Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][merged small]

Several writers on the staff of "The Review," of St. Louis, have for some years past been furnishing a striking illustration of the old saying that "a little learning is a dangerous thing." Their unintelligent utterances on the subject of evolution, in particular, have made that weekly a laughing-stock among educated men, and have done great harm to the cause of Catholicity.

About two years ago the present writer had an experience which proved the management of the journal in question to beas deficient in moral principle as its editorial contributors arcin intellectual acumen and theological and scientific attainments. I have been silent hitherto, simply because I have been too much occupied with other matters to give further attention to these gnats and microbes of Catholic journalism; but as the "Review" continues to spew out its poisonous doctrines on the evolution question, I cannot refrain from once more attempting to supply the needed antidote.

In order to vindicate before the public my right to a hearing on this subject it is necessary, in view of the false position in which I was placed by the manner in which the "Review" terminated the discussion to which it opened its columns in 1900, to expose the dishonest policy by which that journal seeks to justify its errors, so far as that policy is exemplified in the episode referred to.

In March and April of that year a number of ridiculous articles were published in the "Review," attempting to prove that various iniquitous doctrines and practices are the logical consequences of the evolutionary hypothesis, attacking Bishop Spalding for his alleged evolutionism, etc.

To several of these communications I replied, and one of these replies appeared in the issue of March ioth, under the title of "Artificial Selection in the Human Race." I showed that that question was not affected by the evolutionary theory; as the pernicious practices involved could be defended by an anti-evolutionist as successfully as by an evolutionist, and would have to be rejected on moral grounds by even the most ardent advocate of evolution. Arthur Preuss annotated my letter in the spirit of the materialistic psuedo-evolutionary philosophy with which he always confuses the scientific hypothesis of evolution, what little knowledge he has of the subject being wholly derived either directly or indirectly from infidel sources instead of from scientific ones.

The author of the communication, to which mine was a reply, followed in the issue of May ioth with a further confusion of evolutionism with materialism, cited a number of scientists of pre-evolutionary days in rebuttal of my statement that evolution is accepted by practically all the specialists in the sciences concerned, and referred to "the forced withdrawal of Dr. Zahm's famous book" as an indication that the authorities of the Catholic Church look with disfavor upon all attempts "to reconcile evolution with Catholic dogmas."

On May 17th the "Review" published another letter from the undersigned pointing out the folly of resorting to professedly anti-Christian sources for information on the real nature and significance of a purely scientific theory, or of quoting the lucubrations of unintelligent hangers-on of infidel schools of thought to show the logical consequences of the theory.

In his notes thereto Preuss shifted his ground and identified evolution with Darwin's theory of the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest, quoted against it Father Coppens, S. J., and alleged that the utterances of St. Augustine. St. Thomas, and Suarez, which have sometimes been adduced in its behalf, were really utterly opposed to it. After making light of Zahm's book "Evolution and Dogma" he closed with a chalf<E RSY ON EVOLUTION. \*->

[graphic]

^tSato^ecX vcv tcori^uct an argument with him

'i iOTO\. To yn Co^umns of the "Review." in strict

tliis discussion, he invited me

tin, * VWtfk concei?U°Wing s-yl,°S'Ism: "Without veri[rn , A ,,x . ^Ptiort \S a mere figment of the intel

.,\ J v.v\e. theory of organic evolution is an un

^tV&^ COncepUon; lWei0re organic evolution is a mere figment cA the hvteWect.

On "June. 7t\v aw anotvymous correspondent rallied to the defence oiMr. Preuss Vtv his contention that Herbert Spencer is the greatest living authority on the real nature and consequences of the theory of evolution. In the meantime. I had accepted the challenge with great delight. Adhering most rigidly to the manner of the Schools, I was obliged to distinguish and suhdistinguish both the major, the minor and the conclusion of Preuss's very hollow and meaningless syllogism, showing that in every sense in which it could possibly be taken it was either false or devoid of the slightest significance as regards the questions at issue. I then laid down thirteen theses which I announced myself ready to defend against a!! comers.

In printing my article (May 31, 1900.1 Mr. Preuss cut out the paragraphs in which his syllogism was attacked, on the ground that I had said "transeat the whole argument." He printed the rest of the paper, in which, among other things, I gave an account of a visit that a few days previously I had myself made, at Creighton University, to his principal authority. Father Coppens, whom he had quoted in defence < position that evolution was theologically untenable. In the course of a long talk with that learned Jesuit on the subject, he "admitted that the evolutionary hypothesis, as held by me. and considered apart from the misuses put upon it by the enemies of religion, is more probable a priori, w hen we take the certain truths o* Catholic philosophy and theology as our premi es, than the contrary one. He is opposed to it solely, he explained, for scientific reasons; and he informed me that the Society of Jesus has not, as I had supposed, any fixed policy of opposition to evolution, but that, on the contrary, any Jesuit is free to teach it."

In reply, Mr. Preuss, without further reference to Father Coppens, quoted Father Mayer. S. J., against th<

materialistic school of evolution, and against the theory of the evolution of the human soul from a non-spiritual principle; and cited several authorities who very properly considered the theory that the body of man may have been produced byevolution, but that "the first rational soul and consequently the first human being, cannot have arisen by evolution'is looked upon as "'unsafe by a majority of theologians up to the present." He reproduced a passage against evolution from the Leroy and Zahm cases that evolution has been practically condemned, so that Catholics are no linger free to hold it. He also referred to Prof. Virchow as an eminent living biologist who thus far refused to accept the theory as a proven one. In the course of his remarks Mr. Preuss said that "Some of Mr. Snell's theses challenge contradicted and comment; * * * if our opponent insists, we may take them up singly later."

In response, I forwarded the following communication.

"I again protest against the introduction into this controversy of the opinions of the 'atheistic materialistic school.' It takes no theological knowledge or acumen to recognize at a glance that atheism and materialism, whether evolutionary or anti-evolutionary, are the extremest forms of heresy. It is demonstrably false that that school 'justly lays claim to absolute consistency'; for evolution means groivth, and growth arises from an inner and teleological principle, while atheism can consistently recognize nothing more than a series of changes dependent on extrinsic causes. The atheistic conception is anti-evolutionary, grossly absurd, and leads logically to the conclusion of the separate origin of species. Moreover, atheistic evolutionists do not as a class lay claim 'to the sole use of the name.'

"The notion of the evolution of the human soul, or any other spiritual substance, from any pre-existing substance, can be shown to involve a contradiction in terms, and so that can also be dismissed.

"The formula that 'the first rational soul and consequently the first human being, cannot have arisen by evolution,' is, as before remarked, obviously heretical; for the source of the human body is the source of the human being, as defined by the Council of Ephesus. The Nestorian doctrine, then condemned, is precisely that 'the Godhead of the New Adam, and consequently the New txitiri generated in the Womb of the YTlxclviity in both cases, lies in the ^ conclusion would equally follow •lsrri - 'The human soul of Christ, and *•« "was not derived from the Blessed

[graphic]

r * \lt.» an act Ol desperation to cite a mere devotional publicaBke the heauWluY Messenger of the Sacred Heart, as an auv>aonty on such, a question as evolution. The quotations from theologians an relet, so iar as 1 can judge, to evolutionary formulae ttat \ do not derend."\ The quotations from Prof. Virchow Viave no bearing on the question at issue: for (1) no biologist of any school claims that the 'missing links' have been found; and C2), even li continuous series of them could be placed before our eyes, It would not even tend to strengthen the evidence in ^avor oi evolution, as the existence, at some time or another, of a continuous series of organic forms, whether arising separately or from a common source, could be predicted a priori, on Thomistic principles.

"It may be true, as commonly asserted, that Virchow is not a full-fledged evolutionist; but he was born in 1821. and belongs to that older generation of naturalists, like Agassiz and Cuvier, who were left behind in the progress of science, though all three of them contributed to the development of the evolutionary hypothesis. Professional biologists, by the way, know that the 'greatest living biologist' is, and has been for some years past, not Virchow, but a Catholic savant who is the head of the biological department at Louvain.

"The canon cited from the last Provincial Council of Cologne is slightly ambiguous and might be interpreted to condemn "atheistic evolutionism" alone. At any rate Provincial Councils enjoy only a quasi-infallibility; and it frequently happens that when a new question is first propounded, and before it has been sufficiently examined in the light of Scripture, Reason ami Tradition, a counter-current of uncatholic thought sets in for a while, before the mighty central stream of Apostolic Faith and Right Reason, overcoming the temporary obstacle, passes serenely onward towards the Ocean of Infinite Truth, in which it is to be merged in the Grand Consummation. Thus many Provincial Councils, including that of Synnada, several at Carthage

« PreviousContinue »