The considerations dwelt upon in the preceding chapter lead unavoidably to the conclusion that man is not wholly of a material nature. He is a compound being, consisting of a material body and an immaterial or spiritual soul. It is this soul that gives him his true worth and value. His body may be beautiful, but its beauty is fleeting, like the beauty of the flower; it fades before it has well begun to charm; it may be strong, but its strength is that of the reed, which is bruised and broken by the passing storm. A few short years, and the eye loses its luster, the cheek its crimson tint, the lips their winsome smile, the frame its noble bearing; -- it shrinks and withers and totters into the grewsome grave. But within that corruptible body; within that shell of weakness, lies hidden a pearl of price unknown; there dwells an incorruptible soul: -- a spirit endowed with intelligence and freedom, rising in dignity above the world of matter even as the heavens rise in height above the earth. The body may be wasted by disease; it may be disfigured by an accident; it may become an object of disgust in the squalor of poverty; yet there always remains enshrined within it that godlike soul which knows of no change or corruption, because it is not made up of parts that can fall asunder.
Such, then, being man's nature, as indicated by his own proper actions, the question now arises whether that nature was created, or whether it owes its existence to some other mode of production; for as we shall see presently, it did not always exist, and therefore it must, in one way or another, have been produced. In order to answer the proposed question clearly, it is, first of all, necessary to have some knowledge concerning the nature of a creative act; and the easiest way of attaining this knowledge will be to inquire briefly into the meaning of the term creature. Now a creature is a being that has been called into existence by a cause outside of itself, and without the aid of pre-existing material. It includes, therefore, two essential notes: First, it does not contain within itself the reason of its existence, but derives its being from an outside cause; second, it is not made up of pre-existent material, but it is entirely new; so that not only its figure and form and specific qualities have been called into being by the creative act, but its very substance in all its parts -- it has been made out of nothing. Hence the creative act is, indeed, a species of production, yet it differs from all other kinds of production in this, that no previously existing material is employed.
To illustrate this point by an example. When a sculptor takes a block of marble, and by his skill transforms it into a beautiful statue, he produces something new; for the statue as such had no previous existence. The marble is marble still, yet the sculptor's art has added to it grace of form and beauty of feature; he has drawn from the shapeless mass the likeness of man, and has infused into the cold stone the warmth of human affection. Still his act is not creative; because he made use of pre-existing material. The marble itself was not produced by the sculptor; it had previous existence, and was a necessary prerequisite to the exercise of his skill. But now let us suppose that this same sculptor were able to produce said statue by the mere power of his will, without the use of any material whatever, then his act would be creative. For on that supposition he not only gave existence to the form of the statue, but to its very substance; he produced being out of non-being, and the statue would be his own creature.
If man, therefore, is a creature, it must have been by an act like this that human nature was called into existence. God spoke and man was made -- he was made out of nothing, he was created. Here, however, I might remark in passing, that the idea of creation is sufficiently verified in man, even if one of the elements of which he is composed can be referred to creation only indirectly, as will be more fully explained when we come to speak of the formation of man's body.
That human nature as such, precisely in so far as it is human nature, does not contain within itself the reason of its own being is sufficiently evident from the fact that man did not always exist. Whatever begins to exist, must be produced by some cause outside of itself; because nothing can be self-productive, and that for the obvious reason, that a being must exist before it can act. Now that human nature did not always exist is an absolute certainty, as even the most infidel scientists readily concede. Time was when this earth of ours was a seething mass of molten mineral matter, at a temperature of several thousand degrees Fahrenheit; and as human nature cannot now subsist in the fiery depths of a blast furnace, neither could it exist in the seething ocean of incandescent matter that filled all space when the world was still in the process of formation.
Moreover this same fact is quite evident from the very nature of human beings. Whatever may be said of man's dignity and perfection, he is certainly not self-existent. This follows necessarily from his manifest limitations. Bound down by the laws of time and space, dependent in a thousand ways upon finite conditions, he abuts everywhere upon nothingness. He is indeed endowed with sublime perfections, yet the very nature of these perfections proclaims the insufficiency of his being. It is not within his own self, but outside of it and beyond it, that his intellect and will look for an object commensurate with their highest activity. He is, therefore, essentially dependent, and for that very reason, as we shall see more fully in another paragraph, he cannot be the source of his own existence.
Hence man was certainly produced by some extrinsic cause -- by some being that is not man. The only question, therefore, that now remains to be solved is, was man created or was he made of some pre-existing material?
Tot his question a certain class of pseudoscientists boldly responds that man was not created, but that he is the product of evolution. In fact, they are so positive in regard to this point that they are apt to say some very uncomplimentary things about persons who happen to entertain different views. Moreover, as they are for the most part glib of tongue, and wield a facile pen, their materialistic doctrines have been largely accepted by the unthinking crowd, which is always apt to mistake sound for sense. Hence it may be well to treat this matter somewhat more in detail than is absolutely necessary for our present purpose.{1}
That evolution within certain definite limits is not impossible no one denies. Theoretically it is not repugnant that the different species of plants, for instance, should have been derived from a small number of prototypes, since they are all essentially of the same perfection. In one way or another, they all have the same powers of nutrition, augmentation, and propagation; though some possess these powers in a higher degree than others. Hence the change of a primitive type into derived species would not imply the production of totally new powers, that is, of powers which were in nowise contained in the original type. The same may be said with regard to the evolutionary origin of animal species. Given a small number of general types, it is theoretically not impossible that they might in course of time give rise to a vast variety of subordinate species; because animals like plants, are all possessed of the same essential powers. Nay, looking at the matter merely from the standpoint of reason, it is not even repugnant that the human body should have been derived from some animal ancestor, in as much as its organic structure is not necessarily of an essentially higher order. I say, looking at matter merely from the standpoint of reason, for if we consult Revelation and the mind of the Church, the evolutionary origin of the human body cannot be defended, at least if it be viewed as a fact, and not merely as a theory.
So much for the theoretical view of evolution as limited to the different orders of being within their own sphere. As regards the transition from order to order, that is, the evolution of plant life into animal life, and of animal life into human life, the matter looks quite different. Such an evolution would require the production of new powers, which were in nowise contained in the producing cause, and therefore it is theoretically impossible. Thus mineral substances do not have the powers of vegetation; plants do not possess the faculties of sensitive cognition; nor are animals endowed with intellect and free will. Hence if there were a transition from order to order, we should have an effect without a sufficient cause, which is repugnant to reason. I do not say that there is no room for dispute in regard to this sort of evolution as far as animal and plant life is concerned; but there is certainly none whatever when human life comes in question, as we shall see presently.{2}
Viewing evolution as a fact, we must confine ourselves to its bearing upon the matter under discussion; and this we shall do if we make the following statements, of which the last one alone needs to be considered in detail. First, there is no trace of any evolutionary process in the sense that life is the product of non-life; second, no positive proof has ever been advanced to show that animal life was evolved out of plant life; third, there is no indication of any kind which can be interpreted as a proof that human life has been derived from mere animal life. No scientist, who values his reputation for veracity, dares assert that he has found proof positive of any such evolution. There are, indeed, certain facts in the different orders of being, which might very well be explained on the evolutionary hypothesis, but they can be just as satisfactorily explained on the theory of creation. On the other hand, so great are the difficulties that stand in the way of this sort of evolution, even if limited to animal and plant life, that it is practically devoid of all probability; whereas if applied to human life, the arguments against it are so strong and convincing that no man, who is unbiased and can grasp the force of an argument, will ever seriously defend the evolutionary origin of the human species.{3}
To form an idea of the difficulties which Evolutionists must try to explain away in order to eliminate the creative act, we need but call to mind the original condition of the universe, as commonly described by scientists who have investigated the matter.{4} Time was when there was absolutely nothing in existence besides the elements of which lifeless matter is composed. Look at the universe as it then wheeled through space, a shapeless mass of incandescent vapor! Can any man, in his right mind, believe that there were contained within that glowing furnace the remotest beginnings of human life? Yet if the evolutionary theory be true, human life must have been there in some form or shape; because human life, Evolutionists say, was evolved out of that matter -- it is the effect produced by the causality of that matter, and the effect must be precontained in its cause.
Again, look at man as he exists to-day, and as he has existed as far back as history can unseal the distant past. Dare you assert that he does not belong to an order of beings essentially higher than that to which belongs the clod of earth he spurns with his foot? Dare any one pretend that there is no such a thing as thought and judgment; no such a thing as free choice, resulting in virtue or vice? Yet if man is the product of evolution, he cannot belong to an order of beings essentially higher than that of mineral substances; he cannot act in a manner essentially different from that of inanimate matter -- he can neither think, nor will, nor choose, nor practice virtue, nor sin; because such power is not contained in lifeless matter, and the effect cannot be superior to its cause, either in the perfection of its being, or in the order of its activity.
Nor can the difficulty be obviated by stating that man is an evolution of the highest order of animal life. For whence did animal life come? Is it an evolution of plant life? And is this in its turn an evolution of mineral matter? If so, then we are precisely where we were before; because in that case, human life, as well as animal and plant life, was originally contained in the potencies of brute matter. Or was animal life created, and in course of time so perfected by an evolutionary process that man was the final result? If you say this, you shorten the chain indeed, but you do not lessen the difficulty. Are brute beasts endowed with intellect and free will? Are they capable of forming spiritual ideas and abstract judgments? Do they practice virtue or commit sin? Have you ever discovered any sign of spiritual activity in bird or beast? No one who studies the matter with an unbiased mind, and understands the meaning of intellect and free will, has ever yet credited them with such powers. Some of them do, indeed, show wonderful ingenuity along certain lines, yet the very fact that there is no progress whatever, either in individuals or classes, shows conclusively that their actions proceed entirely from instinct and sense experience. Of intellect and free will there is not a trace.{5} And yet if animals do not possess these powers, it is sheer folly to say that human nature is the evolutionary product of animal life; because the effect cannot surpass its cause. The fundamental mistake of Evolutionists lies in the false supposition that the human soul is material in its nature. The moment any one asserts that a mere modification of elementary substances, such as is involved in the very concept of evolution, can be productive of a human soul, he takes it for granted that the human soul is the same in kind as these elements themselves. For a mere modification of material elements, no matter how radical it be, cannot result in anything spiritual; because, as was shown in the preceding chapter, a spirit is a simple and indivisible entity, wholly independent of matter. Yet the human soul, as was proved before, is most certainly spiritual in its nature, and therefore, to use a homely phrase, you can no more evolve it out of matter than you can squeeze blood out of a turnip.
In fact, so strong are these various objections against evolution, in as far as it applies to man, that there are very few scientists, worthy of the name, who defend the evolutionary origin of the human species. There is, indeed, much loud talking in its favor, but that is mostly done by newspaper-scientists, who are bitterly conscious of the fact that the only means at their disposal to attract the world's attention is to be sensational.
Setting aside, therefore, the theory of evolution, as wholly inadequate to explain the origin of human nature, we might without further ado conclude that man was created. For we have proved already that man was certainly produced, and that he was certainly not produced by an evolutionary process; and as there is no other possible mode of production by which he might have been called into existence except creation, we are forced to fall back upon the creative act as the only sufficient reason that can account of his origin. I call attention to this fact because the direct proof for creation is necessarily somewhat metaphysical and may, therefore, perhaps not appeal so strongly to the general reader. In itself, however, the proof is very strong, and cannot be gainsaid by any one who can grasp the force of metaphysical argument.
In order to make the reasoning as clear as the abstract nature of the subject permits, it will be best to consider separately the two essential parts of which man is composed. Man is one being, yet he is made up of two distinct elements, soul and body. We shall first endeavor to prove the creation of the soul; and for that purpose we must recall what was said in the first chapter concerning the nature of the human soul, namely, that it is a simple and indivisible substance, endowed with an intellect and free will. It is upon this point that the argument turns, in as much as a spirit cannot be fashioned from preexisting material, but if produced at all, it must be made out of nothing, and therefore it must be created. For if we suppose that a spirit was made of Pre-existing material, that material was either a spirit or it was matter; if it was a spirit nothing could. be made out of it; because all production in which pre-existing material is employed presupposes parts in that material. A block of marble, for example, could not possibly be transformed into a statue, if it had no parts that admitted of being chiseled and shaped and modified. Yet a spirit is without parts, it is simple and indivisible; hence the soul could in no way have been made of material that was spiritual in its nature. Nor could said material have been matter; because matter cannot be changed into a spirit; they belong to totally different orders of being, whereas that which is made out of something else must at least in part agree with the same in its essential properties Thus no matter how such a block of marble may be modified when transformed into a statue, it is marble still. Consequently in the production of the human soul, no pre-existing material was employed, and therefore it was created.
Nor will it do to fall back upon Pantheistic theories, maintaining that man was made of God's own substance; because the same difficulty recurs. Either God is a spirit or He is matter; if He is a spirit, then He cannot be divided; if He is matter, then man's soul should also be matter; yet it is a spirit; as was shown before. Neither can the human soul have proceeded from God by way of generation, as some have foolishly maintained. For if that were the origin of our souls, we should all be true gods of true God, and, as a consequence, we should all be infinitely perfect and perfectly happy, which we are certainly not. Hence the human soul was not only produced, but it was produced out of nothing, it was created.
To this some will likely enough object that it is hard to conceive how anything can be made out of nothing. Well, it is hard, yet this difficulty does not arise from any intrinsic impossibility of such a production in itself, but from the evident fact that our intellects are finite. Certainly no one has ever yet shown that the concept of creation involves a contradiction, and therefore it cannot be said to be impossible. The fact that we do not fully understand its inmost nature, is no more an objection against creation than it is against the thousand and one facts which we admit every day of our lives though we are not able to explain them. As far as our positive knowledge of the points in question goes, the creation of the universe is hardly more of a mystery than the every-day fact of nutrition. Listen to what a man versed in medical science has to say on the nutrition of an infant that lives entirely on milk. It is sufficiently striking to prepare us for greater marvels than the materialistic philosophy of Evolutionists has ever dreamt of. He says: "How wonderful that so common and simple a thing as milk should hold in solution all the elements necessary to the composition of an ear, an eye, or a tooth -- that this despised substance should be capable of being changed, by commixture with the juices of the body, and by exposure to common air in the lungs, into blood -- and that from this single fluid should be produced all those diversified and heterogeneous matters which make up the entire body -- the brittle bones, the soft and pulpy brain, the hard and horny nails, the silky hair, the flesh, the fat, the skin, everything in fact from the corn on my lord's toe to the down on my lady's cheek -- from the sweat on the brow of labor to the dew on the lip of beauty." {6} Surely "it is hard to conceive" how from so plebeian a thing as milk there can result parts so diversified as make up the chubby figure of a little cherub; yet we admit it without demur: why then should we take exception to the mystery of creation? As a concept, it is not more repugnant than nutrition, and as a fact, it is established by arguments equally as strong.
Whatever way, therefore, we may consider the matter, reason cannot account for the existence of the human soul except by referring its origin to a creative act. This would, strictly speaking, suffice for our present purpose. If the soul was created, then man must make religion an essential part of his life; because man is what he is by reason of his soul. From it the body receives all that elevates it above the condition of brute matter, and therefore it also must render tribute to the Creator. However, it may without much difficulty be shown that the very matter, of which the human body is composed, must also be referred to creation as the ultimate reason of its existence. Holy Scripture tells us, indeed, that the body of Adam was formed of the slime of the earth, yet the earth itself, and all that it contains, must originally have been drawn out of nothingness; and so must all finite beings that make up the universe. For they are all subject to change, they are all limited and essentially dependent; consequently they cannot contain within themselves the source of their being but must be the effect of some pre-existing cause, which, being uncaused, possesses the power to actuate whatever involves no contradiction.
I know there are not wanting scientists who speak of matter as though it were self-existent, but they have more eloquence than logic; more self-conceit than science. No one can deny, and in fact no one does deny, that every single being of which we have any experience, depends upon something distinct from itself. All mundane beings whatever, from the highest to the lowest, have dependence engraven upon their nature. Matter itself is dependent and changeable; it may be modified in a thousand different ways, as any physicist and chemist can prove by an endless variety of experiments. But if matter be changeable and dependent, it cannot be self-existent, because it is limited in perfection. The very fact that a being is the source of its own existence, implies infinite perfection in that being; because there is nothing whatever to give it limitation. All limitation must necessarily arise from opposition, which is ultimately determined by the producing cause. Thus, for instance, color, as a physical quality, is limited because it is opposed to every other physical quality, such as sound or odor; and that limitation is derived from the cause which gives color its existence. Now if a being is self-existent, such opposition is impossible, because the very concept of self-existence excludes, in its regard, all productive causality.
Perhaps you will say that self-existent matter is limited because such is its nature. But, pray, why should its nature be such? There must be a reason for it; yet that reason you cannot find in self-existence: for self-existence is a perfection, it is perfection as such, and therefore it cannot, of it self, exclude other perfections, but must include them all. Hence if matter were self-existent, it should be infinitely perfect and absolutely unchangeable; and as it is neither one nor the other, we must perforce conclude that it was drawn out of nothingness by the omnipotent fiat of the Creator, even as was the human soul.
Man is, therefore, in the strictest sense of the term, a creature. There is absolutely nothing in the human compound that cannot be referred to creation as the ultimate reason of its existence. Each single soul, as it comes into being, is the immediate product of a creative act; and the body, though proximately formed of pre-existing matter, must yet by reason of that matter be referred to a similar act. Consequently, human nature is totally dependent on the Creator, and if such dependence is the source of religious obligations, then man must make religion an essential part of his life.
{1} The following remarks on evolution were written some six years ago, and I had at first intended to recast them somewhat, but when I read Dr. Dwight's able treatment of the subject, I found that my statements and conclusions were perfectly in harmony with his, which induced me to leave them as they were.
{2} The foregoing reasoning is very clearly put by Dr. Dwight, op. cit. pp. 148 foll., who examines the matter from a scientific standpoint, and thus reinforces his philosophical conclusions by scientific demonstrations.
{3} Dr. Dwight puts this very strikingly, when he says: "The general teaching of experts in the study of animals like ants, bees, and wasps, which have highly developed instincts, is that they show no signs of reason when they find themselves under strange conditions. Reason, involving as it does general ideas, can by no possibility have been evolved. The Church teaches that each human soul has been created. Reason tells us that, as far as we can see, there is no other way to account for its origin." Op. cit. pp. 156, 157.
{4} Those who do not admit the Nebular Hypothesis will, of course, take exception to the inferences drawn therefrom; but that exception does not invalidate the argument set forth in the text. For the science of Geology shows clearly enough that there was a time when the earth was utterly devoid of all living forms, and hence the gulf between living and non-living beings still remains.
{5} A practical demonstration of this is had in the downfall of the "Kluge Hans." In 1904 the world was startled by the announcement that in Berlin a certain Herr von Osten had succeeded in teaching a Russian stallion to read and cipher with as much readiness as any child of twelve or fourteen years. It was further claimed that this marvelous horse could distinguish between such abstract concepts as beautiful, ugly, pleasant, disagreeable; besides being able to tell the value of different coins. To reach this degree of mental development four years of daily training had been required; but so astonishing were the results that even sober-minded scientists gave it as their opinion that the fact of animal intelligence had been demonstrated.
However, to make assurance doubly sure, a committee of scientists was appointed to investigate the matter thoroughly. And what was the result? After a few trial questions it was found that the Kluge Hans could give no answer unless he was in a position to watch his trainer. From this the committee concluded that the answers were in some way suggested by the trainer's looks or movements. To make sure of this, questions were asked to which the trainer himself did not know the answer, although they were fully within the range of Hans' supposed mental development. Of course, no answer was forthcoming. Then familiar questions were again proposed, but whilst the answers were given, the trainer was closely watched. The result was illuminating. Every answer given by Hans was preceded by a slight movement or by a look of the trainer. These were indeed entirely unconscious on the part of Herr von Osten, but for all that they were quite sufficient to give the Kluge Hans his cue.
Hence the laconic report of the committee: "The expected proof that animals have intelligence has not been supplied by Hans. -- On the contrary, he has placed animal enthusiasts in a much worse position than they were in before. Because if such magisterial ability and pains-taking care, as Herr von Osten exhibited in his four years' training, could not elicit the slightest trace of intelligence in the Kluge Hans, the assertion of philosophers that animals are radically incapable of rational thought appears to have been demonstrated by the most striking experiment." Report of the Investigating Committee, by Pfungst, pp. 171, 187.
{6} Dr. E. Johnson, quoted by Mgr. Vaughan, in Life After Death, pp. 27, 28.