bishop of Davenport.

November 3, 1947.

Copyright, 1947
,
by

The Missionary Society of St. Paul the Apostle

in the State of New York

printed and published in the u. s. a.

BY THE PAULIST PRESS, NEW YORK 19
,
N. Y.



CREATION AND EVOLUTION
A Catholic Opinion on the Evolution

Theory

The Bible on Creation

1. The biblical account of creation was set down

in writing in its present form in the time of Moses.

During the long ages before writing was invented it

had undoubtedly been handed on from generation to

generation by word of mouth. The final form in which

it is preserved for us in the book of Genesis was deter-

mined in part by the peculiar mode of thought and the

rich genius of the ancient Hebrews, and in part it repre-

sents the final product of an age-long tradition. The

truths it portrays are eternal. They may be summar-

ized as follows:

2. “In the beginning God created heaven and earth,

and the earth was void and empty, and darkness was

upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved

over the waters.” God first made light, then He sepa-

rated the land from the waters, commanded the earth

to produce the green herb, set the stars, sun and moon

in the heavens, bade the waters bring forth the creeping

things and birds of the air, and finally at His command,

there appeared the cattle and the beasts of the field.

All this was the work of the one great God.

3. And lastly He said: “Let us make man to our

image and likeness; and let him have dominion over

the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the

beasts, and the whole earth . . . and God created man

to His Own image; to the image of God He created

him; male and female He created them . . . and the

Lord God made man of the slime of the earth; and

[ 3 ]



breathed into his face the breath of life, and man be-

came a living soul. ... And God saw all the things

that He had made, and they were very good.”

4. This is the substance. The language, in large

part figurative, in which these eternal truths are clothed,

can be understood only if we know something about the

circumstances that prevailed at the time Genesis was

written. The stage setting for the biblical drama is

well described by Father Zahm in the following lan-

guage: “The Hebrew people had lived among idolators

and were surrounded by people who gave divine wor-

ship to many of God’s creatures. Moses wished to

impress upon their minds that neither the sun, nor the

moon, nor the stars, neither any animal, nor the earth

which affords its nourishment, nor any of the elements,

are God, as was supposed by the Sabianism of the

Orient, especially of Chaldea; by the worship of animals

in Egypt; by the divine honors paid to the earth by the

Romans, Pelasgians, and Germans; and by the cult of

fire-worshipers of Greece and Persia. All these things,

the objects of the adoration of the heathen, are the

works of God. There is no power opposed to God

which is equal to Him. Neither is matter, as such,

according to the later opinion of the Platonists, the seat

of evil. Everything is the work of God, and every-

thing therefore is good.

“From the foregoing it is manifest that the prime

object of the Mosaic narrative, like that of all revela-

tion, was a religious one. ‘The Gospels,’ says St. Au-

gustine, ‘do not tell us that our Lord said, I will send

you the Holy Ghost to teach you the course of the sun

and the moon; we should endeavor to become Chris-

tians and not astronomers.’ So it is with the Mosaic

account of creation. Its purport is not to teach geol-

ogy, physics, zoology, or astronomy, but to affirm in

m



the most simple and direct manner the creative act of

God and His sovereignty over all creatures. Its object

is not to anticipate any of the truths of science or phi-

losophy, but to guard the chosen people of God against

the pernicious errors and idolatrous practices which

were then everywhere prevalent” (Zahm: Bible, Sci-

ence*, and Faith, p. 33).

The Bible Story and Evolution

5. “Again, God not only created the world out of

nothing, but He gave it its present form during a suc-

cession of epochs. According to Genesis, as well as

according to science, He first created primitive, nebu-

lous matter, and after a long, indefinite period of time

He fashioned from this matter ‘without form’ all the

myriad forms of the organic and inorganic worlds. And

according to Genesis as well as according to science,

the Creator proceeded from the simpler to the more

complex. He first created light, without which organic

development, as we know it, is impossible. He then

separated the earth from the waters of the ocean and

prepared it for the abode of terrestrial life. Plant life

precedes animal life in the scheme of creation, and the

waters of the deep are peopled before the dry land is

inhabited. In both the vegetable and animal kingdoms

the lower forms of life precede the higher. The cul-

mination of the work of creation was man, whose ap-

parition, according to both revelation and science, was

posterior to that of all other creatures” (ibid. p. 35).

6. These observations by Father Zahm, written

fifty years ago, sum up pretty thoroughly the rela-

tion between the Mosaic account of creation and the

theory of evolution. The purpose of the former is re-

ligious, of the latter scientific, and the two are readily

harmonized.



7. What is the theory of evolution? Let us lead up

to a definition by considering some of the facts.

Geological Facts

8. In the neighborhood of Davenport there are a

number of quarries and exposed bluffs. The rock is

limestone and it abounds in fossils. Anyone can make

a collection in an hour or two that will be fairly 'rep-

resentative. There are coral and crinoids, brachiopods

and mollusks, worms and trilobites, and occasionally

the tooth or spine of a fish.

The Age of Fishes

9. Show these fossils to any geologist anywhere in

the world and he will instantly remark “Devonian.”

He will tell you that this is very old rock. It was de-

posited ages ago, long before the time when, in other

regions, coal was formed. The animals of which these

fossils are evidence were quite different from any liv-

ing today. Fish were the highest forms of life in those

ancient days, and they were unlike modern fish. There

were no land animals.

The Age Before Fishes

10. But Devonian rocks .are not the oldest. In the

quarries near Dubuque and northward, there are simi-

lar fossiliferous exposures. But they are different, and

if you present a few specimens to your geologist he will

not hesitate in pronouncing them Ordovician or Cam-

brian. He will tell you there is no need of looking for

fish remains in that region. Fish are not found that

early in geologic history; this was the age of inverte-

brates.

The Age of Reptiles

11. He will tell you, moreover, that if you go to the

coal-bearing areas of southern Iowa and Illinois you

[61



may be lucky enough to find the bones of land verte-

brates, amphibians and reptiles, mingled with the car-

bonized tree trunks of giant ferns and calamites.

These deposits were laid down long after the age of

fishes, but, in spite of that, they, too, are very ancient.

No mammals or birds existed in that period; these

higher types appeared only after the lapse of further

immeasurable ages.

Arrival of the Mammals

12. Evidence of the existence of the warm-blooded,

milk-producing animals, the highest and latest forms

of animal life, may be found anywhere in the Middle

West in the surface gravel, in the form perhaps of a

mastodon tusk, or the bones of a camel or a giant

beaver. These mammalian types represent the last

comers on the scene before the arrival of man.

The Evolution Theory Is Based on

Scientific Facts

13. This cursory survey of some geological facts, all

made known in the last century and a half, helps

to give us the proper mental attitude for some reflec-

tions on the theory of evolution. There is no longer

room for doubt that the living things of the Cambrian

and Devonian and Carboniferous eras were the prede-

cessors of modern organisms; the theory of evolution

suggests that they were also their ancestors. The evi-

dence for this belief is taken from other fields of sci-

ence, from Comparative Anatomy, Embryology, Zooge-

ography. The geologist knows that the earth is very

old, that life has varied through ages, that old forms

have become extinct and new ones taken their place, and

he believes that the theory of descent is reasonable.

Embryologists add further testimony; and the geneti-

cists are slowly gathering evidence. That is the theory

m



of evolution. It does not explain all the facts, it seems

to run counter to some of them, but it is an eminently

reasonable theory concerning past conditions on our

earth, and serves as an admirable working hypothesis

for the biologist.

Early Opposition to the Theory

14. This theory was first definitely proposed by La-

marck in 1809, but the world of scientists at that time,

with few exceptions, refused to take the new sugges-

tions seriously. The evidence then was too meager.

Most people looked upon such ideas as dangerous be-

cause they were attempts to give a natural explanation

of what had always been considered the province of the

supernatural. Orthodox Protestants especially, for

whom the Bible was the only rule of faith and guide to

salvation, were severe in their condemnation of what

to them seemed an impious assault upon the Mosaic

account of creation. Catholics, on the whole, were

similarly fearful. Had they been thoroughly familiar

with their own scholastic philosophy, with the writings

of Augustine of the fourth century and of Aquinas of

the thirteenth, perhaps they might have had less diffi-

culty in harmonizing the new ideas with ancient tradi-

tion. But Churchmen are not scientists; they have a

higher and more important mission than the teaching

of science; whether or not evolution is true has nothing

to do with the salvation of souls; and when we consider

that for fifty years after Lamarck the theory of evo-

lution was in bad repute among the great majority

of scientists themselves, it is not to be wondered that

theologians, who are habitually conservative, should

take a stand with the older science rather than the new.

15. In 1859 Charles Darwin published his “Origin

of Species,” and the scientific world immediately

[«1



took notice. The fifty years between Lamarck and

Darwin had not been a period of scientific inactivity.

Geology had become a genuine science, the microscope

had revealed new wonders, plants and animals were

described and catalogued, life-histories were studied

in detail. Thousands of workers co-operated through-

out the civilized world. Darwin, indeed, had a pet

theory of his own to proposg but he stated facts in its

defense. Scientists began to be converted.

First' Enthusiasts See Contradiction Between New

Theory and Christianity

16. Now when men turn with enthusiasm to any

new idea there is danger that they may become obsessed

with it. So it was with the early evolutionists. Ernst

Haeckel, and others of his type, were so carried away

by the evolution idea that they thought to have done

away with the necessity of God, of free will, and of

immortality. Those who were inclined to use them

found they were in possession of new weapons against

the old church; “weapons that could be used with equal

force to discredit the theologian and to arouse the

imagination of the ignorant. This new theory com-

pelled the abandonment of age-long convictions, hith-

erto considered inseparably bound up with our most

cherished religious truths. If there is any truth in evo-

lution, then God did not make the world as we see it

today; it simply grew. Likewise, the world is more

than six thousand years old. Man was not formed from

the slime of the earth by the hand of God; he devel-

oped from it according to natural law. Language was

not given to man and miraculously confused at the

tower of Babel; it developed in natural fashion from

simple beginnings to the varied forms existing today.

Religion was not given to us from above; it was a

[ 0 ]



natural by-product of man’s developing mental life.”

17. Such was the argument. No wonder the new doc-

trines met with determined resistance. But the issues

were muddled. Men did not distinguish between the

natural and supernatural, between the world of reli-

gion and the world of science, between the essentials

and the non-essentials of Christian traditions.

Dangers of Evolutionary Philosophies

18. Undoubtedly many of the new scientists held a

dangerous philosophy. To do away with God, personal

responsibility, and the hope and fear of a hereafter, is

a terrible thing for the individual and for society. Men

give up their religion on very little provocation. Mod-

ern science and the theory of evolution are frequently

given as excuses. In the hands of an agnostic or athe-

istic teacher the theory is always dangerous. It draws

attention away from God and sets up in His place a

new god of natural law. This deity is less exacting, his

code of morals is easier, and above all he is a modern

and fashionable deity. Just how it is that men give

ear to the foolish insinuation that evolution explains

itself, that there is no purpose back of it all, that it is

all the result of an unknown and unknowable blind

force, is hard to understand; the fact is that many do

so.

19. The greatest harm done, however, is not to the

scientists themselves, even when these accept a thor-

oughly materialistic philosophy; because most of these

men are intellectuals who are so completely absorbed

in their work that they have no time or inclination to

yield to the temptations that such an outlook on life

may encourage. It is the less educated followers @f

the leaders who reap the logical fruit of a wrong funda-

mental philosophy. This was abundantly demonstrated

[101



in Nazi Germany where an unscrupulous group of

fanatics, who had been indoctrinated with a godless

philosophy for two generations or more, were finally

able to set at naught the discipline of centuries of

Christian moral teaching.

Gradual Acceptance of the Scientific Theory

20. But, while any system of godless philosophic

evolution is to be condemned, the genuinely scientific

theory of organic evolution should not be made to

suffer for that reason. As long as the theory of evo-

lution is confined to its proper sphere within the domain

of material science, it is harmless; more than that, it

holds the germ of important truths that sooner or later

compel the assent of all thinking men. And so today

nearly all scientific men have accepted the theory as

valid, at least in its general outlines. There is still

opposition, but it is due almost entirely to misunder-

standing. The theory that all things come to be what

they are through an age-long process of evolution rests

exclusively upon scientific evidence with which religion

is not concerned. As long as scientists restrict them-

selves to a discussion of material phenomena, the

Church is silent; Christ’s kingdom is not of this world.

But here lies the difficulty, to make the proper distinc-

tions; and it will be worth our while to discuss the

matter fully.

Science and Religion Differ in Point of View

21. A conflict between true science and genuine re-

ligion is impossible. Both aim at the truth and dis-

agreement can appear only when one or the other draws

a false conclusion. It is well to emphasize that science

deals with proximate and immediate causes of natural

events, religion goes to the ultimate source of natural

law.

[ill



22. The farmer plants a grain of corn. It is the sci-

entist’s task to learn what happens as that grain swells,

sprouts, grows to maturity, and ripens into new ears

of corn. He wants to know what forces send the leaf

up and roots down, what sort of pump is used to suck

the moisture from the soil, what kind of factory it is

that makes the starch and oil in the seed, what is the

exact function of the tassel and the silk. The theo-

logian, on the other hand, though he knows that there

are laws according to which plants grow, need under-

stand none of these details. He argues from laws to

the Lawgiver; he knows that a plant of corn is a won-

derful mechanism, and concludes that there must be a

mind that planned it, and that is the mind of God; he

states the fact that God makes corn grow. The scien-

tist, in his field, tells about the details of that growth,

he is concerned with the mechanism only, its structure

and its function. He may know nothing about God

and still be an excellent scientist. An atheist who de-

nies God as the ultimate source of natural law, may,

nevertheless, understand the proximate and immediate

causes of scientific phenomena.

Development Is a Method of Creation

23. Upon careful examination one finds that the

principles mentioned in regard to the farmer’s corn

apply equally well to the theory of evolution. The

theologian insists that God created all the different

forms of animal and plant life; the scientist claims to

know that they developed according to natural law.

Both views may be true; one states the important truth

that back of all development there are laws and a Law-

giver; the other attempts to investigate the details of

the laws.

[ 12 ]



24. Let us amplify for the sake of clearness this com-

parison between individual development and the theory

of evolution.

25. Among God’s most beautiful creatures are the

birds of the air. Without a doubt God made them.

Yet birds develop from eggs. An egg does not con-

tain a young bird; it possesses in some way the power

of developing into one. Until comparatively recent

times nothing was known about the nature of the life-

speck in the undeveloped egg or about the sequence of

events in its development. Then the modern biologist

turned his highly technical methods on the problem,

and today ponderous volumes are available giving all

the details that the microscope and critical experiment

can reveal. That is science. The very young chick in

the egg is merely a germ, in every way similar to the

microscopic protozoan that causes malaria or to the

yeast germ that lives on sugar and causes fermentation.

But it stays a germ only a few hours. During the first

day or two of incubation the young bird is actually

fish-like in form, swimming, so to speak, in the liquids

of the egg. Then it is transformed into a reptile-like

creature. Those of us who have seen a freshly hatched

robin, ugly and naked, can form some picture of what

development means. Again, let us repeat, it is such

details that science investigates. From the theologian’s

point of view they are the details of the process of crea-

tion, the formation of something higher and better out

of low and simple materials.

The Creator Is God

26.

Whence did the minute germ get its vital en-

ergy? Who laid down the plans and specifications for

bird-growth? The scientists cannot hope to answer

that question; the great Architect of the universe can-

r 13 l



not be revealed by the microscope or balance any more

than He can be seen with naked bodily eyes. The in-

vestigator studies the material elements of nature only,

things that have dimensions to be measured, mass to be

weighed, and color to be seen; if one wishes to go be-

yond that—and who does not? he must enter another
field of thought, that of philosophy and theology.

Christian Idea of God

27. From these “higher sciences,” by applying the

principles of logic to the data of observation, we learn

that there is a God Who made all things. He is the

great Builder, Whose methods of production are usually

those of slow development, methods that are peculiarly

His own. He is a personal God, His essence is mind

rather than matter. He is not a blind force, a cosmic

urge, eternal energy, or anything that can be described

by such names. He made the world with wisdom and

foresight, He knows all things, past, present, and fu-

ture. He is present everywhere, but not with a mate-

rial, ponderable presence, since He is a pure spirit. He

is a just and loving God. Catholics who are familiar

with the catchism have a correct, though of course, in-

complete concept of Him. And this God, all-powerful,

all-knowing, all-loving, cannot be left out of question

when one discusses the process of evolution in its en-

tirety; He initiated it, directs and guides it, He knows

whither it is leading.

A Study of Nature Should Lead to God

28. The scientist, as such, does not investigate God

himself; he tries to understand the things that God

has made, and to follow the processes that govern de-

velopment. Rightly conducted such studies must lead

to God. The mountains and the ocean, the sun and the

rain, plants and animals, are God’s creatures; and he

[ 14 ]



who considers them in a reverent mood cannot rest his

thoughts until they dwell on Him Who made them.

Yet, too often, intensive study of details renders the

mind unfit to think in terms of anything but matter

and force, atoms and electrons; men become impatient

with things they cannot investigate in the usual manner

and they call themselves atheists or at best agnostics.

Knowing as they do so many facts that the theologian

is not familiar with, they come to overemphasize the

importance of their information and to look with con-

tempt upon religion; this gives rise to what appears to

be a conflict between science and religion, whereas in

reality the two should be mutually helpful.

Organic Evolution Is a Scientific, not a Religious

Theory

29. The theory of evolution is fundamentally a sci-

entific theory and should not be permitted to invade

the domain of religious truth. But it is something en-

tirely new, vague and startling in its assertions, far-

reaching in its consequences. It has to do with the

origin of new species and in general with the geologic

history of life on our planet. Men had never heard of

such a science before; they had always thought that

the creation of new forms of plants and animals must

be a supernatural event ; and somehow they got the
idea

that the Bible allows only six thousand years for the

history of the world. When now the scientists began

to insist that our little world is very old, and that plant

and animal forms have undergone great changes in a

perfectly natural manner, it seemed as if the scientists

were invading the domain of the theologians. The

simple fact of the matter is that science moved so fast

that men found difficulty in adjusting themselves to the

new ideas.

US]



Evolution as God's Method of Creation

30. Let us suppose then, that the first plants and

animals were lowly in form, as scientists claim and as

Scripture suggests. Before there were any birds in the

air or beasts in the field, there existed fishes, and

crawling things in the water. Science has proven that

the age of the world is measured in eons, not in years,

and that a great variety of living things have inhabited

our giobe during this time. We have reason to suspect

that the later and higher forms are the descendants of

the earlier and simpler ones. There has been an evo-

lution, and it may be described as an age-long develop-

ment of plants and animals according to laws estab-

lished by the Creator, and from seed-like beginnings

that received their life from the same Creator. The

discovery of the many facts and their interpretation

which lead to such a conclusion is one of the glories of

modern science.

A Knowledge of Evolution Should Lead to God

31. Since it is not the province of the Bible to teach

science we find in it no mention of evolution; nor did

theologians a hundred years ago dream of any such

thing. It is truly something new. But far from up-

setting our notions of God and creation, it helps us to

understand these religious truths better. A contem-

plation of the immense lapse of time since the birth-

day of our earth gives us material for meditation on

the eternity of God. A spark of life that began in an

invisible speck of protoplasm ages ago and has man-

aged to live on until today, developing higher and

higher as time went by, cannot but fill us with admira-

tion for the power and foresight of the Creator of the

first living thing. It was He Who put into it all the

forces that have developed into our world of today.

[ 16 ]



There are those who insist that the theory has not been

proven. Granted; but should it ever be fully demon-

strated it will furnish material for spiritual meditation.

"Darwinism"

32. This general theory of evolution should not be

called Darwinism. It was clearly outlined fifty years

and more before Darwin’s day by the Frenchmen Buf-

fon and Lamarck. Darwin’s pet theory was an attempt

to account for all the wonders of evolutionary progress

by means of a single principle which he called Natural

Selection. This principle has commonly been inter-

preted to mean that the long-range improvement of

living creatures is entirely due to the “laws of chance”

and that no guiding principle or directing influence is

needed. The neo-Darwinists developed the natural

selection principle into a cult and it became highly ob-

jectionable in scientific circles to mention the name of

God. For many years this materialistic attitude was

considered synonymous with evolution. Today, how-

ever, that is no longer true; even the atheistic type of

scientist is discarding Darwin’s natural selection prin-

ciple as totally inadequate to explain evolutionary

progress. Scientists today know too much about the

complexities of life and of living things to accept Dar-

win’s rather crude hypothesis as a solution of the evo-

lutionary problems. Yet the general theory of evolu-

tion is more firmly established than ever.

"Descent of Man"

33. Darwin wrote another book called the Descent

of Man in which he fails to acknowledge an essential
difference between man and animal, between spirit and

matter. He was strictly a scientist, working primarily

with the scientists’s implements, the scalpel and the

I 17 l



lens, and dealing only with the animal organism. In

so far as he knew the human body it was no more than

an animal organism, with the nervous system, instincts

and psychology of an animal. Engrossed in details as

a scientist should be, he fell a victim to the one-sided

viewpoint to which specialists are prone, and neglected

to take into account what should be obvious—that
united with the human organism is a reasoning spirit

and a free will. He thus laid the foundation of a

dangerous philosophy.

Creation of Man

34. To the Christian thinker it is very obvious that

man is more than an animal. He accepts the teaching

of the Book of Genesis that the first man and woman

were created by Almighty God, not as other living

things had been made, but in a very special way. The

language which is used to describe the creation of sub-

human life is as follows: “Let the earth bring forth

the green herb . . . and . . . the beasts of the earth.

Let the water bring forth the creeping creatures
having

life, and the fowl that fly over the earth ... and it was

so done, and God saw that it was good.” In creating

man, however, God said: “Let us make man to our

image and likeness, and let him have dominion
over

the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and
the

beasts, and the whole earth. . .
.” And again: “And

the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth;

and breathed into his face the breath of life, and
man

became a living soul.”

35. From the religious point of view the scriptural

information is all that we need to know. Scientists, on

the other hand, investigate how the “slime of the earth”

is transformed into a human body; that is their special

assignment. With respect to the origin of the first man

[ 18 ]



they are now carrying on research in that direction, and

the lay world is well advised to wait until the experts

have generally agreed upon a satisfactory answer. We

must remember always that the formation of the human

body is not the creation of man; it is rather a prepara-

tion for the creation of the spiritual soul which makes

us what we are, creatures to the image and likeness of

God.

Prehistoric Man

36. Scientists have long been studying the skeletal

remains and the artifacts of several prehistoric races.

Recent discoveries suggest that these races fall into

three natural groups: the Far East group which in-

cludes the Java man and the China Peking-man; the

Neanderthal group of Europe and South Africa; and

the later Cro-Magnon type found in Europe and in

Galilee. The first group is sometimes referred to as

Homo erectus, the second as Homo neanderthalensis

,

and the last is considered an early version of modern

man or Homo sapiens. Whether all the earliest pre-

historic men were members of our own race is not yet

clear; the more common opinion among scientists at

the moment is that the Oriental Homo erectus had in-

telligence but was mentally somewhat “subnormal” as

compared with modern Europeans. How long ago these

Oriental “dawn men” lived is not known; the guesses

range from one hundred thousand to over five hundred

thousand years.

37. The European Neanderthal man, about whose

kinship with modern man there is now little doubt, and

the Cro-Magnon man, came later, but even they date

back far beyond the traditional six thousand years.

These pioneers of the old stone age had developed a

considerable culture long before the Egyptians and

Babylonians began to keep written records. We have

[ 19 ]



recovered their tools, their paintings and carvings;

they were contemporaneous with the great mammals

of the Ice Age, they lived in some of the interglacial

periods. We are able to speak now with reasonably

exact knowledge of men that lived in both the old and

the new world ten or twenty thousand years ago. A

careful study of the varves in Scandinavian lakes and

of the age of the Niagara gorge in this country dates

the retreat of the last ice mass rather accurately, and

we know definitely that men lived in Europe even be-

fore that time. A minimum of some thirty thousand

years is demanded for the age of man on earth. More

common is the opinion that he has been here for hun-

dreds of thousands of years.

38. This long history of mankind is not as extrava-

gant as may seem to those who have not given the

matter any thought. Early human history should begin,

if we had the records, with fallen man, and with such

a beginning it seems reasonable that the development

of civilization was extremely slow.

39. The following quotation from a Catholic writer

will be helpful in reconciling Bible genealogy from

Adam to Abraham: “Now it is of course perfectly ob-

vious that man must have passed through all these

stages (viz., three of savagery and three of barbarism),

since the only alternative supposition is one which no

one holds, namely, that the arts and sciences were of

divine institution. The only question which is here to

our purpose is how long did the earlier stages last?

The Bible, if interpreted as literal history, would lead

us to suppose that the second generation of
mankind

had already attained to the pastoral and agricultural

phases of society, and had built a ‘city’; while
Tubal-

cain, the seventh in descent from Adam, is represented

as the father of metallurgy. The impossibility of a

[ 20 ]



literal interpretation of the history of the ante-diluvian

patriarchs is, however, made plain for us by the fact

that the Book of Genesis only allows nine generations

between Adam and Abraham—a number of course
totally inadequate to constitute anything but a tiny

fraction of the time required by prehistoric archeology.

We should, therefore, surely be dealing in an arbitrary
manner with the Biblical text if we were to deny the

possibility of the existence of countless generations

between the Fall and the attainment by man of the

arts of domesticating animals, of cultivating cereals,

and of forging implements of metal” (Johnson, Anthro-

pology and the Fall, p. 46).

The Nature of Man

40. Whatever may be the final scientific verdict on

these discoveries, we cannot subscribe to the hypothesis

that any subhuman animal organism gradually took on

a human type of mind. Physically that transformation

may have taken place in one way or another
;
so far as

the body is concerned there are some anthropoid apes

very similar to man. The chimpanzee is very near to

us in that respect, and the fossil remains of Austra-

lopithecus, a South African ape, show a still more strik-

ing mixture of human and simian features. But we

cannot emphasize too much that the body does not

make the man; mentally the chimpanzee is perhaps

the most highly endowed of beasts; and yet, in the

sense of a human intellect it has no mind at all. It

has the senses, memory, imagination, sense ideas and

the association of sense ideas; and this type of mental

equipment evolved with the evolution of the nervous

system. It deals with the practical problems that face

us in the material world, but it can never turn to a

consideration of the immaterial, it cannot ask the ques-

[211



tion why, it has no free will. Man has all that a

chimpanzee has, but dominating over all that he has

an intellect and a free will, that is to say,
he has a

higher nature which uses or should use the
lower

nature as its servant.

Man Has a Spiritual Soul

41. We stated above that Darwin unwittingly laid

the foundations of a dangerous philosophy.
His ideas

were amplified and defended by Spencer and
Huxley

in England and finally carried to their logical
outcome

by Ernst Haeckel of Germany. Haeckel boldly
pro-

claimed that the theory of evolution leaves no room
for

faith in the existence of God, the freedom of the
will,

or the immortality of the soul. Obviously
there is no

reconciliation between such “science” and the doc-

trine of Christ. Too often it is this kind of godless

science that people have in mind when they hear the

word evolution or Darwinism. No wonder the whole

theory has a bad reputation; we are asked by these

philosophers to give up all our most sacred convictions,

belief in God, a future life, and personal responsibility.

And what are we offered in their place? Blind forces

and brute ancestry. That is what the anti-evolutionists

justly fear and rightly condemn. If this is the
kind of

evolutionary teaching that legislators have attempted

to ban, Catholics have no choice of sides in the
con-

troversy. It is a doctrine hostile to all
religion and

surely public schools may not teach it.

The body alone, with all its organs, including the

brain and the senses and the imagination, does
not

make a man. We are human because of our intellect,

our free will, and our immortal destiny. To deny our

race these attributes, whether it be done through
igno-

[ 22 ]



ranee, through perversity, or in the name of science, is

to prepare the way for the degradation of society and

the despair of the individual.

The Intellect

42 . We insist that man has an intellect and that

the lower animals have not. The ordinary thinker,

indeed, is quite positive that there is no comparison

between the mentality of man and of animals. But

some scientists insist that there is no essential dif-

ference, that it is all a matter of development. An

example may illustrate how the confusion arises. A

certain psychologist claims that he has a chimpanzee

with the mental ability of a child of seven. And what

does he mean by mental ability? An ape has a won-

derful memory, a lively imagination, a great imitative

faculty, strong habit forming abilities. All these facul-

ties can be trained, and after years of drilling a chim-

panzee can do things that a child of seven cannot do.

But let us reflect a moment. A normal child of seven

can reason, can count, can usually read and write sim-

ple sentences, is always asking questions, wants to know

why, can sit down and figure out the answer to a ques-

tion, has a sense of humor, a highly developed sense

of right and wrong, and is always exquisitely self-con-

scious. No chimpanzee has even the rudiments of any

one of these things. To the objection that we should

not expect too much from a being deprived of the fac-

ulty of speech, we may answer that a deaf and dumb

child can be taught almost as readily as one that speaks;

and an ape has a tremendous advantage over a deaf

and dumb child—it can hear, if it cannot pronounce.
Had this particular scientist had a training in scholas-

tic psychology, he could not have confused so com-

pletely the spiritual and animal natures of man,

1231



The Will

43. We insist, secondly, that man is free. In some

of his acts, at least, he is not obliged to follow blind

impulses as is the animal organism. He can choose

between right and wrong; can follow the right even

though the temptation to do wrong is great.

Immortality

44. And lastly, the Christian knows that his soul will

not die. This knowledge is his most precious possess-

sion, and for it he can never be indebted to the scien-

tist. Unaided reason may hesitate to accept this truth.

The logic involved in proving it is complicated, and few

minds are able to do sustained clear thinking on ab-

stract principles. First, one must form a correct idea

of God, not only a powerful God, but a good and lov-

ing Father. Then one must look into his own soul, a

thing that cannot be done with physical eyes or any

other of the five senses. One must understand the

hopes and fears, the longings and yearnings, the loves

and aversions of his own soul ; he must admit that these

are at least as real as the physical body and the mate-

rial universe that the scientist strives to understand.

When he has done this thoroughly, when he has faced

the world not in its material aspect only but in its full

reality, then the conviction of immortality becomes

irresistible.

45. Sound and perfect reason will convince men that

there is a life after death; but the Christian does not

rely on his unaided reason. Enlightened by faith, he

sees the reasonableness of Christ’s divinity, and once

that is clear, he follows implicitly every doctrine that

comes from his lips. One need not be a philosopher

nor a theologian, much less a scientist, to understand

r 24

1



human nature and destiny; but one does need faith,

and humility and love. “Not the clear-sighted but the

pure-hearted shall see God in nature.”

The Catholic Church and Evolution

46. As a class Catholics are less disturbed than their

Protestant brethren by the evolutionary problems.

Most of their spokesmen tend toward acceptance of a

moderate form of the theory, and one of them at least

(Canon de Dorlodot of Louvain) outdoes Darwin in

his enthusiasm for the theory of absolute natural evo-

lution. As long as they leave Almighty God in His

place and admit that the human soul is radically dif-

ferent from the animal soul, the Church does not in-

terfere, the matter is outside the sphere of religion.

The Human Body

47. One is often asked: Just what does the Church

teach concerning human bodily evolution? The answer

is clear : the Church has never taught anything concern-

ing the theory of organic evolution; there are no de-

crees or definitions touching directly on the matter; we

have to sense the mind of the Church from the private

opinions of individual churchmen. As long as these

opinions are not unanimous—and they are far from it
at the present hour-—one can only say that the Church
has no official attitude on the matter. She has con-

sistently refused to give her approval to either party

in this scientific controversy; and we may confidently

assume that whenever the theory of evolution is con-

fined to the animal element in man, she will leave the

matter in the hands of men of science for free inves-

tigation.

[ 25 ]



The Human Soul

48. There is such a science as the zoology of man;

the Church has nothing to say about that science. But

when you include in that science not only my bones,

muscles, heart and lungs, liver and brain and nervous

system; when you include therein that in me which

thinks about all these other things; that in me which

knows and wills; then the Church says, No! Because

that is the soul, that is the immortal thing in me, it

has no affinity with the brutes, it is that for which

Christ suffered and died. Because evolutionists do not

distinguish well between body and spirit, because they

often insist that man is a body only and has no prin-

ciple different from that of lower life, the Church has

sent out a warning against the dangers of modern

science. The dangers are real. Whenever men become

convinced that the doctrines of Ernst Haeckel in nine-

teenth-century Germany or of A. J. Carlson in twen-

tieth century America are true, they will tend to live

accordingly. The Nazi mentality of World War II

was the spiritual offspring of those German scientists

and philosophers who denied the Christian teaching

on the nature of man and of God. Such new doctrines

are frowned upon at first by the non-intellectual

masses; but over a period of two or three generations

they become progressively more and more acceptable

until a sufficiently large number of people are infected

so as to make possible a Nazi type of society. When

men question the spirituality of the human soul the

foundations of society are shaken.

Genuine Science

49. But true science does not teach such things.
Be-

cause some who claim to be scientists whether they

actually are does not matter—have preached pernicious
[26 ]



doctrines, does not justify us in throwing discredit upon

the real work of science in its own legitimate field.

Those who oppose sound scientific theories, such as the

general theory of evolution has a right to be called, are

doing harm to the cause of truth. Catholics especially

should be ready to accept new findings in the scientific

world without losing their grasp on the more funda-

mental truths of religion. Nova et vetera. Hold fast

the old while profiting by the new, that is the course

recommended to us by the great Pope Leo XIII.

The Bible Not a Textbook of Science

50. In conclusion we may reiterate the principle set

down in the beginning: the Bible is not a textbook of

science. It teaches religious truths only, and it does

this in language that is popular, not scientific. The

Sacred Text is meant for all men, the ignorant as well

as the learned, for those who lived centuries ago as

well as for our modern intellectuals. Even then we

have the word of St. Peter that Scripture contains

“certain things hard to be understood, which the un-

learned and unstable wrest to their own destruction.”

We may not, for instance, infer from the words, “The

Lord God made man from the slime of the earth, and

breathed into his face the breath of life,” that God

acted in a human manner; that he molded a body as

a human sculptor might and breathed with a physical

effort. God is a spirit, and such actions can be at-

tributed to Him only in a figurative sense. He has His

own way of doing things. All that revelation tells us

is that He made man, made him body and soul. His

body is made of the dust of the earth; but that is

scarcely the important message, except as a reminder,

because we know from observation that every particle

of bone and flesh is nothing more than transformed

[ 27 ]



soil and water and air. How that transformation of

dust into flesh is accomplished may well form the sub-

ject matter of scientific investigation. What Scripture

wants to tell us is that God made man, not how He

made him. The fact that God is our Father is the im-

portant religious truth that men are in danger of for-

getting.

51. In schools where God’s name may not be men-

tioned something must take His place; and today there

is real danger that this something will be a system of

unbelief which masquerades under the guise of scien-

tific evolution. Such a system will surely work havoc

with the hearts and souls of children. Science without

religion is dangerous. Catholics in their own schools

can teach evolution without fear because with it they

teach religion. The public schools cannot do this and

the situation often becomes a trying one for them.

There is much valuable truth to be learned from the

theory of organic evolution; but divorced from reli-

gion the doctrine becomes a dangerous half-truth.

A Few References for Further Study

Allen, V. T., This Earth of Ours. Bruce, 1939.

Cooper, J. M., “The Scientific Evidence Bearing on
Evolu-

tion.” Primitive Man, viii., 1-56, January and April, 1935.

Dorlodot, Canon, Darwinism and Catholic Thought. London,

1922.

Hau'ber, U. A., “Evolution and Catholic Thought.” The

Ecclesiastical Review, cvi., 161-177, March, 1942.

Hauber, U. A., and M. Ellen O’Hanlon, Biology. Crofts,

1937.

Johnson, H. J. T., The Bible and the
Early History of

Mankind. London, 1943.

[ 28 ]



Jordan, E. B., “The Proper Attitude of the Catholic Scien-

tist Toward Evolution.” Catholic Educational Review,

xxiii., 321-335, June, 1925.

Messenger, E. C., Evolution and Theology. Macmillan,

1931.

Muckermann, H., “Evolution” in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Murray, Raymond W., Man's Unknown Ancestors. Bruce,

1943.

Murray, Raymond W., “New Knowledge About Prehistoric

Man.” American Catholic Sociological Review, v., 169-

176, October, 1944.

O’Brien, J. A., Evolution and Religion. Century, 1932.

Richarz, S., “Our Present Knowledge of Early Man.” The

Ecclesiastical Review, May, 1933.

Windle, B. C. A., Evolution and Catholicity. Paulist Press,

1925.

Zahm, Rev. J. A., Bible , Science and Faith. Murphy, 1895.

Zahm, Rev. J. A., Evolution and Dogma. McBride, 1896.

DISCUSSION CLUB OUTLINE

1. The Bible and Creation (Paragraphs 1-7)

When was the biblical account of creation set down in writing?

What great truths does it emphasize?

Describe the environment of the Hebrews at the time it was written.

What is a legitimate interpretation of the phrase: “Let the earth

bring forth the green herb”?

In what respect is man a very special creature of God infinitely
above all other material things?

In what respect is it true that the body of every man, not only that

of Adam, is made of the slime of the earth?

Does God breathe a living soul into each human being?

For what people was the Old Testament primarily written?

What were the great dangers to which the chosen people were ex-

posed?

What is the one and only purpose of the scriptural account of

creation ?

Why are all material creatures called good by the sacred writer?
Why should the Mosaic account not be looked upon as a scientific

document?

In what way, nevertheless, is there a suggestion in Genesis of modern

scientific evolutionary doctrines?

[29]



2. Geological Facts (Paragraphs 8-13)

What is the science of geology?

What are fossils?

How do the remains of organisms become imbedded in the rocks?

What kind of living things existed when the earlier rocks were

formed?

What was the origin of coal?

Were the great coal deposits formed before or after the age of fishes ?

Does geology show that warm-blooded land animals came later than

the lower forms of life?

On what day does Genesis record that the beasts of the field were

made ?

Can there be any question that the fossils were once living creatures?

Is it certain that these extinct forms of life were the
ancestors of

modern living things?
.

What sciences are today co-operating toward a solution of this

problem ?

What is a working hypothesis?

How does the geologist know that the earth is many millions of

years old ?

3. Early Opposition to the Theory of Evolution

(Paragraphs 14-17)

Why was the theory of evolution at first rejected by the scientists

themselves ?

Why were Protestants particularly hostile to the theory?

Why did theologians generally not accept the new theory?

When and by whom was the modern theory of evolution first out-

lined ?

Why was the theory not accepted by scientists generally until toward

the end of the nineteenth century?

What did Ernst Haeckel claim for the new theory?

Does the theory, if accepted, compel men to reject some of their

former convictions?

Are any of the ideas that must be abandoned in the light of the

new theory an essential part of Christian teaching?

Was it the science or the philosophy of the early evolutionists that

was dangerous?
.

Do you think that men like Haeckel became, atheists because of their

science or were they atheists to begin with ?

Exactly why is evolutionary philosophy dangerous?

Are atheistic evolutionists as numerous today as they were forty

years ago?

What connection is there between materialistic science and the Nazi

creed?

4. Science and Religion Compared (Paragraphs 18-22)

With what type of problems is the evolutionary theory concerned?

Why is religion not directly concerned with these same problems?

Does science, as such, investigate the ultimate causes of
natural

events ?

[ 30 ]



Explain the difference between proximate and ultimate causes using

the corn plant as an illustration.

Can an atheist be a good scientist? Explain.

Is the origin of new species a scientific or a religious problem?

If new organic species originate through an evolutionary process is it

still true to say that God created each species?
Explain again why Christians and even theologians were at first slow

to admit the reasonableness of the evolutionary theory.

Why did the idea that the earth is millions of years old meet with
such strenuous opposition?

What is the attitude of most theologians today toward the scientific

theory of evolution?

Why should this change in the attitude of Catholic theologians be
considered a sign of healthy progress rather than the reverse?

5. God’s Method of Creation (Paragraphs 23-31)

Does a robin’s egg contain a young robin or rather something which

is not a robin but may develop into one?

May the development of the bird in the egg properly be called a
creative process?

Why can a scientist not discover God’s creative hand in this process?
What does one learn from observation about God’s method of creating

things ?

Is it necessary that one’s observation be on a scientific plane in order

to learn this lesson?

Why is it often true that the non-technical observer is more ready
to believe in God than the highly trained investigator?

Is God more than a Creator?

Why is it folly to call God a blind force as some scientists do?
The ideal scientist is reverent in the presence of the mysteries of

nature. Are the majority of scientists ideal in this respect?

Is it a plausible theory that all the varieties of modern birds are

descendent from a single type of ancestral bird?

Is it a plausible theory that the lowly living things created in the

beginning were the seed-like ancestors of all higher creatures which

exist today ?

If evolution is true why does the Bible not refer to it?
How can the theory of evolution provide matter for meditation on

the greatness and eternity of God?

6. Darwinism. Early Man (Paragraphs 32-39)

Was Charles Darwin the first scientist to propose the theory of
evolution ?

What is the difference between the general theory of evolution and

Darwin’s theory of natural selection?

Did Darwin recognize an essential difference between man and
animal ?

How does Sacred Scripture drive home the fact that man is more
than an animal?

Name some of the races of early man.

Does the Bible give us any information concerning the history of

men immediately after the fall?

[ 31 ]



Do we have any definite scientific
knowledge about prehistoric men?

How long ago is man known to have
lived on earth?

How has the approximate date of the last
ice age been determined

Is it reasonable to suppose
that a long period of time

intervened

between the fall and the beginnings
of civilization f

7. Man’s Higher Nature
(Paragraphs 40-45)

Was Darwin himself a professed
atheist?

animal

Show that his premises, e. g., that
man is no more than an animal,

tend towards an atheistic
philosophy of life.

, . ,

What three fundamental principles
of religion did Haeckel

deny

Was this denial a conclusion
drawn from his scientific studies,

or

was it the result of his atheistic
outlook on life?

How does this false union of science
and atheism explain the sub-

sequent antagonism to the new
theories?

What qualities in man differentiate
him from the brute?

Does an ape have any sort of
mentality?

What human faculties does an ape
not have?

•

Do lower animals have freedom of
choice and consequently p

Can^ckndsts^as such demonstrate
the immortality of the

human

Must

U

one believe in God before the
conviction of a hereafter for

the

Is science alone

>I

a

?

trustworthy guide in matters
of religion?

Why is a brilliant intellect insufficient
to bring conviction in

such

matters ?

8. The Church and Evolution
(Paragraphs 46-51)

Are Catholics free to accept the
theory of evolution?

What are the only reservations the
Church must insist uP°n

Has the Church any official attitude
toward the doctrine of the evo-

lution of the human body ?

Arp Catholic theologians agreed on this
problem?

May a Catholic believe in the evolution
of the human soul from

StatTcTetlywhy the human soul cannot
be the product of an evo-

lutionary process. . ,

Should Catholics condemn the theory
of organic evolution?

Must they condemn the theory of
philosophical evolution, meaning

by that the widely accepted
doctrine that evolution is an

ultimate

principle which does away with the
need of a Creator (

Distinguish carefully between the
scientific theory of organic

evolu-

tion and the philosophic evolutionary
theories.

Explain briefly why one should not look
for scientific data in the

Why^can the expression: “God breathed
into his face the breath

of life” not be taken literally? ,

Why is it dangerous to teach evolution
without a religious back-

Summarize'' the Catholk ideal in
problems of this kind by para-

phrasing the motto: Nova et Vetera.





r