The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-07-22

U~
81. to the Esrth'. Surface or q. 10 Man
,,,a and the forms of Animal Iife-An
Interesting Lecture Delivered Before the
catholic su--er School .t pis,tssurxh.
p, ,7rsprRaH. NY. July 21.-Dr. Zahm's lee
the Catholic Summer School this morn
i,r On Noah's DeluGe." was a most startling
an. 20 the audience. He denied the universal
~ o';he Good. and presented many convinc-
IN. Arguments In proof OF his assertions The
tol,owirg are extracts from his lecture:
Barring the creation OF the world and Of
mar. Il may be questioned IL any event re.
corded In the Testament has given rise to
N "a yor1 msntaries and provoked more dis
suss!on than the terrible catsclys SIN recorded
v;h such minuteness and detail in the
seventh chapter OF Genesis. The Fathers.
IN their interpretations OF the inspired
volume, and the schoolmen in their pom
asrous tones. devoted entire treatises to
the consideration OF the subject. Tho
,1.sptis's who succeeded the schoolmen
found the question OF the deluge no less inter-
estiug and. Judging from the space they gave
10 the subject. they considered its elucdation
o, prime Importance. With scarcely dissent
tns voice the Fathers the schoolmen. and the
expsetists. who Immediately followed them.
we're az one regarding the universally OF the
taken literally. and the almost general consen-
~. of opinion among theoloGans and COM
nentators Was that the deluGe was universal
not only in relation to mankind. but also
in reference to the earth's surface. One
Of the first to seriously controvert the
theory OF the geographical universally OF the
deluxe was Isaac voss in his 'Dissertato dc
yero Mundi .Etate.' He N Aintsined that not
more than one-hundredth part Of the earth
Was submerged By the food The distin-
ruished Benedictine. Don Mabillon. having. at
the request OF the Congregation Of the Index.
uniyersaity Of the deluge. gave It as his opn-
ion that his teaching was neither again st faith
n the first placer NO one could any longer sefi-
ouslJ maintain that the fossils found in the
s sH OF the The rn Of Sosh de-
New WAS now regarded as simply untenao!e.
Nnot absurd.
naturalists the world over. 1t was discovered
that the number OF species Of animals was In
b. lar. and then new difficultT presented it.
what Ilindens had taught ,Cuvier and others
distinct foci or centres OF animal life: that Ger:
tain species and classes OF animals are found
have S their haSitasion in another. 1t seems
unreasonable. therefore. to suppose. even X
A had sss dsens spses sae S pan
mails Of the various distant countries OF the
world came. or were brought TO the Ark:
various fauna OF distant countries and far-o1
isles o! the ocean returned to the places where
and the more closely the question is investi-
gated tho more formidable becomes the diff
In the light Of science.t erefore-espec
geography theory Of universal deiuse Is
without assuming the existence of such a
rum Der Of miracles that the theory, perforce
what s1plsSation IS to BE- given; Of The uni:
,s.sa s't9s .s snDlss ssa. in the BblS
submerged The, words ali and syery are
sords V. sps tod that must s. I t. rh
explained before We, We are at Liberty to accept
the famine which prevailed at the time Of ia:
sscs soi thai .h The smas
:s@: nsS Esif1s ISsa and 'ss5
Itersny. Sos.ishstsn ding the use Of the sS-
only 70 the cean.res and people 'f sso.n 70
the aso5s.s A9d 20 It + in many other in
others i Is made only to refer to the Einedom
. stretch Of country bounded BY the invisible
horizon. The dsluRe was not as we may be-
to al FORMS Of snimai fte was Il eIeInSins
those that were in the ark.
-Tntti the last few years scarcely any one
more to deny the universally Of the deluee
considered tantamount to impugnine the au:
;hoEity q the Bible or rejecting an article Of
he
think It will be found that one may be justi-
Ned in, holding different views from those
doubtless surprise some Of You. and yet MAKE
this statement deliberately. and with a full
such An Interpretation. know that am call
ing attention 70 q theory that has very few de-
lenders but Il Is one Of the objects Q. the
q modern thought. TO consider the theories
that thai Are new asisa'ine the thinning 5Lp;
and our privilege to scrutinize what we may
believe IS we'll as what we must believer
s ened or shonsd thar
universal destruction Of mankind ~ the food.
eIespting. Of course. OF those in the Ark. was
universal destruction OF our race came from
science; and. singuIarly enough. when the re-
seeessitJ Of revising the. Interpretation that
ns d Seen In vogue REGARDING the destruction
s.r me .ss rae y the dsuse 9 IND ths.
saie such revision What the extent OF the
food was canno, be determined. but IL seems
20 es almost certain that ii very limited.
both as TO the amount OF territory submerge
st.Qysd-
T. md fault with the Fathers 1.-THE Church
loI having one or two thousand years ago less
extensive knowledge OF the natural Sciences
Aot phJsical sciences than we ourselves pos
tess would be simply preposterous- We must
IqfEe them as ~e ourselves under similar
circumstances would wish TO be Judged We
MAJ not. indeed. without new and weighty
!easons. EJECT the teachings OF such venerable
A.tnorities on questions like the one now
eh,er discussion. but when sufficiently grave
reasons are forthcoming We may safely. with
o1t mourning the note of rashpess modify our
optr!oos 50 as TO make them h,rmoniZe with
Ae certain data and conssns ions OF science"