Catholic Search
Custom Search

New Release! Chant Compendium 8 with beautiful Gregorian chant

Countless scientists: Evolution is un-scientific!

The Death of Evolution


“Thine are the heavens, and thine is the earth: the world and the fulness thereof thou hast founded: the north and the sea thou hast created.” —Psalm 88:12-13

“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.” —2 Timothy 4:3-4

“By the word of the Lord the heavens were established; and all the power of them by the spirit of his mouth: gathering together the waters of the sea, as in a vessel; laying up the depths in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord, and let all the inhabitants of the world be in awe of him. For he spoke and they were made: he commanded and they were created.” —Psalm 32:6-9

“Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth: and the works of thy hands are the heavens. They shall perish, but thou shalt continue: and they shall all grow old as a garment. And as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: but thou art the selfsame, and thy years shall not fail.” —Hebrews 1:10-12

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
1. Why We Must Fight Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Attack and Counter-Attack—Evolution and the “Secular Man”—Scientists counter-attack—Evolution infiltrates Christianity—Marxism, Humanism, Modernism—Compulsory educational system— “Many Adams” (Polygenism) denies Original Sin and then all dogmas—Encyclical: Humani Generis—Teilhard de Chardin’s “Evolution Theology.”
2. The Demise of Darwinism—October, 1980. . . . . 19
1. Darwinism’s long triumph—Chicago Convention 1980—Acknowledged fossil evidence is against Darwinism—Proposed evolution by huge jumps (punctuated equilibria)—Second Law of Thermodynamics—Mutations—The “Hopeful Monster” Theory—Natural Selection—“Gill slits and Tail”—Vestigial organs.
3. The Fossil Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Rocks begin to be classified by fossils—No transitional fossils—Fossils suddenly appear in Cambrian strata—Dinosaurs—Pterosaurs—“Living fossils”—Latest finds reveal advanced life in Cambrian—Marine plants to land plants (?)— Jerome Lejeune on genetics—The Horse series— Reptile to bird (?) and Archaeopteryx.
4. “Human Evolution” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
1. Evolution penetrates religion with the “ape-men”—Nebraska Man—Neanderthal Man— Piltdown Man—Australopithecines—Zinjanthropus —Homo Habilis—Java Man and Peking Man (Homo Erectus)—Big changes since 1972—Skull 1470—Ramapithecus—Finds at Laetolil: Jawbones, Footprints—Finds at Hadar: Jaws and other bones; the “first family of early man”; “Lucy”—Richard Leakey’s new “tree of man”— Johanson’s turnabout: Afarensis—Another Boisei upsets hominid evolution—are H. Habilis and H. Erectus valid?—The Boy Erectus—Talgai skull and Kow Swamp skeletons—Castenedolo and Calaveras skulls—Gradism vs. Cladism splits
5. Geology and the Deluge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
1. Deluge geology ousted by Uniformitarian geology—Lyell and Darwin in partnership— The Geologic Column—Moving mountains— The Grand Canyon—Polystrate fossils—Coal and oil—Shrunken rivers and inland waters— Mountains submerged—Fossil graveyards.
6. Radioactive Dating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
1. Based on assumptions—Discrepant results— Tested on rocks of known ages—Carbon 14— 30,000 C-14 dates—Moon rocks—Dating Zinj and Skull 1470—Footprints in stone.
7. Continental Drift (or Plate Tectonics) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
1. Mid-Atlantic Ridge—Moving plates—Magnetic reversals—Dating sea floor—Some objections to Continental Drift theory—Some evidence against theory—An alternative explanation.
8. Cultural Evolution or Devolution? . . . . . . . . . 127
1. World population shows humanity young—Did Stone-Age men stagnate?—Archaeology supports Bible rather than evolution—Civilization did not evolve—Culture degrades with remoteness—Feral children—Human language.
9. Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
1. Spontaneous generation discredited—The living cell—Life requires total cell—Amino acids and Miller’s experiment—Amino acids are left- and right-handed—Sidney Fox’s proteinoids— Mathematical odds against protein; and against living cell.
10. The Universe and The Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
1. Stars and Galaxies: by the “Big Bang” (?) or by Creation (?)—Red shift—Quasars—Polonium Halos: “The Creator’s signature”—The Solar System—Evidence for young earth and young universe—How do stars burn?
11. Out of Nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
1. Earth is unique—Theorists “explain”universe without Creator—Apparent age versus real age— Earth, Man and Universe by “FIAT!”
Appendix A: The Church’s Position . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Appendix B: The Church and Father Teilhard de Chardin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Appendix C: Feral Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Appendix D: Addendum to “Human Evolution”— and a Word on Birds . . . . . . . . . . 182
Any Questions? Selected Questions Answered . . . . 185
Some Further Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

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 O’Connell’s 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 evolution’s 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 people—and for experts, too, if interested.

Wallace Johnson
December 1, 1981

Chapter 1

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 bishop’s 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 bishop’s 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. Evolution’s 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 Master’s Degree in Science. These 650 scientists are pledged against evolution and for the Biblical account of Creation, Adam and Eve, and Noah’s 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 d’Histoire. 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 Darwin’s 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, Darwin’s Enigma (1984), by Luther Sunderland, is based on the author’s 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 Church’s 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 enlightenment—who 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 Church—Modernism 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 X’s 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. Jourdan’s 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 Church’s 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 root—the 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 lonely—and 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 Marxism—because a godless mind is an open field to Marxism.

Darwin’s 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 today’s 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. What’s 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 polygenism—many 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 Lucifer’s consummate strategy. Evolution has deadened man’s 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 Adam’s 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. Teilhard’s 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.


(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 Teilhard’s work as “Disastrous! . . . It contradicts Christianity.” Even more importantly, the official Catholic Church has warned against Teilhard’s evolution theology in several pronouncements and actions. (See Appendix B.)
As regards the scientific end, it is hard to imagine any scientist using Teilhard’s bridge to approach religion. England’s famous man of medicine, Nobel Prize winner, Sir Peter Medawar, stated that Teilhard’s 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 Teilhard’s works as a bag of tricks for gullible people—for people whose education has outstripped their capacity for analysis.
(b) Teilhard’s work is also claimed to be a bridge between Christians and Marxists. Dietrich von Hildebrand (in Trojan Horse in the City of God) quotes Teilhard’s 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 (let’s 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 Teilhard’s 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 man’s 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 Maritain’s 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 end—the 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. Teilhard’s 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?


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 high—build 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 earth’s 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 earth’s 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 man’s 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 earth’s 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. Ararat’s 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 Linton’s 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 man’s 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 today’s 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 today’s 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 today’s 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 earth’s 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. Today’s oceans average a chilly 38°F, 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 today’s 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 man’s 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 Noah’s 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, earth’s 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 Cain’s wife?
A. This question is often asked, and sometimes in a tone that implies “Got ya’ this time.”
The answer is simple: Cain’s 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 Cain’s wife. The footnote says: “She was a daughter of Adam, and Cain’s 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 Martha’s 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 God’s 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 chimp’s 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 mare’s 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
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 Church’s 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) Man’s 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 called—a theory which has not been proved beyond contradiction even in the sphere of natural science—applies 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 men’s 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 man’s 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 matter—for 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 Adam’s 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 Church’s teaching that our first parents were established “in holiness and justice and in which man knew neither evil nor death,” but that Adam’s 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 man’s original condition as he left the creative hand of God, and of what happened when the first man disobeyed his Creator. It explains that “Augustine’s 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 Church’s 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 man’s 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. Paul’s doctrine that Adam’s sin injured not only Adam himself but also his descendants. The consequences of Adam’s sin were not only death of the body, but also the loss of grace—spiritual death—which 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 Adam’s 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 today’s 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.”

Taken from The Death of Evolution by TAN Books & Publishers, Inc.

Other pages discussing Catholic doctrine and history:

Return to Catholic Doctrine Homepage