The tawny lion, pawing to get free
His hinder parts, then springs as broke from bonds,
And rampant shakes his brindled mane; the ounce,
The libbard, and the tiger, as the mole
Rising, the crumbled earth above them threw
In hillocks: the swift stag from underground
Bore up his branching head: scarce from his mould
Behemoth, biggest born of earth, up heaved
His vastness."
In this description Milton probably represented the ideas of his day--a
day penetrated with literal interpretation of the Scripture, though it
is well to recall to our minds the fact that not one word or idea of the
above is contained in the Bible. The only suggestion is that the body of
Adam was fashioned from the "slime of the earth," the precise meaning of
which phrase has never been defined by the Church.
Again, we have to say that the Miltonic scheme is not impossible, any
more than any other scheme is impossible, but we may further say that it
is more than improbable, and with every reverence we may add that to us
it does not seem to be specially consonant with the greatness and wisdom
of God. There remains the derivative form of creation, compendiously
styled evolution. That this also is a possible method of creation no one
will deny, and it has been discussed as such by many of the greatest
thinkers in the history of the Church. We can consider it, therefore,
from the point of fact or of knowledge as we now possess it, and we can
do so without imagining that, in so doing, we are contemplating a method
which is anything else but the carrying out of a creative plan, existing
perfect and complete and from all eternity in the mind of the Being
Whose conception it was and by whose _fiat_ it came to pass. Moreover,
each form produced is a special creation, since it was specially
designed to be as it is and to appear when it did, just as the
clockmaker intends his clock to strike twelve at noon, though he can
hardly be said to make it strike at that moment. Hence to place special
creation in antagonism to evolution is really to use an ambiguous
phraseology. No doubt it is not easy to find the proper phraseology.
Some have employed the terms "immediate" and "mediate," to which also a
certain amount of ambiguity is attached. Perhaps "direct" and
"derivative" might convey more accurate ideas; but whatever terminology
we adopt, we are still safe in saying that whether God makes things or
makes them make themselves He is creating them and specially creating
them.
This is not the place to enter into any elaborate discussion as to the
truth of the theory of evolution. Few will be found to deny the
statement that it is a theory which _does_ explain Nature as we see it
and as we learn its history in the past, but that does not necessarily
prove that it is true. St. Thomas Aquinas, dealing with the movements of
the planets, makes a very important statement when he tells us, in so
many words, that, though the hypothesis with which he is dealing would
explain the appearances which he was seeking to explain, that does not
prove that it is the true explanation, since the real answer to the
riddle may be one then unknown to him. There are, however, one or two
points it may be useful to consider before we leave the question.
That evolution may occur within a class seems to be quite certain. The
case of the Porto Santo rabbits, one of many cited by Darwin or brought
to knowledge since his time, will make clear what is meant. Porto Santo
is a small island, not far from Madeira, on which a Portuguese
navigator, named Zarco, let loose, somewhere about the year 1420, a doe
and a recently born litter of rabbits, which we may feel quite sure
belonged to one of those domestic breeds which have all been derived
from the wild rabbit of Europe known to zoologists as _Lepus Cuniculus_.
The island was a favourable spot for the rabbits, for there do not
appear to have been any carnivorous beasts or birds to harry them, nor
were there other land mammals competing with them for food; and, as a
result, we are told that they had so far increased and multiplied in
forty years as to be described as "innumerable." In four and a half
centuries these rabbits had become so different from any European
rabbits that Haeckel described them as a species apart, and named it
_Lepus Huxlei_. This rabbit is much smaller than the European form,
being described as more like a large rat than a rabbit. Its colour is
very different from its European relatives; it has curious nocturnal
habits; it is exceedingly wild and untamable. Most remarkable of all,
and most conclusive as to specific difference, Mr. Bartlett, the highly
skilled head keeper of the London Zoological Gardens, utterly failed to
induce the two males which were brought over to those gardens to
associate with or to breed with the females of various other breeds of
rabbits which were repeatedly placed with them. If the history of these
Porto Santo rabbits had been unknown to us, instead of being a matter as
to which there can be no doubt, every naturalist would at once have
accepted them as a separate species. We need not hesitate, it appears,
to do so and to admit that it is a new species which has been produced
within historic times and under conditions with which we are fully
acquainted. It may, however, be argued, and quite fairly argued, that
such a process of evolution, though definitely proved, is a very
different thing from such an evolution as would permit of a common
ancestry for animals so far apart, for example, as a whale and a rabbit,
or perhaps even nearer in relationship, as between a lion and a seal. To
discuss this further would require a dissertation on the highly involved
question of species and varieties, and that is not now to be attempted.
What, however, may be said is that the difficulties presented by what is
called phylogeny--that is, the relationships of different classes to one
another--are so great as to have led more than one man of science to
proclaim his belief that evolution has been poly--and not
mono--phyletic. Such is the view which has been enunciated by Father
Wasmann, S.J., whose authority on a point of this kind is paramount. It
has also been upheld by Professor Bateson, a man widely separated from
the Jesuit in all but attachment to science. Professor Bateson summed up
his belief in the text which he placed on the title-page of his first
great work on _Variation_: the text which proclaims that there is a
flesh of men, another of beasts, another of birds, another of fishes.
Darwin remained to the end of his life undecided between the two views,
for he allowed his original statement as to life having been breathed
into one or more forms by the Creator, to pass from edition to edition
of the _Origin of Species_. If the polyphyletic theory be adopted, it
must be said that the position of the materialist is made far more
difficult than it is at present. Let us see what it means. On the
materialistic hypothesis, and the same may be said of the pantheistic or
any other hypothesis not theistic in nature, a certain cell came by
chance to acquire the attributes of life. From this descended plants and
animals of all kinds in divergent series till the edifice was crowned by
man. I have elsewhere endeavoured to point out all that is involved in
this assumption, which, it must be confessed, is a very large mouthful
to swallow.
Let us now consider what the polyphyletic hypothesis involves. According
to this view one cell accidentally developed the attributes of vegetable
life; a further accident leads another cell to initiate the line of
invertebrates; another that of fishes, let us say; another of mammals:
the number varying according to the views of the theorist on phylogeny.
Let us not forget that the cell or cells which accidentally acquired the
attributes of life, had accidentally to shape themselves from dead
materials into something of a character wholly unknown in the inorganic
world. If one seriously considers the matter it is--so it seems to
me--utterly impossible to subscribe to the accidental theory of which
the immanent god--the blind god of Bergson--is a mere variant. One must
agree with the late Lord Kelvin that "science positively affirms
creative power ... which (she) compels us to accept as an article of
belief." But what are we to say with regard to the series of repeated
accidents which the polyphyletic hypothesis would seem to demand? Is it
really possible that any man could bring himself to place credence in
such a marvellous series of occurrences? Monophyletic or polyphyletic
evolution, whichever, if either, it may have been, presents no
difficulty on the creation hypothesis.
The Divine plan might have embraced either method. It is not merely
revelation but ordinary reason which shows us that the wonderful things
which we know, not to speak of the far more wonderful things at which we
can only guess, cannot possibly be explained on any other hypothesis
than that of a Free First Cause--a Creator.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 35: _The Theory of Evolution._ By William Berryman Scott.
New York: The Macmillan Co.]
VIII. CATHOLIC WRITERS AND SPONTANEOUS GENERATION
The names of great Catholic men of science, laymen like Pasteur and
Müller, or ecclesiastics like Stensen and Mendel, are familiar to all
educated persons. But even educated persons, or at least a great
majority of them, are quite ignorant of the goodly band of workers in
science who were devout children of the Church. Nothing perhaps more
fully exemplifies this than the history of the controversy respecting
the subject whose name is set down as the title of this paper. For
centuries a controversy raged at intervals around the question of
spontaneous generation. Did living things originate, not merely in the
past but every day, from non-living matter? When we consider such things
as the once mysterious appearance of maggots in meat it is not wonderful
that in the days before the microscope the answer was in the
affirmative.
To-day the question may be considered almost closed. True, the negative
proposition cannot be proved, hence it is impossible to say that
spontaneous generation does not take place. However, the scientific
world is at one in the belief that so far all attempts to prove it have
failed utterly.
St. Thomas Aquinas had a celebrated and sometimes misunderstood
controversy with Avicenna, a very famous Arabian philosopher. It was a
philosophical, but not strictly scientific, controversy, for both
persons accepted or assumed the existence of spontaneous generation.
Avicenna claimed that it took place by the powers of Nature alone,
whilst St. Thomas adopted the attitude which we should adopt to-day,
were spontaneous generation shown to be a fact, namely, that if Nature
possessed this power, it was because the Creator had willed it so.
We come to close quarters with the question itself in 1668, when
Francesco Redi (1626-1697) published his book on the generation of
insects and showed that meat protected from flies by wire gauze or
parchment did not develop maggots, whilst meat left unprotected did.
From this and from other experiments he was led to formulate the theory
that in all cases of apparent production of life from dead matter the
real explanation was that living germs from outside had been introduced
into it. For a long time this view held the field. Redi was, as his name
indicates, an Italian, an inhabitant of Aretino, a poet as well as a
physician and scientific worker. He was physician to two of the Grand
Dukes of Tuscany and an academician of the celebrated _Accademia della
Crusca_. Those works which I have been able to consult on the subject
say nothing about his religion, but there can scarcely be any doubt
that he was a Catholic. At any rate there is no doubt whatever as to the
other persons now to be mentioned in connection with the controversy,
which again became active about a century after Redi had published his
book. The antagonists on this occasion were both of them Catholic
priests, and both of them deserve some brief notice.
John Turberville Needham (1713-1781) was born in London and belonged on
both sides to old Catholic families. He was educated at Douay and
ordained priest at Cambray in 1738. After teaching in that place for
some time he journeyed to England and became head-master of the once
celebrated school for Catholic boys at Twyford, near Winchester. From
there he went for a short time to Lisbon as professor of philosophy in
the English College. Subsequently he travelled with various Peers making
"the grand tour." After that he retired to Paris, where he was elected a
member of the _Académie des Sciences_. He was the first director of the
Imperial Academy in Brussels; a canon, first of Dendermonde and
afterward of Soignies. He died in Brussels and was buried in the Abbey
of Condenberg. Needham was a man of really great scientific attainments,
and perhaps nothing proves the estimation in which he was held more than
the fact that in 1746 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society,
being the first Catholic priest to become a member of that distinguished
body. When one remembers the attitude at that time, and much later, of
Englishmen towards Catholics it is clear that Needham's claims to
distinction must have been more than ordinarily great. His clear, firm
signature is still to be seen in the charter-book of the society, and it
is interesting to note that he signs his name "Turberville Needham."
Needham did not confine his attention to science, for he was an ardent
antiquary, and in 1761 was elected a Fellow of that other ancient and
exclusive body, the Society of Antiquaries of London. In this connection
it may be mentioned that Needham published, in 1761, a book which caused
a great sensation, for he endeavoured to show that he could translate an
Egyptian inscription by means of Chinese characters; in other words,
that the forms of writing were germane to one another. He was shown to
be quite wrong by some of the learned Jesuits of the day, who, with the
assistance of Chinese men of letters, proved that the resemblances to
which Needham had called attention were merely superficial.
But our interest now is in his controversy with Spallanzani. Lazaro
Spallanzani (1729-1799) was born at Scandiano in Modena and educated at
the Jesuit College at Reggio di Modena. There was some question as to
his entering the Society; he did not do so, however, but repaired to the
University of Bologna, where his kinswoman, Laura Bassi, was then
professor of physics. He became a priest, but devoted his life to
teaching and experimenting. He must have been something of what we in
Ireland used to call a "polymath," for he professed at one time or
another, in various universities, logic, metaphysics, Greek, and
finally natural history. He first explained the physics of what children
call "ducks and drakes" made by flat pebbles on water; laid the
foundations of meteorology and vulcanology, and is perhaps best of all
known in connection with what is termed "regeneration" in the earthworm
and above all in the salamander. His experiments still hold the field in
a region of study which has vastly extended itself in recent years,
becoming of prime importance in the vitalistic controversy.
In the dispute, however, with which we are concerned Needham and
Spallanzani defended opposite positions. The former, as the result of
his observations, asserted that, in spite of the boiling and sealing up
of organic fluids, life did appear in them. His opponent claimed that
Needham's experiments had not been sufficiently precise. The latter had
enclosed his fluids in bottles fitted with ordinary corks, covered with
mastic varnish, whilst Spallanzani, employing flasks with long necks
which he could and did seal by heat when the contents were boiling,
showed that in that case no life was produced. He declared, and
correctly too, as we now know, that Needham's methods did permit of the
introduction of something from without. The controversy went to sleep
again until the discovery of oxygen by Priestley in 1774. When it had
been shown that oxygen was essential to the existence of all forms of
life, the question arose as to whether the boiling of the organic fluids
in the earlier experiments had not expelled all the oxygen and thus
prevented the existence and development of any life.
In the further experiments which this query gave rise to, we meet with
another illustrious Catholic name, that of Theodor Schwann, better known
as the originator of that fundamental piece of scientific knowledge, the
cell-theory. Theodor Schwann (1810-1882) was born at Neuss and educated
by the Jesuits, first at Cologne, afterward at Bonn. After studying at
the Universities of Würzburg and Berlin he became professor in the
Catholic University of Louvain, where his name was one of the principal
glories of this now wrecked seat of learning. Thence he went as
professor to Liége, where he died. He was, says his biography in the
_Encyclopædia Britannica_, "of a peculiarly gentle and amiable character
and remained a devout Catholic throughout his life." Schwann's
experiments tended to show that the introduction of air--of course
containing oxygen--did not lead to the production of life, if the air
had first been thoroughly sterilised. It was thought that this question
had been finally answered, when it was reopened by Pouchet, in 1859. He
was a Frenchman, the director of the Natural History Museum of Rouen,
but as to his religious views I have no information. It is quite
probable, however, that he was a Catholic. Pouchet and all on his side
were finally--so far as there can be finality in such a matter--disposed
of by Pasteur, of whose distinction as a man of science and devoutness
as a Catholic nothing need be said.
It is quite unnecessary to devote any consideration here to the
character of Pasteur's experiments, for they have become a matter of
common knowledge to all educated persons. Let it suffice to say that
they were on the lines first laid down by Redi and greatly elaborated by
Spallanzani, namely the exclusion from the fluids or other substances
under examination of all possible contamination by minute organisms in
the air. Spallanzani knew nothing of these organisms; they were not
discovered until many years after his death. But he surmised that there
was something which brought corruption into the fluids; he excluded that
something, with the result that the fluids remained untainted. From our
point of view, however, there are several things to be learnt. In the
first place quite a number of ignorant persons have thought that the
discovery of spontaneous generation would upset religious dogmata. That
of course is quite absurd. From what has been said above it will be seen
that St. Thomas Aquinas--in common with all the men of learning of his
day--fully believed in it, as did Needham, another ecclesiastic as to
whose orthodoxy there is no doubt. Further, the entire controversy is a
complete confutation of the false allegation that between Catholicism
and science there is a great gulf set. There have been few longer and
more remarkable controversies in the history of science, and scarce any
other--if indeed any other--which has such important bearings upon
health and industry than that which relates to bio- or abio-genesis. It
is significant to find that the names of so many of the protagonists in
this controversy were those of men who were also convinced adherents of
the Catholic Church.
IX. A THEORY OF LIFE[36]
Of the making of books on the question of Vitalism there would seem to
be no end; and, following upon quite a number of others comes this
handsome, well-illustrated, intensely interesting book, by one whose
writings are always worth study. It purports to deal with the Origin and
Evolution of Life; but, as to the first, it leaves us in no way advanced
towards any real explanation of that problem on materialistic lines. As
to the second, though there is a vast amount of valuable information,
often illuminating and suggestive, again we confess that we fail to
discover any real philosophy of that process of evolution which the
author postulates. These propositions we must now proceed to justify. We
can consider them from the most rigidly scientific standpoint, since, if
every word or almost every word in the book were proved truth, it would
not make the slightest difference to Catholic Philosophy, nor, indeed,
to Theistic teachings, since in the imperishable words of Paley: "There
may be many second causes, and many courses of second causes, one behind
another, between what we observe of nature and the Deity; but there
must be intelligence somewhere; there must be more in nature than what
we see; and, amongst the things unseen, there must be an intelligent
designing Author."
The scientific writer has to remember that whilst he may explain many
things, his work is a torso unless and until he has either accepted the
Creator as the first Cause, which he is too often disinclined to do, or
has supplied an equally satisfactory explanation, which he is
permanently unable to do. On the other hand, at least some defenders of
Theism in the past might well have borne in mind that, whilst we are
assured of the fact of Creation, we know absolutely nothing of its
mechanism save that it came about by the command of God. There is
nothing in which clear thinking and clear writing are more necessary
than in discussions of this kind; and too many of them are vitiated by
an obvious lack of philosophical training on the part of the
participants. Even in this carefully written book there are instances of
this kind of thing to which we must allude before considering its main
arguments.
"We know, for example, that there has existed a more or less complete
chain of beings from monad to man, that the one-toed horse had a
four-toed ancestor, that man has descended from an unknown ape-like form
somewhere in the Tertiary." "We _know_"--that is exactly the opposite of
the truth. We _know_ a thing when it is susceptible of proof according
to the rigid rules of formal logic; when, to doubt it, would be to give
rise to a suspicion as to our sanity; then we _know_ a thing, but not
until then. Now, as to the sentence quoted, we may allow the first part
to pass unchallenged with some possible demur at the use of the word
"chain." The second so-called piece of knowledge was doubted by no less
an authority than the late Adam Sedgwick. The third assertion plainly
and distinctly is not the case; for Science _knows_ nothing whatsoever
about the origin of man's body. In 1901 Branco, a distinguished
palæontologist, with no Theistic leanings as far as we know, told the
world that man appears on our planet as "a genuine _homo novus_," and
that palæontology "knows no ancestors of man." Nor has any discovery
since that date necessitated the modification of that opinion. What the
writer means by saying "_We_ know" is "_I_ am convinced"; but, with the
deepest respect for his undoubted position, the two things are not quite
identical. "Biology, like theology, has its dogmas. Leaders have their
disciples and blind followers." Wise words! They are those of the author
with whom we are dealing. To say "we know" when really we only surmise
is a misuse of language, just as it is also a misuse to ask the question
"Does nature make a departure from its previously ordered procedure and
substitute chance for law?" since the ordinary reader is all too apt to
forget that "Nature" is a mere abstraction, and that to speak of Nature
doing such or such a thing helps us in no way along the road towards an
explanation of things.