As a scientist, Teilhard de Chardin was a failure. He did not mind contradicting himself in his ‘scientific’ endeavors. On pages 106-107 of his chef-d’oeuvre, “L’Apparition de l’Homme”” we read: “From man (i.e., a true Homo Sapiens), three skulls of adults were obtained, absolutely complete (mandible included), a pelvis with two femurs, the radius, the tibia, the calcaneus, etc. In short, half a dozen individuals are represented, including a child” (see pp. 106-107).
That is, fossils of Homo Sapiens, individuals just like you and me, and like Teilhard de Chardin too, were found. Not fossils of any ape-men.
But three years later, in a publicity article (“Etudes“, 5-7-1937), in response to the objection alluded to by Marcellin Boule and others, he denies the discovery of human fossils. Here are his words: “To this specious objection it is very difficult, I admit, to oppose a peremptory proof. To point out that, of the hypothetical man it demands, no bone trace has so far been discovered in Choukoutien, is not an entirely satisfactory position…” (see p. 129 of ‘L’Apparition de l’Homme’ and compare with p. 107).
So, now he says he found human fossils, then he says he did not find any. Consistency is a quality in short supply in his convoluted mind.
There’s more. Our priest informs us that a giant gibbon fossil had been discovered in Choukoutien. Houghton Brodrick (cf. «El Hombre Pré-Histórico» — Fondo de Cultura Econômica — 1955) tells us that the lithic implements found there with fossil man bore a certain resemblance to those of the Upper Paleolithic of Europe. Let us remember that there were such objects along with the hubcaps of the mythical entity Sinanthrope. Thus, the hypothesis of Boule and the other common sense scientists of finds a concrete basis: the caps discovered were used for the construction of the Sinanthrope; they belonged to giant gibbons hunted by the prehistoric homo sapiens of the region, authors of the lithic implements.
More still: The Teilhardian descriptions of the Pekinese “monster” are very curious for their lack of consistency.
In 1930, referring to the Synanthrope, Fr. de Chardin spoke of the “advanced development of his brain” (“L’Apparition de l’Homme“, p. 91). Soon after, he comes out with this statement about the same Homo Pekinensis: “So that neither the cranial capacity (probably small, given the relatively small dimensions of the skull and the considerable thickness of the bony walls) nor the details of the impressions of the brain are known” (op. cit., p. 92).
Now the ape man had an advanced brain, and then there was no evidence of it…
In 1937 it was the turn of this affirmation: “It therefore seems necessary to resign ourselves, to a certain extent — waiting for the additional information that the explorations of tomorrow will perhaps give us — to affirm only with some reserve the intelligence of Sinanthrope” (op. cit., p. 129). Around 1946 he wrote that “for all the architecture of his skullcap (I do not say his face), the Sinanthrope is certainly much closer to the great anthropoids of today than to the man of today” (op. cit., p. 144).
Again, he affirms (with reservation) the intelligence of the ape-man, much closer to the great anthropoids of today than to the man of today.
Then he goes on to say precisely the opposite: “Physically speaking, the Sinanthrope presents, in short, more resemblance to the human being than to an ape. But, psychically, what is his true position in nature?” He answers: “We are led to answer, even without hesitation: yes, the Synanthrope was, despite the shape of his skull, a thinking being” (op. cit., p. 145).
The priest was like a weathervane, changing his opinion according to the winds of his whims, led by his fanatic belief in evolution.
Father de Chardin contradicts himself about the pithecanthropus
These opinion fluctuations of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, in the case of the Sinanthrope, also occur with respect to the Pithecanthrope. He wrote in 1913 (in “Etudes“, 5-1-1913): “Of the Pithecanthrope, who was a great ape, a contemporary of the Chellese Man…” (‘L’Apparition de l’Homme’, p. 32).
As early as 1943, our author’s trial underwent a rotation of 180 degrees. He says of the Pithecanthrope: “By analogy with the Synanthrope, it is highly probable that the Pithecanthrope was also an intelligent being (sic!), that is, capable of reflection. However, we must recognize that we do not yet have direct proof to establish this fact. So far, in fact, no stone utensil associated with the remains of Java Man has been discovered” (‘L’Apparition de l’Homme’, p. 151).
Although de Chardin was a fanatical evolutionist, it is no wonder that his intelligence was subject to the fluidity of the evolutionary processes. Let us remember what scientists Remy Collin and Gaylard Simpson said about him: that evolutionism for Teilhard de Chardin was a metaphysical a priori accepted as an unshakable absolute, even if the data denied it (cf. “Evolution of Species: A Priori and Gnostic Confessions” — in “Catolicismo“, no. 138, 1962).
These are the facts that seem to be most important in this lamentable story of Peking Man and Java Man. As can be seen, they seem to form a complex fabric of confusion and mystification. The saddest thing is to see a man clothed in the priestly character in this ballet dance of artificial Pithecanthropes and Sinanthropes, playing the shameful role of being involved with forgeries, bluffs and gratuitous conclusions.
To sum up, Fr. Teilhard de Chardin acquired a reputation of a ‘Catholic scientist’, precisely with the discovery of the Synanthrope (he and his followers conveniently ignored the fraud of the Piltdown man). But unfortunately, accurate examination of his writings reveals contradictions about the so-called fossils of the supposed ‘ancestors of man’, the Sinanthropus pekinensis, as well as the Pithecanthropus erectus, and even on the excavations…
He was not able to refute the objections of contemporary scientists, because he believed in the evolution of the species and of the universe as an a priori fact, a true dogma, not as a theory. His fanaticism led him to deny crucial aspects of Catholic doctrine, as we will see in the next articles.
One could say that he completely ignored the purpose of science for a Catholic, according to the Church Magisterium. It was Pope Pius XII who pointed it out when he visualized the scientist’s research activity. As he addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he said: “The mission entrusted to you is thus one of the most noble; for you must be, in a certain sense, the discoverers of God’s intentions” (24 April 1955).
A beautiful description of the scientist’s mission: To discover the intentions of God in creating the universe!
This being the purpose of the scientist, the discoverer of God’s intentions, that of the pure sciences is to make God known through the wisdom that transpires in the laws of the universe, which constitutes the immediate object of such sciences. Teilhard de Chardin was, unfortunately, a complete and total failure in that regard.
As a ‘scientist’, Teilhard de Chardin was not ‘misunderstood’, as Pope Francis suggests. He was neither misunderstood by the sisters who collected signatures for the removal of the monitum and his ridiculous ‘elevation’ to the honor of Doctor of the Church. He was not ‘misunderstood’ at all, but on the contrary, he was properly understood and proved to be totally wrong, purely and simply. His ideas were ambiguous, dangerous, erroneous, and his role as a ‘scientist’ was a complete failure that put shame on the Catholic Church and particularly on the Society of Jesus.
As a “theologian” he has already been duly judged by the Church through the authority of the Holy Office, and no number of petitions to Pope Francis will validly remove the condemnation of his writings as dangerous to the Faith and offensive to Catholic doctrine. What was doctrinally wrong then remains doctrinally wrong now. Period.
But we can also look at his ‘theological’ mystifications in the next articles, much to the displeasure of his fans today, both among the trendy progressive sisters who want him to be a “Doctor of the church” and also in the Vatican.
[…] More ‘scientific’ contradiction of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin […]