Newspaper Page Text
4
THE BULLETIN OF THE CATHOLIC LAYMEN’S ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA
JULY 24, 1926
CATHOLICS AND EVOLUTION
T. Russell, D. D., Bishop of Charleston, at the Com-
Sacred Heart Academy, Greenville, S. C.
Address by Rt. Rev. William
mencement Exercises at
(From The Greenville News)
In speaking of evolution, We must
first of all distinguish between two
systems.
One system of evolution pretends
to explain the existence of Ihe uni
verse by physical forces alone and
denies the existence of God. There
is no scientist of recognized stand
ing who Peaches this system today.
To the question: Does evolution dis
pense with God, Lord Kelvin, the
greatest scientist perhaps since New
ton says, “I can not admit that, with
regard to origin of life, science nei-
her affirms nor denies creative
power. Science positively affirms
creative power which she compels us
to accept as an article of belief.”
We shall consider only the second
system.
First Cause of All.
The second system of evolution
recognizes as the first cause of all
things—Almighty God. This theory
holds that in creating primal mat
ter, God so endowed it, that it de
veloped of its own forces, or by vir
tue of its surroundings, or by both
combined, into the various species
of living things. Some also hold
that living things also sprang in the
same way from non-living things.
This theory of evolution does not
pretend to explain the fact of crea
tion. but claims to explain the
method of creation.
What does the Catholic church
say about the second system of evo
lution? I mean the theory of trans-
formism or the derivation of <*ne
species from another. This is the
question for this evening.
The Catholic church is a corporate
institution which has given and still
gives very definite pronouncements.
These pronouncements are of two
kinds First of all there are the in
fallible pronouncements of the
church. These arc called definitions.
By a definition of Catholic truth
we mean a short, clear, explicit dec
laration of truth revealed by God
which must be accepted by all Cath
olics. This does not mean a new
revelation, but it does mean explicit
setting form of a revealed truth,
which has always been believed by
the church, a truth which hitherto
has not been embodied in explicit
words. Infallible definitions, then,
have only to do with truth already
revealed.
Infallible Definitions.
Infallible definitions are rare.
There have been two since 1542—in
neaAy 400 years.
Besides infallible definitions,
there are other pronouncements of
the church which, while not infalli
ble. are authoritative. These are in
dications backed by authority of the
church to show the trend of Catho
lic belief.
Now we may ask has the Catho
lic church made any pronounce
ment on Evolution? About Evolu
tion as such thd church has made
no pronouncement. The expression:
“The Catholic Church versus Evo
lution,” would be inaccurate. In
proof of this I have only to say
that Father Wassman, a Jesuit priest
—one of the leading scientists on
entomology—is willing to accept evo
lution as I have defined it; Canon
de Dorlodot, Professor of Palaentol-
ogy. in the Catholic university of
Louvam goes even further and thinks
the theory is definitely proved to
be a fact; Dr. O’Toole, a Benedic
tine monk, considers that theory
harmless from a religious stand
point, but is not inclined to accept
it for scientific reasons.
From this it is evident, that the
Catholic church has not condemned
evolution. Her attitude is one of in
tense interest in the labors of scien
tists, hut at the same time of
serene security in the realization
that no scientific proven fact will be
found opposed to any of her dog-
malic definitions. The Catholic
church has never by an infalible def
inition opposed any proven fact of
science. From this it appears also
how absurd is the general opinion
of non-Catholics, that Catholics are
not allowed to study and discuss
questions of science.
Leaders in Science.
As a matter of historical fact, we
know that Catholic priests and lay
men have been in the past and are
today to be found among the lead
ers of science. It was Nicholas Ko-
pernick, a Catholic Dutch cleric, who
first propounded the theory of our
solar system called the Copernican
system. No objection was raised to
this theory by Catholic authority
although Luther and Melanthon
vigorously condemned it. Half a
century later, Galileo took up the
theory of Kopernick. While Koper-
jnick was encournagcd by Cardinals,
and the Pope himself, and while
Galileo was at first acclaimed with
a triumph in Rome, he brought con
demnation on himself later by his
bitter and caustic abuse of those
who refused to accept the theory.
This condemnation was not an in
fallible definition.
The very foundations of electricity
•re indissolubly connected with the
name of Catholic scientists. From
Galvani a pious Catholic we have
the electric battery; from Ampere,
We have the unit of quantity in elec
tricity. Ampere was a practical
French Catholic. From Volta, we
have the unit of pressure, Volta was
a Catholic, attended mass and re
cited his rosary every day. Roent
gen the discoverer of the Xray, was
a loyal Catholic.
Life Is Saved.
This list would be too long ever
to give the names of Catholic lead
ers of science. I shall content my
self with the mention of Pasteur.
Pasteur was the orgmiator of the
germ theory. By proving his theory
he put medicine on a scientific
basis. Before him, medicine had
been mostlir an experimental art.
He revolutionized the art and sci
ence of surgery. A “Triumph” was
accorded to Pasteur in Paris just
before his death, when all the scien
tific societies of the world, and all
the European governments sent their
ambassadors, to do him honor. He
had saved the people of Southern
France from starvation by destroy
ing the silk-worm germ. He had
saved the sheep industry of the
world hv discovering the germ that
was killing sheep. He discovered the
germ of, and invented the cute for
hydrophobia. Lord Lister the lead
ing surgeon of his day, declared that
Pasteur had shown the way for pre
venting and curing all infectious
diseases—and two-thirds of our dis
eases are infections. His pupil,
Roux, under Pasteur’s direction, in
vented the cure of diptheria. It has
been asserted, and any o’* - can see
that it is near the truth, that Pas
teur. by proving and developing
the germ theory, has saved more
lives than have ever been lost in
all.modern wars; he has saved more
lives than all the surgeons and
physicians put together, who lived
before him; and today all surgeons
and physicians are following his
methods.
This wonderful scientific genius
was once asked if his scientitfic stu
dies had interfered with his faith in
God and religion. The answer was
worthy of the great man: “I have”
he said, “the faith of the simple
Catholic peasant; if I live long
enough and work hard enough, I
hope some day to have the faith of
the simple Catholic peasant’s wife,”
After going to confession to a priest
and after receiving the sacraments
of the church, Pasteur died holding
the crucifix in one hand and clasp
ing with his other the hand of his
faithful, unselfish wife Would it not
be ridiculous to compare this tow
ering giant with the small agnostic
creatures who, as a leading scien
tist, says, “Browse and nibble on the
fringes of science.”
Belief in Bible
Mendel, from whose name we get
the Mendelian theory which every
tyro of science is familiar with, was
a Catholic priest and monk. Luther
Burbank of California merely fol
lowed the rules discovered by Men
del. In this month’s “Forum,” Pro
fessor Osborn by the National Mu
seum of Natural History of New
York shows that most,of the leading
Paleontologists of today are Catholic
priests in France, Germany and
Spain.
Even from this brief survey, it
must appear to every candid observ
er how absurd is the general opinion
of non-Catholics, that Catholics are
not allowed to study and discuss
questions of Science and that the
Catholic Church is opposed to
science.
Right here some one will say: Does
not the Catholic church believe in
the Bible? Most assuredly, for the
Catholic church has preserved the
Bible for us. Does not the Catholic
believe the Bible was inspired by
God? Most assuredly. Inspiration
is defined: a divine urge, by which
a man, with positive divine assist
ance commits to writing all and on
ly those things which God wished.
The Catholic church teaches that
the Bible in all its parts is inspired
by God. In other words, God is the
author of the Bible. How then, some
will say, can the Catholic church
tolerate evolution?
Bible and Evolution
Does not evolution contradict the
Bible? As I have said, the Catholic
church, after God, is the author of
th e New Testament. Surely the au
thor of a book has the right to say
what it means. When the Book
has God for its first author, and
Catholic writers for its secondary
authors, the church which has been
promised divine assistance to keep
it from falsely interpreting that
Book, teaches. If, then, evolution
were contrary to Christian doctrine
the church would have a right and
a duty to say so. Some indignant
non-Catliolic believer will say: But,
my dear sir, does not the Bible say
the world was created in six days?
Now let me assert once for all,
that the Catholic church has never
regarded the Bible as a book of
science. As a cardinal has put it
“the Bible is intended to teach us
how to go to heaven, and not to
teach us how the heavens go.” God
did not intend to reveal the secrets
of nature by the Bible, He reveals
to us in the Bible the dealings of
God with man, in order to lead men
in the ways of salvation. A man can
save his soul without any further
knowledge of science than the evi
dent facts before his eyes.
But again, some one will say:
“Does not the Bible teach that God
created everything?” I answer, yes,
and such is the teaching of the
Catholic church. That is a truth
necessary for man’s salvation.
Do I hear some objector exclaim:
The Bible says that God created all
things in six days, and the evolu
tionists teach that the world devel
oped in the course of millions of
years. Surely, here is a contradic
tion.
I answer: the evolutionist, indeed,
teach that the world was not creat
ed in six days of twenty-four hours,
but I deny that the Bible teaches
the scientific assertion that God cre
ated the world in six days of twen
ty-four hours.
Doctrines Different.
Herein is seen the vast difference
between the Protestant and the
Catholic. In meeting and answer
ing the theories of the pseudo-sci
entist, the Catholic can not (unfor
tunately so) look for help from the
Protestant. The Protestant rejected
“Authority” in rejecting, in the six
teenth century this authority! of the
church and substituting as his “Rule
of Faith,” Private Judgment. When
his understanding of the Bible is,
through his private judgment, con
tradicted by scientific facts he con
cludes too often that the Bible is
wrong. If, he says, the Bible is
wrong in this it may be wrong in
many other cases. If I was wrong
in so understanding the Bible I may
be wrong in many other instances,
even when my salvation is at stake.
I have only my private judgment,
to guide me. Hence the Bible, as
the Word of God, he chucks to the
scrap-lieap-^at least many, sad to
say, are doing so today.
The Catholic, on the other hand,
may, in his private judgment, con
sider that a passage of the Bible
means thus and so; he may in fact
have the same private opinion as
the Protestant, but lie says: I may
be wrong; hence, I am ready to ac
cept that meaning'ot tne text wni-n
the church teaches, and has always
taught.
The Catholic may wander through
the whole realm of scientific inves
tigation with perfect freedom and
without fear. He knows that the
church never has, and never will
forbid the acceptance of a scientific
fact. He may roam without trepida
tion through philosophic imaginings
built on facts. No Christian today
can be at the same time as free and
as sure as the Catholic. But I have
said enough in this line.
Mysteries of Nature.
Will some one say: This is the
attitude of the church only in face
of modern scientific investigations?
Let us see. Fifteen hundred years
ago St. Augustine laid down certain
rules for interpreting the Bible.
These rules have been approved by
Pope Leo XIII in our day. The first
rule laid down by St. Augustine
is. that God did not intend to re
veal the mysteries of nature in the
Bible. The second rule is. that we
should adhere to the obvious and
literal meaning of the text, unless
facts comjlel us to regard the text
as figurative. The third rule of St.
Augustine (see how this great Doc
tor of the Church meets our modern
difficulties) is, “If in these books, I
meet with anything which seems
contrary to truth, I shall not liesi-
late to conclude;, either that the text
I have is faulty, or the translation
has not expressed the meaning of
the passage; or that I myself do
not understand.” This is the atti
tude of the Catholic of today. He
does not rely upon his own private
judgment as infallible.
As to the “Six Days of Creation,”
St. Augustine 1500 years ago wrote
a long and learned treatise on the
Six Days of Creation. He interpret
ed the six days to mean the six
epochs or cycles. He also interpret
ed creation to mean creation of the
universe from certain primitive
forms made in the beginning by the
Creator, and endowed by Him with
the power of developing into pres
ent forms. Centuries ago, therefore,
the church recognized, that literal
interpretation of scripture was not
necessarily required.
Science Accepted
The Catholic church has always
taught and teaches today that God
created all tilings. The church has
never pretended to explain the scien
tific method of creation. She is
ready to accept any scientific truth.
She holds that God is the author
of the Bible, and that God is the
author of the Book of Nature. There
can be no contradiction.
Now, let m e say a word about sci
ence. When discussing science, let
us beware of false generalizations.
Often in magazines and newspapers
we read: “Science” say’s that, or
“Science” declares so and so. Now
when I say: The Catholic church
teaches thus or so; when I read, the
President of the United States de
clares this or that, I know that the
Catholic church is a definite body
which has an authoritative spokes
man; I know that the President of
the United States is a definite per
son. Not so with “Science.” There
is no such thing as an organized
body of scientists with an authorized
spokesman. Hence, when we hear
or read: “Science” declares thus or
so, it generally implies a theory or
guess of some scientist- Science
deals with facts proven to the satis
faction of all scientific men and ac
knowledged by the common sense of
mankind. All else is a theory—that
is. a guess.
Sometimes it happens that a the
ory accepted as proven by scientists
turns out to lie false. F'or instance,
Clerk Maxwell was perhaps the
greatest living physicist of his day.
In the edition before the last of the
Encycjopedia Brittanica this eminent
scientist declared dogmatically that
there were some eighty odd physi
cal “elements” which were absolute
ly’ and from their origin and of their
nature unalterable. This view was
taught as a proven fact by chemists
for 200 years. But we know today
that it was all wrong. The theory
of evolution in regard to the “Six
Days of the Creation” is not by any
means acknowledged as proven by
all scientists. It is at nfost a prob
able guess.
“A scientific fact,” says an emi
nent scientist, Sir Bertram Windle,
“is an absolutely unchallenged ob
servation, Man and some other ani
mals have back-bones—unless ev
erything that exists is mere illusion,
there cannot be any doubt about
that,”
Origin of Creatures
As We look around the world, we
see creatures in numberless shapes
and colors—rocks, plans, crawling
things, swimming things, flying
things, walking things and man.
Where did they come from and
how? Men have always studied
these questions. Some sensational
writer tells the world: Professor so
and so says thus or so. In fact the
scientific professor has proposed hi s
theory or guess to his fellow work
ers and says to them: This is my
guess; what do you think of it?
It is entirely legitimate to make
such guesses—provided one docs not
pretend they are proven facts.
Now let. us start from the be
ginning. We can feel sure that there
was a time when there was no kind
of living thing on this earth. Now,
where did the first living thing
come from? For a time there were
scientists who claimed that living
things come from things without
life. Pasteur, however, showed that
the proofs for that guess were false.
But some say: let us take life
as being there and see what hap
pened next. Very well, but let us
remember we have behind an un
proven guess of evolution.
The next problem is this—we have
found life in certain little cleatures
o,f one cell. Everybody has heard of
bacteria. They are one-celled tiny
creatures.
Wc Know Not.
Now comes the question: when
and why and how did these one-
celled little ceatures evolve into
many-celled little ceatures? All that
the evolutionists can say is: We
do not know. Again, how did the
many celled creatures become worms
and flies how did the creatures
with back-bones come into being;
how mammals arrive, how did the
beast come from the simpler mam
mals; how did man coinc from the
beasts? To all these questions, real
science can only answer: we do not
know. Hence, we see there are
many, many missing links in the
chain of evolution and until these
links are proven to exist, evolution
is only a theory—a guess.
Professor Millikan of Chicago, a
great scientist and a Noble-prize
man, has recently said: “The pa
thetic thing is that we have scien
tists who are trying to prove evo
lution, which no scientists can
prove.”
We have one-celled creatures and
it does seem as if they would grow
into many-celled creatures. But we
have, no instance of it. We have
creatures without backbones and it
docs seem as if they ought to de
velop into creatures with back
bones. But we liave no instance of
it. So wc have apes whose bodily
make-up resembles that of man. It
does look like an ape might have
developed into a man. but we have
no instance of it. Man, as far back
as we can trace him, is as distinctly
man as he is today.
The position of evolution is like
this: a man stands at a railroad
station on the Atlantic Seabr
he sees the two tracks away oi;,|JC
the distance as they reach (he h * '
zion and they seem almost to cc
together. It looks as if they oug
to converge into one before the ;
reach the Pacific ocean. But in
fact at the Pacific they are as far
apart as they were at the beginning
So it is with the supposed missing
link.
Truth Will Prevail.
Let us repeat the answer lo the
question—Does evolution Idispense
with God? Lord Kelvin, the great
est scientist perhaps since Newton,
says: “I cannot admit that with
regard to the origin of life, science
neither affirms nor denies creative
power. Science positively affirms
creative power which she compels
us to accept as an article of belief.”
Why then, any sensible man may
well ask, thrust this unproven guess
down the throats of our children
in the schools as if it were an es
tablished fact?
The Catholic church says: “Until
it is shown to be a fact, let us with
interest, but with patience, regard
the various theories or guesses oi
scientists as they spread their wa:
through the mysteries of God’s crc
ation. The truth will prevail, an
We can be sure that scientific tru
will never contradict revealed truth.
FOR EVERY CLASS OF ,»
PRINTING SEE
Commercial Printing Co.
Call 862. HI Kill*.
Augusta, Ga.
ESTABLISHED 1858
The Perkins Manufacturing Co.
Yellow Pine Lumber
Mill Work — Doors — Sash and Blinds
AUGUSTA, GA., — PHONE 711
WINDSOR SPRING WATER
AUGUSTA, GA.
“Health From The Hill Tops”
Windsor Springs constitute a real asset to Augusta. All citizens
and. visitors should visit the sylvan retreat where nature provides
this wonderfully valuable water.
GOVERNMENT ANALYSIS BY EDGAR
EVERHART, Ph.D., Chemist
March 14, 1918
(Grains per U. S. Gallon)
Sodium chloride 0.163
Magnesium carbonate 0.070
Aluminum oxide 7 0.058
Ferrous corbonate 0.215
Silica ’. 0.291
Total 0.797
Free carbon dioxide C02 0.134
0.931
Spring located just nine miles from Augusta. Visitors Welcome.
Windsor Springs Water Co.