The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1916-12-02

no scientific proof against mans ami
NAL descent, just as there is no scien-
tific evidence for his animal descent.
HomologOus structures are to be ex-
pected if man is what he really is
morphologically considered: A man.
NAL. The real difference between
man and animal is his nationality.
The evolution of rational thought and
free will from mere sensitive life and
instructive tendencies is philoso-
phical absurdity. The subject of
homologous structures is treated by
DR.. Dwight. Thoughts of a Catholic
anatomist, Chapter Z, and in other
places of the book. AS far as the cry
of evolution is concerned, the i'm
portant point to be noted is that SINH
larity of structure is of itself no proof
for family relationship, just as vice
versa dissimilarity of structure is of
itself no proof against family relation
ship. The scientific proof against
mans animal descent rests on his ra-
tionality and free will, and on the
philosophical conclusion following
from these characteristics, among
which is also the spirituality of his
soul.
CD As to the yestigial organs" or
so-called rudimentary organs in man
CT. the detailed answer in our next
issue. The conclusion there reached
on the basis of scientific research on
this point is: There are no rudimen-
tary organs in man in the sense that
they are vestiges of his animal ances-
try. There are, however, rudimentary
organs in man which were of inn
portance for him only in his embry-
onic development. Furthermore the
list of so-called rudimentary organs
becomes smaller and smaller espe-
cially after the subject of internal
SecretionS has been studied. Scien-
lists become more careful after the
warning of Huxley on this matter (cf.
quotation in Gerard. The Old Riddle
and the Newest Answer, p. 1919.
AS to rudimentary organs in animals
the same general warning of Huxley
holds, but to some extent the argu-
ment from rudimentary organs espe-
cially in parasitic organisms is valid
However, here again a number of
qualifications are needed in order not
to overstate the case.
(c) Facts of embryology are, in
general, precisely on par with facts
of morphology or the "homologous
structures Similarity in develop
ment is to be expected, as man, phys
iologically and anatomically consider
ed, is mammal. To conclude direct
ly to animal descent of man from
such facts of general resemblance in
individual development is to ignore
the main. and only. radical difference
between man and animal: it is dis
torted view of man and of the prob
lem of his descent. The Fish-like
Stage" and other such stages is the
embryonic development of man are
not facts but evolutionary interpreta-
lions of certain facts of human en-
bryonic development. There are no
rudimentary "fish-gills" in the human
embryo. The formations which go by
that name serve a very different func-
ton. Even such an evolutionist as
WiederSheim does not admit that
these so-called "fish-giIls'' are without
function. CT. the article of FIR. Frank,
S. j., in Simmer Aus Maria Laach,
1911, Heft 4 Tin the reprint p. 14-15;
the references to Wiedersheim and
other authors in foot note ]. c); CT.
also FIR. Wasmann, S. j., Modern Bio
logy, Engl. translation p. 453. The
whole discussion on the so-called
'Biogenetic Law of Haskell in Was
mann's Biology opp. 446-456) is to the
point. Even in it's application to ami
mails the famous ''biogenetic law" is
nothing but a "biogenetic hypothesis"
only known by it's exceptions. CT.
also Innsbruck lecture of FIR. Was
mann, S. j., in the Appendix to the
Engl. translation of the authors Bio
logy. q. C. p. 500, and p. 4S7).
I'D Man has not been traced to a
series of fossil remains of animals
All fossil remains of man are true
men, No link between man and ape
has ever been found. To enumerate
| all the fossil remains of man and to
refute the claims of evolutionists
would require many pages. A short
summary Of the principal finds that
have been claimed in support of the
| animal descent of man may be found
in the Catholic World May, 1916, in
the article 1.-THE Evolution of Man."
by DR.. Walsh. q. c. PIP. 207-21S).
The famous Piltdown man was
pieced together from pieces of a
| human Uranium with a good fore
head) and the fragment of lower
jaw of young chimpanzee and a
canine tooth of a chimpanzee. The
Piltdown man or the Sussex man is a
variation on the theme how facts are
made to fit pet theory. The article
of DR.. Walsh, referred to, gives good
resume of the discussion concerning
the Piltdown Tor SUSSEX man.
The geological record of animals
favors moderate theory of trans
formation in the animal kingdom from
number of original types created by
God. Though such moderate theory
of evolution in general, applied to
animal and plant kingdoms, is prob
able in the light of facts, still it leaves
many particular problems unsoIved.
And in particular many features of the
geological record of animals (and
plants) are and remain unsolyed prob
lens.
ITO he continual