DARWIN RECALLED 



so shocking to the mentaHty of the creationist, that at first 

 he refused to look through the telescope too, he refused to 

 face the facts, and often even refused to be scientific for fear 

 of coming into contact with "the monkey theory." This ostrich- 

 policy still accounts, in our opinion, for the remnants of anti- 

 intellectualism among some secretarian groups. 



Yet, we have to appreciate the bitterness of the controversy. 

 Indeed, the truth or falseness of the theory of evolution, its 

 acceptance or rejection is no trifling matter. It affects pro- 

 foundly our philosophy of life, and has its repercussions in 

 practically every domain of knowledge. At first, the contro- 

 versy was mainly concerned with the [act of evolution. Since 

 the first world war the storm has subsided, and the emphasis 

 of the discussions is more and more on the way and the extent 

 of evolution than on its fact. The growing acceptance of the 

 fact of evolution, however, has not solved its problems. On 

 the contrary, the problems have been increasing in number 

 and complexity. The relative quiet, however, of the past 

 decades has created a favorable climate for undisturbed 

 research and clear thinking on the problems of evolution. 



This research has radically changed our understanding of 

 the universe we live in. We no longer believe that man and 

 his world are about 6000 years old (1959 years plus the family 

 tree of Christ plus the six days of creation). At the present 

 day most scientists believe that man is descended, somatically, 

 from the higher primates at least some 500,000 years ago. 

 Life has existed on earth for more than a billion years, and 

 the inorganic universe must be at least some 5 billion years 

 old. 



However, the very mechanics of the evolution of the 

 universe, of the first beginnings of life on earth, and of the 

 original descent of man are- still shrouded in mystery. 

 Moreover, has evolution come to a dead stop in man, or does 

 man unceasingly evolve in his higher, his cultural, moral and 

 social aspects? Here we think, for instance, of "the creative 

 evolution" of Bergson, "the dialectical materialism" of Marx, 

 "the superman" of Nietzsche, "the socio-cultural dynamics" 

 of Sorokin, "the tele-finalism" of Lecomte du Noiiy and "the 

 noosphere" of Teilhard de Chardin. 



Whatever we may think of these theories and views, at the 



