Many years ago, The Remnant newspaper caught my attention, particularly with its clear stance on the doctrine of Charles Darwin (1809–1882) – evolutionism. “Has the entire Catholic Church gone Darwin?” This question, which heralded the conference-debate held in 2018 by Chris Ferrara,[i] troubled me as well. After learning from an article published in 2005 in First Things by Stephen Barr that there are attempts to reconcile Christian theology with evolutionism,[ii] I was searching for materials that clearly expose traditional Catholic answers. At the same time, I must admit that my intelligence refuses to follow Mr. Barr’s (pseudo) Christian-evolutionist vision: who could ever imagine an ape with a human soul?
After the 1996 intervention of Pope John Paul II, who stated that evolutionism could “be more than just a hypothesis,” the accurate presentations of the traditional Christian, Catholic doctrine have become increasingly rare. Since then, it has become clear to me that many Catholic leaders were not seeking the Truth, but rather dubious compromises with modern agnostic and atheist “science.” For a Christian parent, however, gimmicks like Pope John Paul II’s statements are of no use because our children are the ones who always exclaim, with their specific candor, that “the emperor is naked.” They are the ones who, thanks to their natural ingenuity, innocence, manage to expose the ambiguities, inconsistencies, duplicities, and, why not tell the truth, the lies often circulated by adults.
Our eldest son came home from school scandalized by the contradictions professed by his teachers. While the religion teacher spoke to them about how the first humans were created by God, a few hours later the biology teacher explained from the same lectern that humans descended from monkeys. Someone is lying.
Such an unforgettable experience occurred when our eldest son came home from school scandalized by the contradictions professed by his teachers. While the religion teacher spoke to them about how the first humans were created by God, a few hours later the biology teacher explained from the same lectern that humans descended from monkeys. The child’s conclusion was instantaneous and unequivocal: someone is lying.
At this point, we must acknowledge that we are dealing with a more serious situation than it seems at first glance, as it is not about a circumstantial lie of a particular person, but about the spirit of lies that manifests itself with particular force camouflaged under the appearance of “scientific objectivity.” We are, in practice, dealing with a network of erroneous ideas that has generated a dominant culture that disregards both the sacred texts of the Judeo-Christian Tradition and the classic theological and philosophical arguments. This is why, through this article, I will inaugurate a series dedicated to an issue that deserves to be debated with all seriousness: the mysteries of the origins and history of humanity. First, I will present some remarkable interventions that, even if they do not always belong to Catholic authors, can help us see the correct direction to combat dominant errors.
After the positivist-evolutionist doctrine seemed victorious on all fronts, embraced by the most important representatives of the biosciences, a dramatic contestation of the evolutionary paradigm took place in the context of American culture during the year 1991. The credit for this remarkable reassessment goes to a professor at the University of Berkeley, Phillip E. Johnson, who in the already mentioned year – 1991 – published a work with a challenging title: Darwin on Trial.
The monograph of approximately two hundred pages sparked broad echoes in the most diverse circles. Reading it, you realize why the proponents of evolutionism spare no effort to combat it in hundreds of volumes, thousands of journals, documentaries, series, conferences, and other such “academic” manifestations. Trained at Harvard University in the rigorous discipline of studying laws, Professor Johnson specialized in the theory and logic of legal argumentation. Leveraging his expertise in law, Johnson placed Darwin in the dock by meticulously examining the evidence for and against his theories. What was the conclusion?
Those who embrace the evolutionist idea (or conception) do not do so because of the solidity of this doctrine; the real motives are rather occult.
Far from having concrete evidence to support evolutionism, Darwinists have produced one of the greatest deceptions in the history of science by fabricating archaeological evidence, counterfeiting analyses, and creating an absurd chronology. Obviously, all this to support and justify their ideas, according to the principle enunciated by the mathematician Poincaré: perspective creates the phenomenon. Translated into simple terms, this attitude is characterized by a collective commitment to an idea that cannot be demonstrated because it has no real foundation. Contrary to the claims of positive sciences to have an observational-empirical character, such a thing is completely lacking in the case of evolutionism. However, those who embrace the evolutionist idea (or conception) do not do so because of the solidity of this doctrine; the real motives are rather occult.
The substrate of such a situation is complex and confusing. Alongside other factors, it is certain that a certain principled opposition to theology and Christian faith is sometimes explicitly present in the rhetoric of many evolutionists. There is probably no clearer evidence of this than the speech of the Marxist biologist Richard Lewontin, who, in a review published in The New York Review of Books (January 9, 1997) under the title “Billions and Billions of Demons,” explicitly affirmed the following:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”[iii]
This quote – and others like it, which I have gathered over the years – represented for me a true “enlightenment.” Because the author highlighted exactly what I was seeking: the deep motivations behind embracing evolutionism, despite its illogical nature. Clearly, these were represented, more than anything else, by the desire to exclude fundamentally, definitively, and categorically any possible intervention from theology or philosophy. As it can be clearly seen, certain scientists support certain doctrines only because they are oriented against any religious belief or rational philosophical system that would invoke the supreme Creator of the world in its arguments. Specifically, what Lewontin affirms in his text is a testimony of “faith” against the Christian faith, in particular, and against any theistic belief, in general.
Displayed in large museums and presented in all textbooks, even translated into 3D films, they come to be considered as self-evident along with the theories they convey. Man is easily manipulable through images. Here is the lesson that not only the communists and Marxists have perfectly understood, but also the evolutionists and their adherents.
Unlike his opponents similar to the one quoted above, the immense respect gained by Professor Johnson and the impact of his book are due to his argumentative style, expressed in clear language. However, difficulties arise precisely from the Socratic manner of questioning his opponents, who always, instead of directly responding to his logical objections, wish to provide their ready-made image (i.e., metanarrative) of the history and evolution of man, without allowing discussion of the details of the picture. In fact, if we were to describe the general strategy of evolutionists, it consists precisely of this type of imagery manipulation: eloquent charts are created to support their theories as much as possible. Displayed in large museums and presented in all textbooks, even translated into 3D films, they come to be considered as self-evident along with the theories they convey. Man is easily manipulable through images. Here is the lesson that not only the communists and Marxists have perfectly understood, but also the evolutionists and their adherents.
What, however, is the basis of the criticisms made by Professor Phillip E. Johnson of Darwinism and its consequences? Principally, he demonstrates step by step that there is no real evidence to truly support the transformation of species due to the process of adaptation. In other words, a wing can never become a hand, a dorsal fin can never become a leg, or ultimately, a monkey cannot become a human no matter how many millions of years it has at its disposal.
The maximum amplitude of the earthquake was reached when other researchers, specialized in certain biosciences, began to confirm the criticisms of the Berkeley professor. First, there was the book of a famous biochemist, Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, published in 1996, then the work of the doctor in biophysics Lee Spetner, Not by Chance!, edited in 1997. Both authors demonstrate that at the deepest levels of biological being, there is no evidence of any mutation or change that would support evolutionism.
No being experiences an evolution that leads to such spectacular transformations that the emergence of man from monkeys could be convincingly proven. In this regard, fossils that seemed to support the possibility of the existence of the “missing link” (never discovered) are simply fossils of monkeys (or possibly of other species). Presenting them as remnants of Australopithecus africanus,[iv] that ancestor of ours who would have been linked to monkeys, is the consequence of forcing facts to fit into the Procrustean bed of evolutionary anthropologists’ conception. Because the famous “missing chain” (i.e., transitional fossil) between monkey and man will forever be missing.
As for the dialogue between science and faith, although we do not avoid it, we must recognize that it is not always possible. Moreover, we must rather accept marginalization and exclusion from the “mainstream science” and universities than compromise at any cost. And the correct interpretation regarding the nature and existence of the first parents, Adam and Eve, is always within reach of those who seek the Truth, but not through appeal to profane sciences (whatever they may be), but to the art of interpreting the texts of the Sacred Scriptures. An art forgotten by those who have become lost on the paths of mechanistic-materialistic thinking.
Latest from RTV — AMERICA’S GOT TALENT: Tucker Carlson vs Taylor Swift
[i] Link: https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3886-evolution-is-it-catholic-the-great-debate-of-2018 [Accessed: 12 February 2024]
[ii] Stephen Barr’s article can be read here: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2005/10/the-design-of-evolution [Accessed: 12 February 2024]
[iii] The full text is available here: https://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm [Accessed: 12 February 2024]
[iv] It is, first of all, about the famous “Lucy” – discovered in 1974 near Hadar, in Ethiopia.
