The Scientific Case against Evolution

by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the
scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for
macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd
situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists
admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any
significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never
happen at all.
Evolution Is Not Happening Now
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it
happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many
"transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct
"kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and --
apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties
of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called
microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such
changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing
species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these
have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new specieshas ever been produced, let alone a
new "basic kind."
A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at theUniversity of
Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species
of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
1

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The
fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem
to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists,
longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact,"
nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are
inappropriate techniques"
2
by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
Evolution Never Happened in the Past
Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly
for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in
the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a
single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed
logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from
the less to the more evolved.
3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations
would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There
ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the
fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception
of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged
walking whales), they are not there.
Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most
paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil
record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.
4

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of
vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of
intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that
neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:
And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated
by chemical means.
5

Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that.
Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:
The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed
many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.
6

Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically."
Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous
experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!
Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino
acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the
apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life.
Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of
experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than
the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.
7

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have
evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even
dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:
The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.
8

Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its
"hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish--
with its hard parts all on the inside.
Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in
mystery, and many theories abound.
9

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of
creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any,
evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!
It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with
minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .
10

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't
change during their durations?
Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from
key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many
different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear
or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different
times.
11

As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have
been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been
rejected in turn.
All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from
fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and
fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line
of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees
diverged from a common ancestor.
12

Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other
types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary
scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts
fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:
The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its
pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences
for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.
13

Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:
Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so
objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.
14

Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in
the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In
fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.
Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive
evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model
of origins.
Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many
varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with
changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any
"vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition)
would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution
are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.
The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics
Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are
increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other
biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A
number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is
common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two
different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.
Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not
use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence
for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.
The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity,"
noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly
surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and
chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA
differences between men and spiders?
Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better
explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The
great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and
evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor.
How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?
The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very
great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities
between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or
observable sense.
Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a
witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently
have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted
above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the
comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions
yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."
The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more
closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are
to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and
koalas.
15

There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.
The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special
type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced
mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."
16
However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today
that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.
Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once
thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.
17

It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the so-called "pseudo genes," have no function.
That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the so-called
"vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have
specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the
organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.
At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well
in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected
in the creation model.
The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is
occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to
acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.
A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and
trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer
seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.
Evolution Could Never Happen at All
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past
(except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most
fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the
second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go
"downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best proved laws of nature. It
applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -
- in fact, in all systems, without exception.
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one.
Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so
independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact
that matter is composed of interacting particles.
18

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second
law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are
reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all
biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case,
biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and
practically all biologists acknowledge this.
Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is
resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun
able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all
systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has
dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends
what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a
"flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And
what is this flaw?
Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a
larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.
19

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true
that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that
evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from
the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any
system, open or closed.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the
influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All
known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding
program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in
accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never
beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate
order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving
the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that
evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate
sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome
this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of
evolution, past or present.
From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real
scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited
horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.
Evolution is Religion -- Not Science
In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a
scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the
fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any
significant scale.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific
debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for
scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.
Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still
need to counter the creationist message.
20

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so
adamantly committed to anti-creationism?
The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all
costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an
atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in
the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism
or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active
role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.
The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world
proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or
guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that
the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately
described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and
inseparable.
21

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in
the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their
position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-
atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.
Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.
22

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.
The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of
evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:
Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.
23

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science
because it is not naturalistic.
24

It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential
evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of
England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic
atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even
acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated
as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and
morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of
evolution still today.
25

Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary
worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the
realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental
science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric
mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this
remarkable game.
Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by
society into vast cosmic deceptions.
26

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And
speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite
of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . .
we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter
how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a
Divine Foot in the door.
27

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a
laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to
adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book
by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:
We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to
explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular
stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings
and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are
just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.
28

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of
establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their
highly educated college professors, he says:
And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those
of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We
only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or
gloss over any evidence to the contrary.
29

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the
frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious
atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly
acknowledges this.
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a
religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable
from atheism.
30

Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It
is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.
(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just
as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about
evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental
evidence is minimal.
31

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution
(that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!
The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against
God,
32
I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind
every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient
ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as
well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).
As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to
be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a
"religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book,
he said:
Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on
earth.
33

Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought
from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."
34
Then he went on to say that: "The God
hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he
concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."
35

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders
of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.
In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the
reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No
Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to
all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in
atheism.
References
1. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300.
2. Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283,
July 2000), p. 83.
3. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, op. cit., p.89.
4. Ibid.
5. Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American (vol. 271,
October 1994), p. 78.
6. Ibid., p. 83.
7. Massimo Pigliucci, "Where Do We Come From?" Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 23,
September/October 1999), p. 24.
8. Stephen Jay Gould, "The Evolution of Life," chapter 1 in Evolution: Facts and Fallacies,
ed. by J. William Schopf (San Diego, CA., Academic Press, 1999), p. 9.
9. J. O. Long, The Rise of Fishes (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. 30.
10. Niles Eldredge, The Pattern of Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1998), p.
157.
11. Neil Shubin, "Evolutionary Cut and Paste," Nature (vol. 349, July 2, 1998), p.12.
12. Colin Tudge, "Human Origins Revisited," New Scientist (vol. 146, May 20, 1995), p. 24.
13. Roger Lewin, "Family Feud," New Scientist (vol. 157, January 24, 1998), p. 39.
14. N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343.
15. Lewin, op. cit., p. 36.
16. Rachel Nowak, "Mining Treasures from `Junk DNA'," Science (vol. 263, February 4,
1994), p. 608.
17. Ibid.
18. E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of
Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32.
19. Norman A. Johnson, "Design Flaw," American Scientist (vol. 88. May/June 2000), p.
274.
20. Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott
is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named, The National
Center for Science Education.
21. Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60,
September/October 2000), p. 30.
22. Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and
Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.
23. Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283,
July 2000), p. 83.
24. Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401,
September 30, 1999), p. 423.
25. Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism fron the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000),
p. B-3.
26. Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.
27. Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York
Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
28. Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999),
American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
29. Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
30. Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret W.
Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
31. Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.
32. Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book
House, 1989), 344 pp.
33. Julian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 125.
34. Ibid., p. 222.
The Death of Evolution
FOREWORD
I understand sincere evolutionists; I was one. I do not understand those who not only will not
listen to counterargument, but would prevent others from listening. Ten years ago, to humor a
friend, I read Father OConnells Science of Today and The Problems of Genesis. My belief in
evolution disintegrated, accompanied by anger that a whole counter-argument had been kept
from me for so long. At the same time I began to discern evolutions potential threat to religion. I
resolved to equip myself to help others to hear the counter-argument which was being so
effectively suppressed.
I studied and lectured and learned. The lecture, The Case Against Evolution, grew to a two-
hour session, and it was recorded. The recording was converted into a booklet in 1976 by Miss
Paula Haigh, who was conducting the Catholic Center For Creation Research in America. To my
extreme surprise, the modest printing was well received. It was reprinted in Australia in 1979.
Out of that booklet has come this small book. It involved a complete rewriting of the original,
and enlarging it with so much additional material that the result is a different book. With
gratitude I acknowledge the personal effort of Miss Haigh, without which the original text would
not have seen print. Also, I acknowledge the collaboration of Mr. A.W. Mehlert of Brisbane,
who has authored articles in the Creation Research Society Quarterly and the Bible Science
Newsletter. His specialized research, especially in the increasingly confused field of ape-men,
was most helpful. Acknowledged, too, is the help received from the anonymous ones:
illustrators, typists, and those who helped bridge
the financial gap for publishing costs.
There is now a massive literature by anti-evolution scientists, and it is hoped that this book will
provide a digest of their overall case in an easily readable form for lay peopleand for experts,
too, if interested.
Wallace Johnson
December 1, 1981
Chapter 1
WHY WE MUST FIGHT EVOLUTION
Attack and Counter-Attack
Every attack on the Christian faith made today has, as its basis, the doctrine of evolution.
(Newman Watts, author of Britain Without God). More than a century ago, in England, an
Anglican bishops wife said: I do hope that what Mr. Darwin is saying is not true; and if it is, I
hope it does not become generally known. Today the wheel has turned. Instead of the bishops
wife, it is now Darwinists who are worried, because creation scientists have shown that evolution
is false. The Darwinists, in their turn, are hoping that this does not become generally known. The
evolution-biased mass media is ensuring that it does not become known. The dominance of
evolution ideas deadened belief in Divine Creation and supernatural religion. So was born the
phenomenon of the 20th-century, the secular man. Well-educated; inured to evolution; often a
very decent person; but he never thinks of God.
An atheist, Renan, predicted that the collapse of the supernatural would lead to the collapse of
moral convictions. Evolutions naturalism has ousted supernaturalism, and we can see moral
convictions collapsing. The Christian culture is crumbling; and the Post-Christian era has
begun. That is the final fruit of evolutionism. In 1859, Professor Sedgwick of Cambridge warned
Darwin that, through his evolution ideas, Humanity would suffer a damage that might brutalize
it and sink the human race into a lower state of degradation than any into which it has fallen
since its written records tell us of its history.
In time, the theory of evolution permeated human thought in almost every direction . . . The
ultimate result was exactly what Sedgwick had said it would be, brutalization. The new doctrine
very soon began to undermine religion. (Robert E. D. Clark, M.A., Ph.D. in Darwin: Before and
After, 1948.)
All this has in a great measure lead to agnostic and atheistic beliefs of the present day. Perhaps
the worst of all is that the minds of the young have been singed by doubt. (Father D. Murray in
Species Revalued, 1935.) Actually, the work of the evolutionists will be largely responsible for
the perilous times which are ahead, for evolution has been a large factor in bringing about the
widespread godless philosophy which is characteristic of our time, and which will become
worse. (Ex-evolutionist, Bolton Davidheiser, Ph.D. Zoology & Genetics, in Evolution and
Christian Faith, 1969).
Almost unchallenged for a century, evolution completely changed world thinking and caused
havoc in religion. Yet, the counter-attack which has begun is not by religious writers, but by
scientists.
The Evolution Protest Movement was founded by a few eminent scientists in England in 1932.
It has produced a continuity of sound literature against evolution.
The Creation Research Society began in 1963 in the U.S.A. with 10 scientists. It has grown
rapidly to over 650 scientists who must hold at least a Masters Degree in Science. These 650
scientists are pledged against evolution and for the Biblical account of Creation, Adam and Eve,
and Noahs Deluge.
The Bible-Science Newsletter of the U.S.A. is producing a monthly publication of scientific
facts against evolution.
The Institute For Creation Research is producing literature and is providing highly qualified
scientists as debaters, taking the truth to university campuses and public meetings by open
debates against evolutionist professors.
In Australia, The Creation Science Foundation has taken over the work of The Evolution
Protest Movement, importing books, publishing literature and providing qualified speakers for
schools, meetings and seminars. They have many qualified scientists, some of whom have
resigned from good teaching positions in order to devote their full time to the crusade against
evolution. The ranks of anti-evolution scientists are growing; but the mass media ignores them,
or else discredits them by disparagement. We can also quote some giants of science who have
rejected evolution outright:
Sir Ernst Chain, F.R.S., Nobel Prize winner for penicillin.
Louis Vialleton, who was Professor of Zoology, Anatomy and Comparative Physiology at
Montpelier University, France.
Professor Louis Bounoure, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and
Director of the Zoological Museum; became Director of Research at the National Center of
Scientific Research in France. Bounoure wrote: Evolution is a fairytale for grown-ups. This
theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.
Dr. Paul Lemoine, Past President of the Geological Society of France, and Director of the
Museum dHistoire. An editor of the French Encyclopaedia.
Professor W. R. Thompson, F.R.S. For 30 years Director of the (worldwide) Commonwealth
Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada; a biologist of such eminence that he was invited
to write a preface to the centenary edition of Darwins Origin of Species. His preface demolished
Darwinism gently but completely; but, such was his international status that the preface was
published with the centenary edition. A devout Catholic, Thompson wrote devastatingly against
evolution until his death in 1972.
Sir Ambrose Fleming, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Physicist). Was President of the Victoria Institute
and Philosophical Society of Great Britain. Inventor of the thermionic valve, which made high-
quality radio broadcasting possible. He founded the Evolution Protest Movement.
Professor Albert Fleishman, Zoology and Comparative Anatomy, Earlangen University,
Germany. He stated: The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the
realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of imagination.
Professor H. Nilsson, Genetics, Lund University, a Swedish scientist of world standing. A
recent remarkable development is that quite a few leading evolutionists are publicly
acknowledging serious flaws in Darwinism, and in the propositions on which evolution theory
has hitherto been based. Yet, they are still holding to belief in evolution of some sort. An
excellent book, The Neck of the Giraffe (1981), by Francis Hitching, member of the Royal
Archaeological Institute, is an example. Another splendid book, Darwins Enigma (1984), by
Luther Sunderland, is based on the authors interviews with officials of five leading natural
history museums: Dr. Colin Patterson (London), Dr. Niles Eldredge (New York City), Dr. David
Raup (Chicago), Dr. David Pilbeam (Boston) and Dr. Donald Fisher (New York State). The book
ranges far and wide, but it illustrates that the shortcomings of evolution are widely recognized at
the top.
All this raises the question: Why do many leading minds still hold to evolution? I think that
many brilliant minds have been so molded in established evolution science that there is a
blockage which excludes the idea of supernatural Creation. And there is no third alternative. In
the counter-attack against evolutionism, the major work is being done by dedicated non-Catholic
Christian scientists, and this small book draws upon their scientific findings. It seems that the
revolution against evolution is mounted mainly by non-Catholics, while Catholics, by and large,
have dropped their defenses. Among Catholics, evolutionism is gaining ground because they are
not informed about the Churchs pronouncements and certainly are ignorant of the recent
findings of science. As a result there is spreading among Catholics an evolution-based
Modernism, and that specially dangerous brand of Modernism, namely, the evolution theory of
the late Father Teilhard de Chardin.
Evolution Infects Christianity
Evolution speculation was an intellectual diversion for centuries. In the early 19th-century it was
increasingly active in some circles, but it was not popular until Charles Darwin proposed Natural
Selection as a key ingredient. Within 10 years, evolutionism was sweeping through England and
the Western world. The theory was formulated and propagated by people who disbelieved, and
who even opposed, Biblical Christianity. Christians were caught off balance, illprepared to
counter the evolution gospel on scientific grounds. In any case, so powerful was the propaganda
and so anti-religious was the intellectual attitude, that logical argument would be swept aside by
the tide. The triumph of Darwinism was complete. In time, the minority of scientists who
disagreed chose to remain silent rather than arouse futile argument. The propaganda machine
steadily persuaded Christians that evolution is unchallengeable.
Christians began adapting doctrines and re-interpreting Biblical Creation to fit the ostensible
science which taught that beasts changed into men over millions of years. The guideline
became: Religion must yield to science. Thus, as evolution belief dominated, so did Christian
beliefs weaken. Within the churches there emerged Christians who felt that Christianity must
be updated to satisfy the new enlightenmentwho had lost their faith, but who would not quit
the fold. This movement was Liberal Protestantism. It influenced many Catholics, and, around
the turn of the century, it gave rise to Modernism in the Catholic ChurchModernism which
Pope St. Pius X called the synthesis of all heresies. (omnium haeresum conlectum).
Modernism re-interprets Catholic dogmas and re-casts the whole Catholic system to conform to
popular science and the modern outlook. In the words of a Protestant authority, K. Holl (Der
Modernismus): The struggle no longer revolves on an isolated dogma . . . but on the totality of
the Christian faith as the Catholic Church has understood and proclaimed it. A group . . . has
tried to make, between Catholic faith and modern thought, a reconciliation which would end in
reality in the complete overthrow of the whole theological and hierarchical system of
Catholicism. (Quoted by Father John McKee in The Enemy Within the Gate.)
This could not have happened without the General Theory of Evolution, which is essentially
anti-God. Through the greatest propaganda operation of all time, evolutionism is so ingrained in
modern thinking that its anti-religious essence is lost sight of. Christians are so misinformed that
they are embracing evolutionism with fervor. We are now seeing Christians allied with anti-
Christians to promote the ungodly gospel of evolution. Pius X effectively combatted Modernism
early this century. However, in recent years the mass media and the educational system are
forcing evolutionism and naturalism into the minds of a whole generation, not just a clerical
clique. This has contributed to the resurgence of Modernism on an unprecedented scale. With it
has come a withering of the sense of the supernatural; a de-mythologizing of the Bible; disbelief
in miracles; confusion of dogmas and doctrines. Jacques Maritian, in The Peasant of the
Garonne, describes it: The Modernism of Pius Xs time was only a modest hayfever compared
with that of today.
Do I exaggerate?
Firstly, note that the General Theory of Evolution is accepted more or less in many Church
schools, and in many seminaries and convents and by many modern theologians. And what is the
theory teaching? It is teaching that hydrogen gas evolved into man by purely natural processes.
Secondly, identify precisely the forces of anti-God today. Foremost are Marxism and Secular
Humanism. Marxists are openly anti-God. Secular Humanists are more devious; they call
themselves non-theists to disarm their intended victims. Nevertheless, both have the same
unswerving purpose, namely to dethrone God and eradicate Christianity; and their prime target is
the Catholic Church. In this purpose, their principal tool is the General Theory of Evolution,
which replaces Special Creation and eliminates the personal Creator God.
Thirdly, evolution is the basal doctrine of Marxism (and its creature, Communism) and of
Secular Humanism. Their credibility is based on Evolution. They are not viable without
Evolution. Discredit Evolution and you topple Marxism, Humanism, and their apostate
Christian ally, Modernism.
Fourthly, many dedicated scientists have provided us with the scientific case against evolution.
Christian churches and church schools have now available the scientific weapon for destroying
evolutionism, and thereby paralyzing the enemy. To use this weapon is a duty for Catholics since
Pope Pius XII, in Humani Generis (See Appendix A), stipulated that the facts against evolution
must be given due weight and consideration. If Catholic educators are not fulfilling this duty,
then the onus falls on parents.
Revolution by Stealth
Infiltration is the new strategy. If any organized body hinders the march of anti-God, you can bet
it will be infiltrated. In a notable book, Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, by Dr. Rudolph
Graber, Catholic Bishop of Regensburg (Germany), there is a grim passage which I cannot
forget:
The point to be noted here above all is the change of strategy which can be dated to about the
year 1908: The goal is no longer the destruction of the Church but rather to make use of it by
infiltrating it. Bishop Graber was referring to J. M. Jourdans Ecumenism As Seen By A
Traditional Freemason, 1965. We find another disturbing passage in what Monsignor John
McCarthy, President of the Roman Theological Forum, wrote in 1972: From outside the Church
a plan of subversion has been in effect for over 50 years, implemented by the most powerful
subversive organization in the history of mankind . . . Within the Church the number of openly
declared Marxist revolutionaries is growing. They are a minority, but a revolutionary element of
this kind always is. He adds that the Marxists are aided by the vaguer leftists in the Church, who
have no conscious intent to transform the Church into Socialism. These Liberal Utopian
dreamers are dangerous because they are promoting a revolution whose aims they know not.
From New Zealand comes another warning. Father G. H. Duggan, writing in The Tablet (May 6,
1981), discussed the new liberation theology which is getting the Churchs mission tangled
with social revolution; with Marxist priests trying to reconcile their religion with a Marxist
dogma that knows no God; and with theologians, Protestant and Catholic, trying to justify the
thesis that violence is necessary in the cause of social progress and reform. Father Duggan
stresses that religion and Marxism do not reconcile: . . . the Christian elements eventually
evaporate, leaving a residue of pure Marxism . . . and the Christian Marxist becomes
indistinguishable from the atheistic variety. These authorities are sounding warnings about
Marxist infiltration. However, if Marxists are adept at penetrating the Christian citadel,
humanists and liberal Modernists are in there, too. Homer Duncan, in Secular Humanism (1979),
informs us how they operate: The false teachers in the Christian Churches do not generally call
themselves humanists, but are more commonly known as modernists or liberals. Unlike the
humanists, most liberals do believe in God: not the God of the Bible, but a god of their own
invention and imagination. They deny the supernatural fundamentals of Christianity. If they are
in, how did they do it? How could these antitheses of Christianity enter into and thrive within the
Christian stronghold? It seems Christians made it easy for them. Marxism, Humanism and
Modernism, all three are fruit of the same rootthe General Theory of Evolution. As Christians
progressed into evolutionism, the fruit seemed less repugnant; and, for some, tempting.
Infiltration was not noticed. The ominous three slid into positions of influence. There remains
one burning question: How did the Christian mind embrace the essentially infidel theory of
evolution?
The answer to that is found in the compulsory education system. Again, Homer Duncan is
enlightening: This battle is being fought in our public schools and, unknown to most Americans,
the humanists have been winning the battle so far in the Twentieth Century. The false
evolutionary hypothesis, which has widely been accepted as scientific fact, has all but destroyed
the basis for education as it existed at the beginning of the century . . . Now, both Christians and
humanists recognize the great impact that evolutionary humanism has made on traditional theism
through the public education system. Actually, there are many comfortable Christians who do
not yet recognize the impact of evolutionary humanism; but the humanists certainly do. Homer
Duncan tells us how humanist Paul Blanshard recorded his satisfaction with progress in 1978: I
think the most important factor moving us towards a secular society has been the educational
factor . . . The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates
against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.
Duncan names the agencies which he contends are promoting humanism in America. There are
no surprises in the first few: Atheist Association, Humanist Association, etc.; but some people
will be surprised to find that among the prime purveyors of humanism the following are named:
The United States Government; most powerful and effective, mainly through its control of
education.
The United Nations itself.
Colleges and universities all over America (both state and denominational schools).
It would be comforting for Europeans and Australians to imagine that the same forces are not
reaching beyond the United States. It would also be dangerous naivete. I wonder, is there any
non-trendy Christian parent who is not worried by the new complexion of education. We recall
the enthusiasm among Australian educators for MACOS (Man A Course of Study) and the
fairly lonely voice that blasted it. Dr. Rupert Goodman, Reader in Education at the University of
Queensland, warned that MACOS was materialist and humanist in orientation. In featured
articles in The Courier Mail, Brisbane (Nov. 8 and 9, 1977), he pointed out where MACOS was
leading children: Children are led to believe that man not only evolved from the lower animals,
but the explanation for his social behavior is to be found mainly in his cultural environment . . .
MACOS appeals strongly to the evolutionaries and to the secular humanists, but these are not the
values which should underlie our school system.
Nevertheless, the generality of educators set great store on MACOS, and they would mostly be
sincere and wellmeaning teachers. They would also be products of the system, evolutionary-
humanist public education. There are splendid teachers who do not like the trends, but their
voices become more lonelyand even silent. Meanwhile, the education machinery is tooled
toward producing what Homer Duncan described, and those it produces are grasping more of the
control levers. The products of the system in good conscience propagate the system. So will the
system empty God the Creator out of the student mind, leaving it vulnerable to humanism and
Modernism, and even to Marxismbecause a godless mind is an open field to Marxism.
Darwins Evolution gave to Lucifer the perfect weapon with which to shake the foundations of
Christianity. Man was given an alternative. He could choose between Creation and evolution.
We see the result in todays secular man. Heedless of any Creator God, he acknowledges no
Commandments from a Creator. Thus is removed the source of authority, and lost is the sense of
moral absolutes. Gone is the concept of rendering a final account to an almighty God. It is small
wonder that all authority is breaking down.
Modern man views the awesome universe, not as a hymn to the Creator, but as patterns of matter
blindly shaped by chance. Man is taught that mankind is but part of the vast evolutionary
process, but is the summit of the process. So, Man is his own god. There is nothing above Man
which can decree Thou shalt . . . or Thou shalt not . . . You may love your neighbor or you
may mug your neighbor. Whats the difference? Both of you are merely assemblages of atoms
and atoms have no conscience or rights. So much for the world outside. What of the Church?
Lucifer is clever. He knows that by dislodging one stone (Original Sin) he can collapse the
Christian structure. But, to dislodge Original Sin he must get rid of Adam. Adam must go; and
the ape-men take his place. The great channels of information tirelessly proclaim that everything
evolved, and that apelike animals turned into men, but not into one splendid first man and one
superb first woman. They tirelessly proclaim the reverse, namely, that evolution would have
produced many first humans, groups of them, populations of brutish first humans who were little
better than their animal parents.
The message is being drummed into young and old: Adam is a myth. Adam was a tribe. Adam is
a symbol for a population of first humans. That is polygenismmany Adams, many first men
and its results are devastating. It is at the base of the errors which afflict Christians today.
Pope Pius XII ruled against polygenism in Humani Generis in 1950; but many modern
theologians are performing prodigies of polemics to admit polygenism and evade the Papal
ruling. Pope Pius XII also stipulated that the facts against (as well as those for) evolution must be
properly weighed and adjudged. Yet, Church schools are producing a generation of evolutionists
who have never heard a single fact against evolution.
We see Lucifers consummate strategy. Evolution has deadened mans thoughts of the Creator
and his sense of the supernatural, as well as his trust in the Bible. Erosion of the Bible began
with Adam and has spread even to the New Testament. The trump card was polygenism. This
plays havoc with the central dogma of Original Sin. When Original Sin is discredited, all the
dogmas start to fall like dominoes.
Without Original Sin:
Baptism loses its traditional meaning;
Redemption (from the effects of Adams sin) is confused;
The Immaculate Conception becomes meaningless;
Papal Infallibility is open to challenge, because a Pope infallibly defined that Mary was
conceived free from Original Sin;
Personal sin loses credence, and is now widely disregarded.
One by one the dogmas have been emptied of meaning, and now, under the naturalism of
Evolution:
The Virgin Birth of Christ is questioned;
Matter and Spirit are regarded as the same;
Miracles are denied, even the special creation of the soul.
The tragic waves have spread, overturning all Catholic doctrines; disclaiming the spirit world;
renouncing Heaven, Hell, grace, the Cross, angels, devils. Even God somehow is made a part of
the grand sweep of evolution. Lucifer knew that, as evolutionism advanced, Christianity would
recede.
Teilhard de Chardin and The New Religion
The general theory of Evolution is diametrically opposed to Christian revelation and creed. It
opened a chasm between modern thinking and traditional Christianity. Ostensibly to bridge this
chasm, and professedly to clothe Christianity in a garb acceptable to science, there came a Jesuit
priest, Father Teilhard de Chardin. Whatever his personal motives may have been, his ideas have
done more damage to orthodox Catholicism than those of probably any other person in history.
His evolution-theology has raised a new religion beside the old one. There are now two
religions called Catholic, with a lot of confused Catholics in between. Teilhard gained a
reputation in scientific circles for his part in the setting up of the Piltdown Man (now discredited)
and Peking Man, the real story of which is tainted with equally discreditable procedures. These
activities are discussed later in this book. Teilhards mind was firmly locked into evolutionism
on a grand scale. He proclaimed: Evolution is not just a hypothesis or theory . . . It is a general
condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy
if they are thinkable and true. To Teilhard, evolution and polygenism were the essential realities
which Christianity must perforce satisfy.
In 1922, he wrote an essay which treated Original Sin in a way contrary to Church teaching. By
mistake it went to the Vatican, and Teilhard was nearly excommunicated. He was forbidden to
teach or preach; but he wrote secretly, and his pamphlets were passed from hand to hand. He
wrote several books formulating a Christianity which bowed to total evolutionism. His books
were refused a Church Imprimatur and remained unpublished.
Bridges:
(a) His followers claim that Teilhard built a bridge between religion and science. As regards the
religious end of the bridge, a respected theologian, Cardinal Journet, described Teilhards work
as Disastrous! . . . It contradicts Christianity. Even more importantly, the official Catholic
Church has warned against Teilhards evolution theology in several pronouncements and actions.
(See Appendix B.)
As regards the scientific end, it is hard to imagine any scientist using Teilhards bridge to
approach religion. Englands famous man of medicine, Nobel Prize winner, Sir Peter Medawar,
stated that Teilhards works lack scientific structure and that his competence in the field of
science is modest. In The Art of the Soluble (1967), Sir Peter dismissed Teilhards works as a
bag of tricks for gullible peoplefor people whose education has outstripped their capacity for
analysis.
(b) Teilhards work is also claimed to be a bridge between Christians and Marxists. Dietrich von
Hildebrand (in Trojan Horse in the City of God) quotes Teilhards own words: As I love to say,
the synthesis of the Christian God (of the above) and the Marxist God (of the forward)behold!
that is the only God whom henceforth we can adore in spirit and in truth. Commenting on this,
von Hildebrand says: In this sentence the abyss separating Teilhard from Christianity is
manifest in every word.
The non-Catholic biologist, Bolton Davidheiser, Ph.D. (in Evolution and Christian Faith) tells us:
The delegates of the Twentieth Annual convention
of the American Scientific Affiliation were told that in Europe, both Christians and Marxists
find his thought the most helpful bridge this century offers between what once seemed their
irreducibly opposing views.
Further to these references to Marxism, it is noteworthy that Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis,
without mentioning Teilhard, drew attention to extreme evolutionists whose monistic or
pantheistic speculations are eagerly welcomed by the Communists as being powerful weapons
for popularizing dialectical materialism.
Pantheism (?):
In a letter, January 26th, 1936, Teilhard wrote: What increasingly dominates my interest . . . is
the effort to establish within myself, and to diffuse around me, a new religion (lets call it an
improved Christianity if you like) whose personal God is no longer the great neolithic landowner
of times gone by, but the soul of the world . . . [emphasis added].
Matter and Spirit:
Essential to Teilhards whole system is the assertion that matter and spirit are one. He uses the
Spinozan idea that matter has a within and a without. From the outside it is matter; but,
looked at from within, this matter has consciousness and thought. Also, the within and the
without are developing in complexity. Teilhard taught that primitive particles of matter
assembled into more complex arrangements until some most complex arrangements burst into
life. Lifeless matter had become alive, and it continued to complexify until it reached a boiling
point, whereupon the living matter became conscious.
The animal stage had been reached. The complexifying continued. The brains of some higher
animals attained such complexity that, in one type of animal, thought was generated and the
animal became man. Matter, in the shape of man, had begun to think. From that point, Teilhard
proposes that evolution is sweeping mans thinking-consciousness upwards toward the climax
when all humanity will merge into a super-consciousness with common thought and common
will. He calls this the Omega Point where, he says, all creation will be united with Christ (the
Cosmic Christ, evolutor of the world) and absorbed in God. To claim that matter and spirit are
the same leads to denial of the spirit world followed by rejection of the supernatural character of
Christianity. I detect an element of cheating in the proposition that the material and the spiritual
are one. It is as if Teilhard saw that he faced a problem in getting mind to evolve from matter,
and he got over the problem by pronouncing in advance that mind and matter are the same
substance. His disciples gravely nod in agreement, not because Teilhard produces evidence, or
even a good argument, but simply because Teilhard says so.
The Cosmic Christ:
Christ saves. But must we not hasten to add that Christ, too, is saved by evolution? That is
another gem by Teilhard. Jacques Maritains reaction was that Teilhard is most anxious to
preserve Christ; but What a Christ! This is no longer Jesus, the God-Man, the Redeemer; this
is the initiator of a purely natural evolutionary process, and also its endthe Christ-Omega. Any
unprejudiced mind must ask: Why should this cosmic force be called Christ? Teilhard has
dreamed up an alleged cosmogenic force and has then tied onto it the label Christ. Maritain
warns that we must not be fooled by this subterfuge of wrapping pantheism in traditional
Catholic terms. He explains why: Teilhard, the obsessed evolutionist, has a basic conception of
the world which cannot admit traditional Original Sin. Consequently his world has no place for
the Jesus Christ of the Gospels, because, without Original Sin, the redemption of man through
Christ loses its inner meaning. (The Peasant of the Garonne by Jacques Maritain).
Teilhardism Invades:
Teilhard de Chardin died in 1955. Thereupon, a group of people who were extreme evolutionists,
and some of whom were atheists, had his works published without the authority of his Jesuit
superiors. From that moment, Teilhardism invaded the Catholic Church on a large scale.
Teilhards ideas entered modern catechetics. Children whose parents were unaware of Teilhard
de Chardin were indirectly subjected to his ideas. It has been said that the real danger to the
Church is Modernism and that evolutionism is only a minor academic exercise. Such a view
misses the point that Modernism and Teilhardism have their source and lifeblood in the General
Theory of Evolution. Logic, theology and sweet reason usually will bounce off the Modernist.
However, if you discredit evolution, you collapse the foundation of it all and the Modernist is left
without support. While this might not cause a change of heart in a dedicated Modernist, it should
fortify the ordinary person against the intellectual seduction of Modernism. Above all, if we can
get through to our young people that evolution is unscientific nonsense, they will be spared the
religious doubts and compromises which propel them into the pseudo-sanctuary of Modernism
and Teilhardism.
Any Questions?
SELECTED QUESTIONS ANSWERED
Q. How could the Ark possibly have carried all the animals necessary?
A. This question is handled at length in The Genesis Flood by Morris and Whitcomb. If we
assume 17-1/2 inches for a cubit, the Ark would have been 437 feet long by 73 feet wide and 44
feet highbuild like an enormous barge and almost uncapsizable. Its gross tonnage would have
been 14,000 tons. It was, by far, the biggest vessel ever built until very recent times. The three
decks would give a carrying capacity equal to 522 standard American railroad cars. The Genesis
kinds would not include all species, and certainly not varieties of species. Thus, the animals on
the Ark would be restricted to types or kinds. The Ark would not have carried fish or any aquatic
creatures. The conclusion is reached that, at the very outside, the Ark would need to carry not
more than 35,000 individual vertebrate animals. Most animals are smaller than a sheep. The
young of very large animals could have been carried instead of the fully grown. Even allowing
the average to be the size of a sheep, it is estimated that the 35,000 could have been fitted into
146 railroad cars. The Ark would have easily carried the animals on one deck, leaving one deck
for the humans, and one deck for storage.
Q. How could Noah round up all those creatures?
A. He could not have done it. We have to acknowledge that God did the mustering. The Bible
makes this clear. It says that Noah and his family went into the Ark, and that all the creatures
went in to Noah into the ark . . . And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as
God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in on the outside. (Genesis 7:14-16).
If we wonder about kangaroos and polar bears and other far-flung animals making the journey to
the Ark, we have to realize that the evidence shows the whole earth used to enjoy a fairly
uniform and mild climate, with no extremes; therefore there were no specialized creatures
adapted to extremes of heat or cold. There probably were no polar bears because there were no
frigid zones for them. All the then existing species of animals could have lived in proximity to
the Ark.
A number of competent scientists believe that the earth was probably surrounded by a
transparent vapor canopy, high in the stratosphere (the waters above the firmament), and that the
canopy caused a greenhouse effect on earth and gave a uniformly mild climate.
Q. How could the menagerie be managed and fed in the Ark for more than a year?
A. In the case of very large animals and carnivorous animals, the difficulty could have been
avoided by having only young specimens aboard. Alternatively, God may have used mechanisms
like hibernation and estivation to quiet the creatures and make constant feeding unnecessary.
Morris and Whitcomb raise the interesting thought that hibernation, estivation and migration are
the three methods of coping with inclement climactic conditions; but, if there existed a
constantly mild climate, there would have been no reason for the existence of any of the three
mechanisms before the Flood. They then suggest that it may have been on the eve of the Deluge
that these abilities were first imparted to the animals. Certainly divine power could have kept the
animals in a quiescent state in the Ark to minimize their feeding and other supervision. The Bible
does assure us that God was directing events. It tells us, And God remembered Noah, and all the
living creatures, and all the cattle which were with him in the ark . . . (Genesis 8:1). The Bible is
not suggesting that
God absentmindedly forgot, and then suddenly remembered that Noah and the Ark were still out
there in the flood. The Bible passage makes sense if it means: And God protected Noah, and all
the living creatures, etc. Apparently the Hebrew word remember can mean protect. Morris
and Whitcomb tell us: According to Hebrew usage, the primary meaning of Zakar (remember)
is granting requests, protecting, delivering when God is the subject and persons are the object.
Q. Where would the water come from for a worldwide deluge?
A. Under our present conditions there is not enough water in the atmosphere to sustain 40 days
and nights of global rain. In fact, if it were all precipitated, it would cover the ground to a depth
of less than two inches. There is compelling geologic evidence that a global flood did happen
and that the highest mountains have been submerged. We cannot dodge the problem by saying
that the flood never happened. Where, then, did the water come from? The vapor canopy referred
to in answer to the second question would be part of the solution. Another source would be
juvenile waters, that is, waters which are added to the oceans through volcanoes, hot springs
and other vents. Even today there is at least a cubic mile of such water added to the oceans each
year. The Deluge was an unprecedented upheaval with volcanic action unimaginable. This would
have added vast amounts of juvenile waters to the earths surface.
Then, volcanic dust flung to the upper atmosphere could have provided nuclei of precipitation
for the vapor canopy, whereupon its waters began raining on to the earth. In the six hundredth
year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the
fountains of the great deep were broken up (submarine volcanoes?) and the flood gates of heaven
were opened (vapor canopy?) and the rain fell upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights. (Genesis
7:11-12). Yet, even those sources would not suffice to cover mountains like Everest (29,000 ft.)
or even Ararat (17,000 ft.). What we have to understand is that at the time of the Deluge there
would not have been such high mountains for the Deluge to cover. Topography depends on the
principle of
Isostasy (equal weights). Somewhere, deep in the earths crust, is a datum line; and, for
equilibrium, the weights above the line have to balance. Areas of high topography must be of
low density, and vice versa. Before the Deluge, the amount of water was much less than now;
therefore the weight of oceans could balance only relatively low mountains. Mountains were
relatively low and ocean beds relatively shallow as compared with present conditions. (Genesis
Flood, p. 268).
Even though the mountains were fairly low, yet more water was needed to submerge them, and
from the oceans themselves came the greatest flooding. It is known that Europe was covered by
the sea during mans history, and even the high plateau of Iran was devastated by sea water. All
the continents bear evidence of having been submerged by sea water. The great coal deposits
were laid down under sea water. Geologists would explain continental inundation as due to
depression of the land, and there is good reason to couple this with an accompanying elevation of
the bottom of the sea as it heaved to great volcanism and earthquakes. In the Noahic cataclysm,
water came down from the skies, came up from subterranean depths, and the oceans rose to
engulf the land, while volcanoes and earthquakes caused colossal tidal waves which came and
went around the drowned planet. Eventually, all this water had to be gotten off the land.
The Bible specifically refers to the fountains of the great deep, so we infer that the greatest
volcanic activity was sub-oceanic. The ejected lavas and juvenile waters would leave behind
them great voids in the earths crust, deep below the ocean beds. The weakened ocean beds could
not support the vast increase in surface water and the great sediments washed down from the
land. The ocean beds would sink under the burden; and correspondingly, the continental blocks
would be forced upwards. This would have been the mechanism whereby the flood waters were
removed from the land areas. It is recognized by geologists that nearly all the great mountain
areas of the world have Pliocene and Pleistocene fossils near their summits, which means that
they were
uplifted recently, and essentially simultaneously. (Genesis Flood, p. 128). Geologists recognize
that there have been recent rises of thousands of feet in mountain systems in Europe, America
and Asia; and that high volcanic cones of the Pacific, Asia and eastern Africa are believed to
have been built up in the recent past. It is worth mentioning that Mt. Ararats lava was deposited
under water. It should be explained that Creationists do not accept the terms Pliocene and
Pleistocene in the millions-of-years context; but, as designations, they refer to recent times.
(Refs. The Genesis Flood; Scientific Creationism; Science of Today and the Problems of
Genesis.)
Q. How did the races of man originate?
A. For races to begin, evolutionists and creationists both agree that the prerequisite is inbreeding
in a small, isolated group of people. Dr. Morris, in Scientific Creationism, quotes Ralph Linton
of Yale, a leading anthropologist and evolutionist, who explained in 1955:
Observation of many different species has shown that the situation of small, highly inbred groups
is ideal for the fixation of mutations and consequent speeding up of the evolutionary process. In
general, the smaller the inbreeding group, the more significant any mutation becomes for the
formation of a new variety. Dr. Morris points out that mutations are harmful, not helpful, and
would most likely destroy the population before effecting any imaginary benefits. However, if
we change the word mutations to recessive genes, creationists would then agree with
Lintons statement. In large populations, the population generally exhibits the characteristics of
dominant genes. Only when a small group is isolated and interbreeds do the recessive genes have
an
opportunity to become typical.
Apparently there is no need for slowly developing racial distinctions over long periods of time.
Rather, small inbreeding groups, exhibiting recessive gene characteristics, can effect distinct
physical changes quite rapidly. To produce the major racial divisions there is the question of
what, in mans early history, caused mankind to disperse into small groups. The evolutionist
cannot supply an answer, but creationists have an obvious explanation. Communication is a
fundamental need in a group, and communication is by language. If a large group with a
common language found that its language was suddenly fragmented into various languages,
communication among the various sub-groups would become impossible. The large group would
have to split into smaller groups according to language. Divisions of language would achieve the
prerequisite of small, self-contained groups, whose inbreeding would
produce the races.
Dr. Duane Gish has commented that when language was confused at the Tower of Babel, people
would have dispersed in their lingual groups to different lands, probably in fairly small groups
which would then inbreed in isolation. He suggests that God may have bestowed languages
deliberately so as to marshal genetically similar individuals into the same language group. Thus,
those individuals having a higher proportion of genes for Negroid features may have been given
a common language, and similarly those who tended to Caucasian traits.
Q. Are we to believe that men lived for hundreds of years, as Genesis says?
A. Evidence shows there was a prehistoric period when the whole earth had a temperate climate.
Many believe that this was due to a vapor canopy above the stratosphere causing a greenhouse
effect. Uniform temperateness would mean no strong wind currents, no storms. Plants and
animals, including representatives of todays species, were giant-sized, and there is evidence of
large stature for at least some of early mankind. It was a world vastly different from todays
world. In that pre-Flood world the Bible records human lifespans of many hundreds of years. In
an article in C.R.S. Quarterly (June, 1978), Joseph C. Dillow says that a vapor canopy of
magnitude sufficient to produce (during the Deluge) heavy rain for 40 days and nights would
have caused a pre-Flood atmospheric pressure about double that of today, with about double
todays oxygen pressure. Higher oxygen pressure is beneficial to biological systems. In Florida,
hyperbaric treatment using 2.5 atmospheres of pure oxygen has relieved effects of aging, helped
treatment of strokes, improved memory and energy. Such pressurized pure oxygen is greater than
the atmospheric oxygen pressure under the assumed pre-Flood canopy, but Dillow suggests that
the latter, when extended over a whole lifetime, might have had similar beneficial effects in
retarding senility.
Kevin C. McLeod, in C.R.S. Quarterly (March, 1981), points out that medical investigators have
applied electromagnetic fields to a variety of patients with apparently beneficial effects including
retarding of aging and stabilization of the genetic code, and also increased release of calcium into
tissues. A relevant point is that disturbed calcium metabolism is a suspected factor in aging. With
bone fractures that would not join, electromagnetic fields promoted bone growth and caused
bone ends to unite and knit. On the evidence, the earths magnetic field is decaying
exponentially. In the pre-Flood era it would have been very much stronger than now. People in
that era would have enjoyed the benefits of a much greater electromagnetic field, presumably
with effects on longevity. Donald W. Patten, in C.R.S. Quarterly (June, 1982), looks at the role
of carbon dioxide. In laboratory experiments, an atmosphere enriched in CO2 produced
beneficial effects on the blood of vertebrate animals. Also, it caused dilation of blood vessels in
the brain (and skin), making more oxygen available to brain cells. There is a small gland in the
brain called the hypothalamus, a gland which affects aging for the neuro-endocrine system.
Increased oxygenation in brain cells reduces the activity of this gland and thus reduces its
influence for aging.
Patten proposes that the pre-Flood atmosphere was very much richer in CO2 than was the
atmosphere after the Flood. Why? Because cold oceans soak up much more CO2 from the
atmosphere than do warm oceans. Todays oceans average a chilly 38F, compared with warmer
pre-Flood oceans of perhaps 60. The warmer oceans meant the pre-Flood atmosphere was much
richer in CO2, which would have resulted in dilation of the blood vessels, increasing oxygen
flow, and thus would have rendered the hypothalamus less active and thereby retarded the aging
process. In an interesting aside Patten says that, a century ago, CO2 comprised 290 parts per
million of the atmosphere. Since then, increasing burning of fossil fuels has raised the CO2 ratio
to 330 p.p.m. He thinks this increase in atmospheric CO2 has some relation to recent
generations increase in height and/or lifespan.
Fossils show that, before the Pleistocene Age, the size of mammals was 30% to 40% greater than
in todays world. This giganticism occurred worldwide. Then, with the Pleistocene, which we
interpret as the post-Flood world, there occurred a declining size of animals in all parts of the
world. The fossils cannot reveal whether there was also a decline in lifespans of animals, but
Genesis records a decline in mans lifespan. Both Dillow and Patten draw attention to the fairly
constant lifespans of the long-lived pre-Flood patriarchs from Adam to Noah, and then to the
declining ages of men after the Flood. From Noahs son, Shem (600 years), through 17
generations to the contemporaries of Moses when 70 years became the ordinary lifetime, the
lifespans plotted graphically
against the generations show an exponential decline. Dillow comments that such a decay curve is
common when a system in equilibrium is suddenly acted on in a way that shifts it to a new
equilibrium. He says that myths could not produce such a neat mathematical result. It is most
unlikely that such a curve could result from anything but an actual historical happening. The
decay curve suggests that new factors were present in the post-Flood environment.
Oxygen, carbon dioxide, earths magnetic field may all have played a part in longevity and in the
mystery of aging. It is all in the investigatory stage, but these factors should persuade skeptics to
think hard before dismissing the Genesis ages as myths.
Q. Who was Cains wife?
A. This question is often asked, and sometimes in a tone that implies Got ya this time.
The answer is simple: Cains wife was his sister. Then comes the objection that the Bible makes
no mention of other children of Adam and Eve at the time Cain killed Abel. The Bible names
Cain and Abel because it recounts an event concerning them. Its silence regarding additional
children cannot be interpreted to mean that there were not other children.
The Douay version of the Bible is unquestionably Catholic. In a footnote explaining Genesis
4:14, the Douay Bible says regarding Cain: His guilty conscience made him fear his own
brothers and nephews; of whom, by this time, there might be a good number upon the earth;
which had now endured near one hundred and thirty years; as may be gathered from Genesis 5:3,
compared with Genesis 4:25, though in the compendious account given in the Scriptures, only
Cain and Abel are mentioned. Another footnote in the Douay Bible explains Genesis 4:17 which
refers to Cains wife. The footnote says: She was a daughter of Adam, and Cains own sister;
God dispensing with such marriages in the beginning of the world, as mankind could not
otherwise be propagated. This usually provokes a further objection that God would not permit
incest. However, the Bible clearly tells us that God started the human race with one couple,
Adam and Eve. Unless God intended the human race to stop after one generation, God intended
brothers and sisters to marry at this stage. (For clarification, we refer the reader to the remarks by
Fr. Austin Fagothey, S.J. in Right and Reason, 2nd. ed. (St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1959; TAN,
2000, p. 375-6). Fr. Fagothey states that whereas marriage between parent and child is absolutely
against the nature law, marriage between brother and sister is not absolutely contrary to the
natural law, but is under extremely stringent conditions. He states that only God could allow it,
and He would do so only if otherwise the race could not propagate. Fr. Fagothey sums up the
reason for the wrongness of brother-sister marriage by stating that it would mean the utter ruin
of the family and make the home an unlivable place. Publisher, 2000.) Before we express
disappointment with God for allowing this, let us look at [one reason] why we regard incest as
reprehensible.
We humans carry what is called the genetic load. This is the accumulation of bad mutations
during the centuries. Fortunately for us, the genetic effect of these mutations is usually recessive.
It remains latent, unless both parents carry the particular recessive gene. In that case the
offspring will probably exhibit the defect. If parents are closely related there is greater risk that
both will carry a matching recessive gene from the genetic load; and so, the risk of defective
children is greater.
Incest increases the genetic risk, but does not necessarily mean defective children. Ancient
Egyptian ruling families practiced brother-sister marriages and produced healthy kings and
queens. This is mentioned by Ashley Montagu, author of Human Heredity; and he gives other
examples, such as the inhabitants of the Pitcairn Islands, the Hindu community of Tengger Hills
and people of many small islands. All these seem to show no ill effects. On the other hand,
inbreeding among the Nanticoke Indians of Delaware produced a drooping upper eyelid; and
inbreeding in the population of Marthas Vineyard was the cause of deafness in the hill folk of
New England and of considerable feeblemindedness. (Ref. Supplement to Bible Science
Newsletter, April, 1975).
Now we come to the main point of our answer. Adam and Eve were bodily perfect. In the early
stages of the human race there was virtually no genetic load. When Cain took his own sister as
wife, both were children of Adam and Eve. There was no genetic risk to their children.
Philosophically, let us add that Gods plan was wise. He started humanity with one couple; thus
the whole human race are brothers and sisters. In starting us the way He did, God was fully
aware that there would be no genetic risk from marriages of close relatives among the early
generations.
Q. In a high school class, a leaflet was distributed saying that new research on
chromosomes shows that humans and chimpanzees differ surprisingly little; that the great
apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46, that essentially every band and sub-band
observed so far in man has a direct counterpart in the chimp chromosomes. The leaflet says
that our common ancestor probably also had 48, but, during our evolution, two of these
fused to form what is now chromosome No. 2 in humans. The question is: Is this new
evidence of evolution of man?
A. The leaflet states some facts which are correct, but it adds assumptions which are only
suppositions, e.g., the assumption that evolution is fact and the assumption of some hypothetical,
unidentifiable common ancestor. We have to keep in mind that man has 46 chromosomes in 23
pairs, the chimpanzee has 48 chromosomes in 24 pairs. Regarding chromosomes of chimps and
man, the late Professor Jerome Lejeune, of Paris University, was a world authority. Professor
Lejeune stated that chromosomal research clearly demonstrates that the genetic differences
between man and each of the three great apes are so great as to provide conclusive evidence that
man did not evolve from his closest kin, the apes. There are as many chromosomal differences
between man and each of the apes as there are between any one ape species and another. In
Australia in 1978 Professor Lejeune stated: We now know, thanks to the work of one of my
assistants, that the chimp has two chromosomes more than we have. The chimp has two
chromosomes which are separated. Man has a big chromosome which is made by the joining of
the analogous two chromosomes of the chimp. My interpretation is that, where Professor
Lejeune mentions two chromosomes of the chimp, he is referring to two pairs. Then two pairs of
ordinary chromosomes in the chimp have the equivalent of one big pair of chromosomes in man.
He explained that the joining of the two chromosomes is head to head, which, until recently, had
been regarded as impossible. When they are thus joined, the genetic information of the second
chromosome in the chimp is read in one direction, but its fused counterpart in man is read in the
reverse direction. The reading of the information in the chimps direction may give one sense,
but, when read in the human way, it gives a different significance.
If a gene contains 1,000 or more nucleotides, and if a nucleotide directs the position of an amino
acid, and if one amino acid out of position can cause biological havoc, let us imagine the effect
of the reversal of a chromosome containing thousands of genes. When such immensity of genetic
information can be read forwards (for a chimp) and backwards (for man) without biologically
wrecking the chimp or the man, it suggests clever design by a super-intelligence.
Professor Lejeune affirmed that research since 1971 has shown that the Darwinist idea of
evolution by gradual change is genetically impossible. He is definite that the only way anything
could have evolved is by sudden and complete breaks. That means evolution by big jumps, so we
are looking at the hopeful monster idea again. Having established that man, chimpanzee,
gorilla and orangutan are equally far apart, and none of them could have evolved into another,
Lejeune concludes thus: A simplified theory might suppose that all four came from a common
ancestor, through different species that were separated long ago, and that the common ancestor
was not an ape at all, but some small mammal.
The scientific position is clear: Science observes man and three species of ape, and science
pronounces that man could not have evolved from any ape. That is all that science can tell us.
Scientists can hypothesize all sorts of things if they desire evolution. So some scientists (and
some teachers) are hypothesizing that evolution of man did happen and that man and chimp have
evolved along separate lines from an unknown common ancestor. In body structure there is
some rough similarity between man and chimp, so it is not surprising that there is a considerable
similarity in chromosomes. However, even if the only difference were in that fused chromosome
in man, that would involve some thousands of genes of human genetic information as opposed to
chimpanzee information; and that constitutes a world of difference. Lejeune reminds us that our
bodies are human because the genetic information that molded our bodily material is human
information. Otherwise, he says, we would be flies or chimpanzees. If you want to believe in
evolution, you have to abandon evolution by gradual steps. You must believe in sudden and
complete breaks. You have to accept evolution by monsters which (instead of dying as all
monsters do) survive and launch new species; and you must believe that these hopeful
monsters have been happening so frequently as to produce the innumerable species that have
ever lived on earth.
So frequent a happening could not stop now. Your pet mares expected foal might be something
not a foal, but a something never before seen on earth. To be consistent, you must not be
surprised if, someday, your own child is not the expected baby but something other than human,
never before seen on earth, and that this little monster will survive, but be unable to breed with
humans. Lejeune has said that, to start a new species, there have to be at least two of these.
Before your own monster can breed a new species, a second monster has to be born about the
same time, one of opposite gender, with complementary
reproductive organs. Evolutionists like to hypothesize back into the dim, untestable past. If you
play that game, you must ask yourself: Might it not happen, just as easily, in my own suburb, in
my own home, at any time? I know, and you know, that it will not happen.
Appendix A
THE CHURCHS POSITION
It is fundamental that we believe in Creation, out of nothing, of Heaven and earth by one
almighty personal God whose power now sustains His creation. (Fourth Lateran and First
Vatican Councils). We may believe in evolution of the body (if convinced of it on the evidence),
(*More precisely, in Humani Generis Pope Pius XII said that research and discussions
regarding evolution of the human body may take place by men experienced in both science and
theology. (See pp. 169-171 herein.) The Pope referred to the present state (1950) of the human
sciences; since that time, science has more and more shown the theory of evolution to be
untenable. Publisher, 2000.) but not evolution of the soul; and regarding the origin of the
earthly race of man, polygenism (the idea that there were many Adams) is forbidden. (Humani
Generis).
Any idea of a god evolving with the universe was condemned by the First Vatican Council. In
the 20th Century, with the growth of evolution ideas, Pope Pius XII made clear the Churchs
position: Firstly, in 1941, in an Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope said
that Genesis attested these certainties, with no possible allegorical interpretation:
(1) Mans essential superiority to other animals because of his spiritual soul.
(2) In some way the first woman was derived from the first man.
(3) The first man could not have been generated literally by a brute beast in the proper sense of
the term, without divine intervention. Secondly, in 1950 Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical
Humani Generis, which dealt with various modern errors. He pointed out how evolutionism can
lead to serious error:
A glance at the world outside the Christian Fold will familiarize us, easily enough, with the false
directions which the thought of the learned often takes. Some will contend that the theory of
evolution, as it is calleda theory which has not been proved beyond contradiction even in the
sphere of natural scienceapplies to the origin of all things whatsoever. Accepting it without
caution, without reservation, they boldly give rise to monistic or pantheistic speculations which
represent the whole universe as left at the mercy of a continual process of evolution. Such
speculations are eagerly welcomed by the Communists, who find in them a powerful weapon for
defending and popularizing their system of dialectical materialism; the whole area of God is thus
to be eradicated from mens minds.
These false evolutionary notions, with their denial of all that is absolute, or fixed or abiding in
human experience, have paved the way for a new philosophy of error . . . (Pars. 5-6). He referred
to reliance on the positive sciences and said that this is praiseworthy when they deal with
clearly proved facts; but we must be cautious when they are hypotheses, having some sort of
scientific foundation, which involve Church doctrines. He continues, and applies this to mans
body and soul: For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in
conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and
discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine
of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-
existent and living matterfor the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately
created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that
is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary
seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the
judgment of the Church . . . (Par. 36). He then deplores the rashness of those who abuse this
liberty of debate by treating evolution of the body as if proved beyond doubt. Next he moves to
Polygenism:
Christians cannot lend their support to a theory which involves the existence, after Adams time,
of some earthly race of men, truly so called, who were not descended ultimately from him, or
else supposes that Adam was the name given to some group of our primordial ancestors. It does
not appear how such views can be reconciled with the doctrine of Original Sin, as this is
guaranteed to us by Scripture and Tradition, and proposed to us by the Church. Original Sin is
the result of a sin committed, in actual historical fact, by an individual Adam, and it is a quality
native to all of us, only because it has been handed down by descent from him. (Par. 37). (A
footnote reference to Romans 5:12-19, and Council of Trent, session V, can. 1-4, indicates that
this is well established Church teaching.)
Note: Father McKee (in The Enemy within the Gate) summarizes that the clear intention of the
encyclical is to exclude polygenism from theology. He adds that this part of the encyclical
teaches that Adam was an individual man, not a group, and his sin was an actual historical sin
which is passed on to us by blood descent.
Further note: Humani Generis expressly states that, in encyclicals, a Pope is teaching as Vicar of
Christ, clarifying what the Church already teaches, and this removes the subject from free debate
among theologians. Despite this, many theologians still strive to outflank Humani Generis in
efforts to reconcile Original Sin with polygenism.
Mystici Corporis (1953): Pius XII reinforced Humani Generis with this encyclical. Part of its
teaching is summarized by Father McKee: It includes (1) Adam was the father of the whole
human race; (2) he was created in perfection; (3) all mankind inherited the stain of his sin.
Address by Pope Paul VI (1966): Paul VI addressed a group of theologians and reminded them
that Catholic doctrine on original sin was reaffirmed in the Second Vatican Council (in Lumen
Gentium and in Gaudium et Spes) in full consonance with divine revelation and the teaching of
preceding Councils of Carthage, Orange and Trent. (Ref. Lumen Gentium section 2, Gaudium
et Spes sections 18, 22 and 24.) He reproved some modern authors whose explanations of
Original Sin seem irreconcilable with true Catholic doctrine. He affirmed Church teaching
according to which the sin of the first man is transmitted to all his descendants, not through
imitation but through propagation (i.e., through human descent).
He also reaffirmed the special creation of each human soul by God. The Catholic Catechism (Fr.
J. A. Hardon, S.J.) states on page 106:
While never formally defined, the fact of a direct creation of each individual soul belongs to the
deposit of the Christian faith. Implicitly taught by the Fifth Lateran Council . . . it is part of that
vast treasury of revealed truths which are jealously safeguarded by the Church. This was brought
to the surface in Humani Generis, in 1950 . . . Credo of the People of God (1968): Pope Paul
VI again clarified the Churchs teaching that our first parents were established in holiness and
justice and in which man knew neither evil nor death, but that Adams sin caused human
nature, common to all men, to fall into a state in which it bears the consequences of that offense,
and which is not the state in which it was at first in our first parents . . . He explains the
transmission of Original Sin: It is human nature so fallen, stripped of the grace that clothed it,
injured in its own natural powers and subjected to the dominion of death, that is transmitted to all
men, and it is in this sense that every man is born in sin. We therefore hold, with the Council of
Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, not by imitation, but by propagation
and that it is thus proper to everyone.
And Redemption: We believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the sacrifice of the Cross,
redeemed us from original sin and all the personal sins committed by each one of us . . .
The Fall: The Catholic Catechism by Fr. Hardon (pp. 100-101) states: Since the beginnings of
Pelagianism and up to the most sophisticated theories of rationalism, the Church has never
wavered in her essential doctrine about mans original condition as he left the creative hand of
God, and of what happened when the first man disobeyed his Creator. It explains that
Augustines doctrine on original justice, the fall, and original sin was many times confirmed by
successive Popes.
It refers to the Second Council of Orange and then says: A thousand years later, the Council of
Trent returned to the same subject . . .[and] . . .the Churchs doctrine at Trent becomes more
sharply defined. Thus the first man Adam immediately lost the justice and holiness in which he
was constituted when he disobeyed the command of God in the Garden of Paradise. The
Catechism says that Trent wished: to carefully distinguish between two states of mans existence,
before and after the fall. Before the fall, Adam enjoyed the gift of integrity, which meant absence
of the conflict we now experience between our natural urges and the dictates of right reason.
After the fall Adam lost this gift for himself and his posterity, since even those who have been
regenerated in baptism are plagued by an interior struggle with their unruly desires and fears. So,
too, Trent repeated in more explicit terms what earlier Councils had taught. Adam was to have
remained immortal in body, but, when he sinned, he became subject to death. Trent confirmed
St. Pauls doctrine that Adams sin injured not only Adam himself but also his descendants. The
consequences of Adams sin were not only death of the body, but also the loss of grace
spiritual deathwhich passed from one man to all the human race.
What is Original Sin?:
As Aquinas was later to explain, the essence of original sin is the deprivation of what God would
have conferred on all Adams descendants if the first man had not sinned. It is not some inherent
evil in what God produces. (Catholic Catechism by Fr. Hardon, p. 105.) Trust in Bible truth has
been eroded lately. The point of entry of the erosion is Genesis, particularly regarding Adam and
Eve. From there it has spread through the Bible. We conclude with the warning of Pope Leo
XIII, which should be heeded by todays teachers of young minds: . . . for the young, if they
lose their reverence for the Holy Scripture on one or more points, are easily led to give up
believing in it altogether.
Creation Re-discovered: Evolution & the importance of Origin Debate
By Gerard J. Keane
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To our great Creator and Savior, without whom nothing is possible. To my dear wife and
children, who had to endure all the inconvenience, but nevertheless helped me to get through the
work. To all those individuals who kindly provided so many incisive comments during the
development of the manuscript. I am grateful for all the help given to me; the book could not
have been brought together without the insights and wisdom provided by others. Scripture
quotations are taken from the Douay-Rheims Bible, published by TAN Books and Publishers,
Inc., Rockford, Illinois. Paragraph numbers of the English edition of the Catechism of the
Catholic Church (1992) are given in parentheses as follows: (400).
FOREWORD
By Professor Maciej Giertych
Sometime in 1955, when I was taking Honor Moderations in Science (Botany, Chemistry and
Geology) at Oxford University, the O. U. Biology Club announced a lecture against the theory of
Evolution. The largest auditorium in the Biology Labs was filled to capacity. When the speaker
was introduced (I regret I do not remember his name), it turned out he was an octogenarian with
a Ph.D. in biology from Cambridge, obtained in the 19th century. He spoke fervently against the
theory of Evolution, defending what was for us an obviously indefensible position. He did not
convince anybody with his antique arguments; he did not understand the questions that were
fired at him; he rejected science as we knew it. We all had a good laugh hearing this dinosaur.
He fought for his convictions against a sophisticated scientific environment, deaf to any opinions
inspired by religious beliefs. Today his views are being vindicated by new evidence from natural
sciences. May his soul rest in peace.
In 1955, like all in my generation, I was fully convinced that Evolution was an established
biological fact. The evidence was primarily paleontological. We were taught how to identify
geological strata with the help of fossils, specific for a given epoch. The rocks were dated by the
fossils, the fossils by the strata. A lecturer in stratigraphy, when asked during a field trip how the
strata were dated, explained that we know the rate of current sedimentation, the depths of strata
and thus the age of rocks. In any case, there are new isotopic techniques that confirm all this.
This sounded very scientific and convincing.
In my studies I went on to a B.A. and M.A. in forestry, a Ph.D. in plant physiology and finally a
D.Sc. in genetics. For a long time I was not bothered by geology, Evolution or any suspicious
thoughts. I had my own field of research in population genetics of forest trees, with no
immediate relevance to the controversy over Evolution. Gradually, as my children got to the
stage of learning biology in school and discussing their problems with Dad, I realized that the
evidence for Evolution had shifted from paleontology and embryology to population genetics.
But population genetics is my subject! I knew it was used to explain how Evolution progressed,
but I was not aware it is used to prove it. Without my noticing it, my special field had become
the supplier of the most pertinent evidence supporting the theory.
If Evolution were proved in some field I was not familiar with, I understood the need to
accommodate my field to this fact, to suggest explanations how it occurred in terms of genetics.
But to claim that these attempted explanations are the primary evidence for the theory was quite
unacceptable to me. I started reading the current literature on the topic of Evolution. Until then I
was not aware how shaky the evidence for Evolution was, how much of what was evidence
had to be discarded, how little new evidence had been accumulated over the years, and how very
much ideas dominate facts. These ideas have become dogma, yet they have no footing in natural
sciences. They stem from materialistic philosophies.
My primary objection as a geneticist was to the claim that the formation of races, or
microevolution, as it is often referred to, is a small scale example of macroevolutionthe origin
of species. Race formation is, of course, very well documented. All it requires is isolation of a
part of a population. After a few generations, due to natural selection and genetic drift, the
isolated population will irreversibly lose some genes, and thus, as long as the isolation continues,
in some features it will be different from the population it arose from. In fact, we do this
ourselves all the time when breeding, substituting natural with artificial selection and creating
artificial barriers to generative mixing outside the domesticated conditions.
The important thing to remember here is that a race is genetically impoverished relative to the
whole population. It has fewer alleles (forms of genes). Some of them are arranged into special,
interesting, rare combinations. This is particularly achieved by guided recombination of selected
forms in breeding work. But these selected forms are less variable (less polymorphic). Thus what
is referred to as micro-evolution represents natural or artificial reduction of the gene pool. You
will not get Evolution that way. Evolution means construction of new genes. It means increase in
the amount of genetic information, and not reduction of it.
The evolutionary value of new races or selected forms should be demonstrable by natural
selection. However, if allowed to mix with the general breeding population, new races will
disappear. The genes in select combinations will disperse again; the domesticated forms will go
wild. Thus there is no evidence for Evolution here.
Mutations figure prominently in the Evolution story. When in the early 60s I was starting
breeding work on forest trees, everyone was very excited about the potential of artificial
mutations. In many places around the world, special cobalt bomb centers were established to
stimulate rates of mutations. What wonderful things were expected from increased variability by
induced mutations. All of this work has long since been abandoned. It led nowhere. All that was
obtained were deformed freaks, absolutely useless in forestry.
Maybe occasionally some oddity could be of ornamental value, but never able to live on its own
in natural conditions. A glance through literature on mutations outside forestry quickly
convinced me that the pattern is similar everywhere. Mutations are either neutral or detrimental.
Positive ones, if they do occur, are too rare to be noticeable. Stability in nature is the rule. We
have no proofs for Evolution from mutation research.
It is sometimes claimed that strains of diseases resistant to antibiotics, or weeds resistant to
herbicides, are evidence for positive mutations. This is not so. Most of the time, the acquired
resistance is due to genetic recombination and not due to mutations. Where mutations have been
shown to be involved, their role depends on deforming part of the genetic code, which results in
a deformed, usually less effective protein that is no longer suitable for attachment by the harmful
chemical.
Herbicides are custom made for attachability to a vital protein specific for the weed species,
and they kill the plant by depriving the protein of its function when attached to it. A mutation
that cancels attachability to the herbicide and does not totally deprive the protein of its function
is in this case beneficial, since it protects the functionality of the protein. However this is at a
price, since in fact the change is somewhat detrimental to normal life processes. At best it is
neutral. There are many ways in which living systems protect functionality. This is one of them.
Others include healing or eliminating deformed parts or organisms. Natural selection belongs
here. So does the immunological adaptation to an invader. Of course such protective adaptations
do not create new species, new kinds, new organs or biological systems. They protect what
already exists, usually at a cost. Defects accumulate along the way.
Within the genome of a species, that is, in the molecular structure of its DNA, we find many
recurrent specific nucleotide sequences, known as repeats. Different ones occur in different
species. If this variation (neutral as far as we know) arose from random mutations, it should be
random. How then did the repeats come to be? If mutations are the answer, they could not
have been random. In this context genetic drive is postulated, as distinct from genetic drift.
But Who or what does the driving? The empirical science of genetics knows only random
mutations.
Currently there are new suggestions that molecular genetics provides evidence for Evolution.
Analyses of DNA sequences in various species should show similarities between related ones
and big differences between systematically far-removed species. They do exactly that. Molecular
genetics generally confirms the accuracy of taxonomy. But at the same time, it does not confirm
postulated evolutionary sequences. There are no progressive changes, say from fishes to
amphibians, to reptiles to mammals. Molecular genetics confirms systematics, not phylogeny;
Linnaeus, not Darwin. No. Genetics has no proofs for Evolution. It has trouble explaining it. The
closer one looks at the evidence for Evolution, the less one finds of substance. In fact, the theory
keeps on postulating evidence and failing to find it, and moves on to other postulates (fossil
missing links, natural selection of improved forms, positive mutations, molecular phylogenetic
sequences, etc.). This is not science.
A whole age of scientific endeavor was wasted searching for a phantom. It is time we stopped
and looked at the facts! Natural sciences failed to supply any evidence for Evolution. Christian
philosophy tried to accommodate this unproved postulate of materialist philosophies. Much time
and intellectual effort went in vain, leading only to negative moral consequences. It is time those
working in the humanities were told the truth.
Gerard J. Keane is doing exactly that. In clear and simple language, he reviews the present status
of the Evolution-Creation controversy. I am very happy to be able to recommend this book.
Indeed, Creation Rediscovered by science comes to the rescue of Christianity. Professor Maciej
Giertych, B.A., M.A. Oxon, Ph.D. Toronto, D.Sc. Poznan Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute
of Dendrology, 62-035 Kornik, Poland
PREFACE
By Rev. Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner, S.T.D.
Why a theological introduction to a book about Evolution and Creation? Most people would
instinctively reply: not because Evolution is a theological question, but because it is assumed to
be a scientific question posing a threat to traditional belief in Creation, in a particular way to the
doctrine of the unique dignity of Adam and Eve and their descendants, based on creation of the
soul and special divine formation of the bodies of Adam and Eve, and therefore to belief in the
existence of God and the very possibility of the Incarnation and Salvation as the ultimate goal to
which Creation is ordered. Thus there arises a problem of apologetics: are evolutionary
hypotheses about the origin of the world, of the differentiation of the species and of man in
particular a threat to the traditional dogmatic theism of Catholic theology?
In modern times two ways of approaching this problem have become usual: one is to deny any
valid basis for evolutionary theories of origin. The other is to admit as plausible some theories of
evolution, those precisely which are not incompatible with Theism. Whence the term Theistic
Evolution. In recent years this second approach has gained great popularity among Catholics, in
particular among Catholic clergymen and religious. One can subscribe to all the articles of the
Catholic creed, so the claim for Theistic Evolution runs, and not be pre-occupied with the final
outcome of the scientific debate over the evolutionary hypothesis.
For if one day Evolution should be proved factual, the only evolutionary thesis so to be
demonstrated scientifically will be theistic rather than atheistic in thrust. One even hears the
(very strange) assertion that God created the world by means of Evolution! Hence, Atheistic
Evolution stands condemned by the Church. But Theistic Evolution is not condemned, so it is
further claimed, because the Church makes no judgment on the intrinsic merits of scientific
hypotheses not contrary to faith and morals. And further, say its supporters, Evolution
understood theistically uniquely underscores the prerequisite purpose and intelligence in the
world which demonstrates the existence of God.
Now Mr. Gerard Keanes study: Creation Rediscovered, thoroughly revised and expanded,
shows that no evolutionary hypothesis has been conclusively demonstrated as factual. Far from
it: scientific theorizing about Origins tends more to favor the creationist version than the
evolutionist one. But there is one other, often overlooked point about such scientific theorizing
about the origins of the world and of the species, very telling for the future direction the
discussion of Origins will take. The point is this: These scientific theories of origins cannot be
verified or falsified definitively on scientific grounds.
What is the significance of this point? An hypothesis incapable of scientific demonstration, of
being verified as true or false, is not, strictly speaking, a scientific hypothesis. It may be true, but
the truth or falsity of the theory must be decided on grounds and with methods of reflection
proper to other branches of learning: those dealing with the theological, above all dogmatic
theology, if the hypothesis is primarily theological. For the question of Originsof the world
and of manis not a question of science, but of theology (including sound metaphysics). Sound
science recognizes its limits, even in regard to the sensible. Empirical science does not, because
it cannot, tell us all that might be known about the material world. Wherever there is a question
of the supernatural, of the miraculous, there it is beyond the limits of empirical science to tell us
about material reality and what are the principles of its operation.
For example: Creation as a distinctively divine mode of producing; the virginal Motherhood of
Mary as a true, but higher mode of begetting; Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body
and Blood of Christ; the glorified state of the risen human body. In a word, empirical science has
as its object the study of the natural operations of creatures, not the creative or miraculous
operations of God, which these processes either presuppose for their existence and operation or
which transcend these operations. Dispassionately viewed, the current debate shows that neither
the origin of the world in general nor of man in particular is primarily a question of empirical
science. It is being decided, one way or the other, on theological-historical premises. Hence the
prior truth of such premises is crucial to the entire debate. This is because both origins primarily
involve creative and/or miraculous actions possible only to the Creator. It is not rightindeed, it
is tragically wrongto conceive of the origin of the world and of man as a scientific experiment
and so something to be known per se primo scientifically. Rather, the origin of the Universe,
the origin of Adam and Eve, and the origin of every human person at conception is a wonderful,
miraculous, historic event, carefully planned and stupendously executed by the Creator (and in
the case of Adams children, with the procreator parents).
Now the term Evolution is commonly employed to designate certain explanations of the
question of Origins on scientific grounds. Such an approach, because it attempts to explain
scientifically the theological and miraculous, inevitably leads to conflict with traditional belief,
leaving only the options of rejecting Evolution as false or of reinterpreting fundamental points of
dogma so as to introduce a radically new system of belief.
More closely examined, the initial impression that Evolution Theory in some form might be
supportive of traditional Christian teleology is revealed as misleading. For Evolution as the
explanation of Origins prioritizes change as the basis of existence; whereas genuine teleology
prioritizes the unchanging. Before any process can be posited, either as the principle or
instrumental cause of existence, there stands the necessary being of the Creator, and those unique
acts of production known as Creation and as miracle, which do not fall within the scope of
science to explain.
This being so, it will be helpful, while pondering Mr. Keanes study, to keep in mind some basic
truths of Catholic doctrine about Origins drawn from dogmatic theology and Christian
metaphysics, prior to and transcending empirical science of any kind. Far from being an obstacle
to progress, these truths or dogmas will assist immeasurably to appreciate the real contribution
of empirical science to understanding the truth about our origins. Sound metaphysics, viz.,
Christian metaphysics, to employ the term of St. Bonaventure, tells us that something cannot
come from nothing except by a creative act; and that the more perfect can only come from the
less if the Creator acts miraculously to form the higher species as He formed the body of
Adam from the slime of the earth. No natural processread Evolutioncan explain this because
it cannot do what it necessarily presupposes to exist and act: Creation. That is why the origin of
man is an historical event, not a term appearing at the end of an evolutionary process.
Traditional Catholic theology tells us that the Universe, visible and invisible, was created out of
nothing by the triune God and subsequently structured and adorned in the work of six days,
culminating in the formation of Adams body directly from inorganic matter and the body of Eve
directly from the unique body of Adam. All this: the creation of the world, the differentiation of
the species and the ordering of the Universe within limits and for ends set by the Creator (not
determined and progressively broadened by the operation of the creature) was principally the
work of the Creator alone. Only after the Creator rested from this specific kind of action can
the world be said to have begun to function on its own, under the direction of men and angels,
and so, in respect to its visible operations, to be the object of empirical science.
The great Fathers, East and West, the scholastics like St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas, are
unanimous in their literal, not mythical, interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis on the
origin of the world and of our first parents, in the sense just stated. For only thus can the
uniqueness and dignity of human nature, in the body as well as in the soul, be securely
demonstrated. Some say the teaching of these Doctors in this regard has no more value than their
teaching on questions scientific: that of an antiquated opinion. Such persons are mistaken. The
question of Origins is not a scientific, but a theological question, uniquely so, for it involves a
question of what God did freely and what only He could do when there were no witnesses.
Hence, the importance of divine testimony in Revelation, attested by the Fathers, on this point.
There is only one reason for dissenting: the possibility that science might one day demonstrate
an evolutionary theory of human origins to be factual in reference to the bodies (not souls) of
Adam and Eve. But of this there is no reasonable expectation. Mr. Keanes study illustrates
scientifically that reasonableness. The same thing, however, can easily be done theologically, in
a manner accessible to any well-instructed believer to whom it might seem the Creator could
plausibly have formed Adams body in any number of ways.
What should convince him that the narrative describing the actual formation of Adams body
should be taken literally? That not only were the souls of Adam and of Eve created, but that
the body of Adam from the slime of the earth and the body of Eve from the side of Adam were
formed miraculously by the Creator? That they were not the term of a natural, evolutionary
process? Why is it that human nature is beyond the effective limits of merely material agents? It
is this: The transcendent character of the human body in respect to any other living body, even
the most sophisticated! That body, informed as no other by a soul capable of knowing and loving
the Creator, is animated spiritually. To be so animated requires a prior formation, something
quite beyond the limits of any natural processread Evolutionto produce.
The transcendent character of the human body, the image of God as no other material being, is
directly proportionate to its miraculous origin. It is not the term of a natural or evolutionary
process, but of a miraculous action from on high, in which the Creator is the principal agent. This
is why God formed (not created out of nothing) the body of the first man from the virgin earth
(as the Fathers unanimously understand slime of the earth), or inorganic matter, and why the
Creator formed the body of the first woman miraculously from the body of the first man, so that
there might be no misunderstanding of the different causalities entailed in forming a species,
above all the human species, and its subsequent operation within its natural limits. No human
body can exist except by way of descent (generation, procreation) from the first man through the
first woman. Man alone procreates; animals only breed. Human intercourse is not merely
biological. It is primarily a moral action. That is why fidelity is the essential component of the
marriage bond, and why every aspect of marriage is affected by the presence or absence of this
virtue.
To this consideration a second of the Fathers of the Church must be added. The miraculous
formation of the body of the first Adam from the virgin earth is a type of the even more
miraculous formation of the body of the second Adam, Christ, from the Virgin Mother, viz.,
through a virginal conception and virginal birth. In a word: type and anti-type, figure and reality,
prophecy and fulfillment are of the same orderhistorical and miraculous. Denial by many
scholars of the historicity of Genesis has ushered in a widespread form of closed Origins
mindset, which is now largely self-perpetuating among Christians: question the truth of the
Genesis account as the accurate description of a miracle, and one will be disposed (despite
himself) to question the historicity of the miracle of the Virgin-birth, and with that the truth of
the Incarnation as an historical rather than merely symbolic statement.
Similarly, deny the historicity of the Virgin-birth and one will be predisposed (despite himself)
to relegate the narrative of Genesis to the status of myth about Origins in justification. The
tendency of all scientific formulations of evolutionary theory for human origins to affirm some
form of polygenism for the sake of scientific plausibility confirms this. So, too, in regard to the
end of human life, evolutionary theory tends to affirm the mere naturalness of human death,
thus fudging and indeed erasing the essential, unbridgeable difference between vestige and
image of God, between mere animal and human person, between a duration that is mere
succession of moments and a duration entailing eternity, between nature and grace and between
human nature before and after the Fall.
These confusions and errors, in particular the denial of the numerical individuality of Adam and
Eve, entails the denial of the universal need of redemption by a single Redeemer in a single
Church, the new Eve, taken from the side of the New Adam in the sleep of death on the Cross.
According to Pope Paul VI, a theory of Evolution is only plausible for a believer to the degree it
does not contradict what his faith tells him is simply true, without qualification. Since the
uniqueness and individuality of the first Adam are among such truths, and since the inner logic
of evolutionary theorizing tends to contradict these, it is difficult to see how such speculation can
be reconciled with faith.
With this we see that the question of Evolution is not merely, or primarily, of apologetic interest
to believers. Evolution, as it is ordinarily taken to indicate a certain kind of scientific
hypothesizing about Origins, is a doctrinal error parading in scientific guise. That is why, as Mr.
Keane so ably shows, genuine science either tends to falsify theories of macroevolution, or
simply declare that such theorizing is not properly the object of science. Does the term Theistic
Evolution have a legitimate place in Christian discourse, or might it designate some insight of
Christian reflection, other than being a generic synonym for change or progress? Perhaps it
might, but in that case it will be necessary to define the term carefully and explain why it does
not entail the radical revisions of doctrine and revealed history which nigh universal convention
about this word entails. It is difficult to see, however, how in practice the devilish Hegelian
substitution of becoming for being thereby deifying change and directly contradicting the
immutability of God and eternity of truths as taught by James 1:17can be exorcised without
abandoning the use of this phrase.
This means, therefore, that the phrase is misleading, possesses a built-in ambiguity and is two-
faced. Theistic suggests faith in God, the Creator; Evolution suggests just the opposite. Thus,
the phrase is a parte rei, apart from the good intentions of its users, misleading. It points to an
understanding of the world in terms of progress, an ever upward, spiral-like unfolding of the
inner potentiality of matter until it reaches man, and in the version of Teilhard de Chardin, Christ
Himself.
What primarily and proximately energizes this process is from within the process itself, the
existentialonly incidentally supported and perfected by divine intervention, an
intervention defined and conditioned by the process, instead of the process being defined and
limited by the prior act of creation and differentiation of essences. The classic, modern
formulation of this view is the Hegelian. How different this strange view is from the traditional
vision of a created Universe hierarchically structured by the Creator from without, in terms of
His own eternal counsels. Each order (grade of being) of that Universe is the direct work of the
Creator and by His foreordination subordinated to and recapitulated by the higher orders, each of
which is a grace in respect to the lower, the highest being the Incarnate Saviour and His Mother,
the immaculately conceived Virgin. Another word for this teleological action is mediation, and
it is the only basis for a true, and so humane vision of Origins and existence.
It is no accident that so many prominent promoters of the evolutionary perspective as the basis
for a total reconstruction of Christian thought and life are Marian minimalists, indisposed to a
hierarchical, mediational vision of the Universe, tending always to collapse the higher orders of
grace into a single, naturalistic level of existence. Nor is it a coincidence that many promoting
Theistic Evolution in the Church are radically opposed to a dogmatic definition of the universal
mediation of the Virgin Mother centering on her role as co-redemptrix with her Redeemer Son
on Calvary and during the celebration of the Eucharist.
That role, traditionally defined, excludes in any form an evolutionary vision of the world and
confirms the ancient approach of Christian metaphysics in terms of hierarchical, graded levels of
being, understood primarily as essence, rather than as existence. This recalls the doctrine of St.
Anselm, where First Essence, greater than which none can be conceived, necessarily includes
existence, and gives existence to finite or contingent essence by creating and ordering grades of
being, the lower to the higher, as much or as little as He wills. Parallelwise, that Saint and Doctor
speaks of the purity of the Virgin Mother as greater than which none can be conceived. Only the
pure of heart can see God, and the only purity in fact adequate for this is the Marian.
That is why, not Evolution, but the Virgins mediation brings us to the Saviour and salvation. In
fact, historically, according to Bl. John Duns Scotus, He wills that His Son become Incarnate
Saviour, and so the King and Master of all orders of being and their Redeemer by being born
virginally of the Virgin, spouse of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Christ is the end of history, not via
evolution, but via the grace of being predestined Incarnate Savior, born of the Virgin. Deny this
ancient Christian approach to finite being: its origin and structure, and the entire Universe tends
more and more to be seen as the product of Evolution. Admit that metaphysicssupported by
the first article of the Creedand the illusion of Evolution disappears. It is most important that
Catholics have available to them studies of Origins such as Gerard Keanes Creation
Rediscovered, which is free of errors in faith and morals and advances sound Origins arguments
on the premises of Catholic theology.
Rev. Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner, S.T.D.
Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate
Our Ladys Chapel
600 Pleasant St.
New Bedford, MA 02741-3003
Fr. Fehlner holds a doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Seraphicum in Rome (the Pontifical
Theological Faculty of St. Bonaventure). He has taught dogmatic theology since 1959 and
contributed to many journals in Europe and North America (Miscellanea Francescana,
Wissenschaft und Weisheit, Citt di Vita, Miles Immaculatae, Christ To The World, Theological
Studies, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, The Cord, Franciscan Educational Conference) and was
chief editor of Miles Immaculatae (1985-1989). His scholarly work on Origins, In The
Beginning, was published in Christ To The World, Rome (1988).
INTRODUCTION
Since the first edition of Creation Rediscovered was published in 1991, an extensive number of
fascinating developments have arisen and so it is timely once again to survey the Origins1
debate for these reasons:
To present a Christian overview of matters relating to Origins without attempting to address
every aspect, and concentrating especially on the situation within the Catholic Church.
To show that the concept of Special Creation is truly scientific and provides a better
explanation of the data than evolution theories.
To demonstrate how belief in Evolution has had a marked effect upon the consciousness of
mankind and upon Christian beliefs.
To draw attention to the need for clarification of various senses in Genesis by the teaching
Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
While Catholicism is primarily addressed in this book, the book is not intended only for
Catholics, for the Origins (For the purposes of this book the capitalized word, Origins, is used
to designate the origins of life as we now know it for the sake of brevity and conciseness of
meaning.) controversy is important to all those who consider themselves Christians. For
Catholics generally, Origins has become something of a forgotten issue. Few see the need to
study it fully, apparently because it is considered irrelevant. Not surprisingly, it seems clear that
there is now much confusion concerning the doctrine of Original Sin. (Some information is
presented here of what has been pronounced in papal encyclicals and in Catholic Tradition
regarding Origins.) The controversy surrounding the Origins debate still remains all about beliefs
and only secondarily about empirical science. For those who are concerned about the
widespread, on-going collapse of religious practice among Catholics, which erupted openly in
the 1960s, it is hoped that this book will contribute towards genuine restoration within the
Catholic Church. (The writer is not a scientist or theologian, but a layman interested in
conceptual problems affecting doctrinal beliefs.)
A strong case can be made that something has been amiss, affecting beliefs within the Catholic
Church, since the early 19th century. The rise of pluralist democracies effectively brought an
erosion of belief in Christianity. Many came to believe that promotion of Catholic doctrine in
society, amidst a multitude of competing beliefs, was an undemocratic and unfair imposition of
ones views upon others. But something also went astray within the Catholic Church concerning
the comprehension and dissemination of matters relating to Origins.
A clear picture of the Origins controversy has taken about 200 years gradually to emerge. For
example, the discovery of multitudes of fossils took many years to uncover, and information
gained via molecular biology has only come to light in the last few decades. In many respects,
therefore, the Origins debate is still very new, and its relevance to the crisis within Catholicism
still is not widely understood. The devastating collapse of faith within the Catholic Church since
the 1960s was no doubt influenced by many factors, but in the opinion of the writer, the collapse
is not fully explicable unless seen in the historical context of the last 500 years. Nor is the
seeming enigma of many conservatives who, by not accepting that Genesis is primarily
historical, may now be functioning as unwitting carriers of Modernism while yet being
strongly opposed to its overall cancerous effects. (See Appendix B for a brief summary of
Modernism.) The historical factors involved can be briefly described in various stages and
aspects:
The transformation within Humanism by the late 15th century, and its manifestation in the
Renaissance era, helped establish the now common idea that man is no mere creature of God, but
rather is an unfinished being capable of creating himself apart from God.
The advent of heliocentrism in the 16th century set in train a certain revolution about mans
place in the cosmos which helped give rise to philosophical Idealism: I think, therefore I am
became a benchmark for separating subjective inner beliefs from objective reality outside of
mans mind, following the speculations of Ren Descartes (1596-1650) and later of Immanuel
Kant (1724-1804).
The late 18th century humanist Enlightenment sought to place man before God in the conduct
of society. Liberal democracies would be governed primarily by the collective wishes of the
people (or, more realistically, by whichever group could wield dominant power within the
system at any point in time). The Kingship of Christ would not be deferred to when framing
laws.
The early 19th century assumptions of uniformitarianism brought doubts upon the idea of rapid
catastrophism, thus making the Genesis account of Creation days and of the Flood of Noah seem
unbelievable and in need of revision.
The mid-19th century impact of rationalist Higher Criticism, emanating from liberal German
Protestants, influenced by belief in uniformitarianism and Evolution, radically challenged the
literalas-given understanding of the Genesis account of Creation.
The mid-19th century rise of Darwinism appeared to give a plausible evolutionary explanation
of the descent of species by natural processes. Many assumed that it also provided an explanation
for the origin of life, on the false ground that God was not required.
The late 19th century rise of Modernism, influenced by all the above aspects, constituted a
form of religion which by definition is completely opposed to, and tries to supplant, the Christian
religion as taught by Christ and handed down for 2,000 years. Almost 100 years after Pope St.
Pius X (1903-1914) moved to condemn Modernism, its revisionist impact has undergone a virile
rebirth within the Catholic Church since Vatican Council II.
A revolution in consciousness occurred in the Church as a result of these influencing factors,
challenging the very meaning of longheld religious beliefs and practices. In particular, the
overturning of the Latin rite of Mass in 1969 had the unfortunate effect of much crucial Catholic
culture being lost to many individuals, resulting in alienation from authentic Catholicism.
But the relevance of Origins does not affect only Christian beliefs the very cohesion of society
is involved. If a higher, transcendent Authority is not recognized, society will continue to
experience great strain:
If members of a civilized society considered themselves as the product of blind random chance
mutations, they could hardly be expected to believe they were the special creation of God. It
follows, quite logically, that they could not reasonably feel themselves subject to the commands
of their Creator, if that creator was time, coupled with chemicals and natural selection. If nobody
owns them, they are free to make their own rules. Without any absolute authority to guide their
moral decisions, they are only constrained by a relative authority, that of the State, whose rules
they influence by their vote. Those rules would usually be the result of consensus, and would
reflect the wish of the majority. Without any Christian ethic to influence the State . . . laws
against divorce, pornography, homosexuality, abortion and suicide would be expected to be
removed from the statute book. To reduce pressure upon the health services, a limited movement
towards euthanasia would take place. In fact, all the social and moral phenomena we see in
society today would be expected.
The importance which individuals place upon Origins beliefs can thus impact greatly upon
society. In many countries, abortion on demand is now the de facto reality, and the world is
surely in desperate need of rediscovery of the authority of God. (One wonders how long the
abortion holocaust can continue with impunity4,000 surgical abortions each day in the USA
alone!) But Protestant Christianity is poorly placed to satisfy decisively the latent yearning for
true spiritual values or to counter the humanist lifestyle. Divided into thousands of splinter
groups, many of which now accept abortion, and beset by liberal theology which denies the
divinity of Christ, the quest within their ranks for social justice often seems to predominate over
beliefs about doctrine handed down from Christ.
In the Catholic Church, there has been a marked loss of the sense of the sacred, and Mass
attendance continues to fall, with little prospect of significant improvement. Modernist forces
largely control the Churchs institutions, and authentic doctrine tends to be poorly
communicated. On the last page of The Desolate City, Anne Roche Muggeridge ends her
disturbing book about the state of Catholicism with a plea:
Catholicism is dying. If the Church of Christ is to survive as a visible light to the world, there
must be, there will be, a Catholic counter-revolution. In Gods good time. May it be soon.
The fact that evolutionary philosophy had an extremely bad impact upon Catholicism has been
recognized by Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Addressing members of the European Doctrinal Commissions held near Vienna in May, 1989, he
asked where the difficulties lay which people have with the Faith today, and he went on to
discuss the roots of the problems. He spoke of the almost complete disappearance of the doctrine
of Creation and its replacement by a secularized philosophy of Evolution. The resultant decline
also meant that the figure of Jesus Christ was reduced to a purely historical person. The Cardinal
stressed his concern that a renewed Christianity could only be accomplished if the teaching on
Creation is developed anewsuch an undertaking ought to be regarded as one of the most
pressing tasks of theology today.
But what actually is Evolution? Because of widespread confusion about its true meaning, a
definition of terms is important:
Evolution is a molecules-to-man natural transformation in which new, higher genetic
information is gained which was not possessed by ones ancestors. However well or poorly
grasped in detail, the idea of change to something vastly different (e.g., reptiles supposedly
changing into birds) is the understanding now commonly held across society.
Natural Selection is not Evolution. New, higher genetic information is not gained, but instead
tends to be lost; at best, Natural Selection only conserves existing genetic information in life
forms.
Variety within kind is not Evolution. The wide variety found within each kind of creature or
plant, due to reshuffling of genes (recombination), should not be confused with Evolution,
because new, higher genetic information is not gained in the process giving rise to variety.
Change of an ecosystem is not Evolution. Changes of faunistic and floristic composition which
occur either progressively (in succession) or after a catastrophe (e.g., a forest fire) do not involve
evolutionary change.
Growth to maturity is not Evolution. The normal pattern of growth from conception to adult
(e.g., seeds growing into mature plants or trees) involves an unfolding and change of shape and
size, but new, higher genetic information is not gained in the process.
Theistic Evolution is not Evolution. Ironically, this concept is forced to abandon natural
Evolution and resort instead to innumerable divine interventions. (It necessarily rejects the global
Flood of Noah and holds that violent bloodshed and death were always part of the good
Creation, irrespective of the sin of Adam.)
Prior to the pro-Creation stance of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church (in which the
word evolution was not specifically mentioned even once), the last major pronouncement
made by the teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church, affecting Origins, was in the
encyclical Humani Generis, issued by Pope Pius XII in 1950. Since then, scientific research has
gained many new insights as a result of an immense amount of new discoveries in many
disciplinesincluding biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, geology and astronomy. It is
now known, with a high degree of certainty, that the Creators design of DNA will not allow
natural Evolution to occur. The Catholic Church teaches that the rational souls of Adam and Eve
were created by God in acts of special creation, but Pius XII (Humani Generis1950) taught
that Adam and Eve were real human beings, the first parents from whom all of mankind have
descended; they are not symbolic representations of mankind.
Most importantly, he did not ex cathedra declare Evolution as the official teaching of the Church.
He did, however, allow discussion between specialists about the possible evolution of the body
of Adam. The research has taken place, but full discussion within the Church has not yet
occurred. What is there to fear from truth? It is time for views other than those of the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Biblical Commission to be heard.
The Catholic Church can never teach that Eves body evolved, nor tamper with the doctrine of
Original Sin. And yet, despite the instructions of Pius XII to the contrary, Evolution is being
presented, onesided, virtually as fact in many Catholic academic institutions. This censorship
ensures that the vital doctrine of Original Sin is not imparted in all its rigor.
Since most textbooks and TV documentaries take for granted that Evolution definitely occurred,
it is hardly surprising that many individuals accept Evolution without question. In reality, not
only are the required intermediate forms between the various species absent from the fossil
record, but also many such supposed forms are conceptually untenable. Evolution Theory now
stands exposed as both the worst mistake made in science and the most enduring myth of modern
times.
Though many still believe that Evolution has been proved, the arguments in support of it have
been shown to be untenable. Evolution is portrayed as a fact to be believed rather than as
hypotheses to be tested, but its crucial mechanism continues to be ever-elusive. Ironically, if
Evolution cannot occur, there is no mechanism to find! (The notion of ongoing Creation, where
parents are seen as co-partners with God in the creation of new human beings, is not at issue
here. Nor are we trying to determine what God could have done. Rather, we seek to understand
what He actually chose to do in implementing Creation. One profound reason why God would
not use a method of naturalistic Evolution is that it could convey the mistaken idea that matter is
eternal and thus there is no need for God.)
Evolution beliefs may have had little impact on the doctrinal beliefs of many people, but for
many others belief in Evolution has led directly to a loss of Christian faith. If natural Evolution is
accepted as historically true, this belief can lead to confusion about the Fall of mankind. There is
now a widespread impression that the concept of Original Sin is only religious myth, devoid of
genuine historical reality, which has been exposed by theologians. Without the Fall, the idea of
redemption and a Saviour makes little sense, and ones faith is undermined. Contrary to the
views of most naturalistic evolutionists, it is indeed fully scientific to deduce the existence of a
transcendent Creator. But faith in the Creator-God is itself a mysterious gift from God, and so
disbelief in Evolution will not necessarily result in conversion to Christianity. Nevertheless, a
widespread recognition that Evolution is myth is important to achieve throughout secular society.
In addition to this, however, is the fact that the secular humanist beliefs which dominate modern
society cannot be effectively countered unless the basics of doctrine are once again proclaimed in
schools and from pulpits. A clear grasp of Origins is of crucial importance to both the recovery
of nerve and the very teachings to be imparted.
From a Christian perspective, should the Faith as handed down by the Apostles be retained, or
should it be overturned to conform with the scientifically unsupportable evolutionary world-
view? For the Catholic Church, there are two clearly incompatible alternatives at issue:
Evolution really did take place; the first books of the Old Testament contain errors and are only
religious stories; Adam and Eve are symbolic terms for the many early evolving human
beings; and Scripture is now open to radical revision, despite 2,000 years of consistently held
beliefs handed down from Christ.
Evolution did not take place and was not part of the method chosen by God during His
creation; the first books of the Old Testament contain a blending of both natural (i.e., true)
history and religious truth, with no errors whatsoever; Adam and Eve were the first two human
beings created by God, and interpretation of Scripture can never be open to radical revision.
Terms such as evolutionist and creationist are, of course, very simplified labels and their use
can give rise to confusion. Like political labels, they are used out of convenience to categorize a
range of personal views and general concepts broadly representative of a movement or a
coalition of interests. As with political parties, individuals on all sides may differ substantially on
a number of specific points while nevertheless sharing a broad overall position.
Evolutionists disagree substantially about the elusive yet-to-be-discovered mechanism of
Evolution, but almost all of them agree on an age of billions of years for the Universe. On the
other hand, those who believe in Special Creation agree that Evolution cannot occur, but they
tend to disagree substantially about the age of the Universe. In the writers opinion, the question
of the age of the Universe cannot be left aside as though it is irrelevant.
The assumption of long ages is crucial to the insupportable idea of Evolution, and the growth in
popularity of presumed eons of time has helped validate Evolution in the thinking of those who
have not made a careful study of this theory.
This assumption of vast amounts of time involves concepts which ultimately challenge the
teachings of the Catholic Church on death and secondary causes.
These inconceivable time-frames have to be read into Scripture against the majority opinion in
Tradition from Church Fathers that the sacred writer(s) of Genesis (including God as the
principal author) intended to assert a literal-as-given meaning for yom creation days of 24 hours.
Belief in an age of billions of years is, more than any other reason, the major factor preventing
the truth of Origins from being taught rigorously in many Catholic educational institutions. This
ensures that Genesis 1-11 remains widely regarded as virtually unbelievable mythology,
explicable only by revisionist exegesis.
The question of Age should not be regarded as unimportant, nor should support for a young
Universe be regarded as divisive. On the contrary, since Pope Leo XIII formally directed that the
literal and obvious view must hold pride of place until rigorously disproved, those who support
an age of billions of years have the onus of proof upon them to prove their case. Discussion of
information on the question of Age is warranted and desirable within Catholic institutions.
(Evolution has long been presented in the public arena as facteven though the crucial
mechanism of Evolution is missingand so has the
fact of a billions of years age for the Universe been presented as though beyond any credible
doubt. Unchallenged acceptance of such facts has enabled some aspects of revisionist theology
to appear credible to many in the Church.)
The Origins debate has often been portrayed wrongly as one between Christian
fundamentalism and science la the Scopes Monkey Trial. Some perhaps do so in an
attempt to control the debate agenda. While atheists say that creationists arguments are based on
superstition, liberal Christians say they are based upon a simplistic, overly literal view of
Scripture. Nevertheless, many highly qualified scientists, Christians and non-Christians, have
pointed out fundamental flaws in Evolution Theory.
Footnotes:
For example, those who believe in naturalistic philosophy often try to frame the terms of debate
by claiming in effect that only their views are scientific. Other views which recognize the
existence of God, or simply deduce the existence of an unseen designer, are dismissed by them
as religious in nature and thus unscientific by definition.

It is acknowledged by the writer that terms such as conservative and liberal are very imprecise
and can be misleading and unfair, since a wide range of views tend to be grouped together under
one label. However, in the interest of brevity the following definitions are used in this book:
Conservatives are deemed to be those who hold that the meaning of Scripture cannot be radically
revised, and Liberals are those who regard it as being open to radical revision.
The concept of Special Creation holds that the elements and all living things were made by a
Creator, who also revealed in Genesis a partial accountnot a detailed scientific textbookof
the events of Creation. In addition to faith in God, scientists in their respective disciplines can
investigate the empirical data and deduce that an intelligent Designer must have created the
Universe. Belief in Special Creation does not mean that Scriptural passages must be understood
only in the literal-as-given meaning. Overall, however, the controversy over Genesis ought to be
about which passages are not described by the sacred writer(s) in this literal sense. There is much
talk today about myths and errors in Scripture and much hostility to the idea that true history
is described in Genesis. Many scholars, whether conservative or liberal, tend to regard it almost
exclusively in terms of supposed salvation history alone, with little or no place admitted for
true history, and this attitude can easily result in acceptance of the idea that errors exist in
Scripture. (The supposedly differing Creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are not contradictory
and indicative of errors, but are in fact complementary accounts.)
If even one aspect of liberal theology is accepted (e.g., that there are errors in the Bible), on what
grounds then are liberal theologians to be rejected when they attempt to demolish such beliefs as
miracles, the divinity of Christ and the Resurrection? Where is the consistency in that reasoning
which accepts one revisionist aspect but rejects others? Why insist, for example, upon belief that
angels rolled the rock away from Christs tomb, and yet deny the historical reality of the Flood?
The idea that errors exist in Scripture, which has arisen from revisionist theories of Higher
Criticism, did enormous harm to doctrinal beliefs. Revisionism is itself erroneous, by definition,
because God is the Principal Author of Scripture. God is by nature Truth Itself and is
incompatible with error and chaos.
Also, how can one justify the idea that God intended Genesis to be understood only in terms of
supposed religious mythology? Though the laws of nature were not revealed and had to be
discovered by human endeavor, information about the Creation events had to be revealed by
God. There were no human witnesses to the Creation events, except to some extent Adam and
Eve, and thus only the partial revelation by God in Scripture could provide man with some idea
of what took place. Let us not forget that the divine Creator-Redeemer is an absolutely reliable
eye-witness, incapable of deception! Pope Pius XII was quite firm in his teaching that true
history is described in Genesis, though not recorded in the way of modern historians, and
Catholic Tradition right from the time of Christ has always upheld the historicity of Genesis. But
many conservative Catholics tend to disregard Tradition and may be compromised with
elements of Modernism because they are content to consign Genesis to the status of mythology,
rather than defend its true historicity and foundational importance to the Church founded by
Jesus Christ.
This attitudehowever unintended in its effect on beliefsis thought appropriate to ensure that
Genesis cannot conflict with discoveries of modern science. (The cry, Remember Galileo!
echoes on and on.) In reality, this attitude only ensures that Modernists go mostly unchallenged
in their suppression of crucial Origins doctrine in schools and institutions of higher education.
The confusion over Origins and the foundational importance of Genesis lies close to the heart of
the many problems in the Catholic Church today, and hinders a complete diagnosis of what has
been amiss for many years. Until such matters are addressed fully, the harm coming from
Modernist theology seems likely to continue unabated, and appeals for adherence to Church
authority will be ignored.
The concept of Special Creation has not been tried and found wanting within the Catholic
Church. It has been misjudged as little more than a simplistic answer to complex problems, and
thus thought irrelevant and not considered seriously. Nevertheless, we live in an era when the
very distinctiveness of Catholic beliefs in the modern world has been profoundly eroded, and
doctrinal unity within the Church is now in a lamentable state. By rediscovering Creation
doctrine in all its many features, there is nothing to lose and much to gain, because truth has a
liberating and enlightening effect upon the human mind.
Let us hope and pray that the Magisterium (following the pro-Creation stance of the 1992
Catechism) will see fit soon to re-examine comprehensively all aspects relating to Origins, and
that an encyclical will be issued, further clarifying relevant doctrinal beliefs. After all, the
Church founded by Christ is commissioned to work for the salvation of souls, and to promote
truth irrespective of popularity. Any attempt to bring God the Creator back to center stage and
facilitate moral renewal within this troubled materialistic world can only have good fruits. In
contrast to the culture of death and violence which pervades the modern world, the rediscovery
of the true story of Creation offers a beneficial impact upon both Church and society.
PART I
THE BASIC QUESTION
Chapter 1
While many theories are held about the Origins of life as we now know it, in general they can be
reduced to three basic beliefs: Atheistic Evolution, Theistic Evolution and Special Creation. Only
one of these can be the truth, for the three beliefs are mutually incompatible. Although he
originally was a Christian, Charles Darwin came to embrace positivism1 (the belief that only
knowledge gained through empirical science is valid and that other forms of knowledge which
admit the existence of the supernatural are not legitimate). He thus sought to define causation
only in terms of naturalistic philosophy. But the range of aspects in Origins unavoidably involves
philosophy and theologyand so the debate is all about beliefs in general, and not simply about
empirical science.
Science can be defined as knowledge, the study of reality. It is the study of what is, including
things which can be perceived beyond this world. Despite those who would impose the view that
nothing exists other than the material Universe, science per se cannot be defined only as
empirical science; questions of philosophy and theology are also proper subjects for
investigation. Msgr. John F. McCarthy, O.S. (editor of Living Tradition, Rome) explains the
crucial importance of reality in comprehending the nature of science: Science is the knowledge
of the meaning of reality, and it may be divided into the knowledge of the various kinds and
meaning of reality. Intelligence can distinguish between the identity of a sensible object and its
form. It can, for instance, distinguish between the cow and its whiteness and blackness. Again, it
can distinguish the sensible form of the cow and what it has narrowed down to be the essence
of cows as such.
1. The terms positivism, naturalism and scientism are so similar in meaning as to be virtually
interchangeable within the Origins debate.
Reality is first and foremost a concept in the mind identified with that portion of mental objects
which cannot be recognized to be illusory, deceptive, or fantastic, and referring to their sources
as known by intellectual inference to exist extramentally. Being is the general term which
includes both the conscious and the extra-conscious modes of existence, including illusions,
deceptions, and fantasies. Thus, Gibraltar has real existence, while Oz has only fantastic
existence. . . . The number five does not have extramental substantial existence, but it has a real
place within the human intellect [It] fits within the concept of reality as a real conscious feature
of the concretely existing intellect, standing outside of consciousness and constituting a part of
the substance, man. Reality, then, is not identified with physical reality; it is rather a genus
whose meaning becomes clear as it is divided into the two species of physical reality and
intellectual reality. Reality does not, then, mean merely verification in sense experience; it means
also verification in intellectual experience. Reality is the experience of the intelligibility of
things. It imposes itself upon the mind, not only as the existence of sensory objects, but also as
the meaning which lies behind them.
Arguing that the power and success of modern empirical science has been itself phenomenal to
the point of establishing well-entrenched disbelief in the validity and usefulness of any other type
of science, Msgr. McCarthy shows to the contrary that The fact that reality is an intellectual
object allows the intelligence to study it as an object, and not as identified with ones own
subjectivity. . . .
Science is composed of insight on the part of the knowing subject, meaning on the part of the
real objects that he knows, and understanding on the part of the intellect which provides his
medium of thought. It is not a mere collection of unrelated facts verified by experience. It is
structured knowledge, and the structure arises from the natural development of the mind itself.
Material science is the collection of facts; formal science is the understanding of the facts in the
intellect of the knower. The recognition of the difference between what the intellect knows and
how it knows what it knows divides the field of science into material and formal knowledge of
reality. It also divides the field into the lower level of knowledge of the facts (scientia) and the
higher level of understanding of the facts (intellectus). It is understanding that advances science
towards ever greater intelligibility and protects its conclusions from those forms of unscientific
understanding called pseudo-science.
The procedure used in empirical science is that an hypothesis is proposed as a tentative
explanation for certain phenomena, and then, attempts are made to disprove it. A scientific
theory may result, involving a number of observations which in some way can be tested by
experiments. (If it is not falsifiableopen to attempts being made to disprove itthen it is not
the subject of empirical science as such. Beliefs about the origins of space, matter and time
cannot be tested and can only be accepted in faith, and thus are unfalsifiable. But theories about
the behavior of matter and possible mechanisms for evolution can and have been subjected to
testing and have been found wanting.) The theory may come to be regarded as a law of nature,
but later be superseded when better insights are achieved.
While empirical science seeks to develop mankinds understanding of the behavior of matter, it
is only because matter is law-abiding that it is possible to pursue such investigation. Empirical
science is thus a growing collection of knowledge about the laws of nature and hence is a derived
knowledge. Science is the discovery and description of those rules by which the physical
Universe operates. These laws of nature must be acknowledged as having objective existence,
and are in no way the product of mans scientific endeavors.
Empirical science cannot proclaim absolute certainty, and it is misleading to refer to scientific
facts; rather, empirical science is about degrees of near certainty. It cannot explain the
existence of matter or of laws of nature; nor can it explain why particular laws of nature are in
operation and not some other set of laws. It cannot say anything about such abstract things as
good, evil, truth, justice, beauty and love, for these exist beyond its scope of examination.
Empirical science thus cannot be expected to explain fully the question of Origins, but yet it can
discern the existence of truth beyond empirical science.
Empirical science can, by deduction, shed light on the existence of an intelligent Force at work in
the Universe. The existence of coded information impressed upon matter provides a clue to the
presence of an intelligent Designer. For example, the fantastic complexity and orderliness of the
DNA codecondensed into an incredibly tiny size suggests the work of a brilliant Intellect,
rather than random chance processes. The sheer density of information packed into tiny cells
suggests that powerful thought has gone into their designjust as human beings use
sophisticated intelligence to design and construct jumbo jets, spacecraft and other intricate
equipment.
No one believes for a moment that the wonders of computer technology are the result of random
chance processes, but rather, such wonders are clearly the design of extremely intelligent human
designers. It is hardly unreasonable or unscientific, therefore, and it is consistent with common
sense to deduce the existence of a super-brilliant Intelligence at work beyond the material
Universe. Another aspect of empirical science also warrants consideration: An established mode
of procedure in scientific research is that of the investigation of effects, even though the intrinsic
nature of the cause behind the effect may remain a puzzle. For example, gravity is a phenomenon
which can be investigated mainly by means of its actions and effects on other bodies. While its
effects are known, its intrinsic nature is still only partly understood by scientists.
If radio signals were to be received from outer space, they would be regarded by scientists as
evidence of an intelligent source. It should not be regarded as unscientific to postulate an unseen
force behind, say, the genes and their coded order and behind the existence of laws of nature.
Like investigation by a detective, it is indeed scientific to deduce an intelligent Cause behind the
bewildering complexity of life forms (e.g., the message sequence on the DNA molecule alone
should be regarded as prima facie evidence of unseen Intelligence). Walter ReMine argues
powerfully that nature was intentionally constructed to look like it is the product of a single-
source Designer: An artist uses brush strokes, composition, style, and coloring that are often
unique to that artist. The chance combination of these features by any other painter would be
most unlikely. This same reasoning applies to life. Diverse life forms display strikingly similar
characteristics. For example, there is the nearly universal use of: DNA as the carrier of
inheritance; the expression of that information as proteins via an RNA intermediate; the genetic
code; the use of lefthanded amino acids in proteins; and the bi-layered phosphatide construction
of cell membranes. The biochemical similarities extend to proteins and to the cellular
metabolism of the most diverse living beings. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP), biotin, riboflavin,
hemes, pyridoxin, vitamins B12 and K, and folic acid are used in metabolic processes
everywhere. Furthermore, amino acid sequences of common proteins are similar among different
organisms. For example, the protein cytochrome-c contains 104 amino acids, yet 64 of these are
identical between yeast and horses. Even more impressive is a protein, appropriately called
ubiquitin, present in all organisms, tissues, and cells studied so farand it has an absolutely
identical amino acid sequence in each case.
The unity of life could not possibly result from chance, nor from multiple sources, nor from
multiple designers acting independently. Life must have come from some single common source.
Evolutionists say common descent. Creationists say common designer. . . . This is not
happenstance. It is premeditated design.
ReMine has also shown that Creation Theory truly qualifies as scientific and that naturalistic
Evolution has been shown to be false according to rigorous scientific methodology. But illusion
of proof is facilitated by the way some evolutionists constantly shift ground between various
conflicting, supposed mechanisms for Evolution. It is sound practice for scientists to recognize
the validity of other scientific disciplines, and so the argument from design cannot be dismissed
as irrelevant or invalidbelief in an unseen Creator is not a blind leap of faith, but rather faith
based on reason. However, an important question must be addressed: In what way does theology,
once hailed as the Queen of Sciences, lay claim to being scientific?
Arguing that the science of historical theology is equipped to delve into the meaning of
supernatural events, Msgr. McCarthy points out, In the most fundamental sense, God is either
known infinitely or He is not known at all, as He is in Himself. Traditional theology admits this
fact, yet it finds a middle ground. It is possible for God to reveal something about Himself as He
is in Himself that is above the natural comprehension of a created intellect and yet does not
require infinite intelligence to comprehend. This is the revelation of God, and, as revealed, God
is an object of mans knowledge. Theological science searches for this object within its own
specific realm of objectivity.
To turn towards the objectivity of God entails a recognition of the importance of God in the
world we face. God is the efficient, final, and exemplary cause of that world. We may find traces
of God in nature and the image of God in man. But, above all, we find God revealed in the word
of Sacred Scripture, presented to us by the Church. We achieve the fulfillment of our existence
by searching for God in the word of His revelation and by finding Him in the objective meaning
of His existence, as it is hidden within the word of divine revelation. This is the task of theology.
Since the Origins debate is all about beliefs, it may be worthwhile to recall here that even those
who hold that nothing exists apart from the physical Universe have also to wrestle with faith. Are
we, for example, to believe that matter has always existed? How have the laws of nature come
into operation? Did the bewildering complexity of DNA arise somehow by itself? Questions
such as these ultimately require answers which unavoidably involve faith in something. Consider
the lengths to which some theoretical physicists are driven to speculate (reminiscent of the
theories of Stephen Hawking) in the futile hope of explaining reality without a transcendent
Creator-God: The heady debate shifts, unresolvedone of many that sporadically erupt among
the theoretical physicists gathered at the Aspen Center for Physics in the Colorado Rockies. A
sense of barely suppressed excitement fills the air. The Theory of Everything, or TOE, the
theorists believe, is hovering right around the corner. When finally graspedthe fantasy goes
the TOE will be simple enough to
write down as a single equation and to solve. The solution will describe a universe that is
unmistakably ours: with three spatial dimensions and one time dimension; with quarks, electrons
and the other particles that make up chairs, magpies and stars; with even the big bang from
which everything began.
Grand promises were also heard a decade ago, when string theory gained favor as a TOE. . .
.The search for a genuinely unique Theory of Everything that would eliminate all contingency
and demonstrate that the physical world must necessarily be as it is, seems to be doomed to
failure on grounds of logical consistency.
Regarding another aspect of the Origins debate, Christians know that the Bible cannot clash with
science. Some hold that empirical science has contradicted the Bible, but this conclusion is
wrong. It must be wrong, by definition, for Godwho is the principal Author of the Bibleis
omniscient, Truth Itself, and free from all error. Since God is both the Creator of the Universe
(including space, time and matter* It is a general way of speaking to say that God created space,
time and matter. In scholastic philosophy, space and time are considered to be mental constructs,
having no reality in and of themselves, time being the measure of motion according to before
and after, and space being simply the distance between physical bodies. Matter (improperly
understood to mean material by those not philosophically trained) has existence, but only as a
principle of being, as in prime matter and substantial form; matter does not exist alone by
itself, but always with a form, or essence, which gives matter definition as part of a particular
being.Editor, 1999.) and the principal Author of Scripture, the Bible cannot contradict science.
In what way is the inerrant Bible relevant to science, both empirical and Scriptural forms?
Firstly, it concerns faith in the trustworthiness of God as a reliable eye-witness to Creation. Such
faith can enable Christians to begin a particular hypothesis about ancient Origins events with
something more than a hunch. Secondly, it also informs us unerringly about the human and
divine natures of Jesus Christ.
Regardless of the particular style employed to record the historical events, the biblical testimony
on Creation and historical geology cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to modern man.
(Archaeological discoveries in the Middle East have established that the Old Testament is
surprisingly accurate in its documentation of people, places and events.) If a researcher begins
with the belief that the Bible contains a description of true history, he cannot dismiss what it says
about Creation eventsan entirely different basis than if one started from Evolution
assumptions, or from the simplistic idea that Genesis only informs us of the who and why and
not the when and how of Creation.
As with much of everyday life in which we have to trust news reports from places inaccessible to
us personally, Origins beliefs necessarily involve faith decisions. The researcher was not there in
the ancient past to see if the processes operating today have always held or whether other process
rates were in operation from time to time. However, Christians believe also that faith itself, or
the ability to believe, is in some mysterious way also a gift from God: The power of faith is not
another faculty added to the intellect of man. It is rather a new ability to see, instilled by an act of
God into the intellect of man. The existence of revealed truth cannot be shown, except by
indirect arguments, to a person who does not have the power of faith. Since faith is a power of
intellectual sight different from the power of natural reason but, like natural reason, analogous
to the power of physical sight, the existence of the object of faith is evident only to those who
have the power of faith, just as the existence of natural meaning is evident only to those who
have natural intelligence and the existence of color is evident only to those who have the power
of physical sight.
Since the attainment of the goal of man [the vision of God in Heaven] requires the use of
intellect and will by each individual to be saved, that personal theology which consists in the
comprehension by the individual of the existence and meaning of his goal beyond the confines of
his natural existence is also absolutely necessary.
This Christian belief about the nature of faith does not sit easily within pluralist democratic
societies, in which various belief systems offer vastly conflicting explanations of reality (all
requiring faith from the believer), in an era when there is much confusion about Origins. Put
simply, the central claim of each basic beliefAtheistic Evolution, Theistic Evolution and
Special Creationis ultimately that of providing an explanation of the origin of the Universe and
of the destiny of human beings. A person can believe either that matter was created by a
transcendent God or that matter has always been in existence. Belief in either Creation or
Evolution has to be made on the basis of faith, either faith in God or faith in random chance. The
two-model approach advocated by opponents of Evolution (i.e., the use of Creation/Evolution
conceptual models as a comparative basis for prediction and falsification) has been criticized by
some evolutionists as unacceptable, on the ground that disbelief in Evolution is not proof of
Creation. Well, disbelief in a Designer is not proof of Evolution, either. Evolutionists are
themselves open to the charge of double standards, because their arguments are not so much
about the validity of Evolution, but rather are arguments against a Designer. By supposedly
proving Evolution while firmly denying the existence of an unseen Designer, they can then
charge that Evolution must have occurred, as there is no other option.
The scientific arguments of Origins ought to be imparted in colleges (e.g., typology versus
transformism comparison). Why should a relatively few humanists be allowed to impose an
Evolution-only syllabus by claiming that only Naturalism qualifies as science, or why should
some Christian opponents of Special Creation do likewise by claiming that such Creation beliefs
are unscientific? There is no more reason for excluding evidence for Creation beliefs on the
ground that it may produce conservative religious believers, than there is for excluding evidence
for Evolution beliefs (if any existed) on the ground that it may produce atheists.
Some dissenting voices against Evolution
Ralph Seelke received his Ph.D. in Microbiology from the University of Minnesota and the
Mayo Graduate School of Medicine in 1981, was a postdoctoral researcher at the Mayo Clinic
until 1983, and has been an Associate Professor or Professor in the Department of Biology and
Earth Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Superior since 1989. An authority on evolution's
capabilities and limitations in producing new functions in bacteria, Prof. Seelke recently co-
authored the science textbook "Explore Evolution: The Case For and Against Neo-Darwinism."
Professor Ralph Seelke, Ph.D
Department of Microbiology
University of Minnesota
Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when hand waving explanations gave a
plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts.
However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection's
ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than hand waving as
an argument in its favor.
Professor Colin Reeves Ph.D
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University
As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am
continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast
'computer program' of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a
fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in
numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry
realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and
particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes
did it require -- or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have -- or did it even
have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection?
Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly
the origin of life -- the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no
fact.
Chris Williams, Ph.D
Biochemistry, Ohio State University
FAQ:
1) What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a short public statement by scientists expressing their
skepticism of Neo-Darwinisms key claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is
the primary mechanism for the development of the complexity of life. The full statement
reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to
account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory
should be encouraged." Prominent scientists who have signed the statement include evolutionary
biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at
the University of Georgia; U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American
Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; Russian Academy of Natural
Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov; and geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor Emeritus
of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum and discoverer of genetic recombination in antibiotic-
producing Penicillium and Streptomyces.
2) When and why was the statement created?
The statement was drafted and circulated by Discovery Institute in 2001 in response to
widespread claims that no credible scientists existed who doubted Neo-Darwinism. Discovery
Institute subsequently took out an ad in The New York Review of Books and elsewhere
showcasing over 100 scientists who were willing to publicly express their scientific skepticism
of Neo-Darwinism. Since 2001 the signatories of the statement have grown to over 800
scientists, both in the United States and around the world.
3) Who is eligible to sign the statement?
Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field
such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the
other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signers
must also agree with the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of
random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." If you meet these criteria, please
consider signing the statement by emailing contact@Dissentfromdarwin.com.
If you are a medical doctor who is skeptical of Darwinian evolution, please visit Physicians and
Surgeons for Scientific Integrity at www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.com and join their statement by
doctors who dissent from Darwinism.
4) Why is it necessary to have such a statement?
In recent years there has been a concerted effort on the part of some supporters of modern
Darwinian theory to deny the existence of scientific critics of Neo-Darwinism and to discourage
open discussion of the scientific evidence for and against Neo-Darwinism. The Scientific Dissent
From Darwinism statement exists to correct the public record by showing that there are scientists
who support an open examination of the evidence relating to modern Darwinian theory and who
question whether Neo-Darwinism can satisfactorily explain the complexity and diversity of the
natural world.
5) By signing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, are signers endorsing alternative
theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design?
No. By signing the statement, scientists are simply agreeing with the statement as written.
Signing the statement does not indicate agreement or disagreement with any other scientific
theory. It does indicate skepticism about modern Darwinian theorys central claim that natural
selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life. Signing
the statement also indicates support for the careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian
theory.
6) Is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism a political statement?
No. It is a professional statement by scientists about their assessment of the scientific evidence
relating to Neo-Darwinism and an affirmation of the need for careful examination of the
evidence for modern Darwinian theory.
7) Are there credible scientists who doubt Neo-Darwinism?
Yes. Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold doctorates in biological sciences,
physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines from such
institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago,
Stanford and University of California at Berkeley. Many are also professors or researchers at
major universities and research institutions such as Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA,
University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose
Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.