Revised Darwinism

or

Father Wasmann on
Evolution

BY

REV. SIMON FITZ SIMONS

Author of "A Refutation of Agnosticism "

P. J. KENEDY & SONS
New York pnMlfhm to ^ Philadelphia

Holy Apostolic See

Nihil Obstat.

Imprimatur.

REMIGIUS I^AFORT, S. T. D.
Censor.

JOHN M. FARLEY, D. D.,

Archbishop of New York.

(PerR.L.)

p

New York, November 2, 1910.

\J

PREFACE.

The article which constitutesthis brochure appear
ed in the American Cathol>c Quarterly Review for
January of the present ye6r under the title "Father
Wasmann and Evolution" and at once commanded
widespread attention. The "Quarterly," however,
having — like all reviews — a comparatively limited
field, the article was inaccessible to many persons
who are deeply interested in the problem of evo
lution. Few magazine articles have been commented
on so freely, and often this comment has been, it may
be added without ostentation, so favorable that many
persons have expressed disappointment on being
unable to obtain a copy of the Review in which the
article appeared. For this reason it has been deemed
advisable to publish the article in detached form in
order to bring it within the reach of all who are inter
ested in the subject.

The essay is in the form of a criticism of Father
Wasmann's book, but it deals with the very funda
mentals on which the theory of evolution is based,
while it pursues an entirely new line of argument
differing radically from the ordinary objections
brought against the doctrine of cosmical develop
ment.

Although the article is written by a Catfipjic_j3nest
in criticism of a work by a Catholic priest — and a
Jesuit— it is wholly with the scientific and philosoph
ical aspects of the problem that it deals, and it thus
appeals with equal force to every class of reader.

Few changes have been made from the original
form of the article: an additional footnote or two, the
correction of some typographical errors, and the
substitution of a new title for the original — which now
passes to the second place and becomes a sub-title.
A brief sentence is also added at the close,

FATHER WASMANN ON EVOLUTION.

IT is not a little curious to find that when the
English-speaking world had about settled
down to the very sane conclusion that the the
ory of evolution was nothing more than a weari
ness to the spirit and a burden to the flesh, and
that Darwinism had become an intolerable bore,
over in the proud city of Berlin the fires of
controversy are still raging as fiercely as ever
and the quarrels of the schools are at white
heat in the very capital of that land that aspires
to be known as the "Nation of Thinkers."

Father Wasmann and Ernest Haeckel.

The reason, of course, is not far to seek, and
may be summed up in two words — Ernest
Haeckel. Haeckel has long been known as
one of the fiercest exponents of Darwinism.
He is the German champion ,ef-materialistic
evolution. Facts may fail him, but his imagin-

6

ation is ever furnished with a ready supply. -No
one among the original expounders of the
famous hypothesis seems to have taken him at
all seriously. Its great English-speaking chiefs
were wont to smile benignantly on his extrav
agances of statement. The extraordinary proofs
brought forward from time to time by the pre
posterous Jena professor were regarded with
amusement and wonder rather that with anger
or alarm; and it is now somewhat surprising to
find his countrymen in his old age taking him
seriously as an exponent of the moribund hy
pothesis. But that this is so is beyond question,
and the most convincing proof of the strange
fact is a somewhat curious volume that comes
to us all the way from Berlin, entitled "The
Problem of Evolution, by Erich Wasmann,S.J."

Lectures and Discussion.

It would appear that Father Wasmann had
already published a book on "Modern Biology
and the Theory of Evolution." In a series of
lectures delivered at Berlin by the Jena pro
fessor, he frequently referred to Father Was-
mann's book. Indeed, Father Wasmann tells

7

us in the preface to his recent book that Pro
fessor Haeckel had "in fact stated that the ap
pearance of this work had led him to deliver his
lectures." Father Wasmann then proceeds to
tell us how "it seemed therefore expedient, in
view of the many misunderstandings to which
Haeckel's references had given rise, to publish
a definite statement of my own opinion. " This
he accordingly did in an "Open Letter to Pro
fessor Haeckel"; but as this method of meeting
the issue raised by Professor Haeckel seemed
inadequate to the purpose, Father Wasmann
says he "deemed it very important to give a
course of lectures in Berlin itself on the same
subject" — the theory of evolution.

It would appear that in Germany an appeal
to a Berlin audience is the proper procedure.
An audience of Berlin scientists seems to be
regarded as a jury sufficiently competent to
properly adjudicate the claims of contestants of
every kind. The Saxon Wittenagemote in the
days of the English Heptarchy does not seem
to have been regarded as a tribunal of more
surpassing wisdom; and, like the Athenian
Areopagus, it is to it every man with a worthy

8

cause turns as to the body endowed with the
proper jurisdiction and the requisite attain
ments to decide the difficulties which arise in
the discussion of his problems. The arrange
ment in the case of Father Wasmann's lectures
made the whole affair a quite unique proceed
ing. Indeed, its singularity makes it quite a
remarkable episode in these latter days of the
history of evolution. Three different nights
were assigned to Father Wasmann for the de
livery of his three lectures. A night was then
set apart for the discussion of the problems in
evolution raised by these lectures. At this
discussion eleven savants in all spoke, ten of
whom were opposed to Father Wasmann's
views, the eleventh being non-committal. Final
ly, Father Wasmann closed the discussion,
speaking by way of rejoinder to the replies of
his opponents ; and his remarks — which lasted
half an hour — closed the debate, the learned
and distinguished assemblage breaking up a
little after midnight. Surely Berlin has taken
the problem of evolution seriously.

In one of his remarkable novels, Sienkiewicz,
the famous Polish writer, in unrivalled word-

9

painting, pictures one of his noble characters in
the act of death to which he is assigned. By
way of forlorn hope his hero attempts to escape
from a besieged city to obtain outside aid for
the beleaguered army and citizens within its
walls, but finally falls into the hands of the
enemy. The death to which he was swiftly con
demned was that he be placed against a tree fac
ing the soldiers and made a mark for the fiery
arrows of the enemy's sharp-shooters. His life
was spared to the last arrow. But as the whiz
zing darts pierced in quick succession first his
limbs, then his body, and — when he was com
pletely covered — finally his heart, each sharp
wound of the cruel Cossacks was met with a pro
fession of Christian faith ; the various verses of
the Litany of Loretto kept time with the flying
arrows. In somewhat similar fashion Father
Wasmann met his opponents — each monistic
thrust is met with a new profession of faith.
The issue, too, is different; for although Father
Wasmann emerges from the steady fire of his
enemies with his body a forest of scientific darts,
he is nevertheless victorious. It was a remark
able proceeding throughout, and Father Was-

IO

mann, evolutionist though he is, like Sienkie-
wicz's hero, never fails to make profession of
his faith.

Father Wasmann's book rehearses all these
proceedings at length. It gives Father Was
mann's three lectures, the replies of his oppo
nents, and Father Wasmann's rejoinder. But
as only a half hour was assigned to Father
Wasmann for this rejoinder, whereas his oppo
nents had spoken for two and a half hours, it
is evident that it was absolutely impossible
within the brief space of half an hour to cover
adequately all the varied objections of his num
erous opponents. Father Wasmann himself
has evidently thought so, for in the book which
he has just published he has deemed it prudent
— which certainly it was — to comment at great
er length on the speeches and objections of his
antagonists. There is no doubt that this com
mentary is by far the most valuable part of
Father Wasmann's book. Written as it is in
the cold clear light of the morning after, or,
more correctly speaking, weighed in the cool
atmosphere of his study, with his wise and
sound philosophical guides at his elbow, the

II

objections of the various speakers are for the
most part met directly, and Father Wasmann
shows that, whatever the merits of his theory
of evolution, he is deeply versed in the prin
ciples of sound Christian philosophy. Indeed,
whatever inconsistencies or logical lapsings we
may deprecate in his lectures, there is little to
be desiderated in his comment. In not more
than two instances has he failed, we think, to
meet the objections of his opponents squarely
and forcibly, and to crush them with overwhelm
ing logic.

Father Wasmann as an Evolutionist

But it is not because of the discussion, unique
though it all was, that this article is written.
We were wholly unacquainted with Father
Wasmann's writings. We knew in a vague
way that Father Wasmann had been coquetting
with evolution of some kind. We regarded
ourselves as tolerably familiar with everything
of importance that could be adduced in favor of
the somewhat inconsequential and tardy theory.
A somewhat close attention to the arguments
of Darwin, to the pugnacious contentions of

12

Huxley, and above all, to the philosophico-
scientific treatment of the subject by Herbert
Spencer — who, it may be remarked in passing,
as a summist surpassed even Darwin himself —
had long familiarized us with the leading argu
ments at least, in favor of evolution, and if not
always with all the facts themselves, at least with
the classes of fact upon which these arguments
were supposed to be based. An acquaintance
of more than a quarter of a century with all the
strength and all the weakness of the theory, and
an occasional battle with the advocates of the
doctrine over the somewhat brusque claims made
in its behalf, made us somewhat curious to learn
what Father Wasmann, the Jesuit, had found
in the arguments of Darwin or his followers to
make him also a disciple. We had, besides,
some slight acquaintance with the theories of
the Catholic evolutionists. We had read their
claims and noted their inconsistencies, and we
confess to a slight curiosity to know whether
Father Wasmann's evolution was not also char
acterized by the constitutional weakness and
inconsistency with which we had long been
familiar in evolutionists of this class. For these

13

reasons we shall take the liberty of examining
Father Wasmann's position at close range, and
of applying strictures where to us they may
seem necessary.

It goes, of course, without saying, that Father
Wasmann is as orthodox — even in his evolution
— as Pope Pius X. himself. His work has the
approval of his own Jesuit Provincial, as well as
the "Imprimatur" of the Archbishop of St.
Louis, and no one could have fought more
valiantly than he against the monists, material
ists and atheists who in Germany take their
stand under the aegis of evolution. From the
standpoint of orthodoxy there is little to find
fault with, and it is wholly from the standpoint
of scientific and logical conclusion that we in
tend to deal with it.

Doubtless Father Wasmann will repel with
indignation our statement which classes him as
a disciple of Darwin. But there is no remedy
for it; in his acceptance of the theory of evo
lution it would be impossible to class him other
wise, much as Father Wasmann may object.
Indeed, the very first anomaly that strikes us
in Father Wasmann's book is the desperate

14

attempt which he makes to exorcise the doc-
JLrine of evolution of the Darwinian spectre. In
common with all Catholic evolutionists, he
wishes to rescue evolution from the opprobrium
which attaches to the name of Darwinism.
They all naturally desire to rid both themselves
and the theory of Darwin's name by drawing a
wide distinction between the theory of evolution
and the doctrine of Darwin; but the attempt is a
wholly fruitless one, and moreover it is entirely
unfair to Darwin. Indeed, the theory of evo
lution with the name of Darwin expunged
would be the play of Hamlet with the Prince of
Denmark left out. Father Wasmann expends
so much labor and energy on his effort to
accomplish the impossible that it may be well
to clear up the matter.

Wrong Views of Darwinism

Father Wasmann tries to draw a sharp line
of separation between the theory of Darwin and
the theory of evolution. He wishes Darwin's
doctrine to be regarded as merely "a special
branch" of the evolution theory. He says, with
all the emphasis that italics can impart to the

statement, that "Darwinism and the doctrine of \
evolution are not equivalent ideas." He even attrib- 1
utes to Darwinism "a Darwinian theory of the;
universe." He attempts to establish the dis
tinction by telling us that evolution, "which is
wider and more general, connotes the doctrinl
of the derivation of all forms of life from earlier
and simpler forms, whereas Darwinism deals
with the origin of the organic species by way
only of natural selection^ and is therefore a special
branch of the doctrine of evolution." And
lastly, Father Wasmann enumerates what he
calls four different significations of the term
Darwinism, and takes considerable pains to
show that none of these is identical with the
theory of evolution.

Now, nothing could be more misleading, and
in some instances farther from the truth, than
Father Wasmann's contention under this head.
Indeed, on reading it one begins to wonder
whether Father Wasmann is, after all, at all
acquainted with what Darwin wrote on the
subject of evolution. The real truth in the
matter is that Darwin is the real father and
founder of the theory. It was Darwin and Dar-

i6

win alone who gave to the doctrine — even in
the sense in which Father Wasmann accepts it
— a local habitation and a name. It is true that
the subject was first broached by Lamarck, that
Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of the famous
founder of the evolution school, and Geoffrey
St. Hilaire had also speculated along the line of
the famous theory; but the theory was either
scorned, or ridiculed, or ignored, or abandoned
until the "Origin of Species, by Charles Dar
win," raised the extraordinary commotion in the
scientific world. In saying this we are not over
looking the part played by Mr. Wallace, but
Mr. Wallace himself has joined the rest of the
world in according whatever honor belongs to
the authorship of the invention to Darwin.
Whatever credit or discredit attaches to the
creation of the theory of evolution belongs to
Darwin and to Darwin alone, and all endeavor
to wrest from him the glory (?) of the invention
must be regarded as the bold and daring
attempt of piracy or usurpation. This is so
obvious that it is surprising to hear Father
Wasmann question it. The concluding words
of Darwin's introduction to his famous "Origin

17

of Species" show plainly the scope of his
work, and that it was not so much the principle
of natural selection as the mutability of species
which he wished to establish on a firm and
lasting basis. He says:

"Although much remains obscure, and will
long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt,
after the most deliberate and dispassionate
judgment of which I am capable, that the view
which most naturalists until recently entertain
ed, and which I formerly entertained — namely,
that each species has been independently cre
ated — is erroneous. I am fully convinced that
species are not immutable."

This, then, was the end and aim of Darwin's
work — to show that the barriers which were
supposed to divide species from one another
were not insurmountable — that species are not
immutable. The principle of natural selection,
it is true, entered into his theory as a predom
inating factor, but its place was always second
ary and subordinate; its importance was great,
in his estimation, but always subsidiary. This
is evident from the words which follow those
above quoted, where he says :

i8

"Furthermore, I am convinced that natural
selection has been the most important, but not
the exclusive, means of modification."

Darwin's evolution, then, was the formula
tion of the broad generalization. His main
effort was to overthrow the scientific doctrine
of the immutability of species, and to supplant
it by the doctrine of descent with modification.
For this purpose he collected numberless facts
from every department of science, he collated
and compared varieties, he endeavored to sys
tematize the laws of variation, he pointed out
the struggle for existence, he dived into the
depths of palaeontology, he brought forward
arguments from morphology, embryology,
and rudimentary organs, he strove to trace
the succession of organic beings in time and
their geographical distribution in space —
all this he did and a thousand times more, and
all for the express purpose of proving to the
world that species is not immutable, but that
all the different species of organic life now ex
isting on our globe have been developed from
a few original simple forms. And this is pre
cisely what Father Wasmann calls evolution

19

when he tries to oppose it to Darwinism and
tells us that the former, as distinguished from
the latter, * 'connotes the doctrine of the deri
vation of all forms of life from earlier and sim
pler forms." All Darwin's industrious re
searches, all his reflections on the mutual affin
ities and resemblances of organic beings, on
their embryological relations, their geographical
distribution, their geological succession, tended
to one single purpose, viz., to show that the
perfection of structure and coadaptation of the
innumerable species which inhabit our globe,
have all been brought about by the simple
principle of descent with modification — in other
words, by the principle of evolution. Hence
all other evolutionists are but followers or
borrowers of Darwin's broad generalization ;
and it is somewhat amusing to read Father
Wasmann's attempts to rule him out of the
school of evolution altogether. Towards the
close of one of the later editions of "The Origin
of Species" Darwin wrote — many years before
Father Wasmann dreamed of evolution, we
surmise — "I formerly spoke to very many nat
uralists on the subject of evolution, and never

20

once met with any sympathetic agreement. It
is probable that some did then believe in evo
lution, but they were either silent or expressed
themselves so ambiguously that it was not easy
to understand their meaning. Now things are
wholly changed, and almost every naturalist
admits the great principle of evolution."
Were Darwin living to-day, he might add,
"'Now things are changed,' with a ven
geance"; for not only is evolution accepted, but
the more ardent believers in the doctrine strive
to read him out of the school of evolution
altogether.

\ Of course, in order to show that the princi
ple of evolution was at work throughout all
organic life, Darwin felt himself obliged to give
some reasonable explanation of the manner in
which the principle operated. He wished to
convince rational beings of the truth of his
hypothesis, and for this reason he was forced
to cast about for a cause of its operation.
Just as Father Wasmann feels himself obliged
to answer to his own mind the question : By
what agency does evolution accomplish its
wonderful results? so did Darwin feel forced

21

to answer it. And just as Father Wasmann
imagines that the agency by which evolution
operates is what he calls "the jnterior factors,"
so Darwin imagined that the agency was an
external factor which he called "natural selec
tion"; but it would be just as reasonable to
undertake to read Father Wasmann out of the
school of evolution by saying that his evolution
is not evolution at all, but a principle of inter
ior factors, as to exclude Darwin because nat
ural selection was the agency in which he be
lieved. The fact is that in seeking for an ex
planation of the modification and coadaptation
which he believed he had discovered Darwin
imagined he had found the key to it in the
action of breeders who artificially selected.
This suggested to him the notion of a principle
of selection in nature which might be the
agency at work in evolution and the instru
ment of modification. Thus we see that nat
ural selection, while it is all-important in Dar
win's theory, nevertheless holds only a subor
dinate place, although the chief agency by
which evolution is supposed to be effected.
With Darwin evolution is the great result;

22

natural selection is the means. Evolution is
the great door through which all organic life
passes in its wonderful variations ; natural
selection is the hinge on which the great door
swings. Hence we fail to understand how
Father Wasmann hopes to separate evolution
from the doctrines of Darwin or rid the theory
of evolution of the incubus of his name. Even
though he may change the factors, the pro
duct will be the same; though he may invent
new means of evolution, the result will be evo
lution still; to Darwin rightly belongs organic
evolution's whole realm.

Nevertheless Father Wasmann makes a des
perate effort, and for this purpose, somewhat
capriciously, we think, enumerates four differ
ent classes of Darwinism, each of which in turn
he rejects as properly representing the true idea
of evolution. Let us glance briefly at these
four divisions by Father Wasmann. His first
division of Darwinism is what he calls "Dar
winism in the narrower sense," which briefly
means evolution "by way only of natural selec
tion." That this was the theory of Darwin is
to some extent true, as we have just seen; but

23

it is not the whole truth. Darwin at first main
tained that natural selection was not only the
chief factor, but he seems to have long thought
that it was the only one. That he afterwards
admitted other factors, and that later he be
lieved he had overrated the importance of nat
ural selection, is certain. In the words from
the introduction to one of the later editions of
his works which I have already quoted, he
expressly says he regarded natural selection an
important, "but not the exclusive means of
modification." Indeed, Father Wasmann him
self — in a note — tells us that besides natural
selection Darwin admitted "direct adaptation,
correlation, compensation, etc.," as factors of
evolution. Consequently it seems to us some
what arbitrary on the part of Father Wasmann
to rule Darwin so cavalierly out of all his
original titles-deeds and letters patent in the
realm of evolution. On the same grounds
every upstart evolutionist would be fully justi
fied in extruding Father Wasmann from all
his evolutional claims.

In Father Wasmann's second division of
Darwinism he tells us that "In the wider sense,

24

Darwinism is the name given to the general
ization of Darwin's theory of selection, and its
extension to a 'Darwinian theory of the uni
verse.' This is identical with the monistic
theory in the form of Haeckelism ; acording to
it, the whole world has come into existence
without a creator and through merely mechan
ical causes."

There certainly must be a grave mistake
here, and the error is absolutely unfair to Dar
win. We think it would be difficult for Father
Wasmann to show that Darwin in any of his
speculations touched upon "a theory of the
universe" at all. Whatever may have been
his private views on the subject, we fail to find
in any of his writings any trace whatever of
such speculation. He seems to have confined
his studies absolutely to the organic world,
and to have left the "theory of the universe"
entirely to others. Herbert Spencer, it is true,
gave us a theory of the universe, but we look
in vain through Darwin's own writings or
teachings for a hint of his views on the origin
of the cosmos.

But especially is it in the highest degree

25

unjust to Darwin to attribute to him the mon
istic theory of Haeckel. We think it is ex
ceeding the limits of truth to associate Dar
win's name with the theory that "the whole
world has come into existence without a cre
ator and through merely mechanical causes."
So far, indeed, is this from the truth that Dar
win, if his own words mean anything, believed
that the original organic forms came into exist
ence by means of a creative act. Even in the
later editions of the " Origin of Species" Dar
win accepts the doctrine of creation of the orig
inal organic forms. He frankly discusses the
question " whether species have been created
at one or at more points of the earth's surface,"
and thinks that "the simplicity of the view
that each species was first produced within a
single region captivates the mind." He argues
that "to my mind it accords better with what
we know of the laws impressed on matter by
the Creator, that the production and extinction
of the past and present inhabitants of the
world should have been due to secondary
causes"; and in the concluding chapter of his
famous work he tells us: "There is' a grandeur

26

in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator
into a few forms or into one" — all showing that
to the end he was a believer in creation. In
deed, Father Wasmann himself quotes this
last passage to show that Darwin was a believ
er in a theistic evolution, and how he can at
the same time endeavor to link his name with
monism and materialism, and assert that he
sanctioned the notion that ''the whole world
has come into existence without a creator and
through merely mechanical causes," is an
anomaly which it is difficult to account for
unless on the ground of the inevitable incon
sistency which seems to dog the footsteps of
the Catholic evolutionist. However this may
be, there is no doubt that it is a wholly unfound
ed calumny to attribute to Darwin a mechanic
al theory of the universe or the belief that "the
whole world came into existence without a
Creator." Herbert Spencer was the author of
these views — Darwin, never.

Father Wasmann tells us: "The third way
in which the word Darwinism is used, popu
larly, is to designate the application to man of

27

the Darwinian theory of selection. Man is
assumed to be the animal most highly bred in
the course of the struggle for existence, and
nothing else," and here at least Father Was-
mann does not make the mistake of attributing
to Darwin views which he never professed.
Indeed, this is the great lapis offensionis of
Charles Darwin's hypothesis ; and perhaps we
should not be surprised to find evolutionists,
by fair means or by foul, attempting to divorce
evolution from this stupid theory. Father
Wasmann here at least is guilty of no calumny
on the memory of Darwin. He only makes
the mistake of saying that the term Darwinism
is used "popularly" in this sense. It is used
not only "popularly," but scientifically in this
sense, and Darwin himself labored hard to
make it a tenet of science. Indeed, Father
Wasmann himself, while he indignantly refers
to it, is not so far removed in his evolution
from this theory. But to Father Wasmann's
relation to this division we shall return later.
"Fourthly and lastly," says Father Wasmann,
"the name of Darwinism is applied in a gen
eral way to the theory of evolution, as I remarked

28

before." Here again Father Wasmann uses
terms somewhat loosely and in a way that is
apt to be misleading. If, when he says that
''the name Darwinism is applied in a general
way to the theory of evolution," he means that
Darwin applied his theory of evolution "in a
general way" to the evolution of organic be
ings from creation down to the present time,
and from one or two primordial forms to all
the endless varieties which have appeared on
our globe ; then, indeed, is he near to the
truth ; but if by this expression he means —
and this seems to be the case — that Darwin
extended his speculations on evolution beyond
the limits of the organic world and into the
inorganic, then is he dealing with an assumption
that is, as we have just seen, without the
slightest tittle of evidence.

The object of Father Wasmann's divisions
of Darwinism is, as we have already said, to
rid the Christian philosophy of the stigma of
the third division. For this purpose he wishes
to effect a permanent divorce between Darwin
and his own theory. Father Wasmann makes
no secret of his motives. He frankly tells us

29

"This confusion of ideas has" done much harm
in many ways. If, for instance, a serious stu
dent, engaged in scientific research, finds in
his special department what he regards as evi
dence of the development of species, he is at
once called a Darwinist, and as such is assail
ed by another party." Father Wasmann nat
urally chafes under this classification as unjust,
and naturally tries to remedy the injustice.
But as long as he accepts the theory of evolu
tion we do not see how his position can be
amended. He may differ from Darwin on a
few minor points, but the world at large, as we
have seen, must class him simply as a follower
of Darwin. The name of Darwin is as insep
arably interwoven with the theory of evolution
as is the name of La Place with the nebular
hypothesis or the name of Comte with the pos
itive philosophy. Darwin has been the first on
the field, has been the first to map out the
territory of the broad generalization, and hence
forth and forever has the legitimate right to
claim it as liis own. The claim of Christopher
Columbus to the discovery of the new world
was not more valid than Darwin's claim to the

30

realm — such as it is — of evolution. Indeed,
Father Wasmann himself seems to be all the
while unwittingly conscious of all this ; for
while he is laboring so hard towards the ex
trusion of Darwin, at the close of his third lec
ture he actually proceeds to an apotheosis of
evolution, with Darwin as its creator. He
compares Christianity to a rock around whose
base the waves of science are breaking. Al
though the wave of science was successful in
the case of Copernicanism, the rock stands
firm, and he thinks it will be the same in the
present instance. A wave had again, like the
Ptolemaic system, "rested in long-continued
peace at the foot of the rock" of Christianity.
But "the new wave came, and it will probably
be victorious in the conflict now raging be
tween it and the old." This wave is evolution,
and its mover is Darwin. He tells us — in spite
of his attempts at Darwin's extrusion — "In
1859" (the year in which Darwin first publish
ed "The Origin of Species") came the moment
when a powerful wave, starting from England,
assailed us like a deluge. It increased in
strength and power until the foam flecked the

very pinnacles of the rock. It is true that this
wave no longer bears the name of Darwin and
of the Darwinian system in the narrower sense,
but it is the theory of evolution which ....
has hitherto been victorious in the strife, and
will probably remain so to the end." It is not
a little singular, after all that Father Wasmann
has written to show that evolution has nothing
in common with Darwinism, to find him now
speaking of that same evolution as the mighty
and "powerful wave, starting from England in
1859," which "has assailed us like a deluge,"
and which, having "hitherto been victorious in
the strife (?), will probably remain so to the
end." The incongruity of statement is explic
able only by the usual inconsistency of the
Catholic evolutionist.

Views of Darwin and Father Wasmann Compared.

Indeed, in spite of all his ostentatious rejec
tion of Darwinism, there is a remarkable resem
blance between Father Wasmann's evolution
and that of Darwin — a resemblance so striking
as to suggest relationship ; and on some points
where there is dissimilarity Father Wasmann

32

seems to us to out-Darwin Darwin himself.
Here are a few points of resemblance on the
essential features of the doctrine: (1) Darwin
maintains that the theory of evolution is oper
ative throughout all organic nature. Father
Wasmann, if we understand him rightly, main
tains the same, and proceeds even further, for
he extends the principle not only to inorganic
nature, but to the development of the cosmos.
In this he far outstrips Darwin and is to some
extent abreast of Herbert Spencer and Ernest
Haeckel. (2) Father Wasmann rejects mono-
phyletic evolution, whether applied to the
whole kingdom of organic life or to "the whole
animal kingdom on the one hand," and to "the
whole vegetable kingdom on the other, as de
rived from one primary form." He seems to
believe, however, in a polyphyletic evolution ;
that is the theory of "development from a var
iety of stocks." Darwin to the last believed in
polyphyletic evolution as opposed to monophy-
letic. He discusses the question freely, and
tells us "I cannot doubt that the theory of de
scent with modification embraces all the mem
bers of the same great class or kingdom. I

33

believe that animals are descended from at most
only four or five progenitors, and plants from
an equal or less number." Monophyletic evo
lution, even in the sense ''that all the organic
beings which have ever lived on this earth may
be descended from one primordial form," he
regarded as neither impossible nor incredible,
but the only evidence in its favor was, he be
lieved, "chiefly grounded on analogy." In any
case, he regarded it as wholly "immaterial" to
the theory of evolution "whether or not it be
accepted." (3) On the importance of "natural
selection" as a factor of evolution there is a
slight difference between Darwin and Father
Wasmann ; but only slight. Darwin regarded
natural selection as the chief, "but not the ex
clusive means of modification." He admitted
"the inherited effects of use and disuse," "the
direct action of external conditions," and also
the influence of "variations which seem to us
in our ignorance to rise spontaneously." Fa
ther Wasmann, while apparently making light
of natural selection, and while proclaiming
it to be a merely "subsidiary factor," never
theless tells us "it is indispensable" as such

34

"in the theory of evolution." He regards what
he calls "the interior factors" as the chief point
to consider ; but of these interior factors he
admits no one knows anything, and what with
their expediency, adaptiveness, etc., etc., it is
not easy to distinguish between them and Dar
win's "variations which seem to rise spontan
eously" ; so that on this point the difference
between his views and those of Darwin, which
he so indignantly rejects, appear to be the dif
ference between tweedledum and tweedledee.
Nor in the last analysis do we find so wide a
difference between Father Wasmann's theory
and Darwin's doctrine of man's descent from
beasts, which Father Wasmann finds so objec
tionable. Father Wasmann will undoubtedly
rebel against all such interpretation of his the
ory. But if we understand Father Wasmann
rightly, while he rejects the ape as man's an
cestor, he substitutes for him a creature which,
though not a beast, is not yet a man — possibly
a species of Caliban. And this brings us to
Father Wasmann's own theory of evolution.
Before proceeding to an examination of his
views on the subject, however, we may be per-

35

mitted to emphasize the fact that when Father
Wasmann attempts to expel Darwin from the
realm of even modern evolution, he is simply
beating the air. All his endeavors in this line,
together with the results which are apparent
from his work, remind us of the attempts of the
modernists to wrest the weapons from the hands
of the Biblical critics, but which, alas ! resulted
so ignominiously in their own complete capture
by the very Egyptians whom they had planned
to despoil. In espousing the cause of evolu
tion Father Wasmann has but opened the
floodgates for that "powerful wave starting
from England," which "has assailed us like a
deluge," and which must inevitably sweep him
— indeed, which seems to have already done so
— from that bold and determined stand which
he has nobly — though not very logically — taken
against his third division of Darwinism. Mean
while, what constitutes Darwinism must be de
termined by what Darwin himself taught and
wrote, and in spite of all the efforts and pro
tests of Father Wasmann, it will be difficult for
him tot show that he is not a disciple of Darwin
in the true sense of the term, or, as he himself

with some ostentation tells us Haeckel has al
ready styled him, "a Darwinian Jesuit."

Theistic Evolution.

Although in his preface Father Wasmann
tells us that the motive of his lectures was that
he aimed "at throwing light upon the impor
tant question, What are we to think of the
doctrine of evolution?' " and although he re
peats this in his first lecture when he tells his
audience, "I only wish to throw some real light
on the subject, trusting in this way to do a good
work," we confess to some difficulty in fully
ascertaining Father Wasmann's exact views on
some important points. More than once he
rides right gallantly up to the ranks of the
evolutionists, and when we expect to find him
registering as an enthusiastic recruit, we are
surprised to find him backing away in a sort of
awkward fashion, and his words have not the
ring of enthusiasm we might expect to find in
those of a newly enlisted soldier. Then, too, we
find some difficulty in grasping the manner in
which he endeavors to couple together the the
ory of creation and the great universal principle

37

of evolution. We shall try to give a brief synop
sis of leather Wasmann's attempted rehabili
tation of the discredited doctrine of evolution:

(1) He calls this theistic evolution and tells
us that it starts "with assuming the existence
of a personal Creator."

(2) Next, "The theistic theory of the world
involves the idea of creation."

(3) "Further, the theistic view, taken in con
junction with the creation of matter, lays down
as its foundation the subjection to law of the
whole cosmic evolution and of the entire evo
lution of the inorganic world, asserting that
the first combination of atoms or electrons con
tained the definite material disposition from
which, in the course of the succeeding millions
of years, all the various constellations of at
oms were to result by way of natural evolu
tion. Thus we have a sufficient foundation and
a sufficient primary cause for the further nat
ural evolution of the whole inorganic world —
and this to me appears a very reasonable
view to take."

(4) We have thus got down to the time when
life began to exist on the globe, and "in order

38

to account for the origin of the first organisms,
the theistic theory of life presupposes a so-call
ed act of creation to have taken place." This is
"a production of organic bodies out of pre-
existent inorganic matter." The theistic the
ory, however, is ready to surrender this posi
tion of the "so-called creation" of organisms in
case spontaneous generation should ever be
come an established conclusion of science.

(5) "The earliest laws of evolution were laid
down for the organic world at the production
of the first organisms." And

(6) "The Christian theory of life" requires
"the assumption that man possesses a spiritual
and immortal soul."

This is in brief the programme of theistic
evolution ; but it is so vague that we must try
to fill in the great gaps in the bald statement
from other parts of Father Wasmann's lectures.

We may say, then, that Father Wasmann
believes in a Creator and a creation of original
matter. Next he believes that on this original
created matter the Creator had impressed the
laws of evolution, and that in consequence we
have the natural evolution of our solar system

39

and the uniform development of the cosmos as
a whole, including all the heavenly bodies.
"Included" in this vast universal evolution is
the evolution of our own little world, and it
occupies "a scarcely perceptible period of time,
barely a minute, and of this minute a small
fraction, (that nevertheless, according to geol
ogists, lasted millions of years), was occupied
by the evolution of organic life before the ap
pearance of man." We have already seen that
this process of evolution had either ceased or
was interrupted at the entrance of life upon this
planet, and that Father Wasmann was obliged
to assume "a so-called creation" of the first
organisms to account for the appearance of life.
Two great links in the chain of evolution are
yet to be accounted for by the theistic evolu
tion, and as these are the two that most con
cern us, we are not a little disappointed to find
that when Father Wasmann approaches them
he becomes nebulous and obscure. These two
are, first, the development of organic life from
its appearance on the globe down to man, and
next the evolution of man. In the organic
world down to man, Father Wasmann seems

40

to believe in a sort of spasmodic evolution.
This evolution seems to be partial, or chro
matic, or intermittent ; and Father Wasmann
is singularly hesitant about formulating his
views in anything like a plain categorical state
ment. Although he tells us that in his special
line of studies he has come upon "a number of
interesting phenomena, which are biologically
explicable only from the point of view of evo
lution"; although he says "The principle of
the theory of evolution is the only one which
supplies us with a natural explanation of these
phenomena, and therefore we accept it"; and
although he emphasizes this latter statement
by printing it in italics ; we find that it is soon
defecated by him to a mere transparency, and
he so sublimates it that from a proof it soon
becomes a mere probability. Although he
finds evolution the only explanation of the phe
nomena which he has observed, and although
he adds that therefore he accepts it, in the
very same breath he asks, "But to what extent
do we accept it?" And his answer is in italics :
"Just as far as its application is supported by
actual proofs" And when he "attempts to

answer how far this is the case," the answer
dwindles from "actual proofs" down to mere
probability and the essence of the whole ex
planation seems to be merely that "the proba
bility is in support of evolution." The evolu
tion of original created matter and its develop
ment throughout the cosmos as well as the evo
lution of inorganic nature on our globe are, of
course, pure assumptions on the part of Father
Wasmann, without a single tittle of evidence,
whether by way of direct or indirect proof or
even analogy to sustain them. Consequently
they are of no value whatever and are entitled
to just the same respect as any other ground
less speculation, but no more. Indeed, we
have become somewhat sceptical as to the
value of such so-called scientific speculations.
They have nothing whatever of science about
them, and it must be regarded as somewhat
misleading to link them with the name of sci
ence in any way. We are inclined to be equally
sceptical about the value of speculations which
are the outcome either directly or indirectly of
studies in special departments of science. No
doubt it seems very imposing in a scientist to

42

hear him speak of his own special department
and his observations therein, together with his
special conclusions therefrom ; but we have
always held fast to the inconsequence of the
implied assumption. For instance, Father
Wasmann is a specialist, he says, in an impor
tant department of science. His specialty is
the study of ants and cockroaches. Outside
of this he must, to use his own admission, "rely
upon the authority of others." Candidly, we
have always been of opinion that interesting
and all-absorbing as is the study of ants, it is
a strange place to seek for a solution of the
problems of the universe. Of the scientific
value of the conclusions from this department,
too, we must confess to a mild scepticism ever
since we once read in some of Darwin's own
observations in this field, an account of how he
once came upon a raid on the home of F.
Fusca by a body of F. Sanguinea, how
the conquerors were marching home in
triumph carrying the pupae of the vanquished,
how the survivors of the fray who had
lost their home were rushing about in great
agitation, and how "one was perched motion-

43

less with its own pupa in its mouth on the top
of a spray of heath, an image of despair over
its ravaged home." The "image of despair"
has, rightly or wrongly, ever since rendered us
sceptical about the value of "scientific con
clusions" drawn from this special department
of science.

Father tVasmanns Descent of Man.

But let us pass to Father Wasmann's Des
cent of Man. His exposition of the evolution
of man is, as we have said, unfortunately ob
scure, or perhaps we should say, hesitant.
Father Wasmann is of course throughout his
three lectures arguing against the Monism of
Haeckel, but he is at the same time — as he said
at the outset — endeavoring to throw light on
the problem of evolution. He rejects with

*s — z-

scorn the theory of man's descent from beasts,
whether by descent we mean the whole man
or merely man's body. He examines the two
zoological theories of man's descent, first from
the higher apes and secondly from an ancestor
common to both man and ape, and he rejects
both absolutely. He makes a noble plea for

44

the independence of man of the brute creation.
He claims rightly that with regard to the whole
man — and the whole man is body and soul unit
ed — zoology alone is not capable of giving an
adequate answer to the question of his origin.
He truthfully says that in investigating the
origin of man, the chief question is: Whence
comes his higher part? not: Whence conies his
lower part? and yet, in spite of all this, it is
difficult to see that Father Wasmann's theory
of the evolution of man is at all an advance on
the theory of his descent from beasts. For
Father Wasmann seems to have a theory of
his own of the evolution of man. Indeed he
asks the question : "May this theory (evolution] be
applied to man, and if so, in what degree?" And
this is how he answers it: "I wish to state def
initely, before discussing the matter, that we
are not concerned with the application to man
of Darwin's theory of evolution, for I showed
in my last lecture that I was unable to accept
that. But he immediately adds, "We may
apply the theory of evolution to man, and still
have as foundation the principles of Christian
philosophy and of the Christian theory of life."

45

We have searched in vain through Father
Wasmann's book for the explanation of this
theory of man which is supposed to be in per
fect harmony with "Christian philosophy" and
" the Christian theory of life," but fail to find
it, unless it be in the speculations at the begin
ning of his third lecture which lead up to the
question just asked and answered. In these
speculations he says:

"Every atom in the human body had its
primary origin in a creative act of God at the
first formation of matter, although millions of
years of cosmic development were to elapse,
before it became a part of a human body; and
in just the same way, we might imagine a hy
pothetical history of humanity, governed by
the laws of natural development, which God
pressed on the first cells at the moment when
life originated."

Father Wasmann then proceeds to tell us
how, "in accordance with this purely specula
tive supposition, man would have become man
completely only when the organized matter had
so far developed through natural causes, as to
be capable of being animated with a human

46

soul. The creation of the first human soul
marks the real creation of the human race, although
we might assume that a natural development
lasting millions of years had preceded it."

"These," he adds, "are, it is true, only attrac
tive possibilities, the outcome of bold specula
tion, but I have referred to them in order to
prove to you that, if ever science is able to
demonstrate to us the natural development of
man from an ancestry resembling beasts, the
divine origin and the divine end of humanity will
nevertheless remain unass ailed and firmly established
as before''

This may be regarded by Father Wasmann
as a "bold speculation," but we can hardly agree
with him in calling it an "attractive possibility."
If we understand Father Wasmann's specula
tion rightly, it is an attempt to push aside Dar
win's doctrine about the descent of man, and
in a measure the Mivartian hypothesis as well,
and to supplant both by what might, perhaps,
be properly termed a fhylogenetic germ-cell theory
of humanity. In other words, instead of the hy
pothesis of Mivart which refers man's ancestry
to apes, assuming that at a certain period in

47

the evolution of the ape a human soul was in
fused, Father Wasmann assumes that man had
a direct and special ancestor for himself, which
we might call man-in-preparation. It presup
poses that at the creation of life God created
something like a germ-cell of humanity endow
ed with life and the power of development, with
the ultimate intention of erecting it into a man
"when the organized matter had so far devel
oped through natural causes as to be capable of
being animated with a human soul/' It was
not yet man. It was distinct from other ani
mal ancestry. It was not ape or beast or any
other kind of obnoxious ancestor. It was wor
thy of the future dignity of man. It was man-
matter vivified by the spark of life and left with
the power of developing. It was specially cre
ated, probably out of specially prepared matter;
and when the proper time in its own develop
ment came, the human soul was grafted on this
living thing. Heretofore it was uncompleted
man; now it became complete man. We think
we have given Father Wasmann's views; but
of course are subject to correction if we have
misapprehended his meaning.

48

Of course every proposition that does not
involve an antinomy of thought is possible, and
Father Wasmann's "bold speculation" is no ex
ception, but for our part it is difficult to under
stand how this is at all an improvement on the
Mivartian hypothesis ; and we utterly fail to
see how Father Wasmann expects to reconcile
it with "the principles of Christian philosophy."
Its main object seems to be to discover a proper
salve for human pride, and for this it is indeed
well calculated, though the notion is purely fan
tastic. But whether the human soul was at
man's creation grafted on an ape or on this
man-in-preparation — whether we regard the
preparation as homunculus, or an undeveloped
Caliban, or a soulless man — seems to be of little
consequence as far as " Christian philosophy"
is concerned. Consequently whatever may be
the merits of the speculation from a scientific
point of view, from the standpoint of Christian
philosophy it is absolutely worthless. There
seems to be one fatal flaw in- all these specula
tions — in which the human soul is supposed to
be grafted on beings already possessing an an
terior principle of life — which seems to have

49

been completely overlooked, but which to us
at least seems to negative completely all theor
ies of this kind. It is the simplicity of the hu
man soul. Father Wasmann himself argues
nobly in favor of this principle which, never
theless, his speculation would completely con
tradict. According to the teaching of St.
Thomas and all Christian philosophers the
soul is the first principle of life — "primum prin-
cipium vifae." According to Father Wasmann's
hypothesis this first principle of life is intro
duced into an organized being already endowed
with the life principle. Consequently in Fath
er Wasmann's man there are of necessity two
principles of life, one the original life of the
incomplete man, the other the human soul
specially created. Now how do these two prin
ciples of life existing within each of us act?
Do they operate separately or conjointly? It
is hardly conceivable that the first life princi
ple is absorbed by the second, and it is equally
improbable that it is annihilated by the second
or by God to make room for the second. In
fact a whole swarm of spectral questions emerge
from Father Wasmann's speculation which he

5°

will find it difficult to allay or to reconcile with
his philosophy of the simplicity of the soul.
Do the two souls exist in one body? Or is the
newly-created soul superadded to the first?
Do they coalesce ? Or does the newly-created
soul absorb the evolution soul ? And if so,
how can such a soul be said to be simple ? Or
we can take the three different ways into which
the speculation must resolve itself. Either the
two souls exist in man independent of each
other ; or they act in unison by co-operation,
or coalescence, or absorption ; or the first soul
is either annihilated or expelled. The theistic
evolutionist will hardly be ready to accept the
first. In the second case the soul of man is
not simple but compound ; for the third there
is no warrant of any kind either in science, or
philosophy, or experience.1 Indeed we prefer
to these revolting and unwarranted alterna
tives, which Father Wasmann's speculation
forces upon us, to accept crass materialism
without question. Materialistic materialism is

i Possibly some expressions of St. Thomas might be regarded by
some as pertinent here ; but it will be difficult to show that they have
application at all, except possibly by way of analogy : and even analog
ically it would be difficult to show that they are applicable.

5*

bad enough, but materialistic spiritualism
which these assumptions postulate — ! ! The
simple question : What becomes of the animal
soul ? seems to be fatal, from the standpoint of
"Christian philosophy," to all speculations that
involve the introduction of a new and human
soul into a being already endowed with life.
For the rest we cannot see how Father Was-
mann's speculation can aid Christian philoso
phy in an acceptance of evolution, though as a
sop to human pride it does palliate to some
extent the theories of Mivart and Darwin.

Proofs of Evolution.

It has long been a wonder to one portion of
humanity that men should permit their imagin
ations to run away with their judgments in mat
ters scientific, thus involving themselves in in
extricable difficulties and perplexities. In the
case of evolution at least this is certainly not
owing to the overwhelming nature of the proofs.
Nor does Father Wasmann claim to give us
any new proof of the theory which he espouses.
We have looked for them in vain. In dealing
with this portion of the theory of evolution

52

Father Wasmann divides the proofs for it into
the "direct" and " indirect." "The direct
proofs," he tells us, " are those faint traces of
transformation of species, as they still may be
discovered ; such, for instance, as the botanist,
Hugo de Vries, has described in support of his
theory of mutation. He shows that in the bo
tanical genus Oenothera, mullein, new forms
are still being developed, which "behave like
real species." Of course this is a case of par-
turiunt montes in which all that the great gen
eralization — evolution — can bring forward in
its favor is the behavior of some specimens of
the mullein plant, and is ridiculous in the ex
treme. The great principle of evolution is sup
posed to have been at work throughout all
time and throughout all space. On our own
globe, on land and sea, throughout the entire
vegetable kingdom, throughout the entire ani
mal kingdom, throughout all inorganic matter ;
yea, throughout the entire cosmos, the universe,
the heliocentric system, it is supposed to be
operative and to have been operative through
out all past time and down to the present ; and
yet the only direct proof that can be adduced

53

that there is such a principle at work or indeed
that there is such a principal at all, is that
some varieties of mullein are somewhat eccen
tric in their behavior. Of course Father Was-
mann is too sensible a man to regard this as a
proof, and so we may dismiss it. We wish
Father Wasmann's judgment had been as cor
rect in dealing with the "indirect proofs."

Proofs from Paleontology.

His indirect proofs are from paleontology
and, it is hardly necessary to say, are affected
by the constitutional weakness which are char
acteristic of all the proofs from this quarter in
favor of evolution. Father Wasmann furnishes
no new principle and not even any new variety
of fact, although his facts are taken from his
own observation in his own special department
of ants and cockroaches.

"There are," he tells us, "hundreds of kinds
of ants, which we know through their having
been preserved to us in the tertiary amber of
the Baltic and Sicily. Amongst them occur
several genera which still exist, but scarcely a
species that is identical with the present ones.

54

We can hardly avoid coming to the conclusion
that our ants are the descendants of these fos
sil varieties, and that they have come into be
ing by way of natural evolution of the race,
and not by way of a new creation."

Father Wasmann does not give us the men
tal process by which he finds himself so con
strained that he "can hardly avoid coming to
his conclusion"; hence we must deal with his
argument in common with the whole argument
from paleontology. First, however, let us hear
Father Wasmann in full on this point.

"Again if we compare the fossil termites of
the tertiary epoch with those now known to us,
we are forced to assume that the latter are
modified descendants of the former, and that
they have come into being by way of race evo
lution, not by way of a new creation."

Had Father Wasmann, instead of "a new
creation," said "a separate creation," his mean
ing would have been made much clearer ; but
the force of his reasoning in behalf of evolution
would have lost half its value.

Father Wasmann cites a third instance. He
says :

55

" Further, if we consider the oldest of the
still existing varieties of termites, viz., the Aus
tralian genus Mastotermes, and compare the
formation of the wings with that of the Blat-
tidae, or cockroaches, both fossil and still ex
istent, we shall -probably find that the termites
in some prehistoric palaeozoic age were evolv
ed from one and the same stock as the ances
tors of our present black-beetles."

Father Wasmann adds, " I might give many
such instances, but it is time for me to pass on
to my photographs."

This then is the whole argument from pal
eontology which Father Wasmann furnishes as
the indirect and only proof that evolution has
taken place throughout all space and through
out all time, and that it is still at work through
out the entire universe. These indirect
" proofs" are a fair sample of the evolutionist's
method of argument and give us a fair notion
of what is meant by " the proofs of evolution."
We regret to find Father Wasmann falling
into the slip-slop of the evolutionist, and for
this reason we shall deal with the argument
somewhat at length.

56

If we understand Father Wasmann's argu
ment rightly it is this : Since among the fossil
ants found in the tertiary amber of the Baltic
and Sicily none are discovered which are iden
tical with some species which now exist "we
can hardly avoid coming to the conclusion"
that no such species ever existed before, and
that our present ants must have descended by
way of evolution from the fossil ants which are
there found. By way of confirmation of this
argument it may be added that among the
fossil ants of the Baltic and Sicilian tertiaries
we do find genera which still exist. Therefore
the probability is that no species like those now
existing ever lived and that our present ones
are descended from these fossil ants which we
do find there. We think Father Wasmann
himself has not put his argument in stronger
form than we have done. Let us examine this
argument at length.

The argument looks exceedingly like trying
to prove a negative. What is the proof that
no such species ever existed previously and
that we must look elsewhere for the ancestors
of Father Wasmann's present ants ? Why must

57

we derive them from other species ? And what
proof is there for the non-existence of similar
species ? None that we can see except that
they are not to be found in the " tertiary amber
of the Baltic and Sicily." But surely, this can
not be regarded as a proof that such a species
never existed. Father Wasmann's argument
is based on three distinct assumptions, not one
of which holds good in reality. First, that we
have a complete acquaintance with all the fos
sils which the full geological record contains ;
secondly, that every species which ever existed
has become fossilized and that therefore in the
complete geological record we have an exact
inventory of all the species that have ever ex
isted upon the earth ; and thirdly, that in the
supposition that all forms have left fossil re
mains, those fossil remains have been preserv
ed. A failure in any one of these suppo
sitions renders extremely doubtful the position
assumed by Father Wasmann ; but there is
failure in all three. With regard to the first,
it is a truism to say that we have but a frac
tion of the geological record and consequently
only a mere fragmentary portion of its content.

58

The geological record is an open book, the fos-
siliferous strata are its open pages, the fossil
remains found in those pages are the charac
ters or letters by which paleontologists seek to
reconstruct the past history of plant and ani
mal life on this globe. But this history is not
only incomplete ; it is merely fragmentary.
Sir Charles Lyell always insisted on its imper
fection. Even Darwin himself bewails it. He
tells us, "The noble science of geology loses
much from the extreme imperfection of the re
cord." And again, " For my part, I look at
the geological record as a history of the world
imperfectly kept and written in a changing dia
lect. Of this history we possess the last vol
ume alone, relating only to two or three coun
tries. Of this volume, only here and there a
short chapter has been preserved, and of each
page, only here and there a line." Even Her
bert Spencer candidly admitted that "had we
an exhaustive examination of all exposed strata
covered by the sea, it would disclose types im
mensely outnumbering those at present
known." Hence even though no identical an
cestors of the now existing species of ants are

59

to be met with in the fossils of the Baltic and
Sicily, it would be an extremely rash judgment
to conclude that such ancestors never existed.
The conclusion which can be drawn from the
absence of such forms in the amber fossils of
of Sicily and the Baltic is that no such fossils
are to be found in the Baltic and Sicilian ter
tiary amber, but nothing more. It would be
even rash to conclude that they never existed
there ; for we have no evidence to show that
remains of all fossils even in that environment
have been preserved. And this brings us to
the second assumption, viz., that all living forms
that have ever existed upon the earth have left
behind them fossil remains. No one who gives
the subject a thought for a moment will enter
tain so wild a notion. We know that fossil-
ization is now the exception, and it is fairly
certain that it has been the exception in all past
time. A concurrence of the conditions which
preserve for us in fossil state the forms of life
which at one time or other inhabited our globe
is not frequent and certainly is not constant.
In all probability the proportion of organisms
in relation to the whole animal and vegetable

6o

life of the globe, that have been preserved in
fossil form to puzzle posterity and multiply per
plexing problems, was no greater at any time
than it is at present. Darwin himself admits
that "The accumulation of each great fossil-
iferous formation will be recognized as having
depended on an unusual occurrence of circum
stances, and the blank intervals between the
successive stages as of vast duration"; and
Herbert Spencer again is forced to admit here
that "geologists agree that even had we before
us every kind of fossil which exists, we should
still have nothing like a complete index to the
past inhabitants of the globe ;" and he adds
further, that " there are strong reasons for be
lieving that the records which remain bear but
a small ratio to the records that have been de
stroyed." He also further admitted that "the
facts about fossil remains are so fragmentary
that no positive conclusion can be drawn from
them." Then, too, as Spencer has remarked,
" The great mass of ancestral types — plant and
animal — consisting of soft tissues, have left no
remains whatever," which coincides with Dar
win's remark that " No organism wholly soft

6i

can be preserved." None will deny then that
it would be wrong to suppose that even though
we had the entire geological record before us
and made an exhaustive examination oF its con
tents, we would be very far from anything like
an approximation of the varied species that
have at one time or other inhabited our globe.
Indeed, Spencer's words are nearer the truth,
that "even though we had before us every kind
of fossil which exists, we would have nothing
like a complete index to the past inhabitants of
the globe." So that the second assumption on
which Father Wasmann's conclusion is based
is groundless as the first. And just so with the
third. Supposing that we had before us the
complete pages of the geological record which
laid before us every specimen of organized
forms which that record contains, and suppos
ing also that each organism that ever lived up
on the earth had left behind some fossil remains.
Father Wasmann's conclusion would not yet
follow. For it is certain that numberless fossil
remains have in the course of ages been en
tirely destroyed. That fossils have been form
ed is no proof that those forms have been pre-

62

served. On the contrary fossil remains fre
quently disappear. And what is more, this
disappearance is by no means on a small scale.
Darwin himself admits that " Shells and bones
decay and disappear when left on the bottom
of the sea, where sediment is not accumulat
ing." Again he holds that " remains which be
come imbedded in sand or gravel will, when
the beds are upraised, generally be dissolved
by the percolation of rain water charged with
carbolic acid/ Spencer, as we have seen,
claimed that " the records which remain bear
but a small ratio to the records which have been
destroyed," and ascribes the destruction to
igneous action. He tells us that "Many sedi
mentary deposits have been so altered by the
heat of adjacent molten matter, as greatly to
obscure the organic remains contained in them."
And he adds, "The extensive formation once
called 'transition, ' and now renamed 'metamor-
phic,' are acknowledged to be formations of
sedimentary origin, from which all traces of
such fossils as they probably included have
been obliterated by igneous action. And the
accepted conclusion is (hat igneous rock has

63

everywhere resulted from the melting-up of
beds of detritus originally deposited by water."
Those beds of detritus were the resting places
of the fossil remains. Spencer's conclusion
from it all is : " How long the reactions of the
earth's molten nucleus on its cooling crust
have been thus destroying the records of life,
it is impossible to say ; but there are strong
reasons for believing that the records which
remain bear but a small ratio to the records
which have been destroyed." We have pur
posely chosen those opinions from the two
founders of the theory of evolution — Darwin
the father of the theory on the side of physical
science, and Spencer the father of evolution
taken as a philosophical theory ; Darwin, who
confined his researches wholly to the sphere
of organic nature, and Spencer, who extended
his philosophical speculations not only through
all organic life, but extended it to inorganic
nature and to the entire universe on the one
hand, and on the other throughout the whole
realm of human life whether social, political,
religious, or moral.

Thus, on the authority of the founders of the

64

evolution theory themselves, we find that the
assumptions on which Father Wasmann's
"proof" is based are wholly without founda
tion. First, our geological record as known to
us gives but a mere fragment of the complete
geological record as it exists in its discovered
and undiscovered form ; secondly, the forms of
life that have been fossilized are but a fraction
of the forms that have existed in past time ;
and thirdly, even those that have become fos
silized and are preserved (though mostly yet
undiscovered), bear no proportion to the rec
ords that have been destroyed by the action of
igneous rocks, by the action of chemical dis
solvents, and by other known and unknown
causes. What then are we to think of Father
Wasmann's conclusion from paleontology?
What are we to think of his expressions "we
can hardly avoid coming to the conclusion"
and "we are forced to assume" that because
no ancestors have found for these specific ants,
we have therefore come upon a case of evolu
tion ? In the face of the facts and conditions
which we have just seen it seems a little pre
mature to maintain that such ancestors never

65

existed, although none of their remains have
been, not indeed preserved — for of this we
know nothing — but discovered. Spencer's con
clusion, already quoted, that " the facts about
fossil remains are so fragmentary that no posi
tive conclusion can be drawn from them,"
seems to us to be the only sane one in the field
of paleontology. But in Father Wasmann's
mouth this argument has a character of incon
sistency peculiarly its own. For in his argu
ment against an ape ancestry of man he draws
from similar premises a directly opposite con
clusion from that which here "he is forced" to
accept. His argument in one case is ; the
Termites have no ancestors of their own ; there
fore they must be descendants of the ants of
the Baltic tertiary ; while in the case of man
his argument against Haeckel and monism is :
Man has no ancestor therefore he is not des
cended from the ape, but from some ancestor
unknown. But supposing a thorough-going
monist like Ernest Haeckel should undertake
to apply his "ant" argument to man and say :
We find fossil apes and prosimiae in abundance,
but nowhere do we find fossil human species,

66

therefore, we are forced to conclude that man
must be descended from apes or prosimiae, we
do not see what reply Father Wasmann could
well make, since it is taken from his own
mouth.

The most interesting argument for Father
Wasmann's evolution would have been that
taken from his own experience, but as this is
given only in the condensed form of the press
report we can merely surmise its force from
Father Wasmann's conclusions which he gives
more at length. Father Wasmann does not
claim to have discovered any new facts or prin
ciples, but merely states that he has observed
some phenomena " which are biologically ex
plicable only from the point of view of evolu
tion." This, however, is strong language and
he supplements it by telling us, "I wish to draw
your attention to the fact that accommodation
to the life of ants and white ants or termites
has in all probability led to the formation of
new species, genera and families among their
guests, which belong to very various families
and orders of insects. In some cases (Taumet-
oxena) the characteristic marks have been so

67

completely altered by accommodation that it
is scarcely possible for us to determine to
which order of insects this strange creature
belongs. In other cases (ffcrmytomyia) the
whole development of the individual is modi
fied in such a way that it resembles that of a
viviparous mammal rather than that of a fly."
Father Wasmann here calls attention to the
modification in what he calls "the characteris
tic marks" of species and also to changes in
their physical development. Now it must be
observed that among the lower forms of life
the divisions of genus and species are not al
ways very clearly defined. Indeed what dis
tinctions we have here are the factitious divis
ions of naturalists, and seldom do any two
agree in their classifications. The family lines
are not easily distinguished ; very often the
lines between orders and classes are not so
sharply outlined. Linnaeus, the father of
classification, misled by "characteristic marks,"
actually classed an homopterous insect as a
moth. The numerous instances of dimorphism,
trimorphism and polymorphism in individuals
of the same species both in plants and animals,

68

have long been the wonder and perplexity of
naturalists. Among these lower orders natur
alists meet with startling variations within the
limits of known species — variations which can
not possibly be the result of evolution, for they
occur in members of the same family or off
spring of the same parent. These alterations
occur not only in the characteristic marks, but,
also in the physiological structure. Often
these differences are met with in the different
sexes of the same species. To pass over those
cases which are so familiar to every one — the
difference between the male and female of the
peacock, the pheasant, the fowl; if we go into
Father Wasmann's own domain, we shall find
that some ants are winged while their females
are wingless — a wide morphological difference.
Mr. Wallace was the first to call attention to
the fact that among butterflies in the Malayan
Archipelago, the females of a certain species
regularly appear under two or even three con
spicuously distinct forms, not connected by in
termediate varieties. The same is said to be
true of certain Brazilian crustaceans. Of the
Lepidoptera Mr Wallace says "there is no

69

possible test but individual opinion to deter
mine which of them shall be considered as spe
cies and which as varieties." Darwin calls all
this "very perplexing," which it undoubtedly
is, and he further tells us : " It certainly at first
sight appears a highly remarkable fact that
the same butterfly should have the power of
producing at the same time three distinct fe
male forms and a male ; and that an hermaph
rodite plant should produce from the same
seed-capsule three distinct hermaphrodite
forms, bearing three different kinds of females
and three or even six different kinds of males.
Nevertheless, these cases are only exagger
ations of the common fact that the female pro
duces offspring of two sexes, which sometimes
differ from each other in a wonderful manner."
Surely, in all these instances there is no room
for evolution. Now let us suppose that Father
Wasmann had met with two of those individual
types in the course of his investigations, with
out any previous knowledge of their close, in
timate and immediate relationship. Doubtless
he would recognize both as belonging to at
least the same order, would determine the spe-

7o

cies to which each belonged, and, in all proba
bility, would feel that he was forced to
attribute the relationship to evolution, pre
cisely as he does in the present instance.
Nevertheless, not only was there no room
for the intervention of evolution at all — not
even room for the difference of genus or
species; for in spite of their "wonderful dif
ferences," they were offspring of the same par
ent. We should think Father Wasmann would
endeavor to clear up this inexplicable fact be
fore deriving any proofs — even indirect and
and merely probable ones — from the "charac
teristic marks " or morphological structure of
beings in the lower world of life.

Add to this that, as Darwin has said, "no
one quite understands what is exactly meant
by the term species;" that we are profoundly
ignorant of the laws of variation, their extent
and efficacy; that it is naturalists themselves
who have drawn the lines between species and
species — not always with the greatest accuracy ;
and it will be easy enough to account for
the results of Father Wasmann's observations,
we fancy, without an appeal to evolution. We

ourselves were, we think, the first to call
attention in this Review to the fact that
the creation of species as species is not a
dogma of religion at all, but a doctrine of
science;1 and if scientists are not yet prepared
to define clearly the lines of separation beyond
which organisms do not pass and become new
established species, the fault is the fault of sci
ence. Indeed, viewed in this way, evolution
seems to be but an expression to cover our
ignorance and shield our indolence. Various
definitions have been given to the term spe
cies ; but as Darwin has remarked, "No one
definition has satisfied all naturalists." Dar
win thinks the term includes the unknown
element of a distinct act of creation;" but it
should be remembered that it is science which
has assigned this meaning to it ; not religion.
The confusion over the lines of demarcation in
the lower forms of life is among the scientists
themselves; and it is science and not religion
which is interested in the "characteristic
marks" and physiological "development" of

i Linnaeus was the first to formulate the doctrine in his stately
phrase : Species tot sunt quot diversas ab initio produxit Infinitum EUS.

72

organisms in the lower spheres of existence.
Doubtless, if by evolution Father Wasmann
means that among the inferior orders of animal
life the tendency to vary is greater than in the
great systematic categories, or that in this realm
the lines of the limitations of variation are more
elastic ; in other words, that there is a greater
plasticity of nature in the lower forms of life; he
may not be so far from the truth ; but it would
be a travesty of language to dignify this by the
name of evolution ; it is simply variation. In
deed, we are of opinion that the term variation
will cover all the facts that Father Wasmann
has found; that is, when scientists will have
agreed among themselves as to what consti
tutes the true meaning of their own term
"species."

The Biogenetic Principle or Proof from Embryology.

There is one other proof of evolution which
is usually brought forward and upon which
Father Wasmann barely touches — and then
only to reject it — which we cannot pass over,
so peculiarly does Father Wasmann deal with
it. His manner of accepting and rejecting it —

73

like his acceptance and rejection at the same
time of evolution, and his attempted ejection
of Darwin from his own theory — seems to us
highly capricious and wholly unreasonable.
This proof is what Father Wasmann calls "the
biogenetic principle," but which among evolu
tionists of the English school is known as the
argument from embryology. The absolute tyr
anny of the evolution theory was perhaps
never better exemplified than in Father Was-
mann's treatment of this "proof." Incident
ally, too, it demonstrates the inconsistency of
the Catholic evolutionist. Roughly this argu
ment is : that the individual organism in its
development from the cell to maturity passes
through all the stages of the evolution of the
race; or, as Father Wasmann puts it: "Ac
cording to it the development of the individ
ual is only an abbreviated and partially modi
fied reproduction of the development of the
race." Father Wasmann seems to accept this
as a principle when it suits him and to reject
when it does not suit him ; so that like evolu
tion we must regard it as spasmodic in its ac
tion. He says with full italicised emphasis :

74

"I maintain, therefore, that we cannot accept
the biogenetic principle in its entirety, nor can we
sanction its application to man in order to prove
his descent from beasts." Nevertheless, we find
him telling us : " It is an undeniable fact that,
both among the higher and lower animals, in
stances occur of stages of individual develop
ment, which can be explained only by regard
ing them as temporary traces of a previous
stage of development, which was permanently
impressed on their ancestors." This sounds
somewhat strange coming from a man who re
jects the biogenetic principle ; but more follows.
Father Wasmann thinks that he has discovered
instances of this rejected principle in his own
special department; but we shall let him speak
for himself. He says: " Something similar
occurs in the case of the Termitoxenia, a very
small fly that lives with the white ants. You
saw a diagram of it during my first lecture.
It presents the peculiar feature of having for a
short time, whilst it is passing through the
stenogastric stage as a full-grown insect, gen
uine veined wings in the still cuticular appen
dices to the thorax ;" and he adds in wonder-

75

ment, "I could scarcely believe my eyes, when
I noticed this for the first time in my series of
sections. Subsequently, these little hooked
appendages to the thorax grow into horns, and
serve as organs of touch and exudation, and
enable the fly to balance itself, and no trace of
likeness to wings remains."

Seeing is, of course, believing, and Father
Wasmann, unable to withstand the force of this
convincing evidence, adds : " Probably we have
here a certain amount of reproduction of the
growth of some ancestors." We are glad to
find Father Wasmann prefixing " probably" to
the results of his marvellous discovery, but
soon his enthusiasm seems to get the better of
him and he tells us, "I might refer to a number
of similar instances, but what has been said
will suffice to show that there are really cases
in which the evolution of the individual gives
us a clear indication where to seek the ances
tors of the race." So far, Father Wasmann's
mental processes are sufficiently clear on the
subject ; but what follows seems to be envel
oped in fog and mystery. He adds: ''Never
theless, if we are to explain such a stage of

76

evolution as being a repetition of some hypo
thetical stage in the life of its ancestors, this
explanation must be the only possible one (!) —
and it is my opinion that there is no such stage
in the ontogeny of man." Now, the riddle of
the sphinx is easy compared with this sybilline
language of Father Wasmann. And then, why
should he balk the great principle when he
comes to man? Was not the principle suf
ficiently proven to him in the case of the par
asites of the white ants ? In the " Discussion,"
which was not discussed, but written out at his
leisure, Father Wasmann returns to the mys
tery of his words and this is how he interpets
them for Dr. Smith-Jena, who called his at
tention to the inconsistency. He says : " I
never recognized the biogenetic principle as such,
either in my third lecture nor in my book on
Biology and the Theory of Evolution. The instan
ces adduced by me, to which Dr. Smith-Jena
referred, were exceptional cases of relatively
rare occurrence, in which the development of the
individual gives us a clue to the evolution of
the species. But the fact that these are ex
ceptional and of rare occurrence shows that

77

the biogenetic principle is not a general law."
But if it be not a ''general law," how does
Father Wasmann know that in his own par
ticular discovery (!) he has "a clue to the evo
lution of the species"? Why should it prove
to be the law in his case and not in that of
others? There are those who maintain that
they, too, have discovered instances of it and
those also who insist that it is a general law.
Why should Father Wasmann be so confident
of its import in his own case and so positive in
his rejection of it in other cases ? Why should
he be so certain that he has come upon a real
case of parallel between ontogenesis and phy
logenesis ? Indeed, Father Wasmann's atti
tude here is wholly capricious and, in spite of
all his protestations, can only be interpreted as
a confirmation of their position by those who
maintain the validity of the biogenetic princi
ple. Indeed, we think the admonition of the
nursery rhyme, "The gobbeluns'll get you if
you don't watch out," is particularly appro
priate for Father Wasmann on this particular
point. For the rest we are sorry to find Father
Wasmann lending himself to an effort to revive

78

interest in the argument from embryology,
especially when scientists themselves seem to
be abandoning it as valueless.

Let us, however, try to get the force of
Father Wasmann's argument ; and perhaps we
can obtain some idea of its value and efficacy
more readily by taking one from the ''number
of similar instances" of the biogonetic princi
ple which he cites, rather than Father
Wasmann's own instance. As one of those
instances, Father Wasmann mentions the case
of the whalebone-whale, which is one of the
stock arguments of evolutionists in behalf of
the biogenetic principle. We shall try to fol
low Father Wasmann's argument in this case,
which he accepts as a "clue" and an "indica
tion where to seek the ancestors of the race";
but first a brief digression may be permitted.
Whether the principle of evolution has or has
not been at work in other directions there is
one place at least where it seems to be a mark
ed success — the evolution of error. Indeed,
so successful has it been in this department of
knowledge that it has actually differentiated a
new spick-and-span species of fallacy and de-

79

veloped it to such perfection that it has come
into general use throughout the entire school
of evolution and seems to be a characteristic
mark of every member of that school from
Darwin down to Father Wasmann. This new
species we may call the fallacy of the double
hypothesis ; and its operation is thus-wise.
First a hypothesis is framed, wholly possible,
more or less probable, absolutely without proof,
and with little presumption in its favor. After
more or less discussion this hypothesis quietly
takes its place as a proven fact, though it has
not progressed in its evolution beyond the as
sumption stage. Later, in another totally differ
ent department of science another totally dif
ferent hypothesis is needed for another totally
different purpose. It is forthwith invented,
and, after its invention, follows the usual dis
cussion, when suddenly someone discovers
that the first hypothesis has some bearing on
the question. The first hypothesis is instantly
invoked, and presto! the second hypothesis is
proven by the first. Meanwhile the fact that
it has been instrumental in proving the truth
of the second hypothesis at once raises the

8o

first to the dignity of a truth also. Occasion
ally, not only two, but entire series of hypoth
eses thus become established truths. The
argument from the whalebone-whale is a bril
liant example of this. Father Wasmann says
of it:

"As an example of this (the biogenetic prin
ciple), I may refer to the teeth which the em
bryos of the whalebone-whale still possess, al
though subsequently they degenerate into

whalebone If we may compare with it

the further fact that geology has ascertained,
viz., that the whalebone-whale only in the ter
tiary period succeeded to the toothed whale,
which may be regarded as its probable ances
tor, the conclusion is obvious. The whalebone-
whale is descended from an older toothed
whale, and the reason why, in the development
of the individual whalebone-whale, there is a
stage at which teeth appear, lies in the fact (!)
that the ancestors of the present whales passed
through this stage of development, and it re
mains up to a certain definite point in the
growth of the embryo."

This is a splendid specimen of the

8i

fallacy of the double hypothesis. Indeed,
there is a third hypothesis which plays a
silent part also. Father Wasmann says "that
the whalebone-whale only in the tertiary
period succeeded the toothed whale, which
may be regarded as its probable ancestor"
— mark the "probable," and the double as
sumption, first of the succession (which is very
far from certain) and secondly of the relation
ship by descent. The first hypothesis then —
destitute of every vestige of proof — is, that the
whalebone-whale is descended from the toothed
whale. The second hypothesis which is the
one seeking for proof, is that the appearance
of the embryonic teeth is due to the biogenetic
principle.1 In this particular case Father
Wasmann wishes to prove it by the appear
ance of the teeth in the embryo whales. And
this he does by the simple process of assuming
his first hypothesis to be a "fact." We have
already, elsewhere, called attention to this new
species of fallacy which consists in basing one

iThis is the hypothesis which tells us that in ontogenesis, or the evo
lution of the individual, we have a reproduction of phylogenesis, or the
evolution of the race; in other words, that the individual embryo up to
maturity passes through all the forms through which the race has passed.

82

hypothesis on another and assuming the edifice
thus raised to be a solid structure, whereas it
is merely a castle in the air without any foun
dation whatever. Yet the whole literature of
evolution teems with this species of reasoning,
and the fallacy vitiates every argument and
every conclusion of the entire school. It is a
monstrous form of deception against which an
effective protest should be made, though often
the deception is wholly unconscious, and for
the most part dupes even its own authors. It
is manifest, however, that outside the school of
evolution/ any writer who had the interests of
truth in mind would state plainly and candidly
the wholly conditional aspect of the argument ;
and in such a case Father Wasmann's argu
ment would run somewhat in this fashion : Fos
sil remains of the whalebone-whale have been
found in the tertiary deposits, but in no earlier
ones ; and for this reason it is supposed that
this species of whale did not exist earlier.
Toothed whales, however, have been found in
earlier strata, and consequently it is surmised
that the whalebone-whale may be descended
from the toothed whale. If this supposition

83

should prove to be true, and the whalebone-
whale should prove to have the toothed whale
for its ancestor, the appearance of teeth at a
certain stage in the development of the embryo
whalebone-whale would be a marked confirma
tion of the biogenetic principle.

We think we have put the argument as
strongly as the facts in the case will warrant,
but Father Wasmann, in true evolutionist fash
ion, tells us "the conclusion is obvious," and
that " it will suffice to show that there are really
cases in which the evolution of the individual
gives us a clear indication where to seek for
the ancestors of the race."

Evolution and Progress.

Before taking leave of Father Wasmann's
book there is one other feature of his evolution
which we wish to note for the reason that in
the light of admitted facts it seems to us to be
wholly untenable. It is that development with
progress or advance seems to be regarded by
him as the law of evolution. Instead of being
explicitly stated, this is taken for granted
throughout his entire work. Indeed, he seems

84

to think there can be no evolution without
progress. Advance is essential to the doctrine.
Thus in his attempted differentiation of Dar
winism from evolution, he tells us that evolution
" connotes the doctrine of the derivation of all
forms of life from earlier and simpler forms."
In his third lecture he says: " It is essential to
the very nature of evolution to advance from
what is simple to what is complex." Following
Hertwig, he has told us: " As this process
continues, the corresponding new generation
must advance somewhat further than its imme
diate predecessor"; and still again he says:
" The more highly any animal is organized, the
more stages of development must it pass through
before reaching the complex final stage."
Hence there is no doubt whatever that at least
Father Wasmann's evolution includes the no
tion of advance or progress from the simple to
the complex or from a low state of organization
to a high one.

Now, few things are more certain than that
such a notion is wholly incompatible with the
facts of paleontology. Indeed, it is surprising
in the extreme how prone evolutionists gener-

85

ally are to forget this all-important fact. For
one of the real lessons which paleontology
teaches us is, that if there has been an evolu
tion of organic life throughout the past ages,
such an evolution must have taken place with
out progress of any kind. We have many or
ganic forms existing at the present day which
are identical with the earliest which paleontol
ogy discloses, and assuredly in these there
could not have been advance. Father Was-
mann himself tells us that the Baltic tertiary
ants are in some cases "identical" with many that
exist at present. Surely here there could have
been no advance.

And this was the view of Professor Huxley.
Haifa century ago he told us: "The paleozoic
age is a long distance off from the present, but
the Pleuracanthus of that age, according to the
testimony of paleontology, differs no more from
our present sharks than these differ from one
another." Where, then, is the advance? The
same is true of the Ganoid fishes. Where is
the progress or advance? The essential char
acters of Crocodilia among reptiles of our day
are identical with those of the Mesozoic epoch.

86

Where is the advance? And even among
mammals, those of the Triassic and Oolitic spe
cies differ from those of the present no more
than these last differ from one another. Where
here do we find advance ?

Professor Huxley took each great division
of the animal world which was remarkable for
a long range of period throughout the geologi
cal series and tried to ascertain what had been
the advance from simple to complex structure.
Let us glance briefly at a few of his conclu
sions. The Protozoa range throughout the
whole geological series from the lower Silurian
to the present day ; the most ancient forms are
exceedingly like those that now exist ; they
are not more embryonic or less differentiated.
Among the Coelenterata the Tabulate Corals
range from the Silurian to the present day ; the
ancient Heliolites are quite as highly organized
as our present Heliopora. Among Molluscs,
he asks " In what respect is the living Wald-
heimia less embryonic, or more specialized,
than the paleozoic Spirifer ....?" And
conversely he asks in what sense Loligo or
Spirula are in advance of the Belemnite. It is

87

the same with the Annulosa. It is the same
with the lower vertebrates and with the higher
vertebrates. He asks: " In what sense are the
Liassic Chelonia inferior to those which now
exist? How are the Cretaceous Ichthyosauria,
Plesiosauria or Pterosauria less embryonic, or
more differentiated species, than those of the
Lias?'' It is not necessary to multiply instan
ces. Where, then, is there evidence of Father
Wasmann's evolution, to "the very nature of"
which "it is essential to advance from what is
simple to what is complex'? Professor Hux
ley sums up by saying:

"These examples might be almost indefinitely
multiplied, but surely they are sufficient to
prove that the only safe and unquestionable
testimony we can procure — positive evidence —
fails to demonstrate any sort of progressive
modification towards a less embryonic, or less
generalized, type in a great many groups of
animals of long-continued geological existence.
In these groups there is abundant evidence of
variation — none of what is ordinarily under
stood as progression ; and, if the known geo
logical record is to be regarded as even any

88

considerable fragment of the whole, it is incon
ceivable that any theory of a necessarily pro
gressive development can stand, for the nu
merous orders and families cited afford no trace
of such a process."

Professor Huxley concludes his investiga
tions on this subject by the query: "What,
then, does an impartial survey of the positively
ascertained truth of paleontology testify in re
lation to the common doctrines of progressive
modification which suppose that modification
to have taken place by a necessary progress
from more or less embryonic forms, or from
more to less generalized types (Father Was-
mann's theory) within the limits of the period
represented by the fossiliferous rocks ?"

And his answer is : "It negatives those doc
trines ; for it either shows no evidence of any
such modification or shows it to have been
very slight ; and as to the nature of that modi
fication, it yields no evidence whatsoever that
the earlier members of any long-continued
group were more generalized than the later
ones." Huxley's conclusion has never been
disputed, but is the accepted doctrine of the

89

schools to-day. In one instance Huxley him
self maintained twenty years later that there
was a notable exception, but the evidence
seemed to be wanting to prove its authentic
ity and the exception has fallen into innocuous
desuetude. What, then, are we to think of
Father Wasmann's evolution, which postulates
advance from one generation to another and
advance from the simple to the complex as
constant and continuous P1

Father Wasmann says, with considerable
naivete, that evolution is not an experimental
science. We quite agree with him ; but it is
not an experimental science for the simple and
conclusive reason that it is not a science at all.
It deserves to be ranked as a science no more
than the cooling theory of La Place and Kant
can be regarded as a science, or than Christian
Science can be regarded as a science. Indeed,
Father Wasmann himself admits all this, for
he shows with much circumlocution that it is

1 It is remarkable that in his own argument from the whalebone-
whale (page 80) Father Wasmann has failed to notice the contradiction
on this point in his own contention. He assumes the evolution of the
whalebone-whale from the toothed whale with, of course, all the advance
which the term implies, yet he quite naively, but truly, says: the
supposed development of the tefcth into whalebone is degeneration— not
advance.

90

but a hypothesis built on several other hypoth
eses. "It is essentially a theory," he tells us,
"based on a group of hypotheses." Such a
theory can hardly be called a science ; but since
these hypotheses are "in harmony with one an
other," Father Wasmann thinks that they
"afford the most probable explanation of the
origin of organic species " — a proposition
which he has failed to satisfactorily demon
strate.

Evolution Breaks Down.

Father Wasmann's evolution breaks down
in the same way when we come to regard it —
as he wishes it to be regarded — in the light of
a great universal principle, whose sway extends
throughout all organic life on our globe,
throughout inorganic nature, and throughout
the entire universe. Now, a great universal
principle that breaks down at every important
point, and that is discoverable in only out-of-
the-way corners, and even there not very dis-
cernibly but merely supposedly, is no principle
at all. Father Wasmann's evolution starts
with the primal creation of matter and is sup-

posed to be actively at work in the develop
ment of this matter — whatever that means ;
Father Wasmann or no one else understands
— down to the time when this matter is ready
for the introduction of life. Here suddenly it
halts, breaks down completely, indeed so com
pletely that Father Wasmann is forced to in
troduce "a so-called act of creation," as he
styles it, to account for the origin of life, and
by the intervention of this new auxiliary, evo
lution starts in again with fresh courage and
and attempts a renewal of its operations. It
must be remembered, however, that up to this
point the existence of evolution and its labors
in the development of matter is purely conject
ural and without the slightest shadow of rea
son; that it now is and ever will remain as in
capable of proof as it is of disproof; and that
when we come down to the beginning of life on
the globe this conjecture breaks down com
pletely. Even after its new start with the cre
ation of life on the globe we fail to find that
Father Wasmann has proved it to be univer
sal ; it is far from it. But the evolutionist,
still confident, clings to his theory and is still

92

a firm believer in its efficacy ; and, getting a
fresh field with its new start in organic nature,
he gives it full sweep through this vast realm ;
for is not this its own home, wherein he first
suspected its existence — the field of its energy,
its industry, its efficacy — the scene of its own
special triumphs and demonstrable victories ?
Throughout this whole realm it has universal
sway. Si monumentum quaeris, circumspice. Well,
what do we find? Let Father Wasmann an
swer in behalf of his great principle, of whose
"laws" and "interior causes" and "internal
factors" he talks grandiloquently, although he
admits that he knows absolutely nothing about
them. " In the case," he tells us, "of the same
genus, the genera of the same family, and of
ten for the families of the same order, even for
the orders of the same class, the probability is
in support of evolution." Now, when it is re
membered that in coming down the history of
matter from its first creation to our own time,
this is the first trace we find of the great uni
versal principle, and that this vestige is mere
probability, and that this probability is confined
to the lower forms of organic matter, we must

93

regard it as only an optimism of the most
cheerful kind which would find in such a prob
ability a solid basis on which to found a great
''science." For outside of the limits which
Father Wasmann describes, he is forced to ad
mit : "But the higher we ascend in the sys
tematic categories, and the more closely we
approach the great chief types of the animal
world, the scantier becomes the evidence; in
fact, it fails so completely that we are finally
forced to acknowledge that the assumption of
a monophyletic evolution of the whole animal
kingdom of organic life is a delightful dream
without any scientific support." Hence here
in its own special realm, where evolutionists
of every school admit that the great principle
has absolute sway, we find whole tracts and
continents, so to speak, where its existence is
but "a delightful dream"; so that even here
evolution breaks down seriously. And even
accepting this fragmentary evolution within its
own special realm to be some slight evidence
in favor of the principle, Father Wasmann de
clares that when we come down to man, the
principle again breaks down irretrievably.

94

Where, then, is the evidence of the existence
of this great principle ? It fails us everywhere.
To insist on a great principle of evolution run
ning uninterruptedly throughout the entire
universe and producing all inorganic phenom
ena as well as all organic life, and to maintain
that such a principle is demonstrable from the
crazy-quilt patchwork of evidence in our pos
session, is like proving that all the great
bodies of water on the continent of Europe
are expansions of one great river which is in
visible except where the lakes appear. Sup
posing the principle of gravitation were thus
chromatic and elliptical ? Gravitation is dem
onstrable everywhere, from the dewdrop to the
motion of the spheres.

"That very law that moulds a tear

And bids it trickle from its source,
That law preserves our earth a sphere ;
And guides the planets in their course/'

When Father Wasmann can speak thus con
fidently of his principle of evolution, he may
ask us to accept it. At present it seems as
though we were all expected to transfer our

95

faith from religion to science, so scant is the
evidence in proof of the scientific principle.
For the rest, Father Wasmann's attempt to
establish a harmony between evolution and
Christian philosophy seems to us, like all
other attempts of the kind, an endeavor to ride
around the ecliptic of evolution with one horse
of heaven and one of earth.

Before completely surrendering ourselves,
however, to an unhesitating acceptance of
Father Wasmann's theistic evolution or to an
unquestioning faith in its truth, it is just as
well to remember that all evolution, whether
theistic or atheistic, rests for proof on just two1

i There are to be found, of course, other alleged arguments for evolu
tion; but they are deserving of little attention. For instance Herbert
Spencer — and indeed all the earlier evolutionists — once set great store by
the "Argument from Classification," until it was showu that classifica
tion depends wholly on the point of view from which we wish to study
organic beings— just as we may classify the books in a library in any
manner we please— and that no one is obliged to accept the classification
made by the evolutionist. Now the argument seems to be wholly aban
doned.

In the same way even at the present day we find, in some quarters,
a tendency to lay stress on the old morphological argument, by persons
who have only a superficial acquaintance with evolution or who borrow
their ideas of it from others. This is sometimes called the argument
from comparative anatomy. There is indeed one thing which similarity
of structure indubitably proves, but it is not the necessity of genetic re
lation; it is the similarity of design. We are glad to find Father Wasmanm
himself taking his stand firmly on this position and giving short shrift
to the argument from morphology. This he does not only in his lectures
but even more forcibly in his "Discussion" in which he meets Professor

96

classes of argument, one the argument from
embryology, or, as Father Wasmann calls it,
the biogenetic principle, the other the argu
ment from paleontology ; that of the former
Father Wasmann himself is quite pronounced
in his repudiation and that he is far from alone
in his rejection of it ; that of the latter Her
bert Spencer admitted years ago that "the
facts about fossil remains are so fragmentary
that no positive conclusion can be drawn from
them"; that this sane conclusion cannot be
contradicted; that it was true when Spencer
first penned it, that it is true to-day, and that
it will remain true for all time.

It should also be borne in mind that besides
evolution there is still another hypothesis
which, although partially overlooked or wholly
forgotten by the scientists, " explains the facts "
in a far more satisfactory manner; explains a
far larger body of the facts; and explains them

Dahl's objection from morphological resemblances by saying: "From the
resemblance between man and the higher mammals only one fact can
be directly deduced, viz., that the individual laws governing the evolution
of both are based on the same design." Unity of descent is one thing,
u»ity of plan quite another. While the latter is conclusively proven by
the morphological characters, the former must be taken on faith mere
ly. The argument from comparative anatomy is moreover purely the
oretical.

97

without any of the inconsistencies or incessant
contradictions that inhere in the hypothesis of
evolution.

FitzSimons, S.
Revised Darwinism.

B

818

.W4
F5