The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1917-05-05
Catholics and Evolution
WHAT GROUNDS CATHOLIC
HAVE FOR REJECTING CLAIMS
OF SO-CALLED SCIENCE,

Father Hull, S. J., the learned editor.
Of the Bombay EXAMINER" sums up
the general position of a Catholic
when confronted with a simon-pure
evolutionist who attacks the story of
creation as found in the Book of Gene
sis. He thus develops some principles
which may make a standing ground
for Catholics:
Catholics confronted with rational
lists, who believe in evolution pure
and simple and reject all personal
action OF a deity, are quite likely to
be embarrassed by questions about
the creation-account of Genesis. They
cannot be supposed to be ready with
answers to everything; but they can
easily assume the following position:
Cd We emphatically believe in
creation, and believe that God could
create different orders of being sepa-
rately by successive acts: first, the
material universe, secondly, plant and
animal life, and thirdly, man-each
at the time when the earth was in a
fit condition to receive them.
GU We believe that God could
deal during this time, or at any time,
in a special manner, proving himself
master Of creation by acts which we
call miracles; and that afterwards,
when things were established, he
could in general cease from such spe-
cial actions, and have the universe to
proceed according to natural causa-
ton.
CD We have no difficulty in admit
ting as a possibility-or ever as a
fact for that matter-the gradual ma
ture OF the creation process; that is,
evolution from a nebula to a formed
world and from the germs of life to
actual life-saving only the principle
that everything comes ultimately from
Gods creative power.
ca We fully acknowledge that in
former times the Genesis account was
taken with an implicit literalness
which is now, in the light of scien-
tific discovery, impossible, at least in
several points. We allow that sci
ence has forced us to quite a different
understanding of the Genesis account
than was formerly in vogue. Hence
a readiness to interpre the Bible in
terms of modern scic;<e, so far as
this does not mean the imputation of
error to an inspired book. We ever
admit that in some passages this eX-
PLANTATION is difficult and far from OBJ
vious. Where this happens, we fall
back on the principle that the Bible
is guaranteed as inspired by the dog
ma of the Church. Consequently it
must have a meaning which is con
slstent with truth, even though not
always with literal truth. The amount
OF allegory or symbolism which it
contains is not a~scertainable. But we
are naturally chary of admitting mere
ailegory or symbolism so long as some
more literal meaning can be found.
On the whole, our attitude ought to
be that of a certain professor who,
on being asked some question of the
sort, answered: When you tell me
IOf certain what the text OF Genesis
means, | can answer; but at present
cannot" When all is said and done,
we can only fall back, while dealing
with such obscure questions, on the
wise maxim of the Talmud: Teach
myself to say I do not know
The Genesis-account has always
served its purpose of ~impressing on
human minds the essential point,
namely, that God is creator and mas
ter OF the universe and of man. More
over, the mode of impressing this
truth was certainly well adapted to
the mental condition of those for
whom it was originally written. If it
does not suit our modern mentality so
well, that is a matter for which God
Himself is responsible. Our business
is to use the book so far as it is a
nelp to us, and not to make 1T an
occasion for intellectual hagglings or
GnY1hfo &&MN3 s#1F4