Evolution Theory: Some Facts
|SHOCK is felt by some Catholics that eminent members of the hierarchy declare Evolution Theory to be compatible with the Faith. Others are perplexed and try to play down the importance of such statements, attempting thereby to remain loyal to the prelates concerned and the traditional teaching of the Church.
Theologians such as Fr. Peter Fehlner in his essay In the beginning... (Christ to the World, 1988) and Fr. André Boulet in his book Creation et Redemption (CLD 1995) explained why evolution is incompatible with Scripture and the traditional teaching of the Church.
Clearly there is confusion. Undoubtedly, bishops and cardinals supporting evolution realize that its basic tenets conflict with the Church's traditional teaching on Adam the first man, his immortality, Eve being created from Adam's side, their Original Sin etc. It seems unnecessary, therefore, to see them, as some do, as showing an openness to study a difficult problem in the hope of demonstrating that evolution can be reconciled to traditional Catholic teaching.
To add to the confusion numerous books are circulating, which declare evolution to be a fact and indicate the extent to which the Church's teaching has to be changed to accommodate it. Some bear the imprimatur of a bishop, e.g. How to Read the World:Creation in Evolution, SCM 1985.
Support within the Church for evolution has been growing for some time. In Munich, as far back as 1981, Cardinal Ratzinger had said: "it is no longer Creation or evolution. The correct formula should be creation and evolution" (Au commencement Dieu Créa le ciel et la terre, Fayard, Paris 1986).
Most scientists consider evolution an established fact, and qualified Catholic theologians confirm it to be irreconcilable with traditional Catholic teaching on creation. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that those convinced that science has proved evolution to be a fact, accept that some aspects of traditional Catholic teaching have to be changed.
The fact that evolution has been taught in Catholic schools and seminaries for many years, is a clear indication that the hierarchy are not opposed to the subject. Confirmation has been provided by several clear statements from the Vatican that evolution is not incompatible with the Faith.
Obviously no prelate can say he believes in evolution, knowing it changes the meaning of such basic dogmas as Original Sin, unless he is sure such a change can be justified.
To accuse senior members of the clergy of incompetence in questions of theology is ridiculous. Many of them have first class theological degrees. They are perfectly aware that evolution requires a departure from traditional teaching. Such a departure had been taken into account in their theological classes at the seminary when they were first exposed to the Documentary Hypothesis.
There is no question of a betrayal of faith, or lack of intelligent integrity; those concerned are extremely intelligent people. Having carefully examined the problem they see no satisfactory alternative. They, no doubt, reached their present position of revising traditional meanings of certain doctrines with much hesitation. Which could explain the ambiguity met in doctrinal definitions expressed during the transitional stage.
In retrospect it can be seen that in an attempt not to shock those still holding to traditional creation theology, the authors used orthodox terms allowing both traditional and modern interpretations. Two examples will help to understand this complex situation.
Extract from a modern explanation of Original Sin:
"The seriousness of the consequences of this first sin for the condition of subsequent human beings arises from the beings as generators of humankind. Whether 'homo sapiens 'emerged from a single population ('monogenism'...) or from several geographically separated populations ('polygenism'), Catholic doctrine insists that revelation teaches that the first human beings who were the antecedents of the present human race fell into sin" (Catholic Encyclopedia - Our Sunday Visitor, 1991).
It can be seen that: (i) evolution from primates is taken for granted, and (ii) 'polygenism' condemned by Pius XII in Humani Generis, is not disallowed, (iii) there is no suggestion of the immortality of Adam. These three facts dismiss ipso facto the Genesis account of creation, but by using the words the first human beings those holding to traditional teaching could interpret them as meaning Adam and Eve. The context, however, is orientated towards them meaning even humans from separated populations.
Extract from the same Encyclopedia defining Adam:
"In Genesis 2:4b-4:25 Yahweh forms "Adam" (Hebrew, adam) from "earth" (Hebrew 'adamah'). The term in Hebrew refers to the first man/human (Gen. 4:1-25; 5:1-5; Tob 8:6) but also to humans in general (Job 14:1 etc.). Although the first three chapters of Genesis have various origins, the insights into the universality of sin ... are extraordinary compared to other literature of this period."
Here the suggestion that Adam could be a generic term is strong and counters the doctrinal teaching that he was one single person. The reference to the first three chapters of Genesis having various origins indicates the influence of the Documentary Hypothesis.
Compare this with the more traditional teaching:
"Whoever says Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that, whether he sinned or not, he would have died a bodily death, that is he would have departed from the body, not as a punishment for sin but by necessity of his nature: let him be anathema" (Council of Carthage, 418).
"If anyone does not profess that the first man Adam immediately lost the justice and holiness in which he was constituted when he disobeyed the command of God in the Garden of Paradise... let him be anathema" (Council of Trent 1545-63).
The Documentary Hypothesis
The Documentary Hypothesis was popularized by J. Wellhausen (1844-1918), a Protestant professor of Oriental Studies in Germany. He was, however, only responsible for summarising, developing and disseminating the work of his precursors, the earliest being R. Simon, K. D. Ilgen, M. de Wette, H. Hupfield and K. H. Graf.
The school centered its study upon the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible, and in particular the first book, Genesis. This book became the point of departure, due to a number of apparent inconsistencies and repetitions in the text. The most evident was the alternate use of the two Divine names - YHWH and Elohim.
It led scholars to assume two different sources, which are today conventionally marked J (short for Jahwist) and E (short for Elohist). Further study, along the same lines, gave rise to the belief of other minor sources, the principle one involving a Priestly Writer, marked P.
Genesis was fragmented into the supposed J, E or P sections. Analysis of each section by language experts revealed certain stylistic qualities not found in the other two. Differences of vocabulary were also found between the two main J and E sources.
As enthusiasm for the hypothesis grew, so did conviction of multiple authorship of the Pentateuch. Genesis, traditionally known as the first book of Moses, found itself with several authors. All of them, it appeared, writing at varying points in history much after his death.
Differing oral traditions are believed to lie at the root of the written Pentateuch, with the core of this oral tradition going back to Moses. The Documentary Hypothesis, however, deposed Moses as the writer or redactor (editor), despite the declaration of the 1906 Biblical Commission confirming Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
Christ seemed to have foreseen this situation when he said to thee Jews: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (John 5: 46-47).
The Documentarists were so engrossed in producing ever more erudite literary scenarios, that scant attention seemed to be paid to the effect their work was having upon the meaning of Scripture. For instance, by rejecting any real history in the three first chapters of Genesis, they put in question Adam as the first man and the historicity of Original Sin.
Treating these chapters as allegory and their terminology as symbols flew in the face of traditional teaching, as expressed in the commentaries of the Apostolic Fathers (e.g. Saints Basil of Caesarea, Chrysostom and Augustine), of the factual content attributed to them by the 1909 Biblical Commission, and the confirmation of their historicity by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis.
Despite this situation, very few theologians, today would dissociate themselves with the Documentary Hypothesis. Moreover, it has been standard seminary teaching for many years.
The clash between the Documentary Hypothesis and traditional teaching on Creation must be recognized as a reality. It can no longer continue to be ignored. Basic doctrines of the Church depend upon certain events in the first three chapters of Genesis having really taken place. The Documentary Hypothesis dismisses them as symbols. Examples are, the birth of Adam the first man in a state of immortality in body and soul and the birth of the first woman, Eve, from his side, also in a state of immortality.
The Hypothesis clouds the issue of Adam's sin, for which the punishment was the introduction of suffering and death into the world. It casts doubt upon the propagation of this original sin, and the necessity of the Redemptory act as retribution. It blurs the traditional nature of baptism, as the means by which the stain of original sin is removed from the soul, and thus opening the way to salvation. These are matters directly impinging upon the deposit of faith believed to have come from the Apostles.
The need to accommodate belief in Evolution Theory seemed to provide the justification for accepting the radical changes demanded by Documentary Hypothesis.
Scripture, Magisterium & Tradition contradict Evolution Theory
Whether Evolution Theory was the incentive for churchmen to embrace the Documentary Hypothesis is not clear. Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859. Wellhausen, the popularizer of the Documentary Hypothesis, was a 15 year old student at the time, and it would not have been long before he was exposed to the German translation and the enthusiasm of Darwin's admirer, embryologist Ernst Haeckel.
The Church's traditional interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis, including the Noahic flood, was clearly quite incompatible with Darwin's theory. She was obliged to declare as atheistic a theory which attempted to give a naturalistic explanation to the origin of everything. There were those who, swayed by the number of scientists ready to adopt the theory, proposed accepting it subject to some form of divine causality. If evolution had taken place they said, then God must have used it as a method of creating.
Theologians, whose reasoning had not yet been colored by belief in Evolution Theory, pointed out that God created by fiat not process, and, most important, there was no suggestion of evolution anywhere in the Bible. Moreover, it conflicted with traditional teachings based upon the consensus of the Church Fathers. The 1909 Biblical Commission confirmed the validity of these teachings, which included:
The progressive lobby said the Church Fathers' opinions were not supported by data from modern scientific research. Traditional theologians retorted that the question of origins is theological, not scientific. They pointed out that speculation about the origin of life is an absolute necessity for atheists. They saw believers who accepted Evolution Theory as trying to determine pre-creation conditions, which was absurd. They recognized, however, that the foremost scientists of the world were investing their talents in such research.
Scripture confirms the 1909 Biblical Commission's report. For instance the Old Testament says: God did not make death (Wis. 1: 13) and: through the Devil's envy death entered into the world (Wis. 2: 24). Almost as if to avoid the possibility of the clear meaning of these two texts being interpreted differently, the New Testament confirms the Old: "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all men sinned" (Rom. 5: 12).
From these, and other examples of the New Testament confirming the Old, plus the exegesis of the Church Fathers of the Genesis creation account, the Commission's report is vindicated. How is it then that modern theology can dismiss the Biblical Commission's findings as irrelevant?
Documentary Hypothesis Bridges the Gap
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that, if today's theologians were to reinstate the traditional teaching on creation, Evolution Theory would have to be rejected. There would seem to be no way that an evolutionary process, involving the gradual transformation of an anthropoid ape into man, could satisfy requirements of Scripture as interpreted by the Church Fathers. Take, for instance, the production of man, which according to traditional teaching was:
For the theologians however, there is no turning back because science declares Evolution Theory to be an established fact (this phrase means that, as there is no alternative naturalistic explanation to account for similarity of appearances, Evolution Theory must be a fact, even though it is admitted there is no proof - see Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson).
Science, today, being looked upon by many as being the bench mark by which Scripture and Traditional teaching are measured, a modus vivendi was seen to be necessary. A bridge was needed to connect Genesis to Evolution Theory. Almost as if it were designed for the purpose, the Documentary Hypothesis provided the bridge. The rise in popularity of Evolution Theory amongst clerics was accompanied by a proportionate growth of interest in the Documentary Hypothesis.
No official figures are available, but comparing the strong anti-evolutionist contingent led by Pope Pius XII (Humani Generis "la fiction de cette fameuse evolution") and Cardinal Ruffini ("transformism applied to man - even if restricted to the body - cannot be admitted"), to the virtual absence of resistance today amongst the hierarchy, it is clear that Evolution Theory and the Documentary Hypothesis have won the day - at least temporarily.
The irony is that the departure of most theologians from traditional teaching comes at a time when both Evolution Theory and the Documentary Hypothesis are being seriously challenged.
Evolution Theory depends heavily upon the credibility of the fossil record. Steven M. Stanley of John Hopkins University wrote: "It is doubtful whether in the absence of fossils, the idea of evolution would represent anything more than an outrageous hypothesis."
On the a priori assumption that evolution has taken place, the position of fossils in rock strata is interpreted as showing clear evidence of evolutionary sequences. The only difficulty with this conclusion is that there are no fossils showing clear transitions of one species to another. Logically, there should be many more transitional stages than final ones. Some paleontologists still disagree, but the top men admit the absence of transitionals, e.g. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard  and Collin Patterson of the British Museum. 
In recent years, however, the belief that the lower strata, fossil bearing or not, are older than the higher ones has been seriously challenged by laboratory experiment. The principles of superposition and continuity, upon which the geological time scale is based, are claimed to have been invalidated experimentally.  The experiments show that the conditions under which strata can be formed by superposition are extremely rare, and confined to very calm water lacking a discernible current.
Such a claim is, not unnaturally, greeted with scepticism since it threatens the interpretation of the fossil record, and, therefore, Evolution Theory Experimental evidence is, however, very strong because it can be observed, tested and repeated. Moreover, when the work is performed in conformity with the norms of science and reported, subject to peer review, in the scientific journals, it is ipso facto immune from dispute. Other experiments can be performed to produce other results, but those of the original experiments remain unchanged.
This challenge to Evolution Theory, albeit indirect, should comfort those scientists who honestly admit the continuing absence of proof for evolution, yet faced with the supposed evidence of evolutionary series, feel obliged to accept it.
Such was the case of the late Prof. Jerome Lejeune, geneticist, member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and personal friend of Pope John Paul II. In a talk he gave at Notre-Dame de Paris , he admitted teaching the neo-Darwinian theory despite its weaknesses (p.22). Influenced by evolutionary assumptions regarding the fossil record, he attempted to show that Genesis and paleontology say the same thing (p.13).
He could find no proof of evolution from genetics but, because of the apparent order of fossils in rock strata (p.27), he believed that evolution had taken place. Had he lived to discover that the sequence of strata, and therefore the fossils they contained, was illusory, he could have been the one, given his considerable influence, to have stopped evolutionary dogma from being taught within the Church.
Burgeoning Evidence against Evolution Theory
This discovery in sedimentology, and its repercussions upon the geological time-scale, comes at a time when convergent evidence from other disciplines is badly tarnishing evolutionary theory. [Evolution, Fact or Belief? - a video presenting the geological evidence and other challenges to Evolution Theory is available. The video was awarded a first prize in the 1997 Catholic International Film Festival. Contact Peter Wilders, - - for details.]
Biochemistry and molecular biology are demonstrating that natural selection is not an element of change, but of stability of the species! The evolutionary-orientated a priori assumptions inherent in radiometric dating are being exposed. Recently erupted volcanic material has been dated as thousands of years old, e.g. lava from the dome of Mount St. Helens formed in 1986 was dated, by the potassium argon method, as between 350,000 to 2,700,000 years old! . It should be recalled that lava in sedimentary rocks is used to date the fossils in them.
Even anti-Darwinism is becoming politically correct. The U.I.P. (Universitaire Interdisciplinaire de Paris) has in its ranks a growing number of top scientists, including Nobel Prize laureates. They are contesting Darwinism. Molecular biologist, Michael Denton, in his latest book published in the French language L'evolution a-t-elle un sens?  horrifies the scientific community by presenting proof of finalism in biology.
As in his earlier book, Evolution: a Theory in Crisis, he gives examples repudiating the classical arguments for gradualist evolution by random mutations and natural selection. Biochemist Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box  blazed the same trail a year earlier introducing intelligent design as a feature of living organisms.
Notwithstanding the empirical proof from science, it needed the clear cold logical reasoning of outsiders such as Berlinski and Phillip Johnson to spoke the evolutionary wheels. Arguing from reason informed by fact, they show to what extent the scientific community and the general public have been taken for a ride.
To accommodate the atheist beliefs of a few influential scientists, an unprovable naturalistic explanation of origins has been passed off as scientific fact. As a consequence, many prelates in the Church have been duped into believing an illusory fact as truth.
Mounting Proof against Documentary Hypothesis
The other side of the coin is the escalating proof against the Documentary Hypothesis.
The reader could rightly wonder why the writer presumes to know more about Documentary Hypothesis developments than the experts. The reason is simple. Specialists, having invested so much of their intellectual lifetime and talent teaching, talking and writing about their subject, to admit they were wrong would be committing academic bankruptcy. They prefer not to examine conflicting evidence.
But the situation has changed so radically, that to continue to cling to the Documentary Hypothesis is to prefer theory to facts.
A few examples will explain why.
Research for his doctoral thesis in Egyptology, led Damien F. Mackey to examine, inter alia, the work of Egyptologists P. J. Wiseman and A. S. Yahuda. The archeological evidence studied by these scholars was still buried beneath the sands when the Documentary Hypothesis was being pioneered. Documentarians subsequent to its discovery, seem to have paid scant interest to its implications.
Wiseman revealed that the literary method, used in pre-Moses Mesopotamian writing inscribed upon stone or clay tablets, was identical to that in Genesis. This method, which for practical purposes was reserved to clay and stone tablets, was abandoned when less cumbersome writing materials became available. The authors proposed by the Documentary Hypothesis lived centuries after Moses, and would have used papyrus and parchment. Yet the distinctive pre-Moses scribal method is clearly discernible in the Genesis text.
The discovery of the Mesopotamian tablets seems to have confirmed Hebrew and Christian tradition. Moses, it was held, was inspired by God to collate and edit the histories transmitted by the prophets who preceded him. The work of the pre-Deluge prophets was believed to have been preserved and carried by Noah in the Ark. The final document, including Moses' own account as leader of the Hebrew people, was the Pentateuch, known to Biblicists prior to acceptance of the Documentary Hypothesis as the Books of Moses.
Corroborating evidence of Mosaic authorship comes from linguistics scholar Prof. Yahuda's revelation of the heavy influence of the early Egyptian language in the text.
Yahuda had the unique distinction amongst archeologists of being skilled in both Hebrew and Egyptian. In his book The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian  he showed that not only the events that took place in Egypt from Joseph through to the Exodus were recounted in ancient Egyptian style, but also the whole pre-Egyptian narrative, too, was written from an Egyptian perspective.
If, as according to the Documentary Hypothesis the Genesis texts were written at different times, centuries after Moses, when the supposed authors had no connection with Egypt, why, he asks, is the entire text written in a sophisticated Egyptianized Hebrew language?
At the Technion Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, a group of scientists and Hebrew scholars led by Y. T. Radday, Ph.D, M.A. specialist in Biblical and Jewish studies, undertook an authorship study of Genesis by computer. The method used in this major research project was statistical linguistics. The experts subjected the 20504 words of Genesis to a computer analysis using an elaborate program which tested grammar, syntax, style, vocabulary and all known characteristics of language. The conclusion was: although the Documentary Hypothesis could not be dismissed as a possibility, there was just as much evidence to support single authorship of Genesis.
3. Internal evidence of Genesis
The Philadelphia Jewish Publication Society issued a book in 1989 entitled Genesis, by Nahum M. Sarna. The author points to social customs and religious practices of the patriarchs mentioned in Genesis, which would have been anathema to authors of a later age. He gives examples:
1. "The Stone Pillar (matsevah), (Genesis 31:49). This cultic object is sternly forbidden in Leviticus 26:1 and Deuteronomy 16:21-22, as being abhorrent to God; yet the Genesis narratives do not hesitate to ascribe its use to the patriarch Jacob. It is clear that the texts were not altered to conform to the standards of a later age. The same conclusion may be drawn about Abraham planting a tamarisk and engaging in worship at the site, an act prohibited in the legislation of Deuteronomy 16:2 1."
2. "Family Life. Abraham married his half sister, an act that is repeatedly forbidden in the law collections. Jacob was simultaneously married to two sisters, mothers of the tribes of Israel, a marriage arrangement outlawed in Leviticus 18:18. And whereas intermarriage with foreigners, natives of Canaan, is prohibited in Exodus 34:16 and Deuteronomy 7:3, no such interdiction is either assumed or implied in the narratives of Genesis ... In general, religious differences between the patriarchs and foreigners are never a source of tension. The only sins attributed to non-Israelites are of the moral kind; idolatry, a major theme in the rest of the Bible, is never mentioned."
Sarna's summing up of this section of this book is:
"The cumulative effect of all this internal evidence leads to the decisive conclusion that the patriarchal traditions in the Book of Genesis are of great antiquity. This assertion is quite independent of the external material culled from thousands of documents uncovered in the towns of Mari, Nuzi, Alalakh, and Ugarit, as well as other ancient sites in the Near East. These texts issue from the second millennium B.C.E. and provide numerous parallels with patriarchal traditions."
Incidentally, Sarna supports both the Hebrew and Christian tradition of a single creation account in Genesis:
"Chapter 2 is not another creation story. As such it would be singularly incomplete. In fact, it presupposes a knowledge of much of the preceding account of creation. Many of the leading ideas in the earlier account are here reiterated, though the mode of presentation is different."
In the light of the above evidence it is difficult, if not impossible, to deny the much greater antiquity of the material in Genesis than is allowed by the Documentary Hypothesis
The official teaching material available to catechists in schools and seminaries today, is based upon the Documentary Hypothesis and Evolution Theory. The Documentary Hypothesis removes the historical content of Genesis, and Evolution Theory is thus rid of the obstacles of immortal Adam and Eve, a Garden of Eden, servants and forbidden fruit, original sin, a world-wide flood and the Tower of Babel.
Modern Biblical exegetes may claim they have no scientific axe to grind, but they are not unaware that without their hypothesis, Evolution Theory could not be made compatible with modern theology. The two theories are sufficiently complementary to allow the theologian to pursue the otherwise ultra vires concept that God created by a process of evolution.
The suggestion that God used a process to create is contrary to both the Church Fathers' theology and Thomistic theology. There is common agreement amongst them that the work of creation ceased on the sixth day with each creation being distinct and independent from others. Evolution, on the other hand, requires a process of continuing creation for ever, with each stage of evolution dependent upon and flowing from a preceding stage.
Aquinas stated: "the first constitution of species belongs to the work of the six days, but the reproduction among them of like from like, to the government of the universe..." (Summa I Cf.69,a.2).
God created all kinds of organisms in their whole substance by fiat, i.e. His Word during the period of creation. Subject to His governance or Providence, He provided the conditions in which they could reproduce according to their kind.
Whichever way Genesis 1 is interpreted, no one, however primitive his culture, can miss the clear message God is giving. Each kind was made separately. There is no ambiguity. He wants it known that He is the author of distinction. To make the point clear He says so ten times.
There is no way the theistic evolutionist can torture the text to make it mean that God created by a process of one kind transforming gradually into a different kind. Genesis teaches discontinuity, not continuity. It is only Evolution Theory with its microbe to man continuum that demands the opposite.
The problem is sidestepped, of course, by trotting out the timeworn argument that God inspired the sacred authors of Scripture to explain why He made the world, not how he made it. This is, of course true, regarding the general intention of the authors, but certainly not regarding the specific content of their writings. Dogmatic theologian, Fr. Peter Fehlner points out that a correct understanding of the Creed makes this clear.
"The Catholic believer cannot drop from his belief facts bearing on the origin of the physical world, as expounded in the revealed account of these origins, without, in fact, also changing the nature of 'that belief.'
"The Catholic, in fact, in subscribing to the first article of the Creed affirms not only that God is and that He made the world, but how He made it, and especially how He made the angelic and human species ... the radical inadequacy of natural processes as an explanation for the origin of the world, and the distinction of species, must logically lead to a failure to perceive the distinction between God and His creation (Pantheism)" .
Confusion in the Church is a threat to salvation. Some of the reasons have been discussed in this article. It has been shown that the Documentary Hypothesis, intentionally or not, has led to Evolution Theory, with its naturalistic connotations, being actively advanced as compatible with the Catholic faith. The weakness of both theories has been demonstrated.
The effect of the confusion is reduced belief in Christ's teaching relayed to us by the Church. The faithful have lost their compass, so vital in finding the path to heaven.
Providentially, the means are at hand to help them, but organisation within the Church is lacking.
A structured group, preferably under the aegis of a dynamic orthodox religious Congregation, needs to be established. It should consist of specialists in theology and science who have familiarized themselves with the available data. All relevant material should be examined and reports, sought from experts, assessed by the group. The group's objective would be to synthesise the data and produce a report for diffusion throughout the Church.
Which Congregation will seize the nettle ?
This article first appeared in the March 1998 edition of Christian Order magazine.
1. New Evolution Timetable, 1981, p.72.
2. Paleobiology, vol. 6, 1980, p. 127.
3. Personal communication to Luther Sunderland, Appalachin, New York April 10, 1979.
4. P. Y. Julien, Y. Q. Lan & G. Berthault, 1993, Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures: Bulletin Société Géologique, France. t 164, 5:649-660.
5. Text reported in Biologie Conscience & Foi - Téqui, Paris, 1985.
6. Ex-Nihilo Technical Journal, vol. 10, 1996.
7. Editions Fayard, France, 1997.
8. The Free Press, 1996.
9. Oxford University Press, 1933.
10. "In The Beginning" Christ To The World - 1988.
Theotokos Catholic Books - Creation/Evolution - www.theotokos.org.uk