Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Evolved from a Can of Worms: Evolution and the Culture of Death

It was Veterans’ Day in Washington, D.C., and evolution was the farthest thing from my mind. I had accompanied my friend, Fr. Jack Murphy, an Army veteran, to provide prayer support for him and for other veterans who were standing up for life at a D.C. abortion mill. A large group of pro-abortion hecklers had turned out to harass us, and the police cordoned off the parking lot and forced us all into one small area. A young man in his twenties held up a poster of a preborn child with the caption “Does this look like a blob of tissue?” Two young women who looked like college students mocked him. “Didn’t these people take high school biology?” one of them asked the other. “If they knew anything about evolution, they would know that the fetus isn’t human until the third trimester.” The other said something about the baby in the poster going through “the fish stage.” Another woman added that the souls of the “fetuses” were better off being aborted, since they would be reincarnated in better circumstances.

A Radical Rejection of God’s Revelation

It took many years for me to realize how many of the lies I heard that day derived whatever credibility they had from evolutionary theory. The denigration of the unborn child as pre-human, embryonic recapitulation, and the rationalization of reincarnation – not one of them could endure the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it had been proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church. Yet such falsehoods thrive in the miasma created by the unsubstantiated claims of evolutionary theory.

All forms of evolutionary theory require a radical rejection of God’s revelation about the creation of Adam and Eve. Genesis speaks of God forming Adam’s body from the slime of the earth and breathing into it the breath of life. Moses also speaks of God forming Eve’s body from Adam’s side and presenting her to him as his help-mate. The fathers and doctors of the Church held that God created the body of Adam together with his soul, not the body before the soul or the soul before the body. Summarizing the patristic doctrine, St. John of Damascus wrote:

From the earth He formed his body and by His own inbreathing gave him a rational and understanding soul, which last we say is the divine image[.] … The body and the soul were formed at the same time – not one before and the other afterwards as the ravings of Origen would have it. [1]

The Fathers rejected not only the idea of the pre-existence of souls, but also the notion that Adam’s body was formed before his soul, or that a human body could pre-exist a human soul. According to St. Gregory of Nyssa:

[A]s man is one, the being consisting of soul and body, we are to suppose that the beginning of his existence is one, common to both parts, so that he should not be found to be antecedent and posterior to himself, if the bodily element were first in point of time, and the other were a later addition[.] … For as our nature is conceived as two-fold, according to the apostolic teaching, made up of the visible man and the hidden man, if the one came first and the other supervened, the power of Him that made us will be shown to be in some way imperfect, as not being sufficient for the whole task at once, but dividing the work, and busying itself with each of the halves in turn. [2]

Sacred Scripture teaches that Jesus was a man like us in all things but sin and that He was already fully human in the womb of the Blessed Virgin a few days after the Incarnation, when His Mother visited her cousin St. Elisabeth. The Sacred Liturgy affirms the full Humanity of Jesus from the moment of the Incarnation on March 25, just as it affirms the sinless humanity of the Blessed Virgin from the moment of her Immaculate Conception. Thus, the Church’s teaching concerning the first Adam and the first Eve perfectly complements her teaching concerning the New Adam and the Second Eve. In both cases, a human body and soul were created together, not the soul before the body or the body before the soul.

This teaching on the creation of Adam and Eve has been the common teaching of all of the fathers, doctors, popes and councils since the time of the Apostles. However, recent popes, while not abrogating that teaching – which would be impossible – have held back from affirming it unequivocally for one simple reason. Since Darwin, they have been afraid to rule out the possibility that natural science might discover irrefutable evidence for human evolution.

In one sense, their hesitancy is understandable. It appears to follow from the Augustinian principle (affirmed by Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus) not to deviate from the plain and obvious sense of Scripture, except when reason dictates or necessity requires. In Humani generis, Pope Pius XII asked Catholic scholars to weigh the evidence for and against the hypothesis of human evolution, while defending many elements of the traditional interpretation of Genesis. To this day, the holy father’s request has not been heeded by the community of Catholic scholars, although there are three reasons why this request should long since have led to a definitive rejection of the human evolution hypothesis. The first reason has to do with the limitations of natural science, the second with the actual state of the scientific evidence, and the third with the obvious harm that this hypothesis has done and is doing to souls.

Three Reasons to Reject Human Evolution

Nowadays, it seems unfashionable in many circles to suggest that natural science has limitations. But the Catholic doctors who laid the foundation for the positive development of the natural sciences during the past 800 years recognized and articulated these limitations. The spirit of the great medieval doctors is well expressed by the twelfth-century French scholastic philosopher William of Conches, who wrote:

I take nothing away from God. He is the author of all things, evil excepted. But the nature with which He endowed His creatures accomplishes a whole scheme of operations, and these too turn to His glory since it is He who created this very nature. [3]

Implicit in this enthusiastic attitude toward the scientific investigation of nature was the understanding that the origin of the order of nature and of the natures of living things could not be explained by natural processes, or, to use the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, “[i]n the works of nature, creation does not enter, but is presupposed to the work of nature” [4]. Thus, St. Thomas and William of Conches knew for certain that the origin of human nature – the creation of Adam and Eve – lay beyond the sphere of natural science. While natural scientists could learn many things about the structure and functioning of the human body, it was obvious to the medieval doctors that scientific research could no more shed light on how God formed the body of Adam from the dust of the earth than it could shed light on how Jesus changed water into wine at the wedding of Cana. The great doctors distinguished between the order of creation, when God created the different kinds of creatures by His Word, and the order of providence, which began only after the creation of Adam and Eve.

Modern natural science has almost completely abandoned this distinction between the order of creation and the natural order, or the order of providence. Ironically, however, 21st-century natural science has amply confirmed the reasonableness of this distinction. For example, in the field of genetics, natural scientists have learned a great deal about the transmission and variation of genetic information, but no scientist has observed the spontaneous appearance of a new genetic program, such as would be needed to produce a new organ, like an eye or an ear, in an organism that lacked such an organ. Instead, 21st-century genetics has revealed that, far from evolving or increasing in functionality, genetic information degrades and devolves over time, at a rate that, in the words of one geneticist, places “a limit on the length of vertebrate lineages” – a limit much lower than the ages assigned to them by evolutionary theory [5]. Indeed, the discoveries of 21st-century genetics have been fatal to all current hypotheses of human evolution, as they demonstrate that it would be impossible for a common ancestor of chimpanzees and men to acquire the necessary “beneficial mutations” without acquiring a greater number of deleterious mutations – a number that would lead to extinction long before human evolution was achieved!

In short, not only does the hypothesis of human evolution collide with the unanimous teaching of the fathers of the Church and with nineteen hundred years of authoritative magisterial teaching, but it has also come into fatal conflict with the findings of natural science. Indeed, there is no doubt that if the balanced examination of the evidence called for in Humani generis were undertaken today, the hypothesis of human evolution would be rejected.

Embryonic Recapitulation: Devaluing the Human Embryo

Tragically, most Catholic intellectuals have not had the opportunity to study the evidence against evolutionary theory and continue to embrace the theory in spite of the harm that it has done – especially to respect for the pre-born child. Faith in the truth of the evolutionary hypothesis has repeatedly led scientists and medical researchers to believe that organs of the human body that have no apparent function are “vestigial” and expendable. The full extent of the danger inherent in this unsubstantiated assumption emerged soon after the publication of Origin of Species with the popularization of the concept of embryonic recapitulation by Darwin’s disciple, the German medical doctor and professor of anatomy Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919).

Darwin had argued that similarities in structure among diverse life forms indicate that they all evolved from a common ancestor. According to Haeckel, the existence of similarities in embryos of various kinds of organisms proves that the higher life forms “recapitulate” their evolutionary history before birth and that they had descend from a common ancestor. To make this “proof” more compelling for his contemporaries, Haeckel doctored drawings of the embryos of fish, salamanders, chickens, turtles, rabbits, pigs, and human beings to exaggerate their similarities and minimize their differences [6]. Although Haeckel’s fraud was discovered and exposed during his lifetime, the evolutionary hypothesis demanded common descent, and the concept of embryonic recapitulation continued to exert a profound influence on the study of embryology for many decades.

According to Jane Oppenheimer in her work Essays in the History of Embryology and Biology, Haeckel’s influence on embryology was considerable, “act[ing] as a delaying rather than an activating force[,] and … was stifling to immediate progress” [7]. One of the leading lights in the study of embryology in the twentieth century, Gavin R. de Beer, wrote that “Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation … thwarted and delayed the introduction of causal analytic methods into embryology,” since “if phylogeny was the mechanical cause of ontogeny as Haeckel proclaimed, there was little inducement to search for other causes” [8]. De Beer’s observation implies that Haeckel’s influence had come to an end by the 1950s – but this was far from the case. To this day, biology textbooks all over the world argue that similarities among embryos of fish, amphibians, reptiles, humans, and lower mammals constitute evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis. Typical of examples too many to cite is the caption that accompanies drawings of embryos of various life forms from a widely used American biology textbook published in 2002. Entitled “Embryonic development of vertebrates,” it states:

Notice that the early embryonic stages of these vertebrates bear a striking resemblance to each other, even though the individuals are from different classes (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). All vertebrates start out with an enlarged head region, gill slits, and a tail regardless of whether these characteristics are retained in the adult. [9]

Although Haeckel’s distorted drawings do not accompany this caption, the statement gives the impression that human embryos – as members of the vertebrate phylum – possess gill slits. But this is patently false. The pharyngeal arches in human embryos have no connection with gill slits whatsoever; rather, they develop into the outer and middle ear, and into the neck bones, muscles, nerves, and glands.

Moreover, after the discovery of DNA, confidence in the truth of the evolutionary hypothesis led many evolutionary biologists to predict that similar body parts in diverse organisms would be controlled by the same genes. This, however, proved to be false, as embryologists have discovered that the realization of the same body plan – such as five-digit extremities – in diverse organisms (such as whales and humans) is controlled by different genes and is achieved through totally different embryonic pathways [10].

Indeed, not only did the idea of embryonic recapitulation lead embryonic researchers down the wrong pathways – it has also led to a denigration of the unborn child. All over the world, abortion advocates have used the alleged similarity between human and lower animal embryos to trivialize abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. For example in Germany, pro-abortion activists (emphasis added):

… skillfully exploited the disunity of the German Catholic intellectuals to bring their demands for the legalization of abortion to the legislature. … Karl Rahner … wrote in Naturwissenschaft und Theologie (brochure 11, page 86, 1970): “I think that there are biological developments which are pre-human, but these developments are still aimed in the direction of man. Why cannot these developments be transferred from phylogeny to ontogeny?” [11]

With these words, the most influential theologian in the German-speaking world formulated a Haeckelian evolutionary rationale for abortifacient contraception and abortion long after Gavin de Beer had claimed that Haeckel’s influence had disappeared. In reality, in the “year of Darwin,” the implicit message of most high school biology textbooks is still clear: human embryos pass through a “gill slit” stage. These are “developments in the direction of man,” to use Fr. Rahner’s phrase. Therefore, to accord the human embryo the dignity of a human being from conception is biological nonsense.

In reality, of course, the development of the human embryo is quite distinct from that of the other vertebrates in Haeckel’s drawings, and there is no empirical evidence to support the claim that he passes through any stage that is not fully human, in the biological sense of the word. However, Fr. Rahner’s misguided faith in evolution continues to erode the faith of Catholics in the humanity of the unborn child.

An Abortionist Meets St. Thomas Aquinas

Ours is not the only period in Church history when the conventional wisdom of Catholic scholars has been influenced by a false hypothesis in natural science. Soon, the Catholic Church will celebrate the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas. Anyone the least bit familiar with the writings of St. Thomas knows how deeply he revered the Word of God. However, with regard to the time of human ensoulment, St. Thomas allowed Aristotelian natural science to overshadow the plain sense of the Word of God. Under Aristotle’s influence, St. Thomas wrote that human life begins forty days after fertilization. In contrast, the Eastern fathers of the Church, who spoke the language of Aristotle, were much less likely than St. Thomas to let “the Philosopher” determine their interpretation of God’s Word. St. Maximus the Confessor exemplified the attitude of many Eastern fathers when he held (in II Ambigua 42) that Jesus was a man like us in all things but sin and that therefore His assumption of our humanity from the moment of the Annunciation signified that we, too, become fully human from the moment of our conception.

The international pro-life community rightly rejoiced over the recent conversion of Serbian abortionist Stojan Adasevic through an apparition of St. Thomas, but scant attention has been paid to Adasevic’s interpretation of St. Thomas’s heavenly visitation. Educated in communist schools, Adasevic had been thoroughly indoctrinated in evolutionism and had regarded the unborn child in the womb as nothing more than a blob of tissue. Before his conversion, Adasevic performed 48,000 abortions, as many as 35 per day. Then St. Thomas Aquinas came to him in a dream and showed him the souls of the unborn babies he had aborted. Although he resisted at first, Adasevic finally renounced abortion and embraced Christianity. He became Eastern Orthodox, but he also studied the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and was struck by the Angelic Doctor’s mistaken views on ensoulment. The former abortionist then concluded that the saint might have visited him “to make amends for his error” [12].

Nowadays one often hears that such and such a holy priest or bishop or even pope believed in evolution, so how could it be a dangerous doctrine? But Adasevic’s visitation suggests that if even a saint and doctor of the Church could be wrong about a hypothesis in natural science – with deadly results – how much more could modern Church leaders be deceived by a more far-reaching theory, with far deadlier consequences?

 The High-Stakes Debate on Origins

There is a lot at stake for the pro-life movement in the origins debate.

If God created the first man and woman body and soul from the first moment of their existence – and the “new Adam” and the “new Eve” body and soul from the first moment of their conception – then we can confidently hold that:

– Human life is sacred from the beginning.

– Abortion at any stage is murder.

– The human soul is the form of a particular human body.

But what if a subhuman primate could “evolve” to the point where it could “receive” a human soul?

This would mean that the same body that housed a human soul was the body of a modified brute whose animal soul was replaced by a rational human soul. This would seem to give plausibility to reincarnation – the transmigration of souls – and to the equally pernicious idea that ensoulment takes place at some point after conception.

What if the “parents” of the body that became the “fine tuned” body of Adam were themselves “brutes”?

This would mean that the bodies of brute animals would be deserving of honor as the ancestors, in a real sense, of all mankind and would give credibility to Peter Singer’s proposal to give chimpanzees the same legal rights as human beings.

What if the body of the first human being was the fruit of the sexual union of two brute animals?

This would mean that human sexuality comes up from the lower, irrational animals, rather than down from above, as a finite reflection of the love of the Most Holy Trinity.

What if the animal ancestors of Adam and Eve (and of us all) practiced promiscuity, polygamy, polyandry, or adultery?

This would mean that such behavior is “natural” and certainly not to be condemned as a crime “against nature.”

On the other hand: What if the common message of all of the Church fathers, doctors, popes, and council fathers in their authoritative teaching on the creation of Adam and Eve were boldly proclaimed from every pulpit in Christendom?

Then the faith of all Catholics in the dignity of the human person from the first moment of life would be strengthened, and it would no longer be possible for Catholics to use evolution to trivialize abortion and sexual perversion as some do now.

Therefore, the time has come for the pro-life community to recognize the strong link between evolution and the culture of death and to work and pray for a restoration of the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation.

Notes

[1] ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS, On the Orthodox Faith 2:12.

[2] ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, On the Making of Man 28-29.

[3] Quoted in THOMAS WOODS, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2005), p. 87.

[4] ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, S.Th. I. q. 45, a. 8.

[5] ALEXEY KONDRASHOV, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1995, 175:583.

[6] Cf. MICHAEL K. RICHARDSON ET AL Anatomy and Embryology, “There is no highly conserved stage in the vertebrates; implications for current theories of evolution and development,” Vol. 196, No. 2, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 1997, pp. 91-106.

[7] JANE OPPENHEIMER, Essays in the History of Embryology and Biology, MIT Press, 1967, p. 154.

[8] GAVIN DE BEER, Embryos and Ancestors, Third Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1958, p. 172.

[9] PETER H. RAVEN and GEORGE B. JOHNSON, Biology, 6th ed,, McGraw Hill, 2002, p. 1229.

[10] GAVIN DE BEER, quoted in “Homology: A Theory in Crisis” JONATHAN WELLS and PAUL NELSON http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/hobi182.htm (accessed 3-08-09).

[11] ALFRED HAUSSLER, The Betrayal of the Theologians, Human Life International, 1982, p. 2.

[12] In fairness to the Angelic Doctor, if St. Thomas were living on Earth today, he would be the first to reject the Aristotelian view of ensoulment in light of the scientific evidence – just as he would be the first to reject theistic evolution, on theological and scientific grounds.

125 thoughts on “Evolved from a Can of Worms: Evolution and the Culture of Death”

  1. The problem is not so much that the mainstream pro-life movement fails to recognize the nature of the Culture of Death (and this article provides a wonderful overview); the problem is that the mainstream pro-life movement in this country agreed at the outset to doom itself to self-inflicted failure by accepting the notion that “abortion is not a religious issue.” It may well be the case that abortion is not ONLY a religious issue; there are certainly factual, psychological, sociological, and philosophical considerations as well. But to refrain from proclaiming that FULL truth about human beings made in the image and likeness of God is a mistake we must find a way to unmake.

    Reply
    • It would seem that the key difference between pro-lifers and pro-aborts are whether are not one believes in the existence of the soul.

      Of course, this leaves me continually bewildered by that strange creature, the “pro-choice Christian.”

      Reply
  2. Under a different article about desensitization to the Most Holy Eucharist, I was the only one who liked this very astute, if a bit inflammatory, comment from Brian W: “Here’s a good place to start: anathematize Teilhard de Chardin and repress the writings or teachings of any who espoused his thinking or espouse the thinking of those who espouse his thinking. This includes de Lubac, Pope Benedict XVI, St. JPII, Congar, et. al.”
    Teilhard de Chardin was involved in the Piltdown Man hoax. This was no mistake but a deliberate lie to advance evolutionary theory, which undermines Christian faith. Why would a Jesuit deliberately try to undermine Christian faith?

    Reply
    • I agree, Teilhard’s teachings should be anathematized however PF made reference to him in Laudato Si. Instead I think they’ll try to beatify him and even canonize him.
      Unfortunately, unlike the Jesuit missionaries who had great zeal in the spirit of St Francis Xavier, they fell off at the end of the 19th century to modernism. As a result if you take a look at Jesuit priests such as Father Alfred Loisy or Father George Tyrrell, both were modernists who were excommunicated during the time of Pope St Pius X after his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis was published.

      Reply
    • Unfortunately I have a knack for coming across as inflammatory, even when I don’t mean to be. Equally unfortunate, however, is that Teilhard de Chardin’s totally unscientific, bizarre and perhaps demonically inspired thinking, is a stain on the entire Church and de Lubac, whose name I hear often, tried to defend Teilhard in several works. And HH BXVI, unfortunately, was quite the fan of de Lubac.

      Reply
      • Teilhard de Chardin’s thinking was “perhaps” demonically inspired? there’s no “perhaps” about it. Long before he died, he had rejected Christ as the redeemer of fallen humanity and adopted a more hinduistic “oneness with the universe” philosophy as our ultimate, eternal destiny. I wonder where he is now? Now, there’s “inflammatory” for you!

        Reply
      • I must concur with Stewart. The Kolbe Center website has a recently posted article about Teilhard de Chardin, which includes his third person testimony about a mystical vision, where he encountered a ‘Thing’; among its words to him, ‘He who has once seen me can never forget me: he must either damn himself with me or save me with himself.’ I vividly remember this from listening to one of Mr. Owen’s talks on Youtube. God help anyone who entrusts himself to something like that.

        Reply
    • Hello Melanie, you said repress the writings or teachings of … St. JPII

      Repress the writings and teachings of a saint?

      I’m just wondering if you merely used “St. JPII” as a casual identifying tag.

      Or, instead, if you used it to endorse Pope John Paul II’s sainthood, i.e. that you think convening Assisi, kissing the Koran etc. were the acts of a man who “exercised to a heroic degree the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity and the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.”

      I’m writing this after discussion has moved on to more recent articles on OnePeterFive, just in case this question might cause you any embarrassment if your post was still in the public gaze.

      Whatever your answer, I certainly agree with you that the anathematization of Teilhard de Chardin’s main theses would be a significant step towards restoring the health of the Church.

      Thanks if you can take a moment to reply; if not, never mind. God bless.

      Reply
      • Hi Rocio, Although I agree w/Brian W’s quote, if I had written it myself, I would not have written St. JPII. I do not believe that he was a saint.

        Reply
        • Thank you very much for your encouraging reply, Melanie. I see now that I forgot you were quoting Brian W at that moment, but it actually worked out for the best.

          I do, of course, agree with you. I can’t automatically accept all the post-1983 canonizations, and even when I do accept one (like Jacinta Marto), I deeply regret that I’m effectively having to decide for myself. It’s heartening to hear, from time to time, that there are others, like you, who come to the same conclusion. I do worry about the many conservative Catholics who seem content to live with cognitive dissonance, especially those who are otherwise highly intelligent.

          Reply
  3. The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation looks like a great resource. All my best to Mr. Owens and his efforts. The golden calf of evolution must be challenged.

    Reply
  4. I am thrilled to read this article here on 1P5. A thousand thanks for daring to publish it. There’s no “closet” like the one we who believe in the Church’s teaching on the origin of man are relegated to (shhh! quietly!) live in!

    Reply
  5. i think satanlegionnaire took Adams hand Sonmurdercainhand lives as Monkey in Borås djurpark, Sweden????????????????God bless author.

    Reply
  6. January 12 is the feast of St. Marguerite Bourgeoys, the founder of the Sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame, a teaching order. She is the patron saint of poor people and those rejected by religious orders.

    St. Marguerite Bourgeoys was a woman of aspirations and action, despite her fragile health. She was a woman of faith and fortitude, known for her obedience to God and for her perseverance in carrying out His desires despite the many obstacles and hardships she faced.

    Born in Troyes, France in 1620 to devout parents, Marguerite was the sixth of twelve children. Her father died when she was very young. Her mother died when Marguerite was just nineteen and she became the surrogate mother to her siblings. The following year, through the inspiration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, she consecrated her life to God and became a member of the Extern Congregation of Troyes, a group of women who were dedicated to teaching the poor children of the town. It was during this time that she first sensed a call to missionary work.

    In 1652, Monsieur de Maisonneuve, the founder and governor of Ville Marie (Canada), returned to France and asked Marguerite to volunteer to teach French and Indian children in the new settlement begun in New France. Our Lady told her, “Go, I will not forsake you” which confirmed Marguerite’s call. With this assurance, Marguerite gave away her parent’s inheritance to other family members, and, in 1653, sailed across the ocean to this new colony.

    Her first action was to restore the Notre-Dame-de-Bon-Secours (Our Lady of Good Help) Chapel, which had been destroyed by Indians, in order to restore the faith of the colonists. Next, she opened the first school in Montreal in an abandoned stable and soon realized that she must also teach domestic skills and educate the young mothers who were now part of this new society. She became their mother, social worker, counselor, and friend. She developed a practical curriculum for her young women that not only consisted of vocational skills, but also included teaching catechism and Christian values. Her curriculum included reading, writing, arithmetic, singing, and religion, while back in her native country of France, people continued to question the practicality of teaching women to write.

    In the course of her adult life, she sailed across the ocean three times to France to obtain additional volunteer teachers. The group of teachers who joined her in her life of prayer, of poverty, and of service to others, bonded together as a religious group. Thus, in 1698, Marguerite founded the Congregation of Notre Dame – an active Order who would continue the missionary work she started.

    Marguerite became ill and spent her last few years praying and writing her autobiography. In 1699, a young Sister in her Order lay dying and she heroically offered her own life to God in exchange for the return of the life of this Sister. Marguerite died in Montreal, Canada on January 12, 1700. Pope Pius XII beatified Marguerite Bourgeoys on November 12, 1950.

    Quote: “Our Lady’s love is like a stream that has its source in the Eternal Fountains, quenches the thirst of all, can never be drained, and ever flows back to its Source.” — St. Marguerite Bourgeoys

    Pope St. John Paul II canonized her on October 31, 1982, making her Canada’s first woman saint.m that has its source in the Eternal Fountains, quenches the thirst of all, can never be drained, and ever flows back to its Source.” — St. Marguerite Bourgeoys

    Prayer to St. Marguerite Bourgeoys

    O Mother Bourgeoys, you, whose compassionate power is ever increasing, show us your way of Truth, Faith and Holiness.

    Make us humble enough to abandon ourselves to the Will of God, generous enough to find in the Cross the joy of the Loving Giver.

    May your fidelity to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament lead us ever nearer to this source of light and peace. May your spirit of openness help us to be concerned for our brothers and sisters throughout the world.

    Finally, may Our Lady of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, bring us to this unity of eternal grace to which God has called you for all eternity. Amen.

    Reply
  7. Pope Francis Awards Architect of Safe-Abortion Fund with Pontifical Honor
    Michael Hichborn Michael Hichborn January 12, 2018 25 Comments
    On January 12, reports began surfacing on Twitter that Lilianne Ploumen, former Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation in the Netherlands, was honored by Pope Francis with the title of Commander in the Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great. The Lepanto Institute was able to confirm from a December 22, 2017 Dutch radio broadcast that Ploumen indeed received the honor. In a brief video clip promoting the broadcast, Ploumen displays the medal while saying that she received it from the Pope.

    Here is the video:

    Here is a crude translation of the exchange:

    BNR – And this is the umpteenth prize that Lilianne Ploumen observes, won in 2017 and from whom they came.
    Ploumen – Yes, it is a high distinction from the Vatican; from the pope.
    BNR – From the pope.
    Ploumen – Beautiful.
    BNR – Yes.
    Ploumen – It is Commander in the order of St. Gregory.
    BNR – And that despite that you are pro-abortion.
    Ploumen – Yes you can check.

    To say that Lilianne Ploumen is “pro-abortion” is an extreme understatement and doesn’t even come close to the scandalous reality of her activism.

    In January of last year, after US President Donald Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy, Ploumen launched a new NGO called She Decides to provide mass amounts of funds to organizations that would no longer receive funds from the US government. The Mexico City Policy automatically denies US funding for international organizations which perform or promote abortion.

    Referring to the Mexico City Policy as a “Global Gag Rule,” Ploumen stated that the intention of She Decides was to continue support for existing programs being run by organizations such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNPFA), the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International. She said, “These are successful and effective programs: direct support, distributing condoms, making sure women are accompanied at the birth, and making sure abortion is safe if they have no other choice.”

    By July of 2017, Ploumen’s program had raised over $300 million.

    In October of 2017, Ploumen wrote an article for the Financial Times, in which she emphatically stated, “America’s regressive policies on abortion are a calamity for girls’ and women’s rights that the rest of the world must counter.”

    Ironically, just a few days ago, Ploumen was awarded the Machiavelli Prize “for her campaign for the safe abortion fund SheDecides.” The article on the award indicates that “The Machiavelli prize is awarded to a person or organization which the jury considers has excelled in public communication. In particular, the jury praised the speed at which SheDecides was set up and went global.”

    It is worth noting that from 2004-2007, Ploumen was the Director of Programs and on the Board of Directors for CORDAID, the Dutch Catholic aid relief agency that was caught funding Planned Parenthood and dispensing contraception.

    But Ploumen’s anti-Catholic activity isn’t restricted to abortion. In September of 2017, Ploumen participated in the United Nations LGBTI Core Group. As the first speaker at the event, Ploumen noted that “LGBTI rights are human rights.” In her opening remarks, she said, “We cannot be complacent. [Today] in more than 70 countries homosexuality is still criminalized…stigma against LGBT people continue all over the world.”

    In 2014, Ploumen ended foreign aid to the country of Uganda for passing a bill banning sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

    In February of 2010, Ploumen called on LGBT activists to descend upon and disrupt Mass at St. John the Baptist Cathedral, wearing pink triangles with the words “Jesus excludes no one.” The reason? She and other pro-LGBT activists were protesting the Church’s moral teaching regarding homosexuality.

    The Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great was established in September 1831 by Pope Gregory XVI. The honor of membership in the Order is conferred on individuals for their “personal service to the Holy See and to the Roman Catholic Church, through their unusual labors, their support of the Holy See, and their excellent examples set forth in their communities and their countries.”

    It remains to be seen what service Lilianne Ploumen has provided for the Catholic Church or the Holy See, given her staunch support for homosexuality, abortion and contraception. Given that the one thing that Lilianne Ploumen is known for in the past year is the establishment of a fund that provides hundreds of millions of dollars to organizations that commit abortion and dispense contraception, it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate her recent Pontifical honor from this grievous and scandalous act.

    A version of this article first appeared at The Lepanto Institute.

    Reply
    • So Pope Francis I turned out to be the staunch anti-abortionist we thought he was after all! So anti-abortion that he supports the UN Sustainable Development Goals, invited former VP Joe Biden and awards arch-abortionist Lilliane Ploumen.

      Reply
      • firstladychannel för 6 månader sedan ein Segen das Video… vergelts Gott dafür….
        SVARA 3 [image: Biene 4U]
        [image: Anita Mögerle]
        Anita Mögerle för 9 månader sedan Es ist ein sehr großer Segen , für unseren Alltag! Vielen lieben Dank!????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
        SVARA 7 [image: Biene 4U]
        Visa svar
        [image: Caminhos das Rosas]
        Caminhos das Rosas för 10 månader sedan good mornig ´ ♥ ♥` ´ ♥: gebet die sieben vaterunser good mornig gebet die sieben vaterunser https://youtu.be/65g4LeRv8xI
        Visa mindre
        SVARA 1 [image: Caminhos das Rosas]
        Caminhos das Rosas för 10 månader sedan Mãe Dalva de Ogum Boa noite para toda parte do mundo!. -♥`•.¸.•´♥:¦:-♥`•. Facebook e Caminhos das Rosas amigos e amigas -♥`•.¸.•´♥:¦:-♥`•. -♥`•.¸.•´♥:¦:-♥`•. Caminhos das Rosas alemanha berlin https://youtu.be/65g4LeRv8xI
        Visa mindre
        SVARA 1 [image: Caminhos das Rosas]
        Caminhos das Rosas för 10 månader sedan Mãe Dalva de Ogum Bom dia para toda parte do mundo! ♥` ´♥: ♥` ´♥: -♥` ´♥: -♥` ´♥ ♥` ´♥: Facebook e Caminhos das Rosas alemanha berlin amigoas e amigos Bom dia para toda parte do mundo! seja bem vinda! Amizade virtual: ꔚ ꔘ ꔛꔘ。… Mehr anzeigen Caminhos das Rosas alemanha berlin https://youtu.be/wETHCbYvknw
        Visa mindre
        SVARA 1 [image: Marcel Moser]
        Marcel Moser för 1 år sedan Das ist enorm wichtig für unsere Zeit. Wer kann soll dieses Gebet allen Orten bekannt machen. Oder seinen Ehepartner anhalten miteinander dies Gebet für all ihre lieben zu beten. Meine Eltern haben diese Gebete von der hl Brigitte schon gebetet und viel Segen verbreitet
        SVARA 3 [image: Biene 4U]
        Visa alla 2 svar
        [image: Klaus Fleck]
        Klaus Fleck för 1 år sedan Danke f den Gebetsdienst. Vergelts Gott!
        SVARA 2 [image: Biene 4U]
        [image: Biene 4U] Biene 4U för 1 år sedan VGUD DIR! :)

        2018-01-13 3:04 GMT+01:00 Disqus :

        Reply
  8. January 12 is the feast of St. Marguerite Bourgeoys, the founder of the Sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame, a teaching order. She is the patron saint of poor people and those rejected by religious orders.

    St. Marguerite Bourgeoys was a woman of aspirations and action, despite her fragile health. She was a woman of faith and fortitude, known for her obedience to God and for her perseverance in carrying out His desires despite the many obstacles and hardships she faced.

    Born in Troyes, France in 1620 to devout parents, Marguerite was the sixth of twelve children. Her father died when she was very young. Her mother died when Marguerite was just nineteen and she became the surrogate mother to her siblings. The following year, through the inspiration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, she consecrated her life to God and became a member of the Extern Congregation of Troyes, a group of women who were dedicated to teaching the poor children of the town. It was during this time that she first sensed a call to missionary work.

    In 1652, Monsieur de Maisonneuve, the founder and governor of Ville Marie (Canada), returned to France and asked Marguerite to volunteer to teach French and Indian children in the new settlement begun in New France. Our Lady told her, “Go, I will not forsake you” which confirmed Marguerite’s call. With this assurance, Marguerite gave away her parent’s inheritance to other family members, and, in 1653, sailed across the ocean to this new colony.

    Her first action was to restore the Notre-Dame-de-Bon-Secours (Our Lady of Good Help) Chapel, which had been destroyed by Indians, in order to restore the faith of the colonists. Next, she opened the first school in Montreal in an abandoned stable and soon realized that she must also teach domestic skills and educate the young mothers who were now part of this new society. She became their mother, social worker, counselor, and friend. She developed a practical curriculum for her young women that not only consisted of vocational skills, but also included teaching catechism and Christian values. Her curriculum included reading, writing, arithmetic, singing, and religion, while back in her native country of France, people continued to question the practicality of teaching women to write.

    In the course of her adult life, she sailed across the ocean three times to France to obtain additional volunteer teachers. The group of teachers who joined her in her life of prayer, of poverty, and of service to others, bonded together as a religious group. Thus, in 1698, Marguerite founded the Congregation of Notre Dame – an active Order who would continue the missionary work she started.

    Marguerite became ill and spent her last few years praying and writing her autobiography. In 1699, a young Sister in her Order lay dying and she heroically offered her own life to God in exchange for the return of the life of this Sister. Marguerite died in Montreal, Canada on January 12, 1700. Pope Pius XII beatified Marguerite Bourgeoys on November 12, 1950.

    Quote: “Our Lady’s love is like a stream that has its source in the Eternal Fountains, quenches the thirst of all, can never be drained, and ever flows back to its Source.” — St. Marguerite Bourgeoys

    Pope St. John Paul II canonized her on October 31, 1982, making her Canada’s first woman saint.m that has its source in the Eternal Fountains, quenches the thirst of all, can never be drained, and ever flows back to its Source.” — St. Marguerite Bourgeoys

    Prayer to St. Marguerite Bourgeoys

    O Mother Bourgeoys, you, whose compassionate power is ever increasing, show us your way of Truth, Faith and Holiness.

    Make us humble enough to abandon ourselves to the Will of God, generous enough to find in the Cross the joy of the Loving Giver.

    May your fidelity to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament lead us ever nearer to this source of light and peace. May your spirit of openness help us to be concerned for our brothers and sisters throughout the world.

    Finally, may Our Lady of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, bring us to this unity of eternal grace to which God has called you for all eternity. Amen.

    Reply
  9. 13 januari – Extra minne

    Poitiers, Frankrike, 315? – 367

    Hilary föddes i Poitiers i Frankrike, omkring 315, var en hednisk som sökt livets mening först i Neo-platonska läror, då – efter läsningen av Bibeln – i kristendomen. Noble markägare, gift med ett barn, strax efter dopet hyllades biskop i Poitiers. Han kämpade Arian kätteri genom hans verk, den mest kända av dessa är The Trinity. “Han fördjupade sina studier under sex år i exil. Han återvände till högkvarteret hade som medarbetare i framtiden biskop i Tours, St Martin. Han dog 367 . Pius IX proklamerade honom en doktor kyrkan. (Avvenire)

    Etymologi: Ilario = gay, glad, från latin

    Emblem: Pastoral Staff

    Martyrology: St. Hilary, biskop och läkare i kyrkan, höjt till kontoret av Poitiers i Aquitaine, Frankrike, under kejsar Constantius anhängare av Arian kätteri, staunchly försvarade hans skrifter den nicenska tros på treenigheten och gudomlighet Kristus och han var därför förpassas till fyra år i Phrygia; Kommentarer också komponerat firade Psaltaren och Matteusevangeliet.

    Det fanns en tid då de flesta av män i kyrkan förlorade sin tro, trodde de att de var katoliker, men i själva verket följt allvarliga teologiska fel, så deras tro var skadad och avledas.
    För två århundraden, från IV till VII, Arian kätteri rasade i öst och i väst behandlas av Monaco och teolog Arius, denna teori ansåg att den gudomliga naturen av Jesus var väsentligt lägre än den för Fadern och Ord Gud var inte evig och oskapade. Även Arius var bannlyst och hans lära fördömdes, Arianism länge, blir den officiella religionen av det romerska riket under regeringstiden av Constantius. “Hela orb med att erkänna stönade Arian förvåning” skrev St. Jerome: misstaget, som synd, alltid stönande.
    Fel och synder idag är utspridda överallt, även i kyrkan; Detta tillåter inte fred eller i det naturliga livet och inte heller i det andliga livet. Hur då nekas hela Kristi gudom, förnekade i dag att treenigheten är den ende sanne Guden för alla människor, inte försöker att gå med dem i den katolska kyrkan, men i en utopisk allians av olika religioner.
    Den 13 januari kommer att bli ihåg ett helgon och doktor i kyrkan som var nödvändigt, med några av sina bröder i episkopatet, för att återställa ordningen i den teologiska tänkandet och för att återvända till sanningen: St. Hilary av Poitiers (367 310ca.- ), mästare av tradition mot Arianism. Även Liberius, att finna sig till den politiska makten av kejsaren Constantius stod bakom ariansna. Syftet med Costanzo var att förena imperiet under ariska tänkandet, men hindren kallades St. Athanasius i öst och St. Hilary i väst: biskopen av Alexandria och biskopen av Poitiers emot den med styrka och beslutsamhet, men genom mildhet av välgörenhet och helighet.
    Han sade Benedictus XVI på den allmänna publiken av den 10 oktober 2007: “En del gamla författare tror att detta anti-Arian vändpunkt i Gallien episkopatet var till stor del beror på styrkan och mildhet av biskopen av Poitiers. Detta var just hans gåva: att kombinera styrkan i tro och ödmjukhet i mellanmänskliga relationer “.
    Denna europeiska, far till kyrkan, var en Defensor Fidei av oerhörd mod och perfekt konsistens, och ägnade sitt liv för att skydda och rädda tron på gudomlighet Jesus Kristus, Guds Son och Gud som Fadern, som skapade det från början ‘evighet. Glesa News på dess existens, riklig teologiska verk han har gett till kyrkan och till historien. Den Gallo-romerska och hedniska aristokratisk familj, fick en fast litterär utbildning, gift och hade en dotter som heter Abra. Passionate filosofiska forskning, upptäckte han kristendomen och konverteras. Han hyllades biskop i Poitiers mellan 353 och 354 och tog honom under hans skydd St. Martin, framtiden biskop i Tours.
    Bland hans många skrifter finner vi kommentaren på Matteusevangeliet: de äldsta i latin. I 356 deltog han i synoden av Béziers i södra Frankrike, “synoden av falska apostlar”, som han kallade det, eftersom det ledde från tråd Arian biskopar, som krävde att kejsaren i förvisning av biskop Hilary. Under sommaren samma år var han tvungen att lämna för Phrygia (i modern Turkiet), som domineras av Arianism. Men kunde han stå emot och här försökte han återupprätta kyrkans enhet på grundval av den raka Faith formulerats av rådet av Nicaea (325).
    Med denna avsikt skrev han sin mest kända dogmatiska arbete: De Trinitate. Hemma (360 eller 361), påverkan av hans undervisning utvidgas långt utanför landets gränser i Gallien, hela Empire: St. Hilary var en kristen som inte böjt till kraften i världen, men för Guds rike .

    Författare: Cristina Siccardi

    Detta far och doktor i kyrkan föddes i Poitiers, nell’Aquitania, mot 315, med en distinkt hednisk familj, som gjorde honom ge ett fast litterär och filosofisk utbildning baserade neo-platonska. S. Ilario i samma avhandling De Trinitate exponerar hur skakad av problemet med vårt öde, om han har hittat ett tillfredsställande svar i hednisk filosofi, men bara i prologen Johannes evangelium, där det sägs att Ordet kom ner från himlen han ger till dem som får makt att bli Guds barn.
    Hilary var vuxen när han döptes, gift och far till en dotter, Abra. Det är inte osannolikt att hans strama liv och brinnande biskopen av staden har summan av hans kyrka med några heliga ordning. Det är säkert, dock att när han dog, han lyckades i episkopatet Ilario och försökte praktisera vad som senare skulle skriva: “. Den helighet utan vetenskap är inte användbart i sig när du lär, är det nödvändigt att vetenskapen ger mat till tal och att dygd tjänare prydnad till vetenskap “(De Trinitate, VIII, l). Lockade av ryktet om honom, St. Martin, vänster, milisen, skulle han komma till skolan gå med på att ta emot ordination exorcist.
    “Den Helige Shepherd snart tvingade av omständigheterna att kämpa så ihärdigt mot Arianism att betraktas Athanasius i väst.” Många biskopar inte acceptera läran om Nicea (325) av consubstantialityen av Guds Son med Fadern, utan föredrar att lära ut att det var precis så. Constantius, son Constantine, låtsades att ta emot sina idéer från hela riket vid äventyr av exil. För att försvara ortodoxin St. Hilary kanske kallats till Paris 355, en enhet som exkommunicerade Valente och Ursacius, ambitiösa domstols biskopar, förföljare av Athanasius och Saturnino, Primat i Arles. som hade delat deras våld. Han och hans medbrottslingar, uppmuntrat av likgiltighet som Julian, guvernör i Gallien, var tvister teologer, som samlades i Beziers. Genom beslut av Constantius, Hilary fick ta del, men efter att ha vägrat att ansluta sig till kejsarens religiösa politik, deporterades till 356 i Frygien. Biskoparna i Gaul, mestadels ortodoxa skulle inte att en inkräktare ta besittning av kontor Poitiers. Under sin exil på St. Hilary han i själva verket, brev rikta sin kyrka.
    I Mindre Asien gjorde han inte förbli overksam. Han utnyttjade tiden att komponera sitt mästerverk, The Trinity i 12 böcker, för att studera på djupet problemen i öst med vidsynthet, och försöka få felande till Nicene tro. “Jag har inte betraktas som ett brott, skulle han senare säga att han hade haft diskussioner med dem, ja, medan vägrar dem gemenskap, skriva in deras hus av bön och hoppas att du var tvungen att vänta på dem till förmån för fred, när vi öppnade dem ett sätt att lösa sina misstag genom botgöring, en vädjan till Kristus genom nedläggning av antikrist”. (Adv. Costant. 2). Samma oro för medlings manifest i De Synodis bok skriven för att informera biskoparna i Gallien när det gäller flera av de östra tros.
    Hans exil varade i fyra år, då i 359, Constantius kallade ett råd på Rimini för västerlänningar, och en annan till Seleucia nell’Isauria, för orientaler. Ilario han välkomnas och kan utsätta den nicenska tros, men harmonin nåddes inte för illvilja av många. Efter den heliga synoden gick han till Konstantinopel för att komma från Costanzo får diskutera offentligt med Saturnino som varit orsaken till hans exil, och att stå i rådet som hölls sedan i den kejserliga staden för att kunna försvara den ortodoxa tron på myndighet de heliga skrifterna. Som svar Costanzo skickade honom tillbaka till Poitiers uppeggade av Arians, som att bli av med obekväma motståndare, hade målat honom “som en såningsman av oenighet och stör öst”.
    En Poitiers Hilary mottogs i triumf. Så snart han hört talas om hans återkomst, St. Martin anslöt sig till honom från hans reträtt på ön Gallinaria (Albenga) och under ledning av sin lärare grundat Ligugé äldsta kloster i Gallien för att neutralisera åtminstone delvis de sorgliga effekterna av kätteri.
    Ilario ibland gick för att besöka eremiter att följa deras regler och delta i deras låtar. Det är känt att han var den första kompositör av psalmer i väst för att motverka aktiviteten poesi arierna.
    Den politiska situationen, under tiden hade förändrats avsevärt sedan maj 360, när soldater stationerade i Paris hade skrek kejsaren Julian. Hilary passade med beslutsamhet och måtta att samla provinsiella synods för att bekräfta de ortodoxa biskoparna förblev lojala och ringa tillbaka dem som hade undertecknat av okunskap eller rädsla för felaktiga eller äventyras formler, såsom rådet i Rimini. Avsättningen av Saturninus i Arles och Paterno Périgueux markerade nederlag Arianism i väst. Död Costanzo (361) gav ett avgörande slag mot den ariska överlägsenhet i öst, eftersom biskoparna återkallades från exil, och året efter St. Athanasius kunde uppbåda i Alexandria den berömda “råd av bekännare” och framgångsrikt anta dämpningen av bishopen av Poitiers.
    S. Ilario tillsammans med St. Eusebius, biskop i Vercelli, kämpade han bra för två år Arianism i Italien, och försökte att köra från hemmet i Milano, Auxentius att rådet av Paris i 361 hade anathematized. Dessa, i 364, vädjade till kejsaren Valenti, fästa dekreten av Rimini rådet gjorde han prenumerera många biskopar och anklagar sina motståndare för störande religiös fred. Dessa överväganden imponerade kejsaren som höll Auxentius på plats, nöjd med en tvivelaktig trosbekännelse att han närvaron av tio biskopar och högre tjänstemän. St. Hilary, beordrades att lämna Milan, skrev han Contra Auxentium att avslöja den hycklande återhållsamhet honom och behålla integriteten i tron bland folket.
    Hade drog sig tillbaka till sitt stift, helgonet kunde ägna sig åt sina favorit studier och kommentarer om Psaltaren, så länge som det tog död 1-11-367. Hans reliker brändes i 1562 av hugenotterna. Pius IX 1851 proklamerade honom en doktor kyrkan.https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/photo/112855465199308725562/6504817975038074914

    Reply
  10. It is quite apparent that the whole “culture of death” is the final assault by the powers of hell against creation itself. God placed humanity as the pinnacle and sole purpose of creation. Everything that characterizes these times; contraception, abortion, the aggressive imposition of the homofascist agenda, IVF, transgenderism and the genetic tinkering with the human organism comprise the final satanic assault against human nature, on the whole of creation and its divinely ordered purpose. Its starting point was, and remains, the absurd theory of evolution.

    Reply
  11. This is a great article! I have heard Mr. Owen speak in person and highly recommend him and the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. He is doing wonderful work and should be supported more widely by his Catholic brethren.

    Reply
  12. Thank you for posting this. I’ve had a lifelong love of the natural sciences, and in college (both undergraduate and graduate) I majored in the life sciences. I’ve struggled for the better part of 50 years with the evolution question, and ironically, one of the reasons I didn’t definitively reject it sooner than I did was because of Catholic apologists (note: *conservative* Catholic apologists; Catholic Answers and the like). I still have very many questions about how best to reconcile science with the testimony of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, but compromising our traditional understanding of the latter two is definitely not it.

    Reply
  13. My respect for 1P5 just went way up for the fact that you were willing to publish this article. Catholics everywhere, it is time to reject the theory of evolution and embrace the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation; It is my belief that only then will God begin to cleanse the current filth from the Church. If there is any good that has come from the current crisis in the Church, it is that we can more clearly see that we must uphold the faith that has been handed on to us from Jesus Christ and his Apostles and through the Fathers. And of course, we must reject modernism in all its forms, evolution being its chief tenant.

    Reply
    • As a person whose nearest and dearest friends include more evangelical Protestants than Catholics, I can tell you that such a rejection of evolution would be a very ecumenical thing to do!

      Reply
  14. In Michael Behe’s excellent book, The Edge of Evolution: the Search for the Limits of Darwinism, he convincingly argues that there is a mathematical limit to what Darwin’s mechanism (natural selection acting on random mutation) can achieve in Nature. The best evidence of what “Evolution” can do in Nature where it counts comes from the studies of Malaria, HIV, and E.coli:

    “Time is actually not the chief factor in evolution – population numbers are. In calculation how quickly a beneficial mutation might appear, evolutionary biologists multiply the mutation rate by the population size…The bigger the population or the faster the reproduction cycle, the more quickly a particular mutation will show up. The numbers of malaria cells and HIV in just the past fifty years have probably greatly surpassed the number of mammals that have lived on the earth in the past several hundred million years. So the evolutionary behavior of the pathogens in even such a short time as a half century gives us a clear indication of what can happen with larger organisms over enormous time spans. The fact that no new cellular protein-protein interactions were fashioned, that mutations were incoherent, that changes in only a few genes were able to help, and that those changes were only relatively (not absolutely) beneficial – all that gives us strong reason to expect the same for larger organisms over longer times.

    …in just the past fifty years nature herself has ruthlessly conducted the biological equivalent of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Call it the M-H (malaria-HIV) experiment. With a billion times the firepower of the puny labs that humans run, the M-H experiment has scoured the planet looking for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to build coherent biological machinery and has found absolutely nothing.

    Why no trace of the fabled blind watchmaker? The simplest explanation is that, like the ether, the blind watchmaker does not exist.”

    This whole conflict between Intelligent Design and Materialism goes back to the rival cosmological arguments of Epicurus and Aquinas. It all depends on whether the things of nature are or are not eternal. If they are, Epicurus is right, and nature is self-contained, having no need of a divine source; if they are not, Aquinas is right, and nature is contingent, existing in a state of dependence on the source of its existence, a source outside of nature. The beauty of Aquinas’s argument from contigency, is that it is not based on revelation: it depends entirely on natural reason.

    Ironically, it is Aquinas’s argument that actually has science fimly on its side; Epicurus’ argument is the truly “delusional” argument. Indeed, since the advent of Big-Bang cosmology and modern molecular biology, the great weight of physical evidence points to the contingency of the universe and the building blocks of human life. There is no empirical evidence supporting Epicurus’s eternal universe. None of the arguments in favor of Materialism is based on direct evidence, whereas all of the arguments in favor of an Intelligent Designer are in fact based on empirical evidence that we can see and measure. The conclusion of Design is completely empirical because it is based on the physical evidence plus standard reasoning that we use in everyday life: when we see evidence of Design (“the purposeful arrangement of parts that serve some function”), it is only logical to conclude the presence of a Designer.

    Modern science was designed to exclude the Designer. Science, for the materialist, is not about truth-seeking. It is about therapy, about achieving “ataraxia” (“freedom from disturbance” as Epicurus put it) from the fear of hell and the guilt of sin and the demands of the gods. Darwin and Dawkins and their ilk are just Epicurus repackaged for modern man.

    Reply
  15. Kudos Steve. Ive often been the long voice in my Catholic cirlces decrying the scientific and historical lies surriunding evolution. A) Darwin didnt even “discover” the theory—-his own grandfather Erasmus Darwin did, so the entire narrative that he was an objective observer on the Beagle is a falshood. He was from the get go attempting to validate a pre-conceived theory. B) Darwin knew nothing of genetics and ascribed a magical worldview to sexual reproduction. In essence he thought that “macroevolution”differed only in degree from selective breeding—-which of course it doesn’t. The sexual faculty does not have the capacity to transmutate the species into new ones! You want proof that Darwin knew nothing of genetics? He married his first cousin for crying out loud. C) Survival of the fittest was a tremendously destructive theory that wrecked so many aspects of European life. Everyone from imperialists to nazis adopted it as dogma. Read Darwin’s “The Descent of Man” if you can actually find an extant copy. Even university editions are heavily redacted and incomplete while deliberately deceiving the reader on this point. This book led directly to Eugenics. Darwin was a fantastically wealthy elitist from the Wedgwood family fortune and his views reflect this elitism. Darwins link to the disgraced science of eugenics is a direct one. It was founded by his nephew Sir Francis Galton—-whom he mentored! E) Darwin was not a trained scientist, only a trained Church of England clergyman! Saying he was a “naturalist” is only saying the guy was good at sketching finches!! F) Darwin divided humanity into some 57 “races” at the bottom of which were black Africans, Aborigines……and wait for it——-the Irish!

    Reply
  16. When studying for my undergraduate biology degree I would hear on several occasions “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. Interesting as the concept may be from the perspective of the person who “coined” the phrase (Ernst Haeckel, a 19th century German biologist), it should be an outdated mantra for science.

    Reply
    • I majored in biology and was told emphatically by my comparative anatomy prof that Haeckel had been known to be wrong for many decades. What school did you attend that was teaching this?

      Reply
  17. Also Steve, evolution is incompatible with the Philosophy of Nature, in that it denies that nature is “fixed” and can thereby be knowable and understood, which is necessary to the concept of Natural Law. How many celebs, pop-figures ect say that they have “evolved” when it comes to moral issues or lifestyle choices, and now basic questions of identity? It’s a fundamental “science-based” excuse to not follow traditional morality or acknowledge that there is any “human nature” to speak of. Also Darwinism remains a fundamentally racist and bogus idea. It amazes me how so much of its incipient racism remains “hidden in plain sight” even in national museums, presitigious universities ect. The SJW’s want to smash Columbus but they continue to venerate the racist Darwin? Anytime someone retorts that “well its proven science!!”, I ask them to count all the Nobel Prizes handed out to evolutionary biologists over the past 100 years. Exactly. Zero.

    Reply
  18. Great article! I am very happy to see Hugh Owen on 1p5. I believe the work that he and those involved with the Kolbe Center and the Study of Creation is pivotal for the restoration and preservation of the faith, and I highly encourage everyone to support them.

    Reply
  19. Racism is also a fruit of Evolution.

    But how odd is it that one never sees Black Lives Matter or concerned Leftist groups storming Universities campaigning to get rid of white man Charles Darwin???

    Hmmmm…..

    Reply
      • I would contend that it definitely is. The idea that black people came from apes was a commonly held idea among elites as evidenced by Voltaire’s casual mention of it 100 years before Darwin. Go to the Museum of Natural History in Washington DC and you will see that basic racist tenant on public display. They have a sequence of cgi photos of various apes ending with one that looks like a primitive black woman. Unbelievable and yet armies of school kids pass by it each day without protest. What goes through a little black childs mind when seeing this? Or the white kids and other race kids for that matter?

        Reply
        • Matt R said: you will see that basic racist tenant on public display

          Maybe you ought to alert his landlord?

          signed: a basic non-racist pedant

          Reply
        • Good article. I am currently on the fence about evolution as I have learned it is a theory that has not been prove. In addition the Church does not teach it as doctrine and many writings of the saints actually speak of the creation of Man as it is written in Genesis (in such a way that rules out allegory…St. Mary of Agreda as example).

          I am currently reading Margaret Sanger’s Book “Pivot of Civilization” and she was def. influenced by Darwin’s theory concerning genetics and evolution. This explains why she has such an animalistic approach to life…an approach that is clearly void of God.

          Reply
      • Quite true. It’s a circular thing. Racist ideas led to evolution, and likewise, spread of evolution led to a rise of racism and fed pre-existent racism with an intellectual justification and scientific respect it never had before.

        Now prejudice was a matter of science and social necessity in order to advance as a species. We had to breed out the bad backwards underevolved stock. This is what led to the Eugenicists and the 3rd Reich. The work carries on to this day. Except now they talk aloud about the virtues of diversity while murdering ‘colored’ children in the womb in order to eliminate a certain poverty-stricken class of people, who surprise-surprise tend to have certain amounts of melanin pigments in their skin.

        Reply
      • Indeed, but Darwin provided a scientific and intellectually legitimate excuse to practice racism and it exploded thanks to his ideas. The Third Reich was built upon it, and everywhere people actually massacred indigenous people simply to put their skulls in a museum. Evolution is NOT a good thing. First it is scientifically false. Second, it absolutely justifies racism. Why not? Just read the Eugenics literature. If the science is correct, then why not breed out the lesser developed people? Or should we even refer to them as ‘people’? As this article on 1P5 demonstrates, the unborn are certainly categorized differently. The same is therefore applicable to those outside of the womb. This is why Darwin’s book ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection’ had the subtitle – ‘or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.’

        Reply
        • The theory of evolution says that life has evolved. It says nothing more. And making the theory into a metaphysical thing, as the Eugenics litterature does is misuse of it.

          Darwin came with philosophical utterances in his book and those of his thoughts are by definition not scientific and therefore not in the realm in which the theory of evolution belongs.
          Saying that some people are less developed, meaning less worth, is also to go beyond the naturalist world into metaphysics, isn’t it?

          Reply
          • The “theory” (actually religious psudeo-science) of evolution states that some Races and Organisms are SUPERIOR genetically to others at a more advanced state of development. Read Darwin. Some species/Races are FAVORED by virtue of their genetic stock and environmental advantages. Therefore whether one chooses to show compassion to a lesser being or not merely depends on ones personal subjective feelings. Morality in this system does not exist and is left up to metaphysics, or rather if you’re strictly naturalist, then metaphysics does not exist at all and such thoughts and moral systems are mere illusion. Darwin didn’t personally subscribe to it because he rejected a god who would just let people suffer and saw the world as simply blind violent nature red in tooth and claw. That is the DIRECT IMPLICATION of the ‘science’ and why it fed many of the worst monstrosities humankind has committed. From the Nazis to the Communists who made it a point to indoctrinate the subjugated people with evolutionary ideas in order to destroy their ties to religion, and a Christian moral system. Hitler sought this advancement through race and ethnicity. The Soviets sought it through class. You can dance around as much as you like, but history and the literature detail the fruits of this horrible and false ideology. Where you believe life comes from MATTERS. We have already witnessed the consequences.

          • The full title of Darwin’s book is “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Gee I wonder why they only include the Origin of the Species part in modern editions……”the preservation of the favoured races” is no doubt bad PR and too revealing,

        • Hitler actually credited the U.S.’s own Margaret Sanger with influencing his ideas on eugenics.

          And yet everyone from Hillary Clinton on down lauds her as a heroine!

          Reply
  20. What if a subhuman primates is what becomes of those who reject God? Wonder what a few generations of that would look like.

    Reply
  21. For anyone who hasn’t heard Hugh speak, I would urge you to either try to get to one of his presentations or better still, arrange one near to where you live. He is well worth listening too.

    Reply
  22. I don’t believe in the theory of macro evolution, especially as it pertains to human beings. However, your arguments above in this article aren’t convincing and there’s a blurring of the line between scientific opinion and religious belief.

    The Catholic Church expects any scientific theory regarding the origins of man to be predicated on three fundamental and non-negotiable axioms, which briefly are:
    1. God immediately infused the soul into the first man and woman.
    2. All humans came from only one set of parents
    3. Our first parents fell into sin and our fallen nature is now impaired as a result

    Any scientific theory (including some forms of Theistic Evolution) that does not contradict these axioms is acceptable for a Catholic to assent to without corrupting their conformance to the doctrinal faith of the Church.

    I find it almost impossible to reconcile these axioms with popular evolutionary views propagated by the media and scientific personalities. Most of these theories intentional work towards promoting an atheist view of the world and the emergence of life, particularly human life which directly contradict our well established faith.

    But, even as unlikely as it may be that an evolutionary theory can be found that reconciles with these axioms, we still need to keep the distinction between what is required by faith and scientific speculation because the Church is not infallible in the latter domain. As the article indicates, the great theologian St Thomas Aquinas amply demonstrates this point as his scientific ideas have been totally refuted due to his reliance on antiquated Aristotelian natural science, although his theology is as profound and relevant as ever.

    I do see the direct connection between abortion and atheism, which is perhaps the starkest and most blood thirsty representation of the terror and injustice we create when we deny the existence of the Almighty. But we must make a distinction between Atheistic Evolution and other forms of evolutionary theory if we are to maintain a fair representation of what the Church teaches.

    Reply
    • Before the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined in 1854, would have been unwise or prophetic for a Catholic to vigorously defend the (not yet formally defined) doctrine of the Immaculate Conception against its detractors? Before the dogma of the Assumption was defined in 1950, would have been unwise or prophetic for a Catholic to vigorously defend the (not yet formally defined) doctrine of the Assumption against its detractors? It is inevitable that a dogmatic decree in favor of the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation will be issued at some point.

      Reply
    • Thank you, Vince, for expressing your thoughts so articulately. Your views probably come the closest to my own. In Genesis 1:11, where God says “Let the earth bring forth vegetation,” and in Genesis 1:24, where God says “Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures,” I think that that “bringing forth” allows for evolution of some sort.

      Genesis 2:7 tells us that “the Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.” This fulfills what God said in Genesis 1:26-27: “‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness….’ God created man in his image, in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.” I see no conflict between these verses and the possibility that God’s creation of human beings, in His image, was accomplished at the moment He infused a soul (“blew into his nostrils the breath of life”) into two creatures who may have already been there. This would be analogous to the way that a new human being is created, body and soul, at the moment of every human conception.

      However, having said that, I also see the logic of Hugh Owen’s article. He questions how two “brutes” could suddenly be made human, and shows how the fact that, in Christian anthropology, a human being is a unified creature of body and soul from the very first, is incompatible with the hypothetical event of two adult brutes suddenly becoming human that I just described. Of course, God, being God, can accomplish things any way He wants. But I definitely want to find out more, and intend to check out the Kolbe Center.

      Reply
      • The unity of body and soul seems to be the crux of the argument for the traditional teaching on creation. How can man be created in parts at different times? It would contradict the nature of man. If the soul is separated from the body, death occurs. I will believe the Church, the Bible and the traditional teaching over any scientist or scientific theory. Truth is not determined by a consensus in science. In academia, money largely determines the results. Scientists are indeed paid to find certain predetermined results.

        Reply
    • It’s a theory in the same way the theory of gravity is a theory. There is irrefutable proof that evolution took place. No serious person of science disputes that.

      Reply
        • Sure, evolution is “irrefutable” just like evolutionists claimed that there were approximately 180 vestigial organs in humans, including the appendix, the tonsils, the pineal
          gland and the thymus. Now we know that:

          •The appendix is part of the immune system, strategically
          located at the entrance of the almost sterile ileum from the colon with its
          normally high bacterial content.

          •The tonsils have a similar function in the entrance to the
          pharynx.

          •The pineal gland secretes malatonin which is a hormone that
          regulates the circadian rhythm and has other functions.

          •The thymus is part of the immune system, related to
          T-cells. HIV attacks T-cells, rendering them ineffective and for this reason is
          always eventually fatal.

          Reply
        • Go to the American Museum of Natural History and look at the fossil record. Or read a book. My Goodness, do you really believe every scientist is a liar or a fool? The Earth isn’t the center of the universe, and humans evolved from single cell lifeforms. There is no serious debate on these points. The only people disputing them are fringe conspiracy nuts. It’s truly horrifying to see serious people peddling such nonsense.

          Reply
          • I’ve been to three of the best natural history museums on the world: NYC, Washington DC, and London. All of these exhibits have barely changed from what someone would have seen 100 years ago (minus Teilhard de Chardin’s Piltdown Man and other frauds). Really only the cartoon drawings have improved.

      • Only in primitive organisms like bacteria is there a kind of development. But bacteria never develop into anything but bacteria! Complex organisms certainly never evolve, at least not by random chance! Since when is a mutation beneficial in higher organisms? It is always lethal because of the minute complexity of the organisms. One change and the whole biological structure cannot be sustained.

        Reply
      • First, gravity is a phenomenon, not a theory. There are
        several different theories describing this phenomenon. That the phenomenon
        itself exists is hard to doubt, except of course if you’re willing to believe
        that it’s all just a dream or we’re living in a simulation. Second, (macro)
        evolution, has never been observed, has never been proven, is not falsifiable, is
        not predictive and cannot be repeated through experimentation. Where is the “missing
        link” or our “common ancestor” with the apes? And where then is that “common
        ancestor” with other mammals? What did that “transitional species” look like? Where
        is the evidence? What about that ancestor’s “transitional species”? and so on…When
        then did sin and death enter the world? Who then committed the original sin? Was
        there then more than one “immaculate conception”?

        Reply
  23. I am sorry to say that this article makes One Peter Five something of a joke. That the human species evolved from lower life forms is a scientific fact that cannot be denied by any rationale student of science. This article gives the impression that all who oppose Francis’ agenda are tinfoil-hat-wearing nutjobs. And that is very sad. You will not persuade anyone of anything if your view of science is the same as William Jennings Bryan’s.

    Reply
  24. Do most “traditionalist” Catholics believe that humans were created only 10,000 years ago and that dinosaurs and humans lived on Earth at the same time? It’s really demoralizing to see so many people agreeing with this ignorant nonsense. Scientific truth is also truth. And pseudo-scientific lies are still lies. One Peter Five destroys its credibility by publishing this nonsense from the lunatic fringe.

    Reply
      • Thanks for the link. But this is pseudo-scientific nonsense. It’s embarrassing to see smart people peddling this stuff. Humans did evolve from molecules. To deny that is either ignorant or insane. And to argue that God can’t work through scientific processes is to have a very narrow view of God. My God is so amazing that he made an entire universe 13.5 billion years ago knowing that among its results would be me sitting here on my couch typing this comment. Sad to say I’m not riding a dinosaur though because they died 65 million years ago.

        Reply
    • Wow, that’s quite the refutation of the points raised in this article. “demoralizing,” “ignorant nonsense,” pseudo-scientific,” “lies,” “destroys credibility,,” “lunatic frimge”…. yep that’s darn near bulletproof.

      Reply
      • It’s not worth a point by point refutation because anyone over the age of 10 who believes that the human race is only 10,000 years old and that humans lived side-by-side with dinosaurs is irredeemably ignorant or insane, or both. There is no debate about the age of the Earth or the reality of evolution. They’re facts. There are libraries full of books that can explain it to you. It would be a waste of my time.

        Reply
        • A true disciple of Richard Dawkins and his ilk. Allowing atheists, deists, and agnostics to form your world view is not a good practice.

          Reply
          • Dawkins’ failing is that he blurs science and theology. His ideas on God are worthless nonsense. But that doesn’t mean that what he understands about the process of evolution is incorrect.

          • So you believe that when it comes to the true state of reality and history, the agnostics like Darwin et al and the atheists like Dawkins et al who have used their godless suppositions as their starting point, are enlightening us Christians, who have used God’s infallible Word – His Divine Revelation (Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition)?

          • God gave us Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition and Science! Scientific truth is still truth. Of course, scientists can be wrong about things. (And certainly individual scientists can be wrong, and many pretend that their opinions are science). But there’s no scientific reason to think that all of science is wrong about humans having evolved from lower life forms. There is overwhelming scientific proof. It is a fact. There is no serious debate on the subject. The only people who reject it are people on the fringe with dubious credentials and dubious judgment. If one thinks the Earth is not billions of years old, one is either ignorant or a nutcase.

          • You are the ignorant one. I spent 7 years in sciences in university and I have a doctorate and I have spent many years studying the issues involved in the creation / evolution debate and I must tell you that true science rejects the myth of evolution. Random mutations plus natural selection do not change molecules into man, no matter how much time you insert. We can now measure the mutation rate from generation to generation and genomes are observed to devolve, not evolve; each successive generation is more inferior to the previous due to accumulating mutations; this is a fact. The supposed mechanism to drive evolution does not work. If you seriously studied the scientific arguments against evolution you would see that. But instead, you have been brainwashed because you have only looked at the arguments from one side.

          • If you can disprove evolution scientifically then go publish your findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, become world famous and win a Nobel Prize. If you’ve found a real flaw in the evidence then surely you can convince the scientific community. Since you haven’t done that, I don’t find you convincing.

          • Order a copy of CRSQ or the Journal of Creation; both peer reviewed scientific journals, and begin your education. You know as well as I that the scientific establishment “cannot allow a divine foot in the door” and thus could never allow the dogma of evolution to be seriously questioned:

            “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common
            sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between
            science and the supernatural. 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. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that
            anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to
            an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of
            nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”
            -RIchard Lewontin, evolutionary biologist

            If you are an evolutionist you are on Richard Lewontin’s side.

    • On a visit to Berlin last year, I arrived in my hotel room to find that there was a complimentary chocolate Martin Luther on my pillow. Alas, it didn’t put me off chocolate for life.

      Reply
        • Blast, I never thought of that! I just downed it in one. Now I’ll have to pay them a return visit.

          It was a special Luther-themed hotel, as I only discovered after my arrival (it was the chocolate that alerted me to my plight). But I took special pleasure in being the first ever guest to work out the route from this hotel to Latin mass. I wish I could tell you that I demanded the information from the very fierce Lutheran receptionist, but I’m too much of a chicken.

          Reply
          • LOL! Chicken’s don’t eat Chocolate, when you return arm yourself with
            some Holy water and wash the receptionist’s face. 🙂

  25. great piece. evolution is the result of the formation of a culture of death as evidenced by how widely and quickly it was adopted and promulgated. nothing about the “theory” makes any objective sense. the irreducibly complex systems – no explanation. the deleterious effect of mutation – no explanation. the appearance of new dna – no explanation. homology – lots of “explanations” each more crazy than the last. common descent – no evidence whatsoever actually linking a single kind of animal to a single other, or even plant. geologic time – no deterministic examples to be found and what is found supports the opposite. evolution is latin words used to classify slight differences in similar animals and nothing more. they give it the veneer of actual science and take billions in tax dollars to indoctrinate our children in it and “research” it. the Church should have been on the offensive not defensive in this fight from the beginning

    Reply
  26. For those serious about the source of the curse of the evolution hoax into the Catholic Church and so called “Catholic” universities, I would recommend THEISTIC EVOLUTION, THE TEILHARDIAN HERESY by Wolfgang Smith. Do not miss the last chapter. Evolution – monkey’s uncle, Creation – Children of God. Which group would you prefer in your classroom?

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...