[ 0 → 8] Welcome to Episode 2 of Foundations Restored, a Catholic Perspective on Origins. [ 8 → 11] I'm your host Keith Jones. [ 11 → 17] In this episode we begin to explain that evolutionary thought did not start with Darwin, and it [ 17 → 21] involves much more than scientific error. [ 21 → 27] In fact, you will see that Darwinism is a key component and historically the final argument [ 27 → 31] of a mega-philosophy that now dominates the world. [ 31 → 37] This mega-philosophy incorporates various components of ancient materialism, the rationalism [ 37 → 42] of Rene Descartes, and the pantheism of Teilhard de Chardin. [ 42 → 48] All loosely associated components of this mega-philosophy are built upon a false view [ 48 → 56] of reality, a grand deception, which we will refer to as the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative. [ 56 → 58] Here is a good summary of the narrative. [ 58 → 62] If there is a God, he does not interfere in the affairs of men. [ 62 → 67] No miracles are allowed in the Cartesian-Darwinian world. [ 67 → 71] Through this series you will come to understand that the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative has [ 71 → 75] deeply penetrated even into Catholic circles. [ 75 → 80] Two indicators of this penetration are the widespread belief that human evolution has [ 80 → 86] occurred and that sacred scripture contains errors of history or natural science. [ 86 → 91] While some may be offended at this suggestion that many Catholics and especially Catholic [ 91 → 97] intellectuals have been influenced to some degree by a grand deception, we ask you to [ 97 → 102] honestly consider the case set forth in this series and to humbly reflect on the many ways [ 102 → 108] that your education and religious formation may have been influenced by the Cartesian-Darwinian [ 108 → 109] narrative. [ 109 → 115] While viewing the entire series is required to fully reveal the narrative's influence, [ 115 → 121] this episode provides a historical overview of the link between false philosophy and false [ 121 → 127] evolutionary claims, and how this linkage allowed narrative-based philosophies to increasingly [ 127 → 131] dominate the world after 1859. [ 131 → 136] This discussion covers three time periods, the age of the materialists that began in [ 136 → 142] ancient Greece and continued until the beginning of the church, the age of the creation-providence [ 142 → 147] framework that lasted from the start of the church to the early enlightenment, and the [ 147 → 154] age of the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative that began in 1637 and continues to this day. [ 196 → 204] 1. [ 204 → 210] Western philosophy began in ancient Greece more than 25 centuries ago. [ 210 → 216] Some philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were theists, while others believed [ 216 → 219] that only the material universe existed. [ 219 → 225] The philosophy of materialism can be traced to philosophers such as Leucippus and Democritus. [ 225 → 232] Democritus is linked to atomism, the idea that all of reality is comprised of indestructible [ 232 → 236] and indivisible atoms. [ 236 → 243] In the 3rd century AD, Diogenes Laertius, an early compiler of Greek philosophies, characterized [ 243 → 247] Democritus' teachings as follows. [ 247 → 252] That atoms and the vacuum were the beginning of the universe, the atoms were infinite both [ 252 → 257] in magnitude and number, and were born about through the universe in endless revolutions, [ 257 → 264] and that thus they produced all the combinations that exist, fire, water, air, and earth. [ 264 → 268] For that all these things are only combinations of certain atoms. [ 268 → 273] Also that the sun and the moon are formed by such revolutions and round bodies, and [ 273 → 279] in like manner the soul, the chief good, he asserts, to be cheerfulness, a condition according [ 279 → 285] to which the soul lives calmly and steadily, being disturbed by no fear or superstition [ 285 → 289] or other passion. [ 289 → 295] Following Democritus was the Greek philosopher Epicurus, the Greek materialist, whose impact [ 295 → 297] continues to this day. [ 297 → 302] Epicurus' unique philosophical contribution concerned his clear instruction that natural [ 302 → 308] science is to be used as a means to deny the existence of the supernatural and man's [ 308 → 316] moral accountability, myths that he despised because they were the source of personal disturbance. [ 316 → 317] Epicurus wrote, [ 317 → 322] If our suspicions about heavenly phenomena and about death did not trouble us at all [ 322 → 328] and were never anything to us, then we would have no need of natural science. [ 328 → 333] Again, it is impossible for someone ignorant about the nature of the universe but still [ 333 → 338] suspicious about the subjects of the myths to dissolve his feelings of fear about the [ 338 → 340] most important matters. [ 340 → 347] So it is impossible to receive unmixed pleasures without knowing natural science. [ 347 → 353] By leveraging natural science in this way, Epicurus concluded that there is no creator [ 353 → 354] or first cause. [ 354 → 361] Therefore, mankind is not held accountable to a just and moral god after death. [ 361 → 367] This allowed Epicurus to rid himself of disturbances of the soul that interfered with achieving [ 367 → 373] what he called the supreme aim of this life, the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain. [ 373 → 379] Thus, while Epicurus lived prudently, he was an early moral relativist and proponent of [ 379 → 385] the idea that no pleasure is a bad in itself. [ 385 → 391] Under the Epicurean doctrine, natural science becomes tainted with philosophy and becomes [ 391 → 393] naturalistic science. [ 393 → 395] It becomes naturalism. [ 395 → 400] This means that when materialists control the reins of natural science, only naturalistic [ 400 → 406] explanations of any phenomena are allowed, even if this involves distorting the evidence [ 406 → 412] and exceeding the proper boundaries of natural science. [ 412 → 418] The philosophy of ancient Greece deeply impacted the thought and culture of the Roman Empire, [ 418 → 423] where materialism was advanced most notably by the philosopher Lucretius. [ 423 → 429] Like Epicurus, Lucretius used naturalistic science to deny the creator, writing, [ 429 → 435] "...nature, free at once and rid of her haughty lords, is seen to do all things spontaneously [ 435 → 440] of herself without the meddling of the gods." [ 440 → 445] Lucretius' most notable contribution to materialism was his attempted naturalistic [ 445 → 449] explanation of life's origin and diversity. [ 449 → 455] He wrote that not by design or keen intelligence did life come into being. [ 455 → 461] He discussed random changes in the organization of material extending infinite ages back such [ 461 → 469] that over time the random assembling of matter led to every kind of production possible until [ 469 → 474] they at length meet together in those masses which suddenly brought together the rudiments [ 474 → 481] of great things, of earth, sea, and heaven, and the race of living things. [ 481 → 487] This process, he suggested, extended to humanity as the earth with good title has gotten and [ 487 → 493] keeps the name of mother, since she of herself gave birth to mankind. [ 493 → 499] According to Lucretius, random processes produced many monsters that were ill-suited for their [ 499 → 501] environment and perished. [ 501 → 507] In one memorable sequence, he clearly anticipated the concept of natural selection, writing, [ 507 → 512] "...and many races of living things must then have died out and been unable to beget [ 512 → 514] and continue their breed. [ 514 → 519] For in the case of all things which you see breathing the breath of life, either craft [ 519 → 525] or courage or else speed has from the beginning of its existence protected and preserved each [ 525 → 527] particular race. [ 527 → 532] But those to whom nature has granted none of these qualities would lie exposed as a [ 532 → 538] prey and booty of others until nature brought that kind to utter destruction." [ 538 → 544] Epicurus and Lucretius were philosophers writing more than 2,000 years ago. [ 544 → 549] They knew nothing of laboratories, microscopes, the cell, or the genetic code. [ 549 → 553] Lucretius proposed the survival of the fittest concept out of philosophical necessity. [ 553 → 557] He understood that the materialistic worldview needed a non-supernatural means of accounting [ 557 → 560] for the origin and diversity of life. [ 560 → 564] Theories of cosmic and biological evolution were a means to an end. [ 564 → 567] Little has changed from that time to the present. [ 567 → 571] Current evolutionary theories are proclaimed as beyond question in the name of science, [ 571 → 576] but a closer look reveals the reasons for adherence to the paradigm are philosophical [ 576 → 580] rather than empirical, as the more we learn from observation and experiment, the more [ 580 → 585] these explanations are known to be inadequate. [ 585 → 590] Materialism competed with other philosophies for dominance in Roman culture, but over the [ 590 → 594] course of centuries it was supplanted by Christianity. [ 594 → 600] With the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, whereby Christianity became legal throughout the Roman [ 600 → 607] Empire, the Church Fathers rose in unison to openly refute materialism. [ 607 → 611] This began the age of the Creation-Providence Framework. [ 611 → 617] As will be explained in more detail in episode 3, the Creation-Providence Framework involved [ 617 → 623] the understanding that God supernaturally created the universe, mankind, and the animal [ 623 → 629] kinds during the six-day creation period, and then, having completed the creation, rested [ 629 → 647] from further creative activity and began the period of Providence on the seventh day. [ 647 → 654] Many Church Fathers, including St. Hippolytus, Dionysius the Great, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, [ 654 → 658] and Lactantius, wrote against materialism. [ 658 → 664] They clearly understood that materialistic philosophy included pseudo-evolutionary processes [ 664 → 667] for the specific purpose of denying the Creator. [ 667 → 673] In his work On the Workmanship of God or the Formation of Man, Latin Father Lactantius [ 673 → 678] defended special creation, summarizing the materialistic speculations and motives of [ 678 → 681] Epicurus and Lucretius as follows. [ 681 → 686] I am accustomed to wonder at the senselessness of the philosophers who follow Epicurus, who [ 686 → 691] blame the works of nature, that they may show that the world is prepared and governed [ 691 → 693] by no providence. [ 693 → 699] They ascribe the origin of all things to indivisible and solid bodies, from the fortuitous meetings [ 699 → 703] of which they say that all things are and were produced. [ 703 → 709] Also, I cannot here be prevented from again showing the folly of Epicurus. [ 709 → 714] For all the ravings of Lucretius belong to him who, in order that he might show that [ 714 → 720] animals are not produced by any contrivance of the divine mind, but, as he is wont to [ 720 → 725] say, by chance, said that in the beginning of the world innumerable other animals of [ 725 → 731] wonderful form and magnitude were produced, but that they were unable to be permanent, [ 731 → 736] because either the power of taking food or the method of uniting and generating had failed [ 736 → 737] them. [ 737 → 742] It is evident that, in order to make a place for his atoms flying about through the boundless [ 742 → 749] and empty space, he wished to exclude the divine providence. [ 749 → 753] Here Lactantius demonstrates two important points. [ 753 → 759] First, it is clear that the Church Fathers understood arguments for evolution and the [ 759 → 761] survival of the fittest concept. [ 761 → 768] Second, they rejected such arguments as a philosophical maneuver to exclude the Creator. [ 768 → 774] And so the question for today's Catholics is, why should we view evolutionary arguments [ 774 → 778] any differently than the Church Fathers? [ 778 → 783] Many Catholics may answer that Darwin was able to produce evidence supporting his idea, [ 783 → 788] but this response is based on the false impression that there is evidence supporting Darwin's [ 788 → 793] hypothesis, that he included such evidence in the origin of species, and that he understood [ 793 → 798] the cause of random changes he claimed drove evolutionary processes. [ 799 → 802] Darwin's correspondents illustrate that these impressions are clearly false. [ 802 → 808] Regarding the lack of convincing examples, upon reading the draft of the origin of species, [ 808 → 810] Darwin's close friend Charles Lyell suggested, [ 810 → 816] When, as I fully expect, a new addition is soon called for, you may here and there insert [ 816 → 822] an actual case to relieve the vast number of abstract propositions. [ 822 → 828] Four years later, in a more explicit statement, Lyell admitted the central weakness of Darwinism. [ 829 → 835] Every naturalist admits that there is a general tendency in animals and plants to vary, but [ 835 → 839] it is usually taken for granted, though we have no means of proving the assumption to [ 839 → 846] be true that there are certain limits beyond which each species cannot pass under any circumstances [ 846 → 850] or in any number of generations. [ 850 → 856] To this day, evolutionists have not adequately addressed this glaring weakness. [ 856 → 862] Likewise, Darwin knew nothing of the complexity of the cell or what could trigger the variation [ 862 → 865] required for evolution to occur. [ 865 → 871] Even Thomas Huxley, Darwin's staunch defender, wrote to Darwin and criticized his lack of [ 871 → 874] an identifiable evolutionary mechanism. [ 874 → 880] In response, Darwin wrote back one day after publishing The Origin of Species, confiding [ 880 → 882] to Huxley, [ 882 → 886] You have most cleverly hit on one point, which has greatly troubled me. [ 886 → 893] If, as I must think, external conditions produce little direct effect, what the devil determines [ 893 → 896] each particular variation? [ 896 → 901] When some people learned that Darwin could neither identify a mechanism for evolution [ 901 → 907] nor provide examples of macroevolution, they assumed that these critical deficiencies were [ 907 → 913] answered during the 20th century, when mutations were declared as the mechanism of evolution. [ 913 → 916] But this is incorrect. [ 916 → 921] As Episodes 5 and 6 will explain, not only do the claimed examples of Darwinian evolution [ 921 → 928] fail, but due to the well-established principles of information theory and genetic entropy, [ 928 → 929] macroevolution cannot occur. [ 929 → 933] It is a genetic impossibility. [ 933 → 938] Evolutionism is a failed theory, and following the principle known as Occam's Razor, there [ 938 → 945] are much simpler and observable processes that better explain species diversity. [ 945 → 950] Misinformation about the supporting evidence partly explains why most Catholics no longer [ 950 → 954] associate evolutionary claims with false philosophy. [ 954 → 960] However, another factor has long been at work, and it involves an event that occurred during [ 960 → 965] the so-called Enlightenment that would eventually erase the Creation-Providence Framework from [ 965 → 967] Catholic memory. [ 967 → 973] Only if we recognize the linkage between this event and Darwinism can we properly understand [ 973 → 979] evolution as the necessary component of a larger philosophical assault on truth that [ 979 → 982] was foretold in Sacred Scripture. [ 982 → 989] Adherence to the Creation-Providence Framework continued into the 17th century. [ 989 → 995] One of the great theologians of this time was Francis Suarez, Dr. Exemius, the exceptional [ 995 → 1001] doctor, who had at his disposal all the writings of the Church Fathers and previous doctors, [1001 → 1005] in addition to many magisterial teachings. [1005 → 1012] Summarizing the Church teaching on human origins, Suarez gave due prominence to St. Thomas Aquinas, [1012 → 1013] writing, [1013 → 1019] We must hold that the body of Adam was immediately produced or formed by God alone. [1019 → 1022] The thesis we affirm is Catholic doctrine. [1022 → 1029] It is taught by St. Thomas in 191, Article 2, where he proves it from Ecclesiasticus 17, 1. [1029 → 1032] God created man of the earth. [1032 → 1036] In this concur the other theologians and fathers. [1036 → 1041] At this time, however, fundamental changes were underway that would eventually lead to [1041 → 1045] the overthrow of the Creation-Providence Framework. [1045 → 1051] One of these changes was the re-emergence of ancient Greek philosophies, including materialism. [1051 → 1056] The roots of this revival can be traced back to the Crusades, when soldiers returning to [1056 → 1061] Europe brought writings associated with ancient Greek philosophy. [1061 → 1068] In 1431, the third century work, Lives of the Imminent Philosophers, was translated [1068 → 1071] and provided the details of materialist philosophy. [1071 → 1079] Likewise, Lucretius' writings were reintroduced to Europe in 1417 and printed copies were [1079 → 1086] distributed in 1473, approximately three decades after the development of the printing press. [1086 → 1092] This allowed Lucretius to become a permanent source of Epicurean philosophy. [1092 → 1098] Another current of thought occurred with Luther's revolt in 1517, when many people came to reject [1098 → 1103] the Magisterium as the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture, under the guidance of [1103 → 1105] the Holy Spirit. [1105 → 1108] In its place was substituted human reason. [1108 → 1112] This approach would eventually lead to the more than 30,000 Protestant denominations [1112 → 1114] existing today. [1114 → 1119] The combined impacts of this re-emergence of ancient Greek philosophy and the increased [1119 → 1126] reliance on man's reason ushered in a period of extreme philosophical skepticism as the [1126 → 1129] 16th century came to a close. [1129 → 1131] Father Michael Buckley writes, [1131 → 1137] At the opening of the 17th century, there was a widespread conviction that the atheists [1137 → 1144] were at the gates and the defense of the religious walls had passed from theology to philosophy. [1144 → 1151] A very influential writer of this period was the French philosopher Michel de Montaigne. [1151 → 1156] In an apology for Raymond Sabon, Montaigne presented the divergent truth claims of Greek [1156 → 1162] philosophers on various topics such as the existence and location of the soul. [1162 → 1168] But rather than conclude that pagan philosophers had found or approached certain truths knowable [1168 → 1174] by natural revelation, Montaigne concluded that the many competing truth claims indicates [1174 → 1178] that truth is non-existent or cannot be determined. [1178 → 1182] He ended in deep skepticism, asking, [1182 → 1187] Is it within the capacity of man to find what he is looking for? [1187 → 1192] Has that quest for truth which has kept man busy for so many centuries actually enriched [1192 → 1197] him with some new power or solid truth? [1197 → 1199] Montaigne concluded, [1199 → 1204] There is a plague on man, his opinion that he knows something. [1204 → 1206] Man is indeed out of his mind. [1206 → 1212] He cannot even create a fleshworm, yet he creates gods by the dozens. [1212 → 1216] Skepticism can best be conceived through the form of a question, [1216 → 1218] What do I know? [1218 → 1224] And with that question, Montaigne set the stage for René Descartes and the philosophy [1224 → 1225] of rationalism. [1225 → 1231] Catholic philosopher Etienne Gilson explains that Cartesian philosophy was a desperate [1231 → 1235] struggle to emerge from Montaigne's skepticism. [1273 → 1281] For in 1637 he initiated the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative. [1281 → 1286] This narrative would eventually erase the creation-providence framework from Catholic [1286 → 1287] memory. [1287 → 1292] To provide some background, the name of Descartes in Latin is Cartesius. [1292 → 1298] The term Cartesian-Darwinian narrative conveys the notion that the writings and philosophies [1298 → 1304] of Descartes and Darwin are so closely linked that they form a continuous, comprehensive [1304 → 1307] view of world history and reality. [1307 → 1313] In fact, evolution is a logical and necessary component of Cartesian philosophy, which is [1313 → 1316] commonly called rationalism. [1316 → 1322] By the term narrative, I am referring to a meta-narrative defined as a story that claims [1322 → 1329] to explain various events in history and gives meaning by connecting dispersed events [1329 → 1337] and phenomena by appealing to some kind of universal knowledge or schema. [1337 → 1343] René Descartes was a French mathematician and philosopher who was raised Catholic and [1343 → 1345] educated by the Jesuits. [1345 → 1350] Yet he emerged from his studies a skeptic, frustrated that philosophy was based on mere [1350 → 1356] probabilities and the strength of one's argument, rather than on the certainty found [1356 → 1359] in mathematical processes. [1359 → 1364] Determined to return from skepticism, he sought to introduce all domains of thought to the [1364 → 1369] methods of problem-solving commonly used in mathematics. [1369 → 1375] Early in 1619, he wrote that his aim was to develop an entirely new science and that the [1375 → 1381] application would be unbelievably ambitious as it would dispel that most opaque darkness [1381 → 1384] that plagued mankind. [1384 → 1391] In November of 1619, the 23-year-old soldier-philosopher was in winter quarters near Ulm, which is [1391 → 1393] part of modern-day Germany. [1393 → 1398] At this time, it is known that Descartes was keen to find members of the secretive occult [1398 → 1407] society known as the Rosicrucians and to seek their aid during the winter of 1619-1620. [1407 → 1413] According to Adrien Bayer, an early biographer who had access to Descartes' private notes, [1413 → 1419] at this time Descartes felt stirring within him an emulation toward the Rosicrucians that [1419 → 1424] moved him all the more deeply because accounts of them had reached him at the moment of his [1424 → 1430] greatest perplexity concerning the means he should take in his search for truth. [1430 → 1436] This openness to the occult resulted in a life-changing experience on the night of November [1436 → 1444] 10th, 1619, for on that night three preternatural dreams would cement his philosophical direction [1444 → 1449] and provide what Descartes called the foundations of the admirable science. [1449 → 1454] It is telling that Descartes recorded in his private notes that an acquaintance referred [1454 → 1460] to as the genius who had heightened in him the enthusiasm which had been burning within [1460 → 1465] him for the past several days had forecast these dreams to him before he had retired [1465 → 1467] to his bed. [1467 → 1470] Descartes recorded detailed descriptions of the dreams. [1470 → 1476] In the third, a figure described as the Spirit of Truth appeared and presented a book, posing [1476 → 1480] the question, which path shall I follow in life? [1480 → 1485] Descartes understood that the Spirit came to open for him by this dream the treasures [1485 → 1488] of all the sciences. [1488 → 1494] Using the words of Bayeux, this Spirit descended upon him and took possession of him. [1494 → 1498] His path was decided. [1498 → 1504] Setting aside all that he saw as merely probable and not rigorously proved, Descartes continued [1504 → 1511] along his philosophical path by asking himself Montaigne's question, what do I know? [1511 → 1516] He concluded that he knew very little, but because he was thinking about the question, [1516 → 1518] he must exist. [1518 → 1524] This produced his famous declaration, I think, therefore I am. [1524 → 1530] From this foundation of what was certain and rejecting all else, Descartes sought to rebuild [1530 → 1535] all knowledge, including the solution to metaphysical mysteries such as the existence [1535 → 1540] of God, using what he called universal mathematics. [1540 → 1545] In this approach, he wrote, we reject all such merely probable knowledge and make it [1545 → 1552] a rule to trust only what is completely known and incapable of being doubted. [1552 → 1555] Cartesian philosophy is called rationalism. [1556 → 1562] Catholic philosopher Joseph Piper succinctly summarizes the philosophy as asserting, [1562 → 1567] There cannot be anything which exceeds the power of human reason to comprehend. [1567 → 1573] When rationalism is strictly applied to theology, revelation is trumped by man's reason, as [1573 → 1579] revelation involves mysteries that are beyond man's ability to fully understand. [1579 → 1585] The result is a dramatic separation between faith and reason, which Descartes himself [1585 → 1592] typified, I have faith in the teachings of the church, but I simply bracket all that [1592 → 1593] out. [1593 → 1597] It is in the realm of religious sentiment and emotion, whereas my universal science [1597 → 1601] is in the realm of reason and knowledge. [1601 → 1606] And again, I have always considered that the two questions respecting God and the soul [1606 → 1611] were the chief of those that ought to be demonstrated by philosophical rather than [1611 → 1614] theological argument. [1614 → 1620] The elevation of reason above faith earned Descartes the title Father of Modern Philosophy [1620 → 1626] and marked a dramatic rejection of scholasticism, through which each domain was afforded its [1626 → 1627] own methods. [1627 → 1632] Yet theology was regarded as the queen of the sciences, since as St. Thomas reminds [1632 → 1638] us some things can be known by revelation alone. [1638 → 1644] In his encyclical Faith and Reason, Pope St. John Paul II assesses the radical reordering [1644 → 1648] of Descartes and other rationalists. [1648 → 1653] As a result of the exaggerated rationalism of certain thinkers, there emerged eventually [1653 → 1659] a philosophy which was separate from and absolutely independent of the contents of faith, but [1659 → 1664] for patristic and medieval thought was in both theory and practice a profound unity, [1664 → 1667] was destroyed. [1667 → 1673] There are many aspects of Cartesian philosophy worthy of detailed discussion. [1673 → 1678] The focus in this episode is on Descartes' immediate application of rationalism to origins [1678 → 1683] that led to the overthrow of the creation providence framework. [1683 → 1688] This was a logical point of attack, as the origin of the universe and that of mankind [1688 → 1694] involve supernatural processes and are therefore beyond man's full comprehension. [1694 → 1700] Descartes knew that for rationalism to triumph, he had to somehow reject the scriptural accounts [1700 → 1708] of origins as far as possible, while also being careful not to trigger his own excommunication. [1708 → 1715] In his work Le Monde, or The World, Descartes applied rationalism directly to origins, describing [1715 → 1720] a make-believe universe that, after the first moment of its formation, would be subject [1720 → 1726] only to natural processes and, he argued, would look the same as our actual world. [1726 → 1728] He explained, [1728 → 1733] From the first instant of their creation, small particles of matter continue moving [1733 → 1737] thereafter in accordance with the ordinary laws of nature. [1737 → 1742] For God has established these laws in such a marvelous way that even if we suppose that [1742 → 1747] he creates nothing more than what I have said, and even if he does not impose any order, [1747 → 1752] the laws of nature are sufficient to cause the parts of this chaos to disentangle and [1752 → 1757] arrange themselves in such a good order that they will have the form of a most perfect [1757 → 1759] world. [1759 → 1765] Descartes then clarified that rationalism necessarily implies naturalism and excludes [1765 → 1767] the supernatural. [1767 → 1770] Nature alone is able to untangle the confusion of the chaos. [1770 → 1776] By nature here I do not mean some deity or other sort of imaginary power, rather I use [1776 → 1780] the word to signify matter itself. [1780 → 1786] The rules by which these changes take place I call the laws of nature. [1786 → 1789] He also set forth the following rule. [1789 → 1796] God will never perform a miracle in the new world. [1796 → 1800] Here we see the clear break from the creation providence framework. [1800 → 1806] In its place a world was constructed in which after the first instant of creation, natural [1806 → 1809] processes account for everything. [1809 → 1814] Through Descartes, philosophy and natural science are no longer handmaidens, but are [1814 → 1819] used to cast doubt upon scriptural accounts of origins. [1819 → 1824] Natural science ends up playing the same role as it does under Epicurean materialism, though [1824 → 1830] couched in more scientific language. [1830 → 1836] This mechanical view of the world also applied to man, whom Descartes called a machine made [1836 → 1842] of earth, while he allowed that man was created and that God unites a rational soul to this [1842 → 1844] machine. [1844 → 1849] The soul can cause no movement in the body unless all the corporeal organs required are [1849 → 1855] properly disposed, and when the body has all the organs disposed for this movement, [1855 → 1859] it does not need the soul to produce movement. [1859 → 1864] By 1633, Descartes had largely completed the world. [1864 → 1870] However, before he could publish, the Galileo affair reached its climax and Descartes decided [1870 → 1871] not to publish. [1871 → 1878] Instead, he focused on another project, one that would apply the same rationalistic concepts, [1878 → 1881] but in language he thought more acceptable to church authorities. [1881 → 1887] This work became his famous Discourse on Method, published in 1637. [1887 → 1893] The following words from Discourse on Method mark the formal start of the Cartesian-Darwinian [1893 → 1894] narrative. [1894 → 1901] It is certain that the action by which God now preserves the world is just the same as [1901 → 1904] that by which he at first created it. [1904 → 1910] By this means alone all things which are purely material might in course of time have [1910 → 1915] become such as we observe them to be at present, and their nature is much easier to understand [1915 → 1920] when we see them coming to pass little by little in this manner than were we to consider [1920 → 1924] them as all complete to begin with. [1924 → 1930] In the Discourse he also flirts with the deification of matter and the laws of nature, writing [1930 → 1933] that the laws of nature are such that [1933 → 1938] "...even if God had created other worlds, he could not have created any in which these [1938 → 1942] laws would fail to be observed." [1942 → 1947] Readily perceiving the future impact of this radical approach, Catholic philosopher and [1947 → 1951] mathematician Blaise Pascal responded, [1951 → 1957] "...I cannot forgive Descartes in his whole philosophy he would like to do without God, [1957 → 1962] but he could not help allowing him a flick of the fingers to set the world in motion. [1962 → 1968] After that he had no more use for God." [1968 → 1974] The importance of Descartes' strategy can hardly be underestimated, for it contains [1974 → 1980] the principle that naturalistic processes acting gradually and over long periods of [1980 → 1988] time must be used to provide an alternative explanation to the direct supernatural creation [1988 → 1993] of the heavens and the earth during the six-day creation period. [1993 → 1998] His approach launched the fulfillment of one of the most remarkable prophecies in the New [1998 → 2000] Testament. [2000 → 2007] In 2 Peter 3, verses 3-6, St. Peter, our first pope, warns, [2007 → 2013] "...knowing this first, that in the last days there shall come scoffers with deceit, [2013 → 2019] walking according to their own lusts, saying, Where is his promise or his coming? [2019 → 2025] For since the Father slept, all things continue so from the beginning of the creation. [2025 → 2030] For this they are willfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before and the earth out [2030 → 2035] of water and through water, consisting by the word of God. [2035 → 2042] Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." [2042 → 2048] In this extraordinary passage, St. Peter prophesied that in the future, deceitful scoffers would [2048 → 2054] arise and dismiss the reality of direct creation by the word of God. [2054 → 2059] These scoffers would claim instead that natural processes have been in place since the very [2059 → 2063] beginning of creation and account for the heavens and the earth. [2063 → 2070] St. Peter also foretold that these claims would involve a deliberate denial of truth [2070 → 2079] knowable through the evidence, a denial designed to justify sinful self-indulgence, the following [2079 → 2082] of their own passions. [2082 → 2089] We must never forget that the creation providence framework was first attacked from within the [2089 → 2094] domain of philosophy, not natural science, and that it was Descartes who established [2094 → 2098] the strategy to be followed. [2098 → 2102] In the Discourse on Method, Descartes makes it clear that the laws he developed involving [2102 → 2107] gradual and natural processes acting over time, what's called uniformitarianism, were [2107 → 2110] to be applied to cosmology and geology. [2110 → 2115] Summarizing his approach in the world, he explains. [2115 → 2120] I showed how the greatest part of the matter of which this chaos is constituted must, in [2120 → 2126] accordance with these laws, dispose and arrange itself in such a fashion as to render it similar [2126 → 2131] to our heavens, and how meantime some of its parts must form in earth, some planets and [2131 → 2135] comets and some others as sun and fixed stars. [2135 → 2140] There is nothing to be seen in the heavens and stars pertaining to our system which must [2140 → 2147] not or at least may not appear exactly the same in those of the system which I described. [2147 → 2154] So powerful were these laws of nature that, even if God had created other worlds, He could [2154 → 2158] not have created any in which these laws would fail to be observed. [2158 → 2164] From this point I came to speak more particularly of the earth showing, how the mountains, seas, [2164 → 2169] fountains and rivers could naturally be formed in it, how the metals came to be and the plants [2169 → 2174] to grow in the fields, and generally how all bodies called mixed or composite might [2174 → 2177] arise. [2177 → 2181] Descartes also gave biology the future task of developing a naturalistic model for the [2181 → 2188] origin of mankind, although he dared not venture that far himself, explaining in the world. [2188 → 2193] From a description of inanimate bodies and plants I passed on to that of animals and [2193 → 2198] particularly to that of men, but since I had not yet sufficient knowledge to speak of them [2198 → 2203] in the same style as of the rest, that is to say, demonstrating the effects from the [2203 → 2208] causes and showing from what beginnings and in what fashion nature must produce them, [2208 → 2213] I contented myself with supposing that God formed the body of man altogether like one [2213 → 2218] of ours, without making use of any matter other than that which I had described and [2218 → 2224] without at the first placing in it a rational soul. [2224 → 2228] Strangely, the connection between Descartes and the uniformitarian science that was to [2228 → 2234] follow in cosmology, geology and biology is seldom acknowledged by Catholic academics. [2234 → 2240] Yet the link has long been celebrated by secular philosophers such as humanist John Dewey, [2240 → 2243] the so-called father of American education. [2243 → 2246] In 1909, Dewey explained. [2246 → 2251] When Descartes said, the nature of physical things is much more easily conceived when [2251 → 2257] they are beheld coming gradually into existence, the modern world became self-conscious of [2257 → 2262] the logic that was henceforth to control it, the logic of which Darwin's origin of species [2262 → 2266] is the latest scientific achievement. [2266 → 2275] Likewise, Charles Lyell applied the Cartesian strategy to geology, thus producing his concept [2275 → 2278] that the present is the key to the past. [2278 → 2283] In other words, Lyell's uniformitarian geology implied that the Genesis Flood never [2283 → 2290] occurred and all geological observations could be explained through current processes working [2290 → 2294] at the same level of intensity over eons of time. [2294 → 2300] In words that echo Descartes, Lyell wrote in Principles of Geology. [2300 → 2306] The value of all geological evidence must depend entirely on the degree of confidence [2306 → 2310] which we feel in regard to the permanency of the laws of nature. [2310 → 2314] Their immutable constancy alone can enable us to reason. [2314 → 2319] The uniformity of the plan being once assumed, events which have occurred in the most distant [2319 → 2324] periods will be acknowledged, and the deficiency of our information respecting some of the [2324 → 2330] most obscure parts of the present creation will be removed. [2330 → 2335] Darwin would carry forward Lyell's critical assumptions of geological uniformitarianism [2335 → 2340] and an ancient earth, and the origin of species he explains. [2340 → 2346] We may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken and [2346 → 2352] that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world, and the whole history of the world, [2352 → 2358] although of a length quite incomprehensible by us, is a mere fragment of time compared [2358 → 2363] with the ages which have elapsed since the first creature. [2363 → 2368] It is also crucial to note that Darwinism itself involves the application of uniformitarian [2368 → 2373] principles to biology, as it extrapolates presumed evolutionary processes back to the [2373 → 2377] beginning of life in some warm little pond. [2377 → 2381] In this manner, the special creation of man and the animal kinds are challenged without [2381 → 2384] a direct attack on sacred scripture. [2384 → 2390] Finally, in cosmology, the Big Bang theory is said to account for the naturalistic formation [2390 → 2397] of all stars, planets, and other objects over billions of years after the Big Bang event. [2397 → 2402] What emerges is a naturalistic explanation of the heavens and the earth that claims to [2402 → 2409] account for everything from the first instant of creation, just as Descartes envisioned. [2409 → 2414] Because the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative is untrue, it must rely on inaccurate scientific [2414 → 2417] claims which are taught as truth in a classroom to trusting children. [2418 → 2422] Unfortunately, there are few objections because philosophical materialists dominate both the [2422 → 2427] National Academy of Sciences and science departments at the university level, and most instructors [2427 → 2432] in Catholic institutions were themselves indoctrinated into the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative. [2432 → 2437] Consequently, there is an intolerance of challenges to the narrative, and even within Catholic [2437 → 2441] institutions, there is no willingness to dialogue with those perceived as ignorant of modern [2441 → 2442] science. [2443 → 2449] Sadly, this means that the religious adherence to the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative is self-perpetuating. [2449 → 2454] While our discussion has centered on the influence of rationalism on natural science, starting [2454 → 2462] in the 17th century, rationalism deeply penetrated the entire domain of biblical scholarship [2462 → 2465] in the form of negative higher criticism. [2465 → 2471] By the mid-1800s, the impact of this false philosophy reached an alarming stage, prompting [2471 → 2478] Pope Pius IX to issue a number of condemning decrees against pantheism, naturalism, absolute [2478 → 2485] rationalism, moderate rationalism, and other errors in 1862, three years after The Origin [2485 → 2488] of Species was published. [2488 → 2494] The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX named the following to be among the principal errors [2494 → 2496] of the time. [2496 → 2501] All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. [2501 → 2508] Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, [2508 → 2511] and of good and evil. [2511 → 2516] All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason. [2516 → 2522] Hence, reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge [2522 → 2525] of all truths of every kind. [2525 → 2532] Human revelation is imperfect and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress [2532 → 2536] corresponding with the advancement of human reason. [2536 → 2541] The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the sacred scripture are the fiction [2541 → 2548] of poets, the Old and the New Testament contain mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is himself [2548 → 2550] a myth. [2550 → 2556] Natural science must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences. [2556 → 2561] All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science [2561 → 2563] or philosophy. [2563 → 2569] Human reason can attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas. [2569 → 2575] The decrees of the apostolic see impede the true progress of science. [2575 → 2581] The methods and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are [2581 → 2588] no longer suitable to the demand of our times and to the progress of the sciences. [2588 → 2595] Philosophy is to be treated without taking any account of supernatural revelation. [2595 → 2604] Unfortunately, these decrees were not sufficient to turn back the tide of rationalism and naturalism. [2604 → 2610] In large part, this was because rationalists and wayward theologians seized upon the origin [2610 → 2616] of species to argue that natural science had confirmed the uniformitarian demands of Descartes [2616 → 2621] and had exposed Genesis as a fable or to be a mere allegory. [2621 → 2627] They also pointed to the rapid conversion of the scientific elite to the Darwinian gospel, [2627 → 2633] while ignoring the reality that the rejection of the creation-providence framework was not [2633 → 2639] based on well-established scientific data, but instead was driven by the influences of [2639 → 2644] rationalism and gradualism that were an essential part of the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative [2644 → 2650] that was taking over philosophy and natural science and was deeply affecting the domain [2650 → 2651] of theology. [2651 → 2657] In the late 1800s, an open battle for the control of natural science was waged in England [2657 → 2662] by the philosophical materialists who were in Darwin's inner circle. [2662 → 2668] The authors of Darwin explain how these materialistic scientists won control. [2668 → 2673] The Darwinians and radical dissenters outraged at a blinker Toryism that would crush the [2673 → 2678] new reformation, united in defense of evolutionary naturalism. [2678 → 2686] On 3rd of November 1864, Huxley, Hooker, Tyndall, Busk, Spencer Lubbock, and two others constituted [2686 → 2693] themselves into a sort of Masonic Darwinian lodge invisible to outsiders, a dining club [2693 → 2698] devoted to science untrammeled by any theology, the X-Club. [2698 → 2704] They would free nature from a reactionary theology, free science from aristocratic patronage, [2704 → 2709] and place an intellectual priesthood at the head of English culture. [2709 → 2714] Maneuvering inside the royal society, they altered the election procedures to get their [2714 → 2719] allies elected and were soon pulling the presidential strings. [2719 → 2725] The X-Clubbers plowed their energies and money into a new weekly review, The Reader. [2725 → 2730] Galton acted as editor, as did Huxley, who penned a crushing leader on science and church [2730 → 2734] policy in the last number for 1864. [2734 → 2739] Here he made his famous claim that a deep sense of religion was compatible with the [2739 → 2742] total absence of theology. [2742 → 2747] In a blistering provocation, he warned that science had no intention of signing a treaty [2747 → 2753] of peace with her old opponent, nor of being content with anything short of absolute victory [2753 → 2757] and uncontrolled domination over theology. [2757 → 2760] Three weeks later, opposition took a more serious turn. [2760 → 2766] Pope Pius IX issued an encyclical with an appended syllabus of errors announcing the [2766 → 2771] Catholic Church's hostility to everything that the new Englishmen held dear. [2771 → 2775] Huxley answered with a rival encyclical in The Reader. [2775 → 2781] This militance coupled with editorial incompetence brought the publishing venture to an end. [2781 → 2792] The X-Club gained their permanent press outlet in November 1865, when Nature was founded. [2792 → 2799] The tactics used in England were not geographically isolated, and surveys from 1914 indicate that [2799 → 2805] leading US scientists had already become dominated by non-believing evolutionists. [2805 → 2810] Once this domination was achieved in the National Academy of Sciences, it remained easy to maintain [2810 → 2816] as the NAS is a self-electing body, as is the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. [2816 → 2821] As the rationalists' momentum continued to make inroads through philosophical and [2821 → 2829] scientific attacks, Pope Leo XIII responded with Providentissimus Deus in 1893. [2829 → 2832] In this encyclical, Pope Leo explains, [2860 → 2866] Providentissimus Deus was written against the rationalists, who leveraged Darwinian [2866 → 2871] science to cast doubt upon the sacred scriptures. [2871 → 2876] Because these errors continue to damage the faith, it is vital that we study Pope Leo [2876 → 2882] XIII's clear understanding of the tactics used by the enemies of truth. [2882 → 2887] More importantly, we see in his words the call for discipline on the part of religious [2887 → 2893] instructors and faithful men of natural science, such that the errors of the rationalists coming [2893 → 2898] from the domain of science can be refuted. [2898 → 2904] Specifically addressing the barrage of errors arising from the domain of natural science, [2904 → 2908] Pope Leo first spoke to religious instructors. [2908 → 2913] We have to contend against those who, making an evil use of physical science, minutely [2913 → 2919] scrutinize the sacred book in order to detect the writer's mistake and to take occasion [2919 → 2922] to vilify its contents. [2922 → 2927] Attacks of this kind, bearing as they do on matters of sensible experience, are peculiarly [2927 → 2933] dangerous to the masses and also to the young who are beginning their literary studies. [2933 → 2939] For the young, if they lose their reverence for the Holy Scripture on one or more points, [2939 → 2942] are easily led to give up believing in it altogether. [2942 → 2948] It need not be pointed out how the nature of science, just as it is so admirably adapted [2948 → 2953] to show forth the glory of the Great Creator, provided it be taught as it should be, so [2953 → 2959] if it be perversely imparted to the youthful intelligence, it may prove most fatal in destroying [2959 → 2965] the principles of true philosophy and in the corruption of morality. [2965 → 2969] Pope Leo followed this with the proper solution. [2969 → 2973] Hence, to the professor of sacred scripture, a knowledge of natural science will be of [2973 → 2981] very great assistance in detecting such attacks on the sacred books and in refuting them. [2981 → 2987] Regrettably, most contemporary religious instructors mistakenly presume that knowledge of natural [2987 → 2994] science equates to the blind acceptance of evolutionary claims and rejection of the creation [2994 → 2996] providence framework. [2996 → 3002] Apparently, most do not realize that in doing so, they endorse the very arguments from natural [3002 → 3008] science that the rationalists put forth to dismiss sacred scripture as a collection of [3008 → 3011] fables and forgeries. [3011 → 3017] Following his plea to religious instructors, Pope Leo called on faithful men of natural [3017 → 3019] science, stating, [3019 → 3024] To undertake fully and perfectly, and with all the weapons of the best science, the defense [3024 → 3029] of the Holy Bible is far more than can be looked for from the exertions of commentators [3029 → 3031] and theologians alone. [3031 → 3035] It is an enterprise in which we have a right to expect the cooperation of all those Catholics [3035 → 3040] who have acquired reputation in any branch of learning whatever. [3040 → 3045] For there is nothing which we believe to be more needful than that truth should find defenders [3045 → 3050] more powerful and more numerous than the enemies it has to face. [3050 → 3055] Nor is there anything which is better calculated to impress the masses with respect for truth [3055 → 3060] than to see it boldly proclaimed by learned and distinguished men. [3060 → 3065] Moreover, the bitter tongues of objectors will be silenced, or at least they will not [3065 → 3071] dare to insist so shamelessly that faith is the enemy of science, when they see that scientific [3071 → 3079] men of eminence in their profession show towards faith the most marked honor and respect. [3079 → 3085] Later Pope Leo XIII summoned faithful men of science to defend Catholic teaching and [3085 → 3086] sacred scripture. [3086 → 3092] Tragically, however, many men of science had already adopted the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative [3092 → 3099] as their guiding principle, and wrongly forfeited the explanation of origins to naturalistic [3099 → 3100] science. [3100 → 3106] This combined failure of religious teachers and men of science continues to this day, [3106 → 3111] and explains why Catholics have engaged in so little discussion about evolution during [3111 → 3117] the so-called period of discussion opened by Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis [3117 → 3119] in 1950. [3119 → 3125] As Pope Leo XIII's pontificate neared its end, he clearly perceived that the catastrophic [3125 → 3131] erosion of faith being triggered by rationalism and Darwinism would continue due to an inadequate [3131 → 3136] response from Catholic theologians and natural scientists. [3136 → 3144] On New Year's Eve 1900, he penned a prayer to Jesus Christ for the coming century, lamenting, [3166 → 3173] Even with Pope Leo's great encyclical, the corrosive impact of the Cartesian-Darwinian [3173 → 3178] narrative was not stopped, and this narrative resulted in the modernist movement at the [3178 → 3181] turn of the 20th century. [3181 → 3187] This error was labeled as the synthesis of all heresies by Pope St. Pius X, who condemned [3187 → 3195] modernism in 1907 and correctly identified evolution as, quote, the principal doctrine [3195 → 3198] of the modernists, unquote. [3198 → 3200] Of the modernists, he wrote that they, [3200 → 3206] lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change. [3206 → 3212] To the laws of evolution, everything is subject under the penalty of death, dogma, church, [3212 → 3220] worship, the books we revere as sacred, even faith itself. [3220 → 3226] As the 20th century dawned on the very world that Descartes and Darwin hoped to create, [3226 → 3231] a false optimism was spreading, a bold trust in the inevitability of man's progressive [3231 → 3232] evolution. [3232 → 3238] And yet, everywhere, disturbing signs were growing that the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative [3238 → 3243] was fueling an enormous resurgence of rationalism and materialistic philosophy. [3243 → 3248] This was all but inevitable due to the teaching of Darwinism in science classrooms and the [3248 → 3253] impact his hypothesis had on all other domains. [3253 → 3259] So dramatic were the signs of the materialist's resurgence that in his profound 1938 work [3259 → 3265] The Great Heresies, esteemed Catholic historian Hilaire Bellocq observed. [3265 → 3270] The new advance against the church, what will perhaps prove the final advance against the [3270 → 3278] church, what is at any rate the only modern enemy of consequence, is fundamentally materialist. [3278 → 3284] It regards man as sufficient to himself and, the fundamental point, God as no more than [3284 → 3287] a figment of the imagination. [3287 → 3291] Whereas the denial of God had been confined in the past to a comparatively small number [3291 → 3296] of intellectuals, that denial had now gained the multitude and was acting everywhere as [3296 → 3298] a social force. [3298 → 3301] This is the modern enemy. [3301 → 3307] This is that rising flood, the greatest and what may prove to be the final struggle between [3307 → 3310] the church and the world. [3310 → 3316] The modern attack has advanced so far that of two things one must happen. [3316 → 3323] Either the Catholic Church will be reduced by her modern enemies to silence or the Catholic [3323 → 3327] Church will recover and restore the world. [3327 → 3334] The modern attack is so universal and moving so rapidly that men now very young will surely [3334 → 3342] live to see something like a decision in this great battle. [3342 → 3347] During the early decades of the 20th century and after the strong condemnation of modernism, [3347 → 3353] decay continued in the church because the driving force behind modernism, rationalism [3353 → 3358] in the form of naturalistic Darwinian claims, was not explicitly condemned as part of the [3358 → 3359] heresy. [3359 → 3364] As a result, even though Catholic clergy, religious superiors and professors in seminaries [3364 → 3371] were required to take the oath against modernism starting in 1910, several influential books [3371 → 3376] were written by Catholic theologians and philosophers who, not wanting to be considered ignorant [3376 → 3381] of recent scientific findings and confident that the subject of origins could be forfeited [3381 → 3386] without consequence, did not question Darwinian claims. [3386 → 3391] The 1932 book, Evolution and Religion, for example, opens by stating, [3391 → 3397] The author does not believe that it is the function of the philosopher nor of the theologian [3397 → 3402] to quarrel with the scientists concerning either the truthfulness or the accuracy of [3402 → 3403] the data reported. [3403 → 3407] That is a matter for the scientists to determine among themselves. [3407 → 3412] The true function of the philosopher is to interpret the larger meaning of the data reported [3412 → 3414] by the scientist. [3414 → 3419] Accepting the conclusion of the scientists, the author undertakes to interpret the philosophical [3419 → 3425] implications of evolution and to trace their bearing upon the theistic interpretation of [3425 → 3427] the universe. [3427 → 3432] Through such dismissal of Pope Leo's call to contend in the domain of science against [3432 → 3437] rationalists who attack the faith using false claims, many philosophers and theologians [3437 → 3443] removed themselves from the real battlefield and became incapable of protecting the flock. [3443 → 3448] By retreating to the position of theistic evolution on the basis of false Darwinian [3448 → 3455] claims, they became pawns in a war between principalities and, to quote Darwin, their [3455 → 3461] work was of much value in lessening opposition and making converts to evolution. [3461 → 3467] Lyell too recognized such writings as an antidote to the kind of criticism from which the cause [3467 → 3469] of evolution suffered. [3469 → 3475] Certainly, some Catholic authors at this time did contend against the surging flood [3475 → 3480] of materialism, but because the Catholic men of science had widely accepted evolutionary [3480 → 3486] claims, the Catholic resistance relied almost exclusively on highly intellectual philosophical [3486 → 3491] arguments that few Catholics outside academia could digest. [3491 → 3496] Thus, although philosophically sound, even the astute refutations of materialism had [3496 → 3498] limited impact. [3498 → 3504] In 1925, for instance, a young priest and future archbishop, the venerable Fulton J. [3504 → 3512] Sheen, burst on the scene with a strong philosophical attack on atheism, called God and the Intelligence [3512 → 3514] in Modern Philosophy. [3514 → 3519] In it, Father Sheen anticipated the impact of Darwinism. [3519 → 3524] Surely but surely, the idea of evolution is undermining the foundation of Orthodox [3524 → 3525] Christian theology. [3525 → 3530] As the idea of evolution makes headway, the foundations of the Orthodox theology, which [3530 → 3536] have long shown signs of instability, will become more and more unstable, and at last, [3536 → 3542] in the fullness of time, the whole structure will totter and fall. [3542 → 3548] And yet, Father Sheen could leverage few critiques by faithful men of natural science to expose [3548 → 3550] evolution as a deception. [3550 → 3553] This forced him to argue weakly. [3553 → 3556] Suppose we grant that science has proved evolution. [3556 → 3560] Does it follow that first principles are evolving? [3560 → 3567] This is the assumption of modern philosophy and the great point at issue. [3567 → 3572] Most subsequent Catholic writings from theologians and philosophers followed this pattern of [3572 → 3576] engaging the materialists only from the domain of philosophy. [3576 → 3581] This means that, for a century, Catholics have been fighting against materialism along [3581 → 3586] a single front that reaches few but philosophers themselves. [3586 → 3591] The multitudes, meanwhile, are indoctrinated into evolutionary thought in public and Catholic [3591 → 3597] schools and they are constantly battered by the tired and flawed logic. [3597 → 3601] There can be no conflict between faith and reason. [3601 → 3606] Evolutionists tell us that Darwinism is beyond question. [3606 → 3612] Therefore, we must view the Genesis creation account as an allegory or myth. [3612 → 3618] The lack of a substantive Catholic challenge to Darwinism from the domain of natural science [3618 → 3624] proved a decisive victory for the materialists, who are atheists, in terms of the dominant [3624 → 3627] worldview in the Western world. [3627 → 3632] As a socio-economist who has studied population trends and the war of worldviews intensely [3632 → 3638] for 20 years, I am convinced that no other explanation can account for the rapid spread [3638 → 3647] of atheism in the 20th century and the Church's apparent inability to stop this rising tide. [3647 → 3653] This success is precisely why the Darwinian faithful jealously defend the claim that cosmic [3653 → 3659] and biological origins are properly the subject of natural science. [3659 → 3664] Their claim encounters little resistance from the vast majority of Catholic theologians [3664 → 3669] and men of science who know little about the creation-providence framework or the truth [3669 → 3672] about evolutionary claims. [3672 → 3677] Unfortunately, it is common to hear Catholics even join in the verbal attack against the [3677 → 3685] few who remain loyal to Pope Leo's call and fight for the restoration of truth. [3685 → 3689] We must add one final account to our historical overview. [3689 → 3694] I pray that this account will help viewers understand just how devastating has been the [3694 → 3698] drift from the creation-providence framework. [3698 → 3703] The account begins in the early 20th century, during the general time frame in which the [3703 → 3709] young Father Fulton Sheen was penning his work against materialism. [3709 → 3715] At this time, another young priest was preparing to burst upon the scene, but his legacy would [3715 → 3722] be the advancement of radical evolutionary concepts into Catholic circles. [3722 → 3727] These lies would lead untold numbers away from orthodoxy. [3727 → 3733] In fact, surveys show that this priest is the most influential figure within the pantheistic [3733 → 3742] and eclectic New Age movement. [3742 → 3747] His name was Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. [3747 → 3754] Born in France, Teilhard studied under the Jesuits and was ordained in 1911. [3754 → 3759] It is telling that he was also trained as a paleontologist and participated in the Piltdown [3759 → 3766] Man Digs, a series of claimed hominid fossil finds from 1908 to 1912 that were later exposed [3766 → 3768] as frauds. [3768 → 3775] Teilhard was deeply committed to evolution, and his devotion drove him to embrace an evolutionary [3775 → 3776] pantheism. [3776 → 3782] He proclaimed, for instance, that "...the biological process now taking place in mankind [3782 → 3787] consists in the progressive development of a collective human consciousness." [3787 → 3792] Again, "...I can be saved only by becoming one with the universe. [3792 → 3798] Thereby too my deepest pantheist aspirations are satisfied." [3798 → 3805] And again, "...a religion of evolution, that when all is said and done is what man [3805 → 3810] needs ever more explicitly if he is to survive and super-live. [3810 → 3814] The comparative value of religious creeds may be measured by their respective power [3814 → 3816] of evolutive activation." [3816 → 3823] Teilhard sought to usher in a general convergence of religions, and, as with Descartes, he was [3823 → 3829] a prolific writer who never yielded to church teaching on origins or modified his thought [3829 → 3833] when sound and authoritative criticism arose. [3833 → 3840] In 1957, the Holy Office ordered the writings of Teilhard to be removed from Catholic institutions. [3840 → 3847] In 1962, the Holy Office issued a warning that his works were replete with ambiguities [3847 → 3850] and serious errors counter to Catholic doctrine. [3850 → 3854] In 1981, this warning was reiterated. [3854 → 3860] Deschardin's theological errors emerged from his faith in evolution and his conviction [3860 → 3866] that "...man's origin by way of evolution is now an indubitable fact for science. [3866 → 3869] There can be no two ways about it. [3869 → 3874] To continue to debate it in the schools is a waste of time." [3874 → 3880] His exalted, even reverent view of evolution is clearly displayed in the following words. [3880 → 3885] "...is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? [3885 → 3886] It is much more. [3886 → 3893] It is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which [3893 → 3898] they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. [3898 → 3905] Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow." [3905 → 3910] It is very important for all Catholics to reflect on the fact that it was Teilhard who [3910 → 3915] demanded that evolution be viewed as a first principle within Catholic circles. [3915 → 3921] In other words, he insisted that evolution must become a unifying theme across all domains [3921 → 3922] of thought. [3922 → 3928] Any challenge to evolution must be rejected and the theory is not open to examination. [3928 → 3933] In taking this position, he demonstrated that his faith in Darwinism outweighs the [3933 → 3938] combined testimony of Sacred Scripture, the Church Fathers and Doctors, and the teachings [3938 → 3940] of the Magisterium. [3940 → 3946] Unfortunately, this attitude dominates Catholic institutions today, and almost no instructors, [3946 → 3952] including clergy, undertake the most basic studies of Darwinian claims in the scientific [3952 → 3956] literature that would expose evolutionary claims as fables. [3956 → 3962] Given Teilhard's astounding and ongoing impact upon the Catholic mind, we cannot fail [3962 → 3965] to address a very basic question. [3965 → 3968] What inspired Teilhard's religious devotion to evolution? [3968 → 3972] The answer is unsettling. [3972 → 3978] Recall that Descartes was visited in his dreams by a spirit that initiated his philosophical [3978 → 3982] transformation and was said to have taken possession of him. [3982 → 3987] From the writings of Teilhard, it is clear that he also encountered the preternatural. [3987 → 3993] In The Heart of the Matter, a work containing his final writings in some earlier compositions, [3993 → 3999] Teilhard explains that at a young age he was fascinated with matter and from age ten his [3999 → 4005] interest and delight lay in a continued and increased contact with the cosmic in the solid [4005 → 4006] state. [4006 → 4012] When, as a young man, he hit a standstill in the awakening to cosmic life, he recalls [4012 → 4013] that he needed [4013 → 4017] "...the intervention of a new force or a new illumination. [4017 → 4023] For if the initial call that I had heard was in fact coming from matter, then, someone [4023 → 4030] kept whispering within me, why should I not look for the essence of matter for its heart?" [4030 → 4036] Through his study of evolution, as expressed in pantheistic form by Henry Bergson in the [4036 → 4041] book Creative Evolution, 1907, Teilhard states that he obtained [4041 → 4047] "...a presence, the consciousness of a deep-running ontological total current which [4047 → 4050] embraced the whole universe. [4050 → 4055] This consciousness filled the whole horizon of my inner being, and that fire had been [4055 → 4065] kindled through the cult of matter, the cult of life, and the cult of energy." [4065 → 4071] While Descartes implicitly elevated matter and the laws of nature to the status of divinity, [4071 → 4077] we see that in the writings of Teilhard, the deification of matter becomes explicit. [4077 → 4082] In a dramatized piece entitled The Spiritual Power of Matter, it becomes clear that his [4082 → 4085] inspiration was demonic. [4085 → 4092] In Teilhard's final years, he explained that this account, first written in 1919, continued [4092 → 4098] to express, more successfully than I could today, the heady emotion I experienced at [4098 → 4102] that time from my contact with matter. [4102 → 4107] Writing from a third-person perspective in the account, Teilhard describes his enslavement [4107 → 4118] to a presence he calls The Thing. [4118 → 4123] The man was walking in the desert, when the Thing swooped down on him. [4123 → 4130] Then, suddenly, a breath of scorching air passed across his forehead, broke through [4130 → 4135] the barrier of his closed eyelids, and penetrated his soul. [4135 → 4139] The man felt he was ceasing to be merely himself. [4139 → 4145] An irresistible rapture took possession of him, as though all the sap of all living things [4145 → 4150] was mightily refashioning the enfeebled fibers of his being. [4150 → 4156] And at the same time, the anguish of some superhuman peril oppressed him, a confused [4156 → 4162] feeling that the force which had swept down upon him was equivocal, turbid, the combined [4162 → 4170] essence of all evil and all goodness. [4170 → 4175] The Thing then speaks. [4175 → 4177] You called me. [4177 → 4184] Here I am, grown wary of abstractions, of attenuations, of the wordiness of social life. [4184 → 4190] You wanted to put yourself against reality, entire and untamed. [4190 → 4195] I was waiting for you in order to be made holy, and now I am established on you for [4195 → 4199] life or for death. [4199 → 4203] He who has once seen me can never forget me. [4203 → 4216] He must either damn himself with me, or save me with himself. [4216 → 4221] As someone involved in the Deliverance Ministry, I can confirm that, as with Descartes, the [4221 → 4225] encounter of Teilhard has every sign of being demonic. [4226 → 4229] Now, I'm not implying that Catholics who believe in evolution are under the same spiritual [4229 → 4236] control as Teilhard, or that they will descend into his depth of theological error. [4236 → 4241] But if you have, in effect, elevated evolution to the level of a first principle, it is very [4241 → 4247] important to understand where, and more specifically, from whom, this demand originated. [4247 → 4252] If your faith in evolution is so great that you refuse to even consider whether the claims [4252 → 4258] are supported in the scientific literature, then I pray that you have felt a growing discomfort [4258 → 4263] with such a position, and are at least open to the possibility that, along with the great [4263 → 4266] many other fellow Catholics, you have been deceived. [4266 → 4272] Episode 5 through episode 10 will demonstrate that this is, in fact, the case in the fields [4272 → 4275] of biology, cosmology, and geology. [4275 → 4280] By casually dismissing the intended meaning of the sacred writers, sacred tradition, and [4280 → 4286] the mandates of the magisterium to look at the evidence both for and against evolution, [4286 → 4291] and not to treat it as a proven fact, we continue to put our children at risk and are, quite [4291 → 4297] literally, playing with fire and exposing them to the same influences and presuppositions [4297 → 4303] that captured the minds of Descartes, Darwin, and Teilhard de Chardin. [4303 → 4307] Please understand that losing our youth does not require the preternatural encounters of [4307 → 4309] Descartes or Teilhard de Chardin. [4309 → 4315] Far more common is the loss of faith that comes about through the slow infiltration [4315 → 4321] of naturalism combined with relentless exposure to temptations in the culture of hedonism, [4321 → 4326] where seeking pleasure and avoiding pain have become the goal for so many. [4326 → 4331] In this environment, millions of former Christians experience a gradual transformation in their [4331 → 4337] worldview, even becoming anxious to dismiss the reality of a just creator to whom all [4337 → 4339] are accountable. [4339 → 4345] Like Charles Darwin, many leverage the false claims of naturalism to justify their rejection [4345 → 4349] of the faith and their embrace of false worldviews. [4349 → 4354] They no longer understand how anyone could wish Christianity to be true. [4354 → 4359] They see it as a damnable, intolerable doctrine. [4359 → 4365] So ingrained is the belief and evolutionary thought in the minds of many Catholics, including [4365 → 4370] those in many religious orders who wrongly view themselves as Thomists, that it should [4370 → 4377] not be surprising that a total of 13 episodes containing 17 segments are needed to expose [4377 → 4384] the full depth of error arising from the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative in the areas of natural science, [4384 → 4390] philosophy, and theology, and to document the human death toll resulting from acceptance [4390 → 4396] of the grand deception, a death toll that continues to mount each day. [4396 → 4402] And so, if you are a Catholic who loves the Church, who grieves at the thought of souls [4402 → 4407] being lost due to the narrative, and especially if you are responsible for teaching trusting [4407 → 4413] students any subject area impacted by the narrative, we encourage and implore you to [4413 → 4419] be disciplined enough to carefully consider the detailed case put forth in the remainder [4419 → 4424] of this series, beginning with the following three episodes that explain the traditional [4424 → 4438] doctrine of creation taught and believed by those in the Catholic Church for 19 centuries.