58
created matter, and endowed matter with the power to produce certain effects, there is no
difficulty in believing that, as long as no new force intervenes, certain organisms can
develop in one way rather than another, and thus give rise to different beings. But when you
pass from a series of living beings to another series of living beings which contains a new
principle, then things change. From the vegetable, without sensitivity, the animal which
possesses sensations cannot be produced: we need here a new power that cannot come from
self- organization, nor from matter alone. And much more must be said when one passes
from the brute animal to the human being who thinks, reflects and has a conscience. A new
principle must then be associated with the physical forces of matter to achieve these results.
(Secchi 1879: 199)
The observation of matter, and above all of the phenomenon of the human being, leads
the Jesuit astronomer to conclude that at the origin and in the foundation of the world there
is an immaterial Principle with which he associates the name of God (cf. Secchi 1874: vol.
2, 363–364).
Writing a few years after the publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species
(1859), Secchi argued that such a Creator Principle could embrace from eternity
with a single glance the succession of biological forms and their development from
the simplest to the most complex ones, ensuring that the laws of physics were in
harmony with what life would need. He proposes the image of a parametric function
in which the same mathematical form, here compared to the Creator’s sight, is able
over time to gradually give rise to different forms of life through a variation of the
parameters, thus producing different effects, but all foreseen by that mathematical
function. Secchi says that recognizing that all morphologies and their development
are contained in, and intended by, the same creative intelligence—the mathematical
function that transcends the order of nature, according to the proposed image—
should reassure those who fear that Darwinian ideas would have negative consequences on faith (Secchi 1874: vol. 2, 359–360).
Meanwhile, the progress of geology that had dated the Earth’s formation and the
origin of life far back in time had led to criticism of the content of Sacred Scripture
on two fronts. The first was that natural history now argued for a much longer timeframe than that which a naïve and literal reading of the biblical texts on creation
would have imagined. The second concerned the origin of animal species and the
origin of the human being, themes on which biblical teaching was hastily placed in
conflict with the Darwinian theory of biological evolution. Secchi did not hesitate to
defend the truth of Scripture. However, avoiding its literal reading, he tried to frame
its teachings within the results of the sciences, without embarking on an approximate theology.
In those same years, a number of apologetic writings were authored by certain
religious people who were committed to countering the danger of atheism, which
they believed were inherent in the new scientific theories. While praising the good
intentions of these authors, Secchi also indicated the scientific errors they made.
According to the Jesuit astronomer, the starting point for this discussion should not
be questions of principle, which are inevitably subjective, but on experimental data.
Here we find an approach very similar to that followed by Antonio Stoppani, who
among his “maxims for the Catholic apologist” had placed in first place “fighting
G. Tanzella-Nitti
created matter, and endowed matter with the power to produce certain effects, there is no
difficulty in believing that, as long as no new force intervenes, certain organisms can
develop in one way rather than another, and thus give rise to different beings. But when you
pass from a series of living beings to another series of living beings which contains a new
principle, then things change. From the vegetable, without sensitivity, the animal which
possesses sensations cannot be produced: we need here a new power that cannot come from
self- organization, nor from matter alone. And much more must be said when one passes
from the brute animal to the human being who thinks, reflects and has a conscience. A new
principle must then be associated with the physical forces of matter to achieve these results.
(Secchi 1879: 199)
The observation of matter, and above all of the phenomenon of the human being, leads
the Jesuit astronomer to conclude that at the origin and in the foundation of the world there
is an immaterial Principle with which he associates the name of God (cf. Secchi 1874: vol.
2, 363–364).
Writing a few years after the publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species
(1859), Secchi argued that such a Creator Principle could embrace from eternity
with a single glance the succession of biological forms and their development from
the simplest to the most complex ones, ensuring that the laws of physics were in
harmony with what life would need. He proposes the image of a parametric function
in which the same mathematical form, here compared to the Creator’s sight, is able
over time to gradually give rise to different forms of life through a variation of the
parameters, thus producing different effects, but all foreseen by that mathematical
function. Secchi says that recognizing that all morphologies and their development
are contained in, and intended by, the same creative intelligence—the mathematical
function that transcends the order of nature, according to the proposed image—
should reassure those who fear that Darwinian ideas would have negative consequences on faith (Secchi 1874: vol. 2, 359–360).
Meanwhile, the progress of geology that had dated the Earth’s formation and the
origin of life far back in time had led to criticism of the content of Sacred Scripture
on two fronts. The first was that natural history now argued for a much longer timeframe than that which a naïve and literal reading of the biblical texts on creation
would have imagined. The second concerned the origin of animal species and the
origin of the human being, themes on which biblical teaching was hastily placed in
conflict with the Darwinian theory of biological evolution. Secchi did not hesitate to
defend the truth of Scripture. However, avoiding its literal reading, he tried to frame
its teachings within the results of the sciences, without embarking on an approximate theology.
In those same years, a number of apologetic writings were authored by certain
religious people who were committed to countering the danger of atheism, which
they believed were inherent in the new scientific theories. While praising the good
intentions of these authors, Secchi also indicated the scientific errors they made.
According to the Jesuit astronomer, the starting point for this discussion should not
be questions of principle, which are inevitably subjective, but on experimental data.
Here we find an approach very similar to that followed by Antonio Stoppani, who
among his “maxims for the Catholic apologist” had placed in first place “fighting
G. Tanzella-Nitti