Christian anthropology

Introduction

The Church has taught for ages that between the truths of revelation and the truths of science there can be no conflict. The Vatican Council has solemnly repeated this teaching. On the other hand some men famed for scientific learning and some famed for unscientific bluster proclaim that between faith and science no reconciliation is possible. Educated Catholics may well ask, How are such assertions possible? Still it is not hard to find the explanation. If we could ascertain at once what are the truths of science and what are the truths of revelation ,their comparison would end the controversy. But what are the truths of science? Science has no infallible mouthpiece. The ablest and sincerest men of science may be mistaken. Generations of scientists have fought in defence of error. For hundreds of years they taught that the sun moves and the earth is at rest. For centuries they spoke of heat and light as imponderable substances. Linnaeus taught that species were immutable ; Lamarck, the contrary. Cuvier, Von Baer, and Agassiz returned to the teaching of Linnaeus, and now Darwin and Haeckel, reviving the views of Lamarck, proclaim the mutability of species. Who is right? Linnaeus or Lamarck? Cuvier or Haeckel? When does a scientific theory become a scientific theorem, a scientific truth? Can one great name safeguard us against error? There is not a distinguished

4 INTRODUCTION.

scientist alive who will say in cold blood, "I cannot err." Is the consensus of all men of science a guarantee that their teaching is scientific truth? The history of Ptolemy's theory bids us be prudent in our answer. Surely it is more than hazardous to maintain that a theory or view against which are raised some of the weightiest voices in science is, without possibility of error, the scientific truth.

And what are the truths of revelation? Some scientific oracles, not content with defining the truths of science, insist upon defining for us the truths of religion. No doubt they are very kind; but really we must decline their Grecian gifts. We look to the Church to tell us what are revealed truths. Reasonable men will find this reasonable. ^ When the Church has spoken, we know what revealed truth is. But there are hundreds of opinions on dogma and morals which the Church has neither approved nor condemned ; there are thousands of Biblical texts the meaning of which she has not defined. To be sure, we have the opinions of theologians, we have what is called the received interpretation of the Scriptures, which is often but another word for theological opinion. But the views of theologians, however learned and holy, are not, of necessity, revealed truths. For scholars, who 'are not controversial scientists, it is not always easy to decide what are the truths of revelation.

Since, then, it is neither easy to find the truths of science nor to find the truths of revelation in every case, it follows that it is difficult to compare them with each other. The prudent scholar, therefore, will not commit himself hastily to the proposition that there is between them an irrepressible conflict. Where religion and science seem to be at variance— and during the past half century scientists (not science) have propounded many views seemingly at variance with Script-

INTRODUCTION. 5

ure— he will first ascertain whether the dicta of scientists are the truths of science, and next whether the assumed meaning of the Bible has been officially set forth by the Church. The former he will ascertain by inquiring whether the views in question are unanimously held by all reputable authorities in science or whether weighty voices are raised in contradiction; the latter he will easily ascertain by an appeal to Church History. If he finds that the Church has defined nothing in the premises, he may examine what is the most probable and the best supported theological opinion.

Father Thein, in the present work, has followed the prudent, reasonable method we have just sketched. He has been an enthusiastic student of science, deeply interested in its progress. To anthropology above all— the science of man — he has given years of study and research. With patient toil and vigilant eye he has delved in biological, geological, and archaeological books and periodicals for whatever could throw light on the nature, the origin, and the early history of man. At the same time he has never lost sight of the teachings of Scripture and the Church. But Father Thein never saw the irreconcilable conflict between science and religion which some writers see all around them. In his book he offers to us the fruits of his studies. He sets down the most important facts and theories in modern anthropology. He constantly cites the great masters of anthropological science. He discusses the views of modern thinkers, frequently by laying before the reader the divergent opinions of other thinkers of acknowledged merit. He gives title and page for his references. Thus, while freely giving his own opinion on the points at issue, he enables the reader to judge for himself what is and what is not demonstrated scientific truth

5 INTRODUCTION.

Father Thein's presentation of the theological side of the controversy is safe and conservative. It is based on the writings of such authorities as the Abb6 Vigouroux, Professor Hettinger, the Jesuits Pianeiani, Brucker, Comely, Knabenbauer, Hummelauer, and other contributors to the " Stimmen aus Maria-Laach," " La Controversy" and the " Revue des Questions Scientifiques. "

Though the reader may not in every instance agree with the author's judgments, Thein's " Christian Anthropology " is a mine of information, eminently useful to educated Catholics. It is a store-house of knowledge on every- day questions of scientifico-religious controversy, and a monument of learning, of study, and of research.

Charles George Herbermann.

Preface

The condition of the world to-day is known. Everywhere we see infidelity rising up against God's revelation. The weapons which in former centuries were shattered and rendered useless, are diligently searched for in the ruins of the past, and are refurbished with new phrases and shibboleths, in order to be employed once more in the warfare against Christianity. New objections are invented against the Christian religion. Men of science dig into the depths of the earth, and into the history of all times and nations, to find new weapons against Christ's Church. What history does not furnish is supplied by falsehood and misrepresentation.

The Sacred Scriptures have been the special target of infidelity. It is against them that rationalistic criticism directs the full force of its efforts. This has been the case since the foundation of the Church. From the moment paganism became acquainted with them it ridiculed them. Apion, the grammarian, mocked them in Egypt, and an unknown painter derided them at Pompeii. 1 After the religion of Christ had gained its first victories the attacks increased ; at the present hour they are numberless, and the Bible for many is nothing but a heap of contemptible fables. Christianity is declared to be a tissue of absurdities.

The scientific arguments against the Scriptures, formerly rare and without much weight, have grown more numerous and important in our days, on account of the extraordinary progress of science. The adversaries of Holy Scripture dis-

1 In 1883 there was discovered at Pompeii a caricature of the Judgment of Solomon, related in the Third Book of Kings, iii. 26, 27.

g PREFACE.

play and develop them, in order to break down both Faith and Revelation. In the name of geology, they attack the Biblical account of the creation of the world, pretending that it is irreconcilable with geological discoveries; in the name of astronomy, they maintain that Moses and other inspired writers attribute to the earth a role in the universe to which it has no rightful claim ; in the name of paleontology, they strive to remove the origin of our globe and of man far beyond the limits hitherto assigned to them ; in the name of natural history, they charge the Sacred Scriptures with many

errors.

The foregoing lines characterize in general the spirit of the modern materialistic and rationalistic schools. Entirely imbued with this spirit, the men belonging to these schools were forced by the logic of their principles to degrade man to a mere animal, to "the first among the anthropoids."

Man, according to the modern evolutionary theory advanced by the school of Haeckel, is a purely chemical product of matter, of atoms ; his soul is only the activity of the nerves and the brain. Like the rest of the world, man's existence has really no aim or purpose— " his origin is from the morass, he is wading for a short while in the morass, and again will become part of the morass. " Such is the morassy circle of man's destination. The summary of the materialistic doctrine is this : Between man and the irrational animal there is no essential difference— man is simply a more happily organized animal ; he differs from the animal not in kind, but in degree. The human soul is a temporary quality of the brain, a result of man's development; it has no substantial existence. Between the reason of man and the instinct of the animal there is no essential difference, but merely a difference of degree ; man, like the animal, is the sum of corporal dispositions and external influences ; hence the spiritual life of the individual is absolutely, completely, and eternally annihilated by death. This is the highest wisdom of modern materialistic anthropology! Karl Vogt, the Professor of Geneva, cries out: "Let any man overthrow this doctrine if he can ! '

PREFACE.

Well, though we may not succeed in refuting all its details, we will show, at least, its inward groundlessness.

Professor Huxley, borrowing from the inspired Book, which he rejects, one of its most striking figures, seems to pity those who "waste their lives in wishing to put the new and generous wine of science into the old utricles of Judaism." But we can assure Mr. Huxley, and prove to him, that the new wine of science, noble and generous as it may be, will keep just as well, yea, much better, in the old utricles of Judaism than in his own utricles or in those of his adherents. For these old Jewish utricles have become, by a Testament, in good and due form, the utricles of Christianism ; and just as the tumultuous waters of the ocean will be maintained in their old bed, which the hand of God has dug for them, so also will "the new wine of science," with all the immense progress of the natural sciences, be kept safe and pure in the utricles of the New Testament of Christianity.

Our book is entitled " Christian Anthropology," in contradistinction to materialistic anthropology. The latter stands in direct opposition to the former, and is not bounded by the same horizon, and has not the same extent. The narrow, smothering, and often unhealthy dimensions of a theatre are sufficient for materialistic anthropology. It is an isolated branch of zoology— a chapter taken from natural history. Observation, material experiments, manipulation, the scalpel, the microscope, statistics, measurements of the skull and the skeleton— this is all. In it there is no question of a soul, and the name of God is not even mentioned. The physical, physiological, and pathological, characters of man, the viscera, the muscles, the bones> are counted, and labelled with a nourish ; not even a convolution of the brain, a deformation of its bony envelope, is omitted ; all are minutely described. To materialistic anthropology man is the human animal, with patterns for all races and for all countries. This constitutes its entire science, and from this is drawn a conclusion worthy of its premises: "Man is a mammal, whose organization, needs, sicknesses are most complicated; an animal whose brain and wonderful functions have attained

PREFACE.

the highest degree of development. As such, he is subject to the same laws as the rest of animals; as such, he also shares

their fate."

Christian anthropology, on the contrary, embraces the entire man, the soul as well as the body. It notes the great difference between man and the beast; it considers his intellectual and moral qualities as well as his anatomical and physiological characters, and, therefore, man's origin, nature, place in creation, antiquity, unity, immortality future life. Such is the complete plan of our " Christian Anthropology.

Who will dispute the importance of the above questions?— questions so much and often so vehemently discussed m our days'-questions the importance of which our Holy Father, Pope Leo XIII. , so well understands when he writes :

''The times in which we live require a knowledge which embraces not only the saered sciences, but also the philosophical sciences, enriched by physical and historical discoveries For the philosophical sciences our Encyclical Letter' ''jBtend Patris ' has pointed the road and the correct method A great number of eminent minds have made beautiful and fruitful discoveries; it becomes us the less to ignore them, as unbelievers make use of this daily progress in order to forge arms against the truths of revelation Therefore, he who defends the Faith must devote himself to the study of the natural sciences more than m the past (Encyc. Letter, Feb. i 5 , 1882). Our late Plenary Council of Baltimore enjoins the same duty.

The above words are especially addressed to the priest, but where is the layman, the student, or the professional man who should not feel sufficiently interested in these questions to acquaint himself more or less with the scientific subjects so often brought before him? Where is the man who is not likely to meet them every day, at every step, m a book, in a periodical, in a newspaper, in society, on his travels, m his ordinary relations with the world, even in the bosom of his own family? Questions, assertions, denials formulated m big-sounding words, accredited more or less by those whom the world calls "savants." Questions which, alas! only too often

PREFACE. i i

are likely to trouble and to destroy his belief, the peace of his heart.

But it is especially the priest who should possess a more or less thorough knowledge of these scientific subjects, which are so often and so vigorously debated nowadays. Difficulties, arguments on a new discovery, on scientific phenomena, against revealed truth, present themselves sooner or later to every priest in the exercise of his ministry; they are propagated in books with high-sounding titles, in cheap and popular reviews and magazines; by swarms of demisavants, or even by children who frequent the schools ; they may come up at any moment, perhaps unconsciously, in the bosom of Christian families or even in a lesson of the Catechism.

Nowadays the priest who knows only his dogmatic and moral theology may be surprised and confounded by objec. tions formulated in entirely new language, supported by pretended fact or by a discovery wrongly interpreted. If a priest is ignorant or little acquainted with the weapons and methods modern men of science make use of to break down and destroy the Christian religion, he must not be astonished that his theology, his scholastic methods of argumentation, are not always sufficient to remove the uncertainty of the victim of pseudo-scientific fascination, who comes to him with his doubts and his cruel anxieties.

The ordinary Christian may perhaps be able to rest content without inquiry and study; he may hold fast in simplicity and in faith to the teaching of his Church, and may not suffer himself to be shaken in his belief by all the objections of human science ; but deliberate ignorance would be sinful in a theologian and priest, and worthy of blame in one who wishes to be considered a man of education.

Again, it is impossible for theology to maintain her rank as queen among the sciences if she proudly or timidly isolates herself. She may, indeed, keep her royal rank, but what avails a royalty which is acknowledged by no subject?

Religion has suffered immensely, and faith is completely extinct in many, because they read infidel and rationalistic j 2 PREFACE.

literature, and because there are none to instruct them in the truth. Do we exaggerate? Is our assertion unfounded? If the optimist could step outside of his sphere and throw a glance at the inside of the materialistic camp, he would soon convince himself of the necessity of studying the schemes and doings of the men who triumphantly cry out that " astronomy takes the roof from over the head and geology the ground from under the feet of the old faith; " who describe the discoveries in the sphere of natural science in particular as ^ the knell of the Mosaic cosmogony; " who tell us that the Biblical accounts, especially that of the creation of the earth and man, are "senseless" and a "lie."

If such an optimist should look a little more closely and descend into the inferior regions of the intellectual and doctrinal revolution, his discoveries would be no less striking, no less alarming. The freethinkers of the factory, of the workshop, have also their logic, and a brutal logic it is. The materialistic doctrines of our time have torn from their hearts the belief in a God, their faith in a heaven and a hell. "Very well," they cry out aloud, "we want our heaven here upon earth. " " Do you want to make man happy? " says one of the materialistic chiefs; "go to the source of all happiness, of all pleasures— to the senses. " " We do not want self-denial " says another; "all we want is enjoyment, nymphdances nectar and ambrosia ! If the world had never believed in a God, how much happier would it be ! " " They speak to us about heaven," says a third one, "about a future life; science has proved that there is no such thing, that it is an idle fancy, an illusion, and a lie. We do not want heaven ; we do not want a future life. All we want is hell, with all the voluptuousness that precedes it." In the face of such doctrines it would be sinful and criminal to remain idle, to look on It is the duty of all, but especially of the priest, to inquire into the remedy that may help to stem the tide of

infidelity. .

Unfortunately, our English Catholic literature furnishes us with very few of these remedies ; upon questions of profane science we have hardly any works whereby we could instruct

PREFACE.

ourselves or others. And what is to be more regretted, perhaps, is the fact that Catholics, as a rule, have little appreciation of this kind of literature. Very few of our Catholic publishers are willing- to risk the publishing of a scientific work, even if an author offers his work for nothing. Such works have so limited a sale that the publisher fears to lose money in getting out the book.

With regard to this point, non-Catholic literature is far ahead of us, both in America and Europe. Its publishers have no trouble whatsoever in selling their books. They get out edition after edition, and the public reads them greedily. Unfortunately, many of these works are far from being scientific, in the true sense of the word. The most of them are more or less saturated with modern rationalism, if not with materialism. While there are still authors who seek to defend Faith and Revelation, the number of scientific writers is very small whose works are free from meddling with religion, as scientific works ought to be, and many an author is so imbued with prejudice that he never fails, when the occasion offers, to aim side-blows at the Church and her doctrine. Certainly this is much to be regretted, for no Catholic can conscientiously read such books.

We have tried, as much as possible, to keep the present work free from the faults mentioned. The facts stated herein are not mere assertions, but are based upon empirical knowledge. The reader will find that we quote authors of different nationalities and creeds— Catholics and non-Catholics, rationalists and materialists. Our sole aim is to combat the errors and the false doctrines of the two latter schools, to defend Faith and Revelation against modern rationalism and materialism.

For this purpose we do not rely so much on our own arguments as on those of authors who can speak with professional authority. In fact, the details of the subjects developed in this book have been drawn from standard and, mostly, recent works; from authors who have studied and written on the subjects herein treated. If we have not always given proper credit, we beg the author's indulgence.

I4 PREFACE.

In conclusion, we beg leave to say that if this book prove

a source wherein the Catholic, but especially my brother

priests can find something wherewith to stem the tide of

infidelity, I shall feel happy; if it give rest to some souls or

restore the peace of their heart, troubled by false science I

shall consider this as my greatest earthly reward for the

manv hours and years spent on this work.

The Author.

Contents

PAGE

Introduction, 3

Preface 7

Table Showing the Successive Appearance of Living Things in Successive Geological Periods, . 4 . .23

Chapter I

origin of life and its development.

The teaching of Faith and Revelation on the origin of life. — Can science answer this question? — Spontaneous generation. — Its history. — There is no spontaneous generation. — Experiments by Pasteur and others. — Was the first living germ brought upon earth by an aerolite? — Monism. — Did the " moneron" of Professor Haeckel ever exist? — The famous Bathybius. — Experiment by Professor Moebius. — Huxley at the Congress of the British Association. — Observations of Milne-Edwards and John Murray. — Haeckel defends a lost cause. — Monism in flagrant contradiction to experimental method and scientific evidence. — Conclusion 27

Chapter II. Darwinism And Monism

Positive science and the development of life. — Successive and progressive Evolution. — The system of Darwin and Haeckel.— Darwin's book on the " Origin of Species."— Criticism of Darwinism. — Darwinism restricted within certain limits is 'not necessarily in conflict with the Bible. — However, it is an anti-Genesis in its tendencies.— Definition of

1 6 CONTENTS.

PAGE

Genus, Species, and Variety. — Variability is limited. — It never touches what is essential in the species. — Embryology. — Comparative anatomy. — Rudimentary organs. — Atavism. — "Natural selection" does not explain what it pretends to explain. — Both geology and paleontology confirm the permanency of species. — Neither the flora nor the fauna have changed. — Acknowledgment of Huxley. — Hybridization. — Hybrids do not perpetuate themselves. — Species are unchangeable. — The breeder and the florist may produce varieties, but God alone can create species. — Account and criticism of Haeckelianism. — Comparison with Darwinism. — Monism incapable of establishing the filiation of species and the origin of man. — The truth victorious • • 55

Chapter III. Origin Of Man

What is man? — Whence does he come? — Different methods followed to arrive at the knowledge of man. — Man's origin and nature. — Teachings of Faith. — Scientific certainties. — Harmony between Faith and true science. — Pseudo-scientific systems. — Man's immediate ancestor. — Professor Mivart's theory. — Can it be maintained? — Conclusion. . . . in

Chapter IV. Man And Beast

Is man merely a perfected animal? — Darwin's " struggle for life." — How does it correspond with the wisdom, order, and omnipotent power of God? — The assumed change of inferior species into superior ones, by the struggle for life, does not explain their origin. — It is impossible to explain the origin of man from an ape by the struggle for life. — How did the last monkey acquire the faculty of thinking, speaking, walking on two legs, etc. ? — No trace of a higher development is found in any animal species. — If species changed in former times, why does this not happen in historical times?— Darwin's " struggle for life" is purely imaginary 135

CONTENTS.

Chapter V

man and beast. — Continued.

PAGE

The structure of man and that of the ape. — Two kinds

of distinctive characters. — Physical characters. — The head.

The brain.— The foot and the hand.— Bodily development.—

Rudimentary formations. — Embryological development.

Universality. —Senses. —Psychological characters. —Reason. —Liberty.— Language. —Results of language.— Genius. — The Tasmanians.— Sense of shame.— Conclusion 150

Chapter VI

man and beast. — Concluded.

Instinct and intelligence.— Difference between the intelligence of man and that of the animal. — Objections and

answers.— The animal has passions and affections like man.

Man is not the only animal that can speak.— Self-consciousness. — Individuality. — Abstraction. — Belief in God.— Sense of beauty.— Moral sentiment. — Destructive criticism of Darwinism by Professor Virchow . .182

Chapter VII. The State Of Primitive Man

Infidelity and the state of primitive man.— Man's primitive state was not a state of savagery. — His state is one of degradation and degeneration.— Savages in Europe during the last century.— The Fuegeans.— The Veddahs of Ceylon. —An damans. —Hottentots. —Bushmen. —Shameless exaggerations.— A people in the mere natural state discovered nowhere.— The paradisiac state and original happiness mentioned in the myths of all the nations.— Civilization in Asia when barbarism prevailed over Europe. — Really progressive development possible only through Christianity.— Man could not rise by his own powers from the state of savagery or from that of a helpless child to higher perfection.— It was unworthy of God to place man in the world a savage or a harmless child.— Only materialists believe this 206 jg CONTENTS.

Chapter VIII. The Antiquity Of Man And Biblical Chronology

PAGE

The antiquity of man and modern chronologists.— Are their calculations reconcilable with the accounts given by Genesis?— The genealogical tables. -Three lessons. -Consequences resulting from Biblical chronology. -Impossibility of fixing the date of man's creation. -Mankind very probably over 8000 years old. -New difficulty. -Supposed omissions in the genealogical tables. -Proofs of this supposition. - Admitting such omissions, mankind dates back more, than 8ooc years. -The ten Chaldean antediluvian kings. -The value of the Chaldean sar.-Tabular view.-Theory of P.- Bourdais.— Conclusion • • • * * 233

Chapter IX. The Antiquity Of Man And Geology

The claims of science.— Antiquity of man according to o-eology.- Alluvions. - Peat-moors. - Stalagmites. - Antiquity of man according to physical geography. -Antiquity of man as inferred from climatic changes. -These changes are exaggerated. -Valuable hints from ancient writers. -Antiquity of man as indicated by changes in the fauna. -Alleged prehistoric animals. -We cannot draw a line between the age of the mammoth and that of the reindeer. -Man contemporary with many extinct animals. -Tertiary and quaternary man. -The age of the acerotherium, halitherium, and elephas meridionalis.-Quaternary man.-What is tertiary and what is quaternaryP-Powerful catastrophes. -Antiquity of man iudged by the progress of his industry—Five types of primitive man.-The ages of stone, bronze, and iron are not consecutive.-No necessity of extra-scientific hypotheses-

Conclusion

CONTENTS. jg

Chapter X. The Antiquity Of Man And The Chronologies Of India, China

EGYPT, AND CHALDEA.

Chronology of India.— Its great chronological pretend* sions are not justified.— Chronology of China. -Facts against the credibility of the Chinese chronology.— Chronology of Egypt.— Increasing difficulties in face of new information from the monuments. -Chief authorities.— Contradictory accounts. -The monumental lists. -Chaldea and Assyria offer more precise chronological figures. -Canons or eponymous lists.— The account from the cylinder of Nabonidos — If it is correct, even the chronology of the Septuagint is too short. — Conclusion.

Chapter XI. The Unity Of The Human Species

Importance of the subject.— La Peyrere, the inventor of polygenism.-His system. -Criticism. -The Preadamites —Historical side of the question. -The strongest polygenists. are found in the United States. -The polygenists confound races with species.— Influence of climate and heredity. —The classification of the human species is not yet settled —The influence of climate and heredity upon man's body' is unquestionable.— Examples

CHAPTER XII. the unity of the human species.— Continued.

Preliminary remarks.— Color of the skin.— Dr. Malpighi's discovery. -Causes of different pigments in races -Character of the hair. -Form of the skull. -Custom of some peoples to give the skull a certain form—No part of the human body is more subject to change than the skull —Causes — Examples—Cardinal Wiseman and the first series of generations—Measurements of the skull— Relation between talent and cranial capacity— Volume of the brain— Relation

20 CONTENTS.

PAGE between intelligence and weight of the brain. -Comparative study of the human skeleton. -Different languages no argument against monogenism.-Rapid increase of mankind— Geographical objections against monogemsm. -Origin of the Polynesians.-Of the Americans. -Conclusion 37°

Chapter XIII. Specific Unity Of Mankind

Preliminary remarks. -Anatomical organization of man. -Inner organs—Man not confined to one kind °f food.- Interracial fecundity.-Examples.-Man a cosmopolite. -Ml men endowed with intelligence and reason. -All are social beings—All endued with speech and free-will— AH are re- _ ligious— American Indians— Negroes— Conclusion. . . .423

Chapter XIV. The Deluge And The Traditions Of Mankind

Meaning of the word deluge-The Biblical account of the Deluge of Noe confirmed by universal tradition— 1 ra- Stions in Asia.-Egypt.-Chaldea -Theaccountof Berosus . -Its striking resemblance with that of Genesis— Is Ararat Armenia?-Poem of Izdhubar claimed to be anterior to Abraham-Comparison-Legends of the Deluge among other nations— Account of the Arameans— Hindoos— Iranians.- Aryan races— American traditions— Conclusion 43°

Chapter XV. Geology And The Deluge

Geology has no facts that are at variance with the tradition of the Deluge-Geological facts-Er ratio rocks-Bone caves-Osseous breccias. -Tufaceous ^stone-Geology confirms the Deluge-Universality of the Deluge.-™-* ■ systems -First . absolute universality— Second . restricted unTve™sality-This system is not in contradiction with the ^cred Tex" -Arguments in its favor-Important question.

CONTENTS. 2 1

PAGE

—Third: more restricted universality. —The Deluge did not cause the death of certain Mongolian and Ethiopian races.— Can such a view be maintained?— Conclusion 4 6o

Chapter XVI

CAUSES OF THE DELUGE. ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS.

Why natural science cannot bring serious objections against the Deluge.— Linguistic and zoological objections.— Size of the ark and number of animal species.— Positive experiments.— Re-peopling of the earth by animals.— Causes of the Deluge.— Torrential rains.— Invasion of seas.— Subterraneous fountains.— Upheavals and depressions.— Combination of the different systems.— Conclusion 4 g r