Click here to go to part 1 of Theistic Evolution and the Mystery of FAITH

The Mission of the FAITH Movement — a new but orthodox theology?

Could the Catholic Church have been misleading mankind for nineteen centuries by teaching the Genesis accounts of Creation and the Flood as real historical facts? Cannot modern science better describe and explain the origins of the Universe? Don't we have proof that time began with a 'big bang' about 15 thousand million years ago? Should we not seek an 'Hegelian dialectic' between these opposing truths, a new synthesis from Divine Creation and Materialistic Evolution, which will displace these naive traditional beliefs — in short, a New Theology? Modernists have attempted this since the last century. However, the FAITH Movement, founded in Surrey, England, in 1972, aims to achieve this end but also retain orthodox doctrines.

This organisation of priests and lay people works ". . . to foster the Catholic faith and spiritual life of many people, through youth work, adult education, retreats, conferences and publications." [40]

Most of the latter are pamphlets under some forty titles, including three on Science and Religion by [Rev.] Roger Nesbitt. The catalogue summarises his Evolution and the existence of God (first published by CTS in 1971) thus:

"Argues from Evolution as a fact, that the whole process would be impossible without the existence of the Supreme Mind we call God." [41]

Evolution and Original Sin (Faith pamphlets, 1977) is described:

"Outlines the teaching of the Church in this difficult area and then shows how a correct understanding of Evolution harmonises perfectly with Original Sin." [42]

A bimonthly review is also published, edited for many years by Rev. Edward Holloway, and now by Fr. Timothy Finegan, which continues to promote theistic evolutionism. Their flyer attributes the loss of faith in the Western world particularly to: "... the breakdown of the neo-scholastic synthesis of philosophy and theology."

In their view, evangelization: "calls for a new presentation of the revealed Wisdom of Christian tradition in a way that makes sense of the modern world. All major theologians of our time (Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar) have sought to develop such a synthesis." [see Note 61]

The flyer continues by explaining:

"The particular focus of the FAITH movement is a new synthesis of science and the Catholic faith as defined and proclaimed by the Church's Magisterium. Inspired by the seminal work of Fr. Edward Holloway, the FAITH Movement offers a perspective of creation through evolution."

The work referred to is his 500-page tome: Catholicism: a New Synthesis, published in 1969. Like the pamphlets of Fr. Nesbitt, its entire raison d'être is dependent on its basic premise: that evolution is a fact, so a new theology must be developed to accommodate it. The book does not provide any scientific evidence or rational arguments in favour of the theory. Fr. Nesbitt's pamphlet Evolution and the Existence of God offers the usual 'evidence' of comparative anatomy, likenesses of embryos and cells, genetics, classification and the fossil records, and argues that:

"... our modern world transformed by science and technology is witness to the fact that man's knowledge is real and genuine ...As far as evolution is concerned the overall outline is clear, and so are many of the details, even if there is still a great deal more to learn." [43]

This statement fails to make the distinction between valid scientific theories which have had real practical application, and the philosophy of evolution, which is not even a proper scientific, hypothesis, being unobservable, not empirically testable, unfalsifiable, and lacking predictability. Despite the indisputable link between evolution and atheism, both of these writers argue that, on the contrary, evolution should be understood as proof for the existence of God, and encourages a better appreciation' of the grandeur of His Creation.

They rightly point out that the interdependence of the components of the natural world and its operation by a highly ordered system of laws contradicts the argument that the Universe came about by chance events. However, instead of concluding that this manifests the supreme Creative power of God, their thesis is that Evolution is one of the laws God built into the Universe: what they call a 'Unity Law of Control and Direction', which itself must have been derived from a 'Supreme Eternal Being. Fr. Nesbitt opines:

"The evolution of matter through time as an ordered ascent to ever more perfect forms would be impossible without a Centre of Control and Direction which can foresee the future developments in terms of the initial poising of the elements." [44]

It is agreed, even by atheists, that the natural world shows the appearance of design, order and purpose. The real question for science is whether the evidence fits better the evolution model or the creation model. But the religious implications of evolution mean that a Catholic may not judge the issue in isolation from the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which come to us on the authority of His Church. We must note that Fr. Holloway does not claim his "new synthesis" to be inerrant, but submits his work to the ultimate judgement of Rome. In his conclusion, he even invites:

"men of goodwill, theologians and scientists, Christians and non-Christians to add, correct, deepen, and enrich. For his own part, the writer yearns to listen and exchange more than expound... It is certain that better scholars and deeper, holier men could much improve and further refine on what is written in this thesis. God grant that they may do so, and quickly!" [45]

Documents previously cited in this article show that many scientists have already corrected the basic error of this "new synthesis" — belief in Evolution — and many theologians over this century have shown how it leads to errors in philosophy and doctrine. There is no purpose in analysing the theological ramifications developed by Fr. Holloway and Fr. Nesbitt if their arguments, albeit logical consequences of their prior convictions, are based on false premises or unreliable authorities.

Evolutionist Fathers from the East?

According to the flyer, the FAITH Movement claims there is much support for their views not only from modern science but in the Bible and the early Church.

"Thus linking Creation, Incarnation, Salvation, Church and Sacraments in one coherent theology, we seek to present a dynamic and attractive vision of the faith ... The outlines of this perspective are found in many writings throughout Scripture and Tradition, especially in the Eastern Fathers. In the West it would be named 'Scotist' from the thought of Blessed John Duns Scotus who, among other saints and doctors of the Church, championed this synthetic view."

The FAITH position is the synthesis of human evolution with Catholicism. It would be interesting to read documented evidence to support the opinion that many writings of Scripture and the Church Fathers outline belief in the evolution of man from an animal, and that several saints and doctors of the Church defended this view!

It is true that the Church Fathers held various opinions on the best interpretation of the Days of Creation in Genesis. The Alexandrian school favoured an allegorical exegesis, believing that God created all things simultaneously, while the literal school, centered in Antioch, attempted to relate the six days to contemporary scientific understanding, including belief in the four Aristotelian 'elements' and 'spontaneous generation'! In this 'concordist' approach, such natural secondary causes, were employed to explain the reiterated commands of God, e.g. "Let the earth bring forth...".

However, these are given only on the real days of the Creation week, not delegated to an evolutionary time scale. The acts of God are successive additions cx nihilo, not developments from the previous forms of life. Scientists since Pasteur have rejected the possibility of spontaneous generation. Attempts by Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries to reconcile vast evolutionary ages with the Creation days (day-age theories) were rife with contradictions and now gain little credence among theistic evolutionists.

There is no evidence that any of the Church Fathers, even Scotus, believed that man evolved from an ape, yet this is a basic premise of the FAITH position. According to authorities, Scotus was not an evolutionist, and did not question Traditional beliefs

"The Fathers concur in teaching that God immediately created the first man, both as to body and soul." Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, L. Ott, 4th Edn., 1960, p.95.

"Both Thomists and Scotists were in the full sense scholastics, faithful to the authority of the pope and the traditional teaching of the Church, while at the same time recognising Aristotle's supremacy in philosophical questions. In general it may be said that, while St. Thomas gave the first place to knowledge and reason, Scotus gave it to love and the will... Nevertheless, the difference between the two schools moves within very narrow limits, and can be of little interest for those who are outside scholastic systems of thought." Virtue's Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1965, p. 922.

While it is certainly possible that the understanding of a doctrine may be deepened or developed through research, insights or even private revelation, the Church has laid down strict safeguards against any attempt to contradict previously held beliefs. This was recognised long ago as a pretext of the Modernists, especially under the influence of their adherence to the doctrine of evolutionism.

"The doctrines of the faith which God has revealed have not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth." Vatican Council 1870, Denzinger 1800.

"Fourthly, I accept sincerely the doctrine of faith transmitted from the apostles through the orthodox fathers, always in the same sense and interpretation, even to us; and so I reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first had... I disapprove likewise that method of studying and interpreting Sacred Scripture, which disregards the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, and adheres to the fictions of the rationalists..." The Oath Against the Errors of Modernism, Pope St. Pius X, 1910. Denzinger 1954, 2145, 2146.

Key to the Mystery of FAITH

The aforementioned works of Fr. Holloway and Fr. Nesbitt provide no new evidence for evolution from scientific research or Biblical exegesis. Their ideas had been proclaimed from public platforms and printed literature for over twenty years, even in a Catholic Truth Society pamphlet, without mention of their true source. No Church Father, canonised Saint or Magisterial teaching has ever taught that the world evolved over 15 billion years or that Adam had animal parents. What authority could gainsay the Word of God, which the Theory of Evolution appears to contradict?

The answer was revealed in a booklet published in 1988, entitled God's Master Key: The Law of Control and Direction, by Mrs. Agnes Holloway, "a humble South London housewife and mother." [46] She claimed to have received a new revelation from God in 1929 - "which unlocks the wisdom of modern science and the full orthodox Catholic Faith." She understood that her son, the future Fr. Edward Holloway, was to disseminate this message to the world.

While not judging the sincerity of mother and son, one is bound in prudence to question the basis of any new doctrine which requires us to jettison traditional beliefs in the foundational texts of Holy Scripture. Any comments made herein should not be taken as personal criticisms; as Fr. Holloway says:

"This vision does not belong to any man or woman as their personal theological school. It is, if true, simply a God-given indication of the authentic line of development in the doctrine of the Church needed by the Second Vatican Council, and all but destroyed by Theological Humanism. It belongs to the Church, and to mankind." [47]

We also humbly claim to belong to the Church and mankind, and intend to exercise our right to examine more closely the claims of FAITH which appear to be inconsistent with Catholic teaching. Readers are welcome to check the facts for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

The booklet contains about forty AS pages in which Mrs. Holloway expounds on science, theology and an exegesis of Genesis 1-3, followed by 15 pages of "Answers to certain questions", and 30 pages of autobiography. Fr. Holloway provided a 6-page introduction, and commentary by footnotes. It must be appreciated that it is on the authority of this private revelation that the credibility of the FAITH position depends, as we do not find theistic evolution to be in agreement with true science, reason, Scripture or Tradition.

Uncritical acceptance of popular secular science

In his introduction, Fr. Holloway explains that his mother's ideas took shape from their conversations in 1940 in which she attempted to understand the language of scholastic philosophy he had learned in Rome.

"Some other terms and language would have been taken from her humble efforts to learn something about science from the popular magazines and reviews of the 1930's. She did not read them until after this revelation was given her which was in the year 1929. She then began to look for some sort of corroboration from the sciences for this vision. I can remember The Science of Life edited by H. G. Wells and J. Huxley being around the house in weekly parts. I also read it with interest.

Another popular journal of the time which sometimes made pretensions to be serious philosophical reading was John O' London's Weekly. My mother had neither the money nor the education for more serious reading in the philosophy of science, or in the relationship between science and theology. Her education had been RC Elementary School of around 1900 to 1910, It did not take one very far. Besides, she would not have had the knowledge to distinguish between the reliable and the slanted in more specialised works." [48]

It appears that the parish clergy were unable to supply answers to the problems for the Faith posed then by rampant rationalists like Wells and Huxley, who were like the TV pundits (e.g. Attenborough and Dawkins) of today. 'Edward had such ideas in mind at junior Seminary, when he read modern psychologists - Freud, Jung and Adler - and later in Rome, when he first studied physics.

"I had never heard of the periodic table of the elements, but I had now heard of the 'Unity-Law' that worked through evolution. I realised with a thrill that the evidence of the table of the elements alone, meant that the Universe was a great Equation, and equations are not random! The Universe was centred in a Unity of Mind!" [49]

Edward, now convinced that evolution was true and prepared by his mother's claims, readily absorbed novel ideas in the seminaries in Rome and at Stonyhurst.

"I found myself being introduced to a theology of the Church that developed the Fathers above all, and was much deeper than the post-Reformation Catholic theology concerning the Fall of Man and the nature of Original Sin... I developed my own rapid and sweeping synthesis of the complex of ideas given to me. At times they flatly contradicted certain party lines of the speculative theology taught to me. They never contradicted the Faith." [50]

We now know that this "New Synthesis" actually came into being in the 1930's, and was based on the naturalistic Darwinist doctrine of secular rationalists, uncorrected by sound Catholic philosophy. Its proponents had no formal training in science, but derived their understanding of evolution from popular magazines. With the conviction that they had been inspired by God, their philosophy and theology had become conditioned to reject ideas of origins which discounted evolution.

"My mother did tell me, as I have said, before I went to Rome, that it would be my duty first to develop and to defend this complex of doctrine and insights into the loving wisdom of God. If it is true, it is not a new public revelation. It is a master correction of the Divine Word Incarnate, through the Holy Spirit, to the development of doctrine of faith and morals in this age. Without such a true and certain course the Church must falter, and is faltering in this age. It is no more than God's own indication of the true line of development in wisdom, love, and understanding. My mother once said to me that she did not think there was a single thing in it, which great and holy minds could not have worked out for themselves, but they did not. She thought they lacked holiness and humility equal to the challenge." [51]

Is it impertinent to wonder if no Catholic scientist, philosopher theologian, Pope or canonised Saint in 1900 years had been given this "correction", without which "the Church must falter" because none were so holy and humble as Mrs. Agnes Holloway and her 'beloved son' Edward?

Inspiration of the Holy Ghost?

The 'Master Key' statement of Mrs. Holloway, dated 1940, does show some logical progression of ideas in an attempt to relate evolution to Genesis, though each section consists mostly of very short paragraphs or sentences, some reasonable or banal, others obscure or 'profound'. We shall only comment on the most significant passages.

"I am told during these revelations that acting through and with all known laws of Nature there is a law, a vital principle, of which all other laws, also Time and Space, are but the instruments. It is The Law of Control and Direction — Two aspects of one reality — One Law. The constant succession of the same phenomena necessarily supposes a constant cause producing them, this constant cause Science calls a law. The custom of scientists of today to speak of all things in terms of electrons etc. leaves the laws of Nature untouched." [52]

This Law of Control and Direction, mentioned fifty times in the statement, is used to impute some process to having been caused by God, as part of His evolutionary plan. It says much the same as "God makes evolution happen," which is no more a scientific explanation than saying "God did it." As a religious doctrine, it is a complete novelty, nowhere to be found in Scripture or Tradition.

Agnes's authenticity as a seer was doubtless built upon her piety and reputed supernatural gifts. In her autobiography, she reports several "strange things" from when Edward was about ten years old, including answers to prayers, a vision of a lost object, a talking statue of Our Lady, the voice of her guardian angel, and precognition of future events. She attended Catholic Evidence Guild meetings, though she was not an outdoor speaker. She describes the 'moment of truth' thus:

"There had been much discussion in the press at about this time of the theory of Evolution and Darwin's book was causing much excitement. Our speakers were coming against it at their outdoor meetings. One evening there had been much discussion about it at our meeting, as to how it would affect the Christian faith. I was — like all my friends in the Guild — strongly against it. One evening after one of these discussions I was having my supper and picked up a Catholic paper, "The Universe". There was an article by a leading Catholic theologian who was rather in favour of the theory. I read it through rather indifferently, to the end which ended with the words "How much is mind and how much is matter, that is the question on which Christianity will depend in the next fifty tears and must stand or fall."

Yes, I said to myself, I wonder how much is mind and how much is matter? Immediately I heard the words "That which controls". I was puzzled by this and repeated the words "That which controls". Again the voice said "a thing cannot be its own cause and its own control. It must come into contact with that which it controls, but cannot be caused by it, this is a universal law." My soul was filled with wonder and by the Holy Presence of God which I had before experienced when the voice spoke to me. I knew these words held the key to the theory of Evolution. I would there and then have died for the truth of it, whereas .five minutes before I would have given my life against it" [53]

She reports that the voice spoke again the next day and she was able to ask it questions.

"This went on at intermittent times for about five or six months.., when... I had to listen and write down what I heard. I began to know this Divine presence as that of the Blessed Trinity, indeed my knowledge of God since is always that of the undivided Trinity. There seems little mystery about it to me. But of course this is because of my ignorance and lack of education." [54]

It is not necessary to analyse the whole of God's Master Key here, but simply to quote two passages which particularly give reason to doubt its authenticity as "the inspiration of the Holy Ghost." [55] They also typify the peculiar stylistic qualities and scientific understanding of the visionary.

"The effect of The Law of Control and Direction on the brain of man is shown to me in this way. Science has said and it is undoubtedly a fact that man has evolved from a lower species of animal now extinct. There is every evidence to support this theory. Man is organic to the world, he belongs to its process, he has his roots in its order and draws his life blood from it. The life principle within him has its seeds in the Universe itself, inside it.

Man is the highest outcome of the process of evolution, and it is reasonable to judge the character of the process from the stage of it of which we have knowledge.

There is a characteristic about him which distinguishes him from the other species of animals.

Although undoubtedly a product of Nature, because his natural evolution from the ovum is in keeping with the order of the Universe he himself is a contradiction to the natural order...

I have said that man is organic to the world, he belongs to its process, he is in all material aspects like unto the animals in as much as his organism resembles theirs.

There is this difference, it is found on examination that his brain is larger than theirs, the brain cells I understand are the same in number but the development greater.

An eminent scientist has said that he believes the key to the whole explanation is in the brain of man.

It does seem to be so, and is indeed so, if the explanation given to me is true." [56]

The argument seems to follow this logical fallacy: 1. Of all animals, only man is rational; 2. Reason and intelligence are sited in the brain; 3. Therefore the only material distinction is his larger brain.

In fact, the normal human brain is neither the largest among animals in proportion to body mass nor by direct comparison, and there are many other unique human physical and other features. [57]

The account she gives of the origin of our first parents differs considerably from the inerrant Word of God in Genesis:

"It is shown to me that the first soul of the first man was breathed into him in the womb as it is today. Let us in our mind's eye vision to ourselves the manlike creature which directly preceded man.

Its organic structure will greatly resemble man, its brain will have reached that state of development on reaching maturity which is the highest possible in the animal world without being detrimental to its natural existence. It will naturally have a developed sense of direction, this is necessary to prevent the greater development of its brain from destroying it.

As the first man grew from babyhood to maturity there came a time when with the dawn of reason he is conscious for the first time of the urge to be good which is directed by his sense of direction to his intelligence, and he realises he is free to obey or not.

The first human female was born of the same species as the first man. The two, male and female, because of their natural association would grow up together, and under the guidance of God become the first of our race, the parents of mankind," [58]

The unresolved logical problems of the development of a true human being from animal parents were recognised a century ago, and are not answered by mere assertions. Nor are their implications unrelated to moral issues. One of the FAITH clergy at a meeting was once asked the question: As according to you, Adam and Eve's parents were only animals, would they have been entitled to kill their father or mother and eat them for dinner? The answer given, not without some hesitation, was — "YES!"

Spiritual influences - how may we judge if they are from God?

There are many ways in which a person can be affected by the supernatural. Not all apparent miracles, visions and locutions are necessarily holy, nor need they be signs of sanctity in the recipient. The devil uses subtle tactics in tempting more spiritually advanced souls under the appearance of good. Even some canonised Saints have at times had some visions judged to have been deceptions of the devil. The golden rule is that the Deposit of Faith, and the hierarchical and official Church, are above private revelation. In other words, true obedience and the rule of faith are used to judge the truth of a vision. Opposition to them proves the vision to be false.

St. Ignatius Loyola wrote several Rules for Discerning Spiritual Influences, and points out that the evil spirit, after moving us to do good, tries gradually to drag the soul to his secret designs and corrupt purposes. When the soul is prepared by preceding awareness or knowledge of anything which might induce consolation, the bad spirit can produce such consolation in the soul. The fruits must be considered as a whole - if they be not entirely good, it is a sign of an evil spirit. Even Saints have been fooled by evil in the guise of good. [59]

Even if the Church were to approve this vision, there is no precedent for thereby changing the meaning of the public revelation of the deposit of Faith. "Private revelations do not belong to the Catholic faith strictly so called... Such revelations can often help a Catholic in his devotional life, but they are not an essential part of the Christian Faith." [60]

Reactions of Fr. Holloway's superiors

Mrs. Holloway recalls in her autobiography:

"From the age of eighteen onwards, from the time he entered the senior seminary any utterance of these ideas in the presence of superiors has brought upon him suspicion and ridicule. He was even not allowed to take a degree [doctorate] because they thought he would teach heresy and ruin the minds of the students." [61]

Fr. Holloway notes that he sent to Pope Pius XII,

"...in 1946 a very full summary of the ideas and their basic development," and: "Again in 1950, a copy of a sort of prototype of Catholicism: a New Synthesis ... To the letter of 1946 I received a verbal acknowledgement from Archbishop Godfrey over the telephone. To the 1950 and any subsequent correspondence, usually to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I did not ever receive any acknowledgement. At the insistence of Cardinal John Wright, I did receive a formal acknowledgement from the Secretariat of State, when I presented a copy of Catholicism to Paul VI. It was however, curt and even unfriendly in tone, — stone cold." [62]

It is difficult to see how Pope Pius XII could give his approval to a book that forthrightly disobeyed his clear demands expressed in Humani Generis that evolution was not to be taken as a proven fact. Yet, clearly, Fr. Holloway did not see it that way. In his mind, the Church had lost its way. Why? Because Rome had not heeded the advice of Agnes Holloway and her son. With quite breathtaking arrogance he states:

"I would say that the prototype of Catholicism: a New Synthesis which reached Pius XII about the time of Humani Generis, would, if it had been taken seriously and in all humility [italics in original] have given the Holy See the essential vision on which to base a new framework of speculative Catholic philosophy and theology in time for the Second Vatican Council. "Prophets in rags" have never been accepted in the Old Covenant or the New. Yet, God has never spoken to His Church through any other medium. Rome did have the warning it needed, and the material it needed before 1960, but took no notice of it." [63]

Our Rule: Respect the Mind of the Church

Obviously, Evolution is not the only doctrinal issue on which Catholics have become confused in the recent past, nor is such a situation unique in the history of the Church. However, this theory was recognised by Pope St. Pius X as of fundamental importance as being the root of Modernism, which has re-emerged as the neo-Modernism of our day. It is not difficult to see the parallels with Fr. Holloway's 'new synthesis' when reading these words of the Holy Father:

"First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself...

Hence, by those who study more closely the ideas of the modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. [cf. 'direction' and 'control'?]...

Hence, for them to speak and to write publicly is a bounden duty. Let authority rebuke them if it please - they have their own conscience on their side and an intimate experience which tells them with certainty that what they deserve is not blame but praise...

Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' [64]

Over the past century, many theologians have claimed that evolution can be reconciled with the teaching of the Church, but not one has been able to answer the serious problems that theistic evolution has raised. Evolutionists in secular science continue ever more stridently debunking religious faith, and entirely ignoring the "new synthesis" supposedly revealed by the Holy Trinity nearly seventy years ago. Now that thousands of scientists the world over have recognised evolution as an atheistic 'creation myth', this is no time to claim it as Christian doctrine! If our youth are not to lose the faith, we must have realistic answers to contemporary scientific ideas. If we are to reach out to convert fellow Christians, we must return to the foundation of Biblical truth, the Faith of our Fathers. As St. Ignatius Loyola guides us:

"These scholastic doctors [St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure] not only have the advantage of a correct understanding of the Sacred Scriptures and of the positive doctors and saints but, whilst being also enlightened and assisted themselves by the power of God, they have the further assistance of the Councils, Canons and decrees of our Holy Mother the Church." [65]

May Christians rediscover sound Creation philosophy and theology, which are only found in unity with the Catholic Church, and let Natural Science again be their servant, so that our Faith may be true and worthy of Our Creator.

The author is Secretary of the Daylight Origins Society and Editor of its quarterly journal Daylight. The Society "aims to inform Catholics and others of the scientific evidence supporting Special Creation as opposed to Evolution, and that the true discoveries of Science are in conformity with Catholic doctrines." For free leaflets outlining its work, as well as literature, videos and audiocassettes available, contact: Daylight Origins Society

References and Notes

1. Scientific evidence and arguments opposed to Evolution may be found in previous issues of Christian Order and Daylight e.g. Evolution - Fact or Faith, by David Bird; Catholic Doctrines of Creation and Original Sin, A. Nevard, Daylight No. 29, pp. 13-20. Index of articles and lists of sources available.

2. e.g. Isaac Asimov's Biographical Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology,

1975, p. 371: "Pasteur's religious feelings also led him to reject Darwin's theory of evolution..

3. Prof. T. Dwight: "The tyranny of the Zeitgeist in the matter of evolution is overwhelming to a degree of which outsiders have no idea; not only does it influence (as I admit that it does in my own case) our manners of thinking, but there is oppression as in the days of the 'terror." Thoughts of a Catholic Anatomist, 1911, p. 20.

4. Prof. D. M. S. Watson; "The Theory of Evolution itself [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative is special creation, which is clearly incredible." Nature, Vol. 124. p.233, (1929).

5. A useful little book on the spread of Modernism which focuses particularly on the pan played by Teilhard de Chardin is Christ Denied, by Rev. Paul Wickens, TAN Books, 1982.

6. For a list of critical works on Teilhardism, see Daylight No. 9, pp. 20-21. We note that FAITH refers to T. de C. uncritically as 'a major theologian'— distinguished Catholics have used other epithets, such as heretic, pantheist, false prophet, rebel, racist, pro-Fascist and pro-Marxist.

7. e.g. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton.

8. see Note I.

9. e.g. Deadly Fruit of Evolutionism, A. Nevard, Daylight No. 23, Spring 1997.

10. Daylight also had a stall at the 1997 and 1998 FOOF Conferences.

11. e.g. in the award-winning video Evolution - Fact or Belief and Drama in the Rocks.

12. e.g. The Long War Against God, H. M. Morris, 1989.

13. E. Messenger, Evolution and Theology, 1931, p. 226.

14. ibid. p. 232.

15. ibid. pp. 232-233.

16. ibid. p. 233.

17. ibid. p. 230.

18. ibid. p. 80, 238.

19. ibid. p. 274 (italics in original).

20. ibid. pp. 275 (italics in original).

21. ibid. pp. 269-273.

22. ibid. p. 277.

23. ibid. p. 277 (italics in original).

24. ibid. p. 240 (italics in original).

25. ibid. p. 80

26. ibid. pp. 81, 244.

27. ibid. p. 246.

28. ibid. pp. 247-248.

29. ibid. p. 249.

30. Pope Pius XII, op. cit. para. 36.

31. "In these letters the popes exercise their ordinary teaching office, and therefore all Catholics have the duty of accepting this teaching; but an encyclical letter is not necessarily infallible." Virtue's Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1965, Vol. 2, p.373.

32. Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

33. 'Open Question' Not Papal Teaching, A. Nevard, Daylight No. 12, July

1994, pp. 22-23.

34. Quoted in Daylight No. 18, Winter 1995/6, p. 14.

35. Vol. 33, No. 3-4, pp. 246-7.

36. Quoted in Daylight No. 23, Spring 1997, p. 27.

37. e.g. The Pope and the British Press, Daylight No. 22, p. 5. We may note that this Pope's Catechism of the Catholic Church reiterates traditional doctrines regarding Creation and Genesis.

38. Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano No. 44, 30 October 1996.

39. October Revolution? A. Nevard, Daylight No. 22, Winter 1996/7, pp. 8-10.

40. The Faith Movement flyer.

41. Faith pamphlets catalogue, Summer 1997.

42. ibid. [It was in 1977 and 1978 that I exchanged some correspondence with Fr. Nesbitt about his pamphlets. His replies to my questions strengthened my conviction of the falsity of theistic evolution!]

43. op. cit. CTS 1971, p. 3.

44. ibid. p. 15.

45. E. Holloway, Catholicism: a New Synthesis. 1969, p. 503.

46. Agnes Holloway, God's Master Key - The Law of Control and Direction, faith keyway, 1988, back cover.

47. ibid. p. 15.

48. ibid. p. 6.

49. ibid. p. 8.

50. ibid. p. 8.

51. ibid. p. 9.

52. ibid. p. 14.

53. ibid. p. 92.

54. ibid. p. 94.

55. ibid. p. 13.

56. ibid. p. 22.

57. The Uniqueness of Man, A. Nevard, Daylight No. 24. Summer/Winter 1997, pp. 28-31.

58. Agnes Holloway, op. cit. pp. 35-36.

59. The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola, tr. T. Corbishley SJ., esp. 330-333. Also see Rules for Discerning the Spirits, Rev. Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle. Angelus Press 1992.

60. Virtue's Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1965, Vol. 2, p. 873.

61. Agnes Holloway, op. cit. p. 99.

62. ibid. p. 101.

63. ibid. p. 101

64. Pascendi, pp. 3 1-35

65. The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola, tr. T. Corbishley SJ, The Mind of the Church, Rule 11(363).

For further information contact Daylight Origins Society

Theotokos Catholic Books - Creation/Evolution Section - www.theotokos.org.uk