Evolution and the dutch catechism. A scientific appraisal

Media

Part of Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas

Title: Evolution and the dutch catechism. A scientific appraisal
Language: English
Rights
Fulltext: NOTES AND COMMENTS EVOLUTION AND THE DUTCH CATECHISM A Scientific Appraisal • Jesus Ma. Cavanna, C.M. The Dutch Catechism is supposed to be for the adults of our mo dern world. A sign of genuine adulthood is not to accept ideas with infantile gullibility; to look for reasons that may warrant what is pro posed to our belief; to distinguish factual truths from overlabored opinions; working theories from sheer hypotheses; scientific findings from wishful thinking. Unfortunately the authors of this “New Catechism” have in seve ral passages failed to show this sign of a well-pondered and critically balanced adult mentality. In saying this we do not mean to decry the fascinating presentation of our faith which in the greater part of the said work is apparently achieved. It is a pity though that here and there “not a few nor unimportant” theological “ambiguities”1 are found which may endanger the orthodoxy of Christian doctrine. 1 A.A.S., 30 Nov. 1968 2 Cf. Ecclcsia, Madrid, Num. 1,420, pp. 15-19; Num. 1,457, pp. 17-20. ■' “.4 New Catechism - Catholic Faith for Adults", Herder, 1967, pp. 9-10. But I do not intend here to dwell on that matter which has been already clearly settled by the official “Declaration” of the Cardinals’ Commission appointed by Pope Paul VI to examine the dubious parts of the “New Catechism”/ My intension is to pinpoint simply a scientific question which obviously lies beyond the scope of the aforesaid “Decla ration”, since it does not affect — at least directly and immediately — the dogmatic teachings of the Church. I am referring to the theory of 1 2 480 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS “the evolution of the world” which is unquestionably upheld in the Dutch Catechism.1 * 3 * Frankly speaking I believe that in a serious work like this, intended for the adult world, it was a grievous mistake to af firm emphatically as a scientific truth what is merely a highly debatable hypothesis, WITHOUT ANY SINGLE AUTHENTIC, POSITIVE PROOF? 1 Dr Juan Bonelli, Ing. Geografo, Otra vez la Teoria de la Evolution: ap. ROCA VIVA, Madrid, Die. 1969, pp. 70-71. •' cf. La Evolution, B.A.C. Madird, 1966; Vittorio Marcozzi, L’evoluzione oggi, Ed. Massimo, Milano, 1966. 0 Vincent J. O’Brien, C.M., B.Sc., H. Dip. Ed., "New Ideas; The Facts. The Myths:" ap. THE WANDERER, ST. Paul, Minn., U.S.A. March 20, 1969. 7 Evolution in Action, Penguin series, 1958, p. 58. s Historical Geology, New York: Wiley, 2nd Ed., 1961, p. 47. 0 cf. Rev. Patrick O’Connell, B.D., "Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis," Christian Book Club of America, Hawthorne, Calif: 90250; 2nd. Ed., 1969, pp. 37-42; also, "Original Sin in the light of present-day Science” Roseburg, Oregon, 1969, p. 10. I am indeed aware that nowadays evolution is almost universally accepted as an incontestable fact.5 * And yet it is undeniable “that scientific theories are not carried by a show of hands, but by the facts themselves.” 0 And the facts in this case cannot be afforded by compa rative anatomv, genetics, embryology or geographical distribution: until now, data from these sciences may well be interpreted either in favor or against evolution. The foremost evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley himself admits: among the countless arguments advanced to prove evolution “fossils provide the basic documents and the direct evidence.”7 * * And Carl O. Dunbar, Yale geologist and outstanding evolutionary authority avows: “fossils provide THE ONLY HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE that life has evolved from simpler to more complex forms”? Without the fossils of intermediate forms or “links”, Darwin himself in the 10th chapter of The Origin of Species avers that his whole theory would col lapse.0 Even the Dutch Catechism seems to agree with this view. The only prcof alleged to support its bold assertion on “the evolution of the EVOLUTION AND THE DUTCH CATECHISM 481 world” are “the skulls and bones that have been found”, namely, “the Neanderthal man”, the “hominids walking upright”, and “the Australopithecos”. Unfortunately these specific samples cannot withstand the trial of scientific research. In the course of more than a century, fossils have been discovered sufficient to make many complete skeletons of the Neanderthal Man from the head to the toes. “Each of the various bones and joints are of greater size and strength than those of modern man, and each of them has the peculiarities that belong to the human as against the animal skeleton. The Neanderthal Man is now acknowl edged to be a perfect homo sapiens and has been written off by prominent evolutionists”10 11 . The “hominids that walked erect” are similarly a myth of which no genuine fossils have ever been found ( the Java Man or Pithecanthropus Erectus — ape-man that walked erect — was simply a fraud — made from the skull of a gibbon — as its own “inventor” Dr. Dubois admitted more than once before his death)11. Other mythical “hominids” referred to by evolutionists did not walk erect.'2 And finally, the Australopithecine fossils, according to such authorities as Sir Julian Huxley, Sir S. Zuckerman, Romer of America, and Boule and Vallcis of France, belonged to mere animals which show no similarity to man.13 * 15 10 O’Connell, “Science...” op. cit. pp. 90-93: “Original Sin...” o.c. pp. 13; 48. S 11 O’Connell, “Science . . .”, o.c., pp. 139-142; “Original Sin . ..’’ o.c. pp. 14; 4ft. 12 Ibid., loc. cit. 1:1 O’Connell, “Science...”, o.c.. pp. 143-147; “Original Sin ” oc pp. 17; 48 "cf. J.S. Weiner, “1 be Piltdown Forgery”, London, 1955; Francis Vere of Piltdown, “The Piltdown Fantasy”, London, 1955. 15 O’Connell, “Science. . o.c., pp. 108-138. O’Connell, “Original Sin. . .”, o.c., pp. 13-14 And such are all the supposed “facts” from Paleontology that are offered as an “evidence” for evolution. They have been proved either a forgery (as the Piltdown Man," the Pekin Man or Sinanthropus'" and the Java Man), or quite dubious and controversial (as the Dryopithecus, Bramepithecus, Ramapithecus, etc. and the Zinjanthropus of Dr. Leakey whose claim, according to himself, need not be taken seriously) ,ln 482 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS The charts of The Fossil Record, compiled by some 120 reputable scientists and published in 1967 by the Geological Society and the Paleontological Association of America give the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 taxa (or groups). In these most reliable charts “each type of animal or plant is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the others. Many large groups appear suddenly.”17 As Dr. H. Nilson, professor of Botany at the University of Lund, Sweden remarked in 1954: “This all stands in as crass a contradiction to the evolutionary interpretation as could possibly be imagined. There is not even a caricature of evolution.”18 We may understand thus why Professor Louis Bourioure, National Director of Scientific Research of France, who was taught and accepted evolution in his youth, now agrees with the opinion of his scientfic colleague, Jean Rostand, who describes evolution as “a fairy-tale for adults;”1’1 and why Professor Kerkut of Southampton University castigated his students as the worst “opinion-swallowers” for not knowing and ponder ing the serious objections standing against evolution.20 An ever growing number of top-class scientists and qualified scholars with a doctoral degree in geology, biology, anthropology, phy sics, chemistry, astronomy, entomology, hydrology, mathematics, engineering, archeology, genetics, and many other areas of modern science are presently questioning either the unwarranted “fact” of evo lution, or at least the validity of all the arguments propounded to sustain it.21 The science writer Aime Michel, after interviewing such specialists as Professor Mrs. Andree Tetry, famous world authority on evolution, Professor Rene Chauvin and other noted French biologists, and after studying 600 pages of biological data collected by Michael Cuenot, a biologist of international fame, concluded that “the classical theory of evolution in its strict sense belongs to the past” and “almost all French specialists hold today strong mental reservations as to the validity of ’"O’Brien, New Ideas: o.c., 18 Synthetische Artbildung, 1954 19 cf. Le Monde et la Vie, October, 1963 20 Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, 1965. 21 Henry M. Morris, “The Twilight of Evolution". Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1969, pp. 85-93. EVOLUTION AND THE DUTCH CATECHISM 483 natural selection;”"2 and although many have not yet rejected the sup posed “fact” of evolution, the best mechanism they can suggest to explain the genetic changes is “THE GOOD JUDGMENT of the organism itself”(I).22 23 * * * 27 A recent book of GA. Kerkut, a recognized scientist, without rejecting completely evolution, demolishes its arguments and insists that it is not a “proved fact”; and thus Dr. John T. Bonner is compelled to say: “We have all been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evi dence, and, therefore it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice.”2* 22 cf. Science Digest, Vol. 51, January 1961 p. 61. 23 Ibid., p. 63 21 cf. American Scientist, Vol. 49, June 1961, p. 240 2r’ cf. Studia Entomologica, Vol. 3, December 1960, p. 498. 20 Introduction to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (New York. Everyman’s Library, E.P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 1956) 27 Ibid., loc. cit. Dr. W. R. Thompson, for many years Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control at Ottawa, Canada and a world-renowned entomologist, openly declared: “Evolutionary speculation ... is only too often at best merely a dressing up of comparative anatomy in edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species published in the Darwinian Centennial Year he makes a devastating indictment and complete refutation of all the alleged “evidences” of Darwinian evolution, and of the scientific honesty of evolutionists. Dr. Thompson significantly observes: “There is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because THE EVIDENCE IS UNSATISFACTORY AND DOES NOT PERMIT ANY CERTAIN CONCLUSION. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”20 (emphasis, ours). To fail in doing this, he says, “is abnormal and undesirable in science.”2. And this is precisely our objection raised from the scientific level against the Dutch Catechism which apodictically asserts: “The life in my body comes from the beast”(l). If it would have simply suggested the possibility of evolution as a theory (even utterly irreconcilable, at BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS that, with the universally valid entropy principle, the second law of ther modynamics) ;2 * * 28 * or had it proposed as the most commonly accepted (al though scientifically questionable) answer, and let it pass. But to make unreservedly the above affirmation in the name of science when it is scientifically undemonstrable, and to sell it to the non-scientific public in a “Catechism for adults” is certainly wrong and abnormal, to say the least. Adults are not to be spoonfed with myths and nice lucubra tions coated with a vamish of scientific gimmick and aorobatism! 2S Prof. John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris, "The Genesis Flood", The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, Penn sylvania 1969, pp. 224-227; Henry M. Morris, "The Twilight...," o.c.. pp. 33-36. 20 Pius XII, Encycl. “HUMANI GENERIS”, 12 Aug. 1950: cf. Denz.Schon., n. 3896; cf. O’Connell, "The Science..." o.c., pp. 159-167; Card. Ernesto Ruffini, Member of the Biblical Commission, The Theory of Evolution Judged by Reason and Faith, New York, 1959. 30 cf. Denz.-Schon., loc. cit. 31 Ibid., Ioc. cit. The Dutch Catechism becomes thus liable of being indicted from the very grounds of natural sciences. And still more. Although Ca tholic faith has no serious objection against the theory of evolution applied to the origin of human body (provided a special divine intervention in that origin is admitted, and the immediate creation of each human soul is professed) ;20 and although it is lawful for scientists and theologians to discuss with gravity, moderation and restraint this problem in some way closely related with the^ources of divine revelation;30 still Pius XII in 1950 unmistakably forbade to teach as an hypothesis of evolution;31 and this prohibition retains in our days its binding force, since during the last 20 years nothing new has been discovered to favor the theory; nav, it is actually losing ground more and more in scientific circles. Hence, on this respect the Dutch Catechism has also failed to abide, as all Catholics should, with the standing directives of the Church Magisterium.