OCR Text |
Show STUMBLING BLOCKS TO HUMAN INCREDULITY . " . What Is Man? Naturalists Endeavor to Prove lie is Not Different in Species from v Rest of Animal Creation. ( Wriiten for The Jnlcrmounlain Catholic.) The questions "Who niado the world:" and "Who i Cod;" with their positive answers, are tlie great stumbling blocks to inereiulily. Although ,'ir ;io.-ilcs of incredulity are unable to upset the an-wers which are consecrated 1..- usage and sanctioned sanc-tioned by tradition, yet they will indulge in wild speculations whicli confuse tin?11 unthinking mind and produce doubt. Their denials, unsupported by reason or scientific knowledge, cannot give certainty. cer-tainty. Their theories obscure the light, and bring i" their own minds only doubt. Then the only knowledge they can impart is doubtful, for the conclusion, con-clusion, according- to logic, must always follow the weaker part. This was shown in the articles on ihe tirst and second questions of the catechism. Hut doubtful knowledge is a contradiction. He who doubts his own answer to a mathematical problem prob-lem does not know the principles which should iMiide and direct him. To know a thing is to apprehend ap-prehend and perceive it clearly. Knowledge and certainty arc twin brothers. Doubt may speculate,, but the mind that is in doubt cannot impart a knowledge of truib. which, according to St. Thomas, Thom-as, constitutes the perfection of every spiritual nature. na-ture. Science and irmh arc one. Theories and doubt are nearly allied. ? Following up the questions of Creator and erea-mre, erea-mre, we tind among the latter, man. alone the no-blevi no-blevi (if creatures, because he alone strives to' reach ihe domain of truth by reasoning from the known ti tlie unknown.- Hence the third question in the catechism has man for its object. Man. tlie grandest grand-est work of the Creator, has a special destiny. Ik-was Ik-was the last of ihe works of the Creator, wlio gave him dominion over ihe ret of creation. The in-prtant in-prtant question asked, then, is "What is man?"' Jo this question, whicli appears simple, there are many answers. Our naturalists strfve hard to prow that, man is not a creature different in species spe-cies from the rest of the animal world. Charles; . Darwin and Sir John Lubbock exhausted all their . mental energy in striving to prove that man was f the ouigrowtji or development. .of the monkey, or that ihe human race began in the lowest order of barbarism, and man. by his own inherent nature, attained -the civilized state. - ' -'' " . This leaching, which is both materialistic and anti-scriptural, has no foundation in fact. Darwin's Dar-win's iheory. which was so popular in the last cen-mry, cen-mry, is now set aside by all scientists. A new species spe-cies by natural selection is an ex denied - theory which could not be verified, and the great English naturalist, who look great pains in experimenting to produce a new species, failed in all his attempts. I lis failure to trace man to the monkey or ladpole is now universally admitted by all scientists worthy wor-thy of ihe name. Darwin, if, asked "What is man'' could only gfvo his own i henries, all of which were gratuitously assumed by him, but are now rejected. re-jected. Another distinguished Englishman, Sir John Lubbock, following Darwin's theory, assumed the piogennors ot tlie human race to he in the lowest degree of barbarism. If so, how did the race become be-come civilized? By its own innate power and inherent in-herent energy; Hut all historical facts prove the contrary, namely, that the savage, isolated and left aione. is nn progressive. The great and learned I'erman historian. Bart hold Georg Xiebuhr. who made ;i special study of ancient hisiorv. .and from who-o judgment neither Dr. Arnold nor Ixrd Macaulcy rarely differed, wrote "that there is no in--t a nee on record of a savage tribe "becoming a civilized civ-ilized people by its own spontaneous efforts."' An-;hcr An-;hcr distinguished Gorman historian. Arnold Hcr-" Hcr-" Ludwig Jleeren. who made a special study of iboriginal iribes. and extended his study to" the 'orders of ihe Indian ocean. .ea1 of the Persian til, found native savages ihere in the same condi- ion as they were when described by the companions compan-ions .f Alexander. Centuries have" failed to develop de-velop iheir innate power, and as they have not yet reached ihe conrines of civilian ion. the ibeory of progress, witliout some external agency, will' not, stand. All answers io the question "What is man i"' from such sources are not onlv unreliable, but opposed op-posed to historical facts. . J,.orb7"! sl''fr. who denied creation, and who in his "Lioh-gy a.lvanced ihe insane hvpothesis that life was the result of mechanical, eheiiiical and electrical parts of matter, failed 10 convince the I world lhat man was evolved from pre-existing mat- tpr. His theories of man's origin and destiny were I chaotic and involved contradictions. The same is true of all great writers whoso 'research and in- j rest igat ion were chiefly to propagate incredulity. ! Instead of defining man. they strove to break his ! unity, divide his anatomy into separate faculties, j and discourse, in a mystic manner, on the different fragments. i By way of enlightenment, some of their deti- j niiions of man may he compared with those of a j child. "What is man?" M. Leroux, a learned ; "French author, defines man to be "sensation, sen- j -;mnt. cognition, indivisibly united.'' Others do- : fine man to be "a digestive tube open at both ends." ' The child defines man to be "a creature composed i ; of body and soul, and made to the image and like- r ness of God." " The latter definition, in dissecting man, gives two -component, parts, namely, body and soul. It i tells his origin by calling him a 'creature, which presupposes the Creator. It also tells that there is ., j resemblance between ihe Creator and man. The i two requirements for man are evident to the senses ! and reason. "When the soul leaves the body, we do : : riot, call that body a man. but simply a corpse. Our J! reason tells us lhat the departed spirit, with all its . : ' faculties, was distinct from everything- else in the j natural order. .Man's intelligence, ideas of moral- and religious propensity, give, man a distine- I 1 tno character not to be found outside of man. To r. man alone belongs, the faculty of reasoning, and "? 'bis faculty, which rests in the oi, marks his.su- periority and makes him the noblest work of God. p f Eeing "maTle to the image and likeness of God," F; w-e naturally want to trace the resemblam'e. it j irould not le in the body, for God, who is a spirit, or j hi. I - ; : : as defined '"a. most pure act;' possesses no material ma-terial body, flatter, to be eternal, is a contradiction. contradic-tion. The resemblance, then, between God and man must be in the soul, which is a spirit, that will never , die, and has understanding and free will.. Xone of the so-called theories advanced in the name of science sci-ence have or could displace this teaching as given in Gensis: "And God created man to his own iiih age; to the image of Go'l he created him; male andj female he created them."' By infusing into man's soul intelligence and free will, he implanted there ! his own image, and enabled man to control the rest i of -creation, over whicli the Creator gave him do-j do-j minion. "Let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea. and the fowls of the air. and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth." |