Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T12:10:59.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teilhard and Orthogenetic Evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

George B. Murray S.J.
George B. Murray S.J.
Affiliation:
L'Université de Montréal, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The number of writings appearing on Teilhard de Chardin is increasing daily, with the great majority of them treating his philosophical, theological or humanistic ideas. Discussion of his evolutionary theory from a more scientific point of view is relatively rare. For one thing, he seems to have leaned heavily, though not exclusively, on a neo-Lamarckian explanatory viewpoint. The major problem, however, is that he espoused a theory of evolution, orthogenesis, which is rejected by the majority of scientists today on the ground that there is no evidence for it. Many writers force one to conclude that they are unaware of the ramifications of holding a theory that is considered unviable in the scientific community. In the same vein, too many authors do not seem to take seriously the critics of Teilhard who have made this point, e.g., George G. Simpson, Peter Medawar and Theodosius Dobzhansky. One gets the impression that there is a wider gulf between “the two cultures” than he might have imagined. Little concern for Teilhard's orthogenetic evolution leads us to suspect that writers do not know that it makes a difference what type of evolution Teilhard espoused. There may be a cultural lag between science and the other disciplines, but orthogenesis has been around for many years now, and has been rejected by biologists for at least fifteen years, which is a conservative estimate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , July 1967 , pp. 281 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. Simpson, George Gaylord, Review Article of The Phenomenon of Man, in Scientific American (April, 1960), 201ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Medawar, Peter, Review Article of The Phenomenon of Man, in Mind LXX (1961), 99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dobzhansky, Theodosius, Mankind Evolving (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), 347Google Scholar.

2 Smulders, Pierre, S.J., La Vision de Teilhard de Chardin (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer; trs. from the Dutch by Kerkvoorde, A., O.S.B., and d'Armagnac, C., S.J., 1964), 41Google Scholar, footnote no. 3 (my translation).

3 Donceel, Joseph F., S.J., Teilhard de Chardin: Scientist or Philosopher?, in International Philosophical Quarterly V (May, 1965), 248fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Dubos, René, Humanistic Biology, The American Scholar 24 (Spring, 1965), 181Google Scholar.

5 Cf. Beckner, Morton, The Biological Way of Thought (N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1959), 160Google Scholar.

6 For a discussion of biology and the nature of science as currently accepted, see the already classic paper of Simpson, G. G., Biology and the Nature of Science, in Science 139, no. 3550 (11 January, 1963), 81–88CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

7 Wildiers, N. M., Teilhard de Chardin (Paris: Editions Universitaires, 1960), 70Google Scholar.

8 For a brief, accurate account of different schools surrounding biological evolutionary theory, cf. Simpson, G. G., The World into Which Darwin Led Us, in Science 131, no. 3405 (1 April, 1960), 966–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

9 Mayr, Ernst, Animal Species and Evolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1963), 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Dowdeswell, W. H., The Mechanism of Evolution (N.Y.: Harper & Brothers, 1960), 97Google Scholar.

11 Clark, Wilfred E. LeGros, The Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955), 109 footnote no. 14Google Scholar.

12 Herrick, C. Judson, The Evolution of Human Nature (N.Y.: Harper & Brothers, 1961), 115fGoogle Scholar.

13 Dobzhansky, Theodosius, Evolution and Environment, in Evolution After Darwin (ed. by Tax, Sol; Vol. I, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 404fGoogle Scholar.

14 Simpson, G. G., Some Principles of Historical Biology Bearing on Human Origins, in Origin and Evolution of Man (Cold Spring Harbor, L.I., N.Y.: The Biological Laboratory [Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, Vol. XV], 1950), 55fGoogle Scholar. This paper has a wealth of references of both the pros and cons of orthogenesis. Cf. also Simpson's The History of Life, in Evolution After Darwin, op. cit., 117–80, for examples of his work and more references.

15 The Phenomenon of Man (trs. by Wall, Bernard; N.Y.: Harper, 1959)Google Scholar; La Vision du Passé (Oeuvres, Tome III; Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1957)Google Scholar.

16 Phenomenon of Man, 108.

17 Ibid., 109.

18 Note sur la réalité actuelle et la signification évolutive d'une orthogénèse humaine, in La Vision du Passé, 355 (my translation). All French translated is mine.

19 Cf. Une défense de l'Orthogénèse, in La Vision du Passé, 386.

20 Ibid. (my translation).

21 Ibid., 384.

22 Ibid., 390f.

23 I find Madeleine Barthélemy-Madaule's discussion of orthogenetic evolution and Teilhard wanting insofar as she never really communicates the scientific problem involved in espousing the orthogenetic position. She also mentions (p. 159) that in adopting orthogenesis, Teilhard operated principally as paleontologist — this is exactly what many scientists find distasteful, adducing Teilhard's status as a scientist in support of his views. As I hope I have shown, the great weight of the scientific community is contra Teilhard on the subject of orthogenesis precisely because of the scientific evidence (or lack of it). Cf. Barthélemy-Madaule, M., Bergson et Teilhard de Chardin (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1963), 128–60Google Scholar.

24 G. G. Simpson, Review Article of Phenomenon of Man, op. cit.

25 Rostand, Jean in Le Figaro Littéraire (23 September, 1965), 10Google Scholar.

26 Theodosius Dobzhansky, Mankind Evolving, 347.

27 Cuénot, Claude, Teilhard de Chardin: A Biographical Study (trs. by Colimore, Vincent and edited by Hague, René; Baltimore: Helicon, 1965), 91Google Scholar.

28 In a talk, “Organic and Social Evolution as Viewed by Teilhard and a Modern Biologist,” given by Dr. Stebbins, Professor of Botany, University of California, at Chicago Theological Seminary, 10 February, 1965.

29 Jean Rostand, op. cit., 1.

30 A discussion on the generalized differences of Continental and Anglo-American attitudes to science, philosophy, theology, etc. is beyond the limited view of this paper. For an introduction and references confer Hutin, Sergé, La Philosophie Anglaise et Américaine (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958)Google Scholar.

31 Cuénot, op. cit., 163.

32 Cf. McMullin, Ernan, Teilhard as a Philosopher, in The Chicago Theological Seminary Register, Vol. LV, no. 4 (1964), 17Google Scholar.

33 Toulmin, Stephen, On Teilhard de Chardin, in Commentary 39, no. 3 (March, 1965), 53Google Scholar.

34 A letter of 27 February, 1953, cited in Cuénot, op. cit., 304.

35 Cf. Cuénot, op. cit., 379.

36 Wildiers, op. cit., 9.

37 A declaration made during an interview in Nouvelles Littéraires, 11 January, 1951, cited in Wildiers, op. cit., 38.

38 Cuénot, op. cit., 400.