Evolution and dogma

EVOLUTION AND DOGMA

J.A,ZAHM.

ISK^is^.^

Stratford & Green

640 S, Main St..

Los Angeles, - - Cal.

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2007 with funding from

IVIicrosoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/evolutiondogmaOOzahmiala

UCSB LIBRARr

Evolution and Dogma

BY
THE REVEREND J. A. ZAHM, Ph.D., C. S. C.

Professor of Physics in the University of Notre Dame.

Author of "Sound and Music,'.' "Bible, Science and Faith," "Catholic

Science and Catholic Scientists." etc.

fldvTa dt£x6ff/xr/(7£ voost,

— Anaxagoras.

ThB rose-seed holds the glory of the rose ;

Within its heart sweet summer fragrance bides.
And there each petal's tender blush-tint hides.

Till June bids nature all her charms disclose.

The sleeping infant's heart and brain may hold
The glorious power that in future years
Shall move the listening world to smiles and tears —

'Tis life potential that the days unfold.

One act of Will Divine, and lo I the seed

Of growth was sown in young creation's heart.
From Life Eternal hath all life its start

And endless change as changeless law we read.

CHICAGO

D. H. MCBRIDE & CO.
1896

Copyright, 1896,

BY

J. A. ZAHM.

tbtt)eMemoiYof ^

^myMothei^'

PREFATORY NOTE.

PART Second of this work covers substantially
the same ground as my lectures on Evolution,
delivered before the Madison and Plattsburgh Sum-
mer Schools and before the Winter School of New
Orleans. Indeed, the chief difference between the
subject-matter of Part Second, and that of the lec-
tures as given at the Summer and Winter Schools,
consists in the foot-notes which have been added to
the text, and in a more exhaustive treatment of cer-
tain topics herein discussed than was possible in the
time allotted to them in the lecture hall.

J. A. Zahm, C. S. C.
Notre Dame University, December i8, 1895. ^

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGES

Introduction xiii-xxx

PART I.

EVOLUTION, PAST AND PRESENT.

CHAPTER I.
NATURE AND SCOPE OF EVOLUTION.

Early Speculations Regarding Nature and Man — Com-
prehensiveness of Evolution — Evolution Defined —
Literature of Evolution — Freedom from Bias in the
Discussion of Evolution 13-22

CHAPTER II.

EARLY EVOLUTIONARY VIEWS.

First Studies of Nature — Evolution Among the Greeks —

Aristotle's Observations — Mediaeval Writers. . . . 23-30

CHAPTER III.

FOSSILS AND GIANTS.

Early Notions Regarding Fossils — Italian Geologists on
Fossils — Legends About Giants — True Significance of
Fossils — Controversy in the French Academy. . . 31-40
(7)

8 E VOL U TION A ND DOGMA.

CHAPTER IV.

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION AND SCIENTIFIC
DISCOVERY.

PAGES

Early Views Regarding Abiogenesis — Fathers and School-
men on Abiogenesis — Redi's Experiments — Later
Researches — General Advance in Science — Chemistry
and Astronomy — Testimony of Biology 41-54

CHAPTER V.

FROM LORD BACON TO CHARLES DARWIN.

First Materials for the Controversy — Bacon and Kant —
Linnaeus and BafTon — Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck —
Species and Varieties 55-^4

CHAPTER VI.

CONTROVERSY AND PROGRESS.

Darwin's " Origin of Species " — Herbert Spencer and Com-
peers— Science and Philosophy — Anticipations of
Discoveries — Species and Creation — Evolutionists
and Anti-Evolutionists — No Via Media Possible —
The Miltonic Hypothesis — Views of Agassiz — Evolu-
tion ^S~^2>

CHAPTER VII.

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION.

Systems of Classification — Cuvier and His Successors —
Points of View — Taxonomic Divisions — Plato's "Grand
Ideas " — Cuvier on Species — Definition of Species —
Difficulties Regarding Species — Agassiz' V^iews —
Species in the Making — De CandoUe and Baird —
Evidences of Organic Evolution — A Philological Illus-
tration — Tree-like System of Classification — The Ar-
gument from Structure and Morphology — Rudimentary
Organs — Argument from Embryology — Amphioxus

TABLE OF CONTENTS. 9

PACKS

and Loligo — Meaning of Recapitulation — Geograph-
ical Distribution of Organisms — Facts of Geological
Succession — The Demonstrative Evidence of Evolu-
tion — Generalized Types — Probability of Evolution —
Special Creation and Evolution 84-139

CHAPTER VIII.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST EVOLUTION.

Declarations of Anti- Evolutionists — Historical and Ar-
chaeological Objections — Egyptian Mummies — Testi-
mony of the Monuments — Evidence from Plants —
Views of Agassiz, Barrande and Others — Misappre-
hension of the Nature of Evolution, and Answer to
Objections — Existence and Cause of Variations —
Paucity of Transitional Forms — Variations and the
Formation of Fossiliferous Deposits — Romanes on
Difficulties Attending Preservation of Fossils — Small
Percentage of Fossil Forms — Extraordinary Interca-
lary Forms — Imperfection of the Geological Record —
Time, Change and Equilibrium — Paleontology Com-
pared With Egyptology and Assyriology — Sterility of
Species When Crossed — Morphological and Physiolog-
ical Species — True Significance of the Term "Spe-
cies " — Factors of Evolution — Evolutionary Theories
and Their Difficulties — The Ideal Theory. . . . 140-202

PART II.

EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

CHAPTER I.
MISCONCEPTIONS OF THEORY, ERRORS IN DOC-
TRINE AND MISTAKES IN TERMINOLOGY.

Evolution of the Evolution Theory — Evolution and Dar-^
winism — Evolution, Atheism and Nihilism — Evolu-

^

■/><? fi^oa M^f

10 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

S

"~)

tion and Faith — Evolution and Science — Ignorance of
Terms — Materialism and Dualism — Pantheism —
Dogma of Creation — The V" atican Council on Crea-
tion— Meaning of the Word "Nature" — Nature and
God. 205-229

CHAPTER II.

MONISM AND EVOLUTION.

HitCKEL and Monism — Hseckel as a Scientist — Haeckel's
Nature-Philosophy — Five Propositions of Haeckel —
God and the Soul — Organic and Inorganic Matter —
The Religion of the Future — Haeckel's Limitations —
Verbal Jugglery — False Analogy — Type of a Class. 230-253

CHAPTER III.

AGNOSTICISM AND EVOLUTION.

Nature and Scope of Agnosticism — Late Developments of
Agnosticism — Mansel, Huxley and Romanes — Doc-
ta Ignorantia — Agnosticism as a Via Media — Origin
of the Universe — Spencer's Unknowable — Max Miil-
ler on Agnosticism — Sources of Agnosticism — Infinite
Time — Infinite Space — Mysteries of Nature — Chris-
tian Agnosticism — Gods of the Positivist and the Ag-
nostic 254-278

CHAPTER IV.

THEISM AND EVOLUTION.
Evolution and Faith t- Teachings of St. Augustine — Views
of the Angelic Doctor — Seminales Rationes — Creation
According to Scripture — The Divine Administration —
Efficient Causality of Creatures — Occasionalism — An-
thropomorphism — Divine Interference — Science and
Creation — Darwin's Objection — Limitations of Spe-
cialists— Evolution and Catholic Teaching — The Scho-
lastic Doctrine of Species — Milton and Ray. . . 279-319

TABLE OF CONTENTS. 11

CHAPTER V.

THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF LIFE.

PAGBS

Spontaneous Generation — The Nature of Life — The Germ
of Life — Abiogenesis — Artificial Production of Life —
Protoplasm 320-339

CHAPTER VI.

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN.
The Missing Link — The Human Soul — Creation of Man's
Body — Mivart's Theory — Angelic Doctor on Creation
of Adam — Views of Cardinal Gonzales — Opinions of
Other Writers — Interpretation Not Revelation. . 340-368

CHAPTER Vn.

TELEOLOGY, OLD AND NEW.
The Doctrine of Final Causes — A Newer Teleology — Evo-
lution and Teleology — Design and Purpose in Na-
ture 369-377

CHAPTER Vni.

RETROSPECT, REFLECTIONS AND CON-
CLUSION.
Evolution Not a New Theory — Teachings of Greek Phi-
losophers— Teleological Ideas of Anaxagoras and
Aristotle — Influence of Aristotle —t Darwinism Not
EvolutiQ:^^^ Evolution in the Future— (^olution NoT
Antagonistic to Religion^ Objections Against New
Theories — Galileo and the Copernican Theory — Con-
servatism in Science — Conflict of Opinions Beneficial —
Evolution and Creationism — Errors in the Infancy of
Science — Science Not Omnipotent — Bankruptcy of
Science — Conquests of Science — Evidences of De-
sign and Purpose — Rudimentary Organs — Evolutjon,
ScriptuTe^aifd'THeology r> Evolution and Special Crea-
tion — GenesiacJDays, Fioo4i_Z°^^*'^ *°^ Antiquity of
Man —(Eminent Catholics on Evolution ■9—jFaithHar~
Nothing to Apprehend froffi^^volutiqo — Misappre-
hg]isians.RegMdihg Evolution — JlYQlBtion,]^j}nDoE^
CUng Conception.~| 378-438

PART I.

INTRODUCTION.

" II faut savoir douter ou il faut, assurer oii il faut, et se
soumettre ou il faut. Qui ne fait ainsi n'entend pas la force de
la raison. II y en a qui faillent contre ces trois principes ; ou
en assurant tout comme d^monstratif, manque de se connaitre
en demonstration ; ou en doutant de tout, manque de savoir ou
il faut se soumettre ; ou en se soumettant en tout, manque de
savoir ou il faut juger." Pascal, "Pensees."

" We must know when to doubt, when fo feel certain, when
to submit. Who fails in this understands not the force of reason.
There are those who offend against these three rules, either by
accepting everything as evidence, for want of knowing what
evidence is ; or by doubting everything, for want of knowing when
to submit ; or by yielding in everything, for want of knowing
when to use their judgment."

INTRODUCTION.

T^ luv yap ohfiEl navra awaSei ra vnapxovra,
TO Si ^evSei raxv iiaiJHJvel Ta7jfits. — Aristotle.

"For with the truth all things that exist are
in harmony, but with the false the true at
once disagrees."

THE present work is devoted chiefly to the dis-
cussion of three topics which, although in a
measure independent one of the other, are, never-
theless, so closely allied that they may be viewed as
parts of one and the same subject. The first of these
topics embraces a brief sketch of the evolutionary
theory from its earliest beginnings to the present
time ; the second takes up the pros and the cons of the
theory as it now stands ; while the third deals with
the reciprocal and little-understood relations be-
tween Evolution and Christian faith.

It is often supposed by those who should know
better, that the Evolution theory is something which
is of very recent origin ; something about which little
or nothing was known before the publication of
Charles Darwin's celebrated work, "The Origin of
Species." Frequently, too, it is confounded with
Darwinism, or some other modern attempt to ex-
plain the action of Evolution, or determine the fac-
tors which have been operative in the development
of the higher from the lower forms of life. The

(xiii)

Xiv EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

purpose of the first six chapters of this book is to
show that such views are unwarranted ; that Evolu-
tion, far from being of recent date, is a theory whose
germs are discernible in the earliest dawn of philo-
sophic thought. In the two following chapters are
given, in brief compass, some of the principal argu-
ments which are usually adduced in favor of, or
against. Evolution. These chapters, together with
those which precede them, constitute Part First of
the present volume ; Part Second being wholly
devoted to the consideration of the third topic,
namely. Evolution in its relation to Catholic
Dogma. For avowed Christians, to whatever creed
they may belong, the subject relates to matters of
grave import and abiding interest, and this import
and interest, great as they are from the nature of the
theme itself, have been enhanced a hundred fold
by the protracted and violent controversies to which
Evolution has given rise, no less than by the many
misconceptions which yet prevail, and the many
doubts which still remain to be dissipated.

Can a Catholic, can a Christian of any denomi-
nation, consistently with the faith he holds dear, be
an evolutionist ; or is there something in the theory
that is so antagonistic to faith and Scripture as to
render its acceptance tantamount to the denial of
the fundamental tenets of religious belief? The
-question, as we shall learn, has been answered both
affirmatively and negatively. But, as is evident, the
response cannot be both yea and nay. It must be
one or the other, and the query now is, which an-
swer is to be given, the negative or the affirmative ?

IN TR OD UC TION. XV

Whatever may be the outcome of the controver-
sy, whatever may be the results of future research
and discovery, there is absolutely no room for ap-
prehension respecting the claims and authority of
Scripture and Catholic Dogma. Science will never
be able to contradict aught that God has revealed ;
for it is not possible that the Divine works and
the Divine words should ever be in any relation to
each Qther but one of the most perfect harmony.
Doubts and difficulties may obtain for a time; the
forces of error may for a while appear triumphant ; the
testimonies of the Lord may be tried to the utter-
most ; but in the long run it will always be found,
as has so often been the case in the past, that
the Bible and faith, like truth, will come forth un-
harmed and intact from any ordeal, however severe,
to which they may be subjected. For error is im-
potent against truth ; the pride of man's intellect is of
no avail against the wisdom of the Almighty. False
teaching and false views of nature are but the vain
projections of the imaginations of men ; false theo-
ries and false hypotheses are often no more than
what St. Augustine aptly designates "the great ab-
surdities of great teachers — magna magnorum deli-
ramenta doctorum. How true, indeed, the words
of the old distich:

Nostra damus quum falsa damus, nam fallere
nostrum est,

Et quum falsa damus, nil nisi nostra damus.

The fictions of opinions are ephemeral, but the
testimonies of the Lord are everlasting. Opinionum
commenta deUt dies, says Cicero. This utterance of

xvi EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

the old Roman philosopher applies with singular
point to all those conjectures of scientists, philoso-
phers and exegetists, who fail to make their views
a true reflex of the teachings of nature, natures
indicicBy or who promulgate theories manifestly an-
tagonistic to the declarations of faith or of the In-
spired Record.

A striking illustration of the unwisdom of com-
mitting one's self to premature notions, or unproved
hypotheses, especially before all the evidence in the
case is properly weighed, is afforded in the long and
animated controversy respecting the authorship of
the Pentateuch. Many reasons have been assigned
by the higher critics why it could not have been the
production of Moses, to whom it has so long been
ascribed by a venerable tradition, and one of the
objections urged against the Mosaic authorship was,
that written language was unknown in the age dur-
ing which the Jewish legislator is reputed to have
lived. Now, however, the distinguished philologist
and archaeologist. Prof. Sayce, comes forward and
proves, beyond doubt or quibble, that the conten-
tion of the higher critics respecting the authorship
of the Bible is ill-founded. So sure, indeed, is he,
whereof he speaks, that he does not hesitate to
assert " not only that Moses could have written the
Pentateuch, but that it would have been something
like a miracle if he had not done so."

Even in Germany, the great stronghold of the
Higher Criticism, we meet with the expression of
similar views, and that, too, on the part of such
noted Biblical scholars as Rupprecht, and Dr.

INTRODUCTION, xvii

Adolph Zahn of Stuttgart. The former, as a re-
sult of his investigations, declares positively " that
the Pentateuch dates back to the Mosaic period
of Divine revelation, and that its author is Moses
himself, the greatest prophet in Israel." And as to
the groundless assertion that writing was unknown
at the time of the Hebrew law-giver, we have the
deliberate statement of Sayce that "Canaan, in the
Mosaic age, like the countries which surrounded it,
was fully as literary as was Europe in the time of
the Renaissance." '

Such and similar instances of premature claims
for unwarranted hypotheses, should teach us the
wisdom of practicing a proper reserve in respect of
them, and of suspending judgment until we can yield
assent which is based on unimpeachable evidence.
But this does not imply that we should go to the
extreme of conservatism, or display a fanatical obsti-
nacy in the assertion of traditional views which are
demonstrably untenable. There is a broad reach
between ultra-conservatism and reprehensible liber-
alism or arrogant temerity. In this golden mean

' See The Contemporary Review, pp. 480-481, for Octo-
ber, 1895. Cf., also, bj the same author. The Higher Criti-
cism and the Verdict of the Monuments, chapter 11, and
Literature of the Old Testament in "The People's Bible
History," mentioned later. In the last-named contribution to
Biblical lore, the erudite Oxford divine affirms, and without
fear of contradiction, " that one of the first and most important
results of the discoveries which have been pouring in upon us
during the last few years, is the proof that Canaan was a land
of readers and writers long before the Israelites entered it, and
that the Mosaic age was one of high literary activity. So far
as the use of writing is concerned, there is now no longer any
reason for doubting that the earlier books of the Bible might have
been contemporaneous with the events they profess to record."

XViii EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

there is ample field for research and speculation,
without any danger on the one side of trenching
on faith, or of putting a bar to intellectual progress
on the other. The Fathers of the early Church and
the Schoolmen of mediaeval times, show us what
liberty of thought the Catholic may enjoy in the
discussion of all questions outside the domain of
revealed truth.

I am not unaware of the fact that Evolution has
had suspicion directed against it, and odium cast
upon it, because of its materialistic implications and
its long anti-Christian associations. I know it has
been banned and tabooed because it has received the
cordial imprimatur of the advocates of Agnosticism,
and the special commendation of the defenders of
Atheism ; that it has long been identified with false
systems of philosophy, and made to render yeoman
service in countless onslaughts against religion and
the Church, against morality and free-will, against
God and His providential government of the uni-
verse. But this does not prove that Evolution is
ill-founded or that it is destitute of all elements of
truth. Far from it. It is because Evolution con-
tains so large an element of truth, because it ex-
plains countless facts and phenomena which are
explicable on no other theory, that it has met with
such universal favor, and that it has proved such a
powerful agency in the dissemination of error and
in giving verisimilitude to the most damnable of
doctrines. Such being the case, ours is the duty to
withdraw the truth from its enforced and unnatural
alliance, and to show that there is a sense in which

INTRODUCTION. xix

Evolution can be understood — in which it must be
understood, if it repose on a rational basis — in
which, far from contributing to the propagation of
false views of nature and God, it is calculated to
render invaluable aid in the cause of both science
and religion. From being an agency for the pro-
mulgation of Monism, Materialism and Pantheism,
it should be converted into a power which makes
for righteousness and the exaltation of holy faith
and undying truth.

It were puerile to imagine that religion has any-
thing to fear from the advance of science, or from
Evolution receiving all the prominence which the
facts in its favor will justify. Science and religion,
revelation and nature, mutually supplement one an-
other, and it would be against the best interests of
both religion and science to do aught that would
divorce them, or prevent their remaining the close
allies which Infinite Wisdom designed them to be.
" Logically regarded, the advance of science, far
from having weakened religion has immeasurably
strengthened it." So wrote shortly before his death
one who, during the best years of his life, was an
ardent Darwinian and an avowed agnostic. And
the same gifted votary of science declared, that " The
teleology of revelation supplements that of nature,
and so, to the spiritually minded man, they logically
and mutually corroborate one another." '

It behooves us to realize that in our age of doubt
and intellectual confusion, when so many seek in the
gloaming what is visible only in the effulgence of the

' " Thoughts on Religion,'' p. 179, by George Romanes.

E. — la

XX

EVOLU TION A ND D O GMA .

midday sun, when the skeptic sees an interrogation
point at the end of every proposition, and when un-
certainty and mystery hover over so much we should
like to know — it behooves us, I say, to realize, that
we must have recourse to everything that is calcu-
lated to dispel the darkness with which we are sur-
rounded, and to relieve the harrowing doubts with
which so many of our fellow men are oppressed.
But more than this. Important as it is for us to
bear in mind that we live in an age of doubt and
disquietude, it is none the less important for us not
to lose sight of the fact that our lot is cast in an age
of dissent and conflict.

Religion is assailed on all sides ; principles we
hold most dear are treated with contumely and
scorn, and the very foundations of belief in a
personal Creator, and in the immortality of the soul,
are systematically attacked by the enemies of God
and His Church. If, then, we would accomplish
anything in the conflict which is now raging so
fiercely all around us, it is imperative that we should
provide ourselves with the most approved means of
attack and defense, and that we should be able not
only to guard the stronghold of the faith, but that
we should likewise be equipped and ready to meet
our enemies out in the open. In these days of
Maxim guns, old worn-out blunderbusses are worse
than useless. To attempt to cope with the modern
spirit of error by means of antiquated and discarded
weapons of offense and defense, were as foolish as
to pit a Roman trireme or a mediaeval galley against a
modern steel cruiser or the latest type of battleship.

INTRODUCTION. xxi

To pass from the language of metaphor to lan-
guage simple and unadorned, our great, or more
truthfully our greatest enemy, in the intellectual
world to-day, is Naturalism — variously known as Ag-
nosticism, Positivism, Empiricism — which, as Mr.
Balfour well observes, " is in reality the only system
which ultimately profits by any defeats which the-
ology may sustain, or which may be counted on to
flood the spaces from which the tide of religion has
receded." '

It is Naturalism that, allying itself with Evolution,
or some of the many theories of Evolution which
have attracted such widespread attention during the
last half century, has counted such a formidable fol-
lowing that the friends of religion and Scripture
might well despair of final victory, did they not know
the invincibility of truth, and that, however it may be
obscured for a time, or however much it may appar-
ently be weakened, it is sure to prevail and in the
end issue from the contest triumphant.

In writing the present work I have ever had be-
fore my mind the words of wisdom of our Holy
Father, Leo XIII, concerning the duty incumbent
on all Catholics, to turn the discoveries of science into
so many means of illuminating and corroborating the
teachings of faith and the declarations of the Sacred
Text. In public and in private, in season and out of
season, in briefs, allocutions and encyclicals, he has
constantly and strenuously urged a thorough study
of science in all its branches. But nowhere does
he insist more strongly on the profound study of

' "The Foundations of Belief," p. 6.

XXii EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

science, than in his two masterly encyclicals
" yEterni Patris " and " Providentissimus Deus." In
these noble utterances both the clergy and the laity
are stimulated to take an active part in the contest
which is everywhere so furious ; " to repulse hostile
assaults," and that, too, by " modern methods of
attack," and by " turning the arms of a perverted
science into weapons of defense." ' He tells us
that " a knowledge of natural science will be of
very great assistance in detecting attacks on the
Sacred Books and in refuting them." For " attacks
of this kind," the venerable Pontiff remarks, " bear-
ing as they do on matters of sensible experience,
are peculiarly dangerous both to the masses and
also to the young who are beginning their literary
studies."

In reading these precious documents one would
almost think that the Holy Father had in mind the
manifold materialistic hypotheses, so dangerous to
the faith of the uninstructed, which have grouped
themselves around the much-abused theory of con-
temporary Evolution. For, is it not a matter of
daily observation and experience, that there is an in-
creasing number of pious but timid souls who are
sorely distressed by doubts which have been occa-
sioned by the current theories of Transformism ?
They imagine, because it is continually dinned into

' "Quoniam igitur tantum ii possunt religioni importare
commodi, quibus cum catholicas professionis gratia felicem indol-
em ingenii benignum numen impertiit ; ideo in hac acerrima agi-
tatione studiorum, quse Scripturas quoquo modoattingunt, aptum
sibi quisque eligant studii genus, in quo aliquando excellentes
obiecta in illas improbse scientise tela, non sine gloria, repellant."
From the encyclical " Providentissimus Deus."

TN TRODUC TION. xxiii

their ears, that there is a mortal antagonism between
the principles of faith and the teachings of Evolu-
tion, They are assured, moreover, not only that
such an antagonism actually exists, but also that it
is based on undeniable facts, on absolute demonstra-
tion. They are told that if they wish to be consis-
tent, if they wish to obey the certain behests of
reason, they must choose between Evolution and
faith, between science and superstition. The re-
sult is, too often, alas ! that they make shipwreck of
their faith, and plunge headlong into the dark and
hopeless errors of Naturalism.

But not only have I been ever mindful of the
teachings of the venerable Pontiff, Leo XIII ; I have
also, to the best of my ability, striven to follow the
path marked out by those great masters of Catholic
philosophy and theology, St. Augustine and St.
Thomas of Aquin. I have always had before me
their declarations respecting creation, and the man-
ner in which we may conceive the world to have been
evolved from its pristine chaotic condition to its
present state of order and loveliness. And to make
my task easier, I have had frequent recourse to those
two modern luminaries of science and faith, the
profound Jesuit, Father Harper, and the eminent
Dominican, Cardinal Gonzales. To the " Metaphys-
ics of the School," by the former, and to " La
Biblia y la Ciencia," by the latter, I am specially in-
debted for information and points of view that it
would be difficult to find elsewhere. Both of these
distinguished scholars evince a rare mastery of the
subjects which they discuss with such lucidity, and

xxi V E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

one may safely follow them with the utmost confi-
dence, and with the full assurance that ample justice
will always be done to the claims of both science
and Dogma.

In the present work I have studiously avoided
everything that could justly be construed as an ex-
aggeration of the results achieved by science, or as a
minimizing of the dogmatic teachings of the Church
of God. I have endeavored to present Catholic
doctrines and scientific tenets in their true light, and
to exhibit the mutual relations of one to the other
in the fairest possible manner. Purely ex parte
statements and special pleadings are alien from a pro-
fessedly didactic work, and hence my constant effort
has been to avoid all bias, to present impartially and
dispassionately both sides of controverted questions,
and to favor only such conclusions as seemed to be
warranted by indisputable evidence.

The Church is committed to no theory as to the
origin of the world or its inhabitants. Hence, as a
Catholic, I am bound to no theory of Evolution or
of special creation, except in so far as there may be
positive evidence in behalf of such theory. As a
man of science I must estimate, as everyone else
must estimate, the merits or demerits of any hy-
pothesis respecting the genesis and development of
the divers forms of life, simply and solely by the
arguments which can be advanced in its support. I
have no prepossessions for Evolution ; nor have I
any prejudice against special creation. If it can be
demonstrated that Evolution is the modus creandi
which the Almighty has been pleased to adopt, I

INTRODUCTION. xxv

shall rejoice that one of the greatest of the world-
problems has at length received a solution. If, on
the other hand, it can be shown that the traditional
view of special creation is the one to which we must
give our adhesion, I shall rejoice equally, for the
sole desire of every student of nature, as well as the
sole desire of every son of the Church, should be
the truth, and the truth whole and undefiled.

I have, then, no pet theory to exploit, nothing
sensational to defend, nothing to uphold that is in-
consistent with the strictest orthodoxy or the most
rigid Ultramontanism. My sole aim and purpose in
writing this work has been, I repeat it, to remove
misconceptions, to dispel confusion, to explain diffi-
culties, to expose error, to eliminate false interpre-
tation, to allay doubt, to quiet conscience, to benefit
souls. How far I have succeeded remains for others
to judge. That in the discussion of so many difficult
and delicate questions, I may have made statements
that could be improved, or should be somewhat
modified, is quite possible. But if, in anything, I
have been wanting in accuracy of expression ; if I
have misstated a fact of science, or misapprehended
a Dogma of faith ; I shall consider it a special favor
to have my attention directed to what, on my part,
is wholly an unintentional error.

It will not do to say, as has been said, that the
discussion, whether from the platform or elsewhere,
of such topics as constitute the main feature of this
work, is inopportune or inexpedient. If the rea-
sons already assigned did not sufifice to justify the
expediency and opportuneness of such discussions.

XXVi EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

the example given by the International Catholic
Scientific Congress ought to dispel all doubts that
might be still entertained on the subject. For on
every occasion the Congress has yet assembled, the
discussion of evolutionary topics has been given
special prominence. And the interest exhibited in
such discussions was not confined to laymen and
specialists, but it was shared in by distinguished
prelates and scholars of international reputation.
They recognized the necessity of having all possi-
ble light on a question of such widespread inter-
est ; of seeking by all possible means to attain the
truth respecting a subject which has been so prolific
of error and has proved such an agency for evil.
What these learned and zealous men deemed it wise
to do, in the cultured capitals of the Old World, we
certainly can and ought to do in this land of ours,
where ignorance of the subject in question is more
dense and where knowledge is more needed. The
fact that certain propositions in this work have
given rise to such misunderstandings, and have led to
such misdirected controversy and such useless logo-
machy as have prevailed during some months past,
is the best evidence that there is yet much to be
learned regarding what is so often incontinently
condemned without a hearing.

The great trouble now, as it has always been, is
the very general ignorance of the elench on the part
of those who pose as critics of Evolution and of evo-
lutionary theories. Without a suflficient knowledge of
the facts they venture to discuss, they are often led
to make statements which a wider acquaintance with

IN TR OD UC TION. xx vii

nature compels them to retract. Evolution, how-
ever, has not fared differently from the other grand
generalizations that now constitute the foundations
and pillars which support the noble and imposing
edifice of science. The Copernican theory, it will
be remembered, was denounced as anti-Scriptural ;
Newton's discovery of universal gravitation was con-
demned as atheistic ; while the researches of geolo-
gists were decried as leading to infidelity, and as
being " an awful evasion of the testimony of Reve-
lation." That the theory of Evolution should be
obliged to pass through the same ordeal as awaited
other attempts at scientific progress, is not surprising
to those who are familiar with the history of science;
but it is not a little strange that there are yet among
us those who derive such little profit from the
lessons of the past, and who still persist in the futile
attempt to solve by metaphysics problems which,
by their very nature, can be worked out only by the
methods of induction.

Dr. Whewell, the erudite author of the " History
of the Inductive Sciences," was wont to declare that
every great discovery in science had to pass through
three stages. " First people said, ' It is absurd ! '
then they said, * It is contrary to the Bible ! ' and
finally they said, ' We always knew it was so ! ' "
The truth of this observation of the famous Master
of Trinity is well exemplified in the case of Evolu-
tion. There are some who still denounce it as con-
trary to reason ; there are others who honestly believe
that it contradicts Scripture ; while there are not a
few, and the number is rapidly augmenting, who are

xxviii EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

convinced that the germs of the Evolution theory
are to be found in Genesis, and that its fundamental
principles were recognized by Aristotle, St. Augus-
tine and St. Thomas of Aquin. The final result of
the controversy belongs to the future. If the the-
ory which has excited such animosity, and provoked
such unbridled disputes, be founded on the facts of
nature, it will ultimately prevail, as truth itself will
prevail in the end ; if, however, it repose only on
assumption and unsupported hypotheses, if it have
no better foundation than a shifting reef, it is
doomed, sooner or later, to the fate which awaits
everything that is unwarranted by nature or is at
variance with truth.

Strange as it may appear, there are still some
well-meaning people who foolishly imagine, that
science, when too profoundly studied, is a source of
danger to faith. Such a notion is so silly as scarcely
to deserve mention. Pope's well-known verse : " A
little learning is a dangerous thing," has its appli-
cation here, as in so many other instances. The
familiar quotation from Bacon : "A little philosophy
inclineth a man's mind to Atheism, but depth in phi-
losophy bringeth men's minds about to religion," ex-
presses a truth which holds good for science as well
as for philosophy. Illustrations of the truth of the
second part of this statement are found in the lives
of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Linnaeus, Newton,
Cuvier, Cauchy, Agassiz, Barrande, Leverrier and
numberless others of the world's most illustrious
discoverers and most profound thinkers. The great
Linnaeus, than whom no one ever studied nature

IN TRODUC TION. xxix

more carefully or deeply, saw in all created things,
even in what was apparently the most insignificant,
evidences of the power and wisdom and goodness of
God, which to him were simply overwhelming.' And
the immortal Pasteur, whose recent death a whole
world mourns, whose exhaustive study of nature has
been a subject of universal comment and admiration,
did not hesitate towards the end of his glorious ca-
reer to declare, that careful and profound study in-
spires in one the deepest and the most childlike faith,
a faith like unto that of a people who are proverbial
for the earnestness and simplicity of their religious
spirit, the faith of the pious and unspoiled inhabi-
tants of Catholic Brittany. "

In one of his sublime pens^es, Pascal, applying
the method of Descartes to the demonstration of
faith, and causing this instrument of science to con-
found all false science, declares that " we must be-
gin by showing that religion is not contrary to rea-
son ; then that it is venerable, to give respect for it ;
then to make it lovable, and to make good men hope
that it is true ; then to show that it is true." ' Some-

' In the introduction to his " Systema Naturae," the Swedish
botanist writes: " Deum sempiternum, inimensum,omniscientem,
omnipotentem, expergefactus a tergo transeuntem vidi et ob-
stupui. Legi aliquot ejus vestigia per creata rerum, in quibus
omnibus, etiam in minimis ut fere nullis, quae vis ! quanta sap-
ientia ! quam inextricabilis perfectio ! "

"^ " Quand on a bien ^tudid," the renowned savant avers,
" on revient a la foi du paysan breton. Si j'avais etudie plus en-
core, j'aurais la foi de la paysanne bretonne."

' " II faut commencer par montrer, que la religion n'est
point contraire a la raison; ensuite qu'elle est venerable, en
donner respect; la rendre ensuite aimable, faire souhaiter aux
bons qu'elle f6t vraie ; et puis, montrer qu'elle est vraie."

XXX E VOL U TION A ND D O GMA .

thing akin to the idea contained in this beautiful
passage, has been uppermost in my mind in the pen-
ning of the following pages. A kindred thought
has been dominant in every topic discussed. It has
given me courage to undertake, and strength to com-
plete, a work which otherwise would never have been
attempted, and which, during the whole course of
its preparation, I would fain have seen intrusted to
more competent hands. My sole, my ardent desire,
has been to show that there is nothing in true sci-
ence, nothing in any of the theories duly accredited
by science and warranted by the facts of nature,
nothing in Evolution, when properly understood,
which is contrary to Scripture or Catholic teaching ;
that, on the contrary, when viewed in the light of
Christian philosophy and theology, there is much in
Evolution to admire, much that is ennobling and
inspiring, much that illustrates and corroborates the
truths of faith, much that may be made ancillary to
revelation and religion, much that throws new light
on the mysteries of creation, much that unifies and
coordinates what were otherwise disconnected and
disparate, much that exalts our ideas of creative
power and wisdom and love, much, in fine, that
makes the whole circle of the sciences tend, as never
before, ad major em Dei gloriam.

PART I.

EVOLUTION. PAST AND PRESENT.

CHAPTER I.

NATURE AND SCOPE OF EVOLUTION.
Early Speculation Regarding Nature and Man.

FROM time immemorial philosophers and stu-
dents of nature have exhibited a special interest
in all questions pertaining to the origin of man, of
the earth on which he lives and of the universe to
which he belongs. The earliest speculations of our
Aryan forefathers were about the beginnings of
things. Questions of cosmology, as we learn from
the tablets preserved in the great library of Assur-
banipal in Nineveh, received their meed of attention
from the sages of ancient Assyria and Babylonia.
And long before Assyria, Babylonia and Chaldea had
reached the zenith of their power, and before they
had attained that intellectual eminence which so
distinguished them among the nations of the ancient
world, the peoples of Accad and Sumer had raised
and discussed questions of geogony and cosmogony.
They were a philosophical race, these old Accadians
and Sumerians, and, as we learn from the records
which are constantly being exhumed in Mesopotamia,

(«3)

14 E VOL U TION A ND DOGMA .

they had a breadth of view and an acuteness of intel-
lect, which, considering their environment and the
age in which they lived, were simply astonishing.
Well have they been called " the teachers of Greece,"
for all the subtlety of thought and keenness of per-
ception, all the love of science, art and letters, which
were so characteristic of the Greek mind, were pos-
sessed in an eminent degree by those old pre-Baby-
lonian masters who thought and taught and wrote
many long generations before Abraham left Ur of
the Chaldees, untold centuries before Thales taught
and Homer sang. And the musings of the mystic
Hindu along the banks of the Indus and the Ganges ;
the meditations of the Egyptian priest in the tem-
ples of Memphis and Heliopolis ; the speculations
of the wise men of Attica and Ionia, all turned more
or less on the same topics which possessed such a
fascination for the sages of old Chaldea, and which
were discussed with such zest in the schools of
Nineveh and Babylon.

Whence are we? Whither are we going?
Whence this earth of ours and the plants and animals
which make it their home ? Whence the sun, and
moon, and stars — those distant and brilliant, yet mys-
terious representatives of our visible universe? Did
they have a beginning, or have they existed from all
eternity ? And if they had a beginning, are they
the same now as they were when they first came
into existence, or have they undergone changes, and,
if so, what are the nature and the factors of such
changes? Are the development and mutations of
things to be referred to the direct and immediate

NA TURB AND SCOPE OF E VOLUTION. 15

action of an all-powerful Creator, or are they rather
to be attributed to the operation of certain laws of
nature — laws which admit of determination by
human reason, and which, when known, serve as a
norm in our investigations and experiments in the
organic and inorganic worlds? Are there special in-
terventions on the part of a Supreme Being in
the government of the universe, and are we to look
for frequent, if not constant, exhibitions of the mirac-
ulous in the natural world ? Has God's first creation
of the universe and all it contains, of the earth and
all that inhabits it, been followed by other creations
at divers periods, and if so, when and where has such
creative power been manifested ?

These are a few of the many questions about the
genesis and development of things which men asked
themselves in the infancy of our race. And these
are questions which philosophers are still putting to
themselves, and which, notwithstanding the many
thousands of years during which they have been
under discussion, have to-day a greater and more
absorbing interest than in any former period of
human history.

It is beside my present purpose to enumerate
the various theories in science to which the discus-
sion of the questions just propounded have given rise,
or to dwell on the divers systems of philosophy and
religion which have been the natural outgrowth of
such or similar discussions. Materialism, Pantheism,
Emanationism, Hylozoism, Traducianism, Atheism
and other isms innumerable have always been, as they
are to-day, more or less closely identified with many

16 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

of the speculations regarding the origin and consti-
tution of the visible universe. And despite the
great advances which have been made in our knowl-
edge of nature and of the laws which govern the
organic and inorganic worlds, many of the questions
which so agitated the minds of the philosophers of
the olden time, are still as far from solution as they
were when first proposed. New facts and new dis-
coveries have placed the old problems in a new light,
but have diminished none of their difficulties. On
the contrary, the brilliant search-light of modern sci-
ence has disclosed new difficulties which were before
invisible, and proved that those which were consid-
ered before are in many respedts far graver than was
formerly imagined. With the advance of science,
and the progress of discovery, many problems, it is
true, find their solution, but others, hydra-like, arise
in their place and obtrude themselves on the scien-
tist and philosopher, and will not down until they
have received due recognition.

Comprehensiveness of Evolution.

To answer some, if not all, of the questions just
alluded to ; to explain the phenomena of the cosmos ;
to solve the problems of life and mind, and throw
light on the beginning and development of things,
recourse is now had to a system of philosophy and
science which, within the last few decades, has at-
tained a special vogue under the name of Evolution-
ism, or, as its adepts prefer to call it. Evolution.
Evolution, we are assured, is the magic word which
explains all difficulties ; the " open sesame " which ad-

NA TUBE AND SCOPE OF E VOL UTION. 17

mits us into the innermost arcana of nature. We are
told of the Evolution of the earth, of the Evolution
of the solar system, of the Evolution of the sidereal
universe. Men discourse on the Evolution of life,
the Evolution of the organic and inorganic worlds,
the Evolution of the human race. We have simi-
larly the Evolution of society, government, religion,
language, art, science, architecture, music, literature,
chemistry, physics, mathematics, and the various
other branches of knowledge as well. We now talk
of the Evolution of the steamboat, the locomotive,
the dynamo, the machine-gun, the telescope, the
yacht and the bicycle. All that ministers to com-
fort, luxury and fashion are objects of Evolution.
Hence it is that we hear people speak of the Evolu-
tion of the modern house-furnace and the cooking-
stove ; the Evolution of the coach and the dog-cart ;
the Evolution of seal-skin sacques, high-heeled shoes
and of that periodically recurrent bete noire of fond
husbands and indulgent papas — the latest pat-
tern of a lady's hat. Anything which has developed
or improved — and what has not ? — is spoken of as
having come under the great law of Evolution, and,
presto ! all is explained, and any little enigmas
which before may have existed instantly vanish.

As is evident from the foregoing. Evolution may
mean a great deal, or it may mean little or nothing.
It is manifestly a term of very general application
and may often be very misleading. Properly under-
stood it may be of signal service to the searcher after
truth, while, on the contrary, if it is constituted an
ever-ready deus ex machina, capable of solving all

l8 E VOL UtION A ND DOGMA.

difficulties, it may lead to inextricable confusion and
tend to obscure what it was designed to illumine.
It is obvious, too, that we must restrict the meaning
of the word Evolution, for it does not come within
the scope of our work to speak of Evolution in gen-
eral. We have to consider only a particular phase of
it, and for this purpose it is important to have a
definition of what is meant by Evolution.

Evolution Defined.

Herbert Spencer, who is regarded by his admirers
as the great philosopher of Evolution, defines it to be
a "change from an indefinite, incoherent homogene-
ity, to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; through
continuous differentiations and integrations.' And
the operation of Evolution," continues the same au-
thority, "is absolutely universal. Whether it be in
the development of the earth, in the development of
life upon its surface, in the development of society,
of government, of manufactures, of commerce, of lan-
guage, of literature, science, art, this same advance
from the simple to the complex, through successive
differentiations, holds uniformly. From the earliest
traceable cosmical changes down to the latest re-
sults of civilization, we shall find that the transfor-
mation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous,
is that in which Evolution essentially consists,'"

Spencer's definition, however, exact as it may be
deemed, embraces far more than we shall have
occasion to consider, for my task shall be confined

*" First Principles," p, 216.
» Id.— p. 148.

J^-A rURE AND SCOPE OF E VOL UTION. 19

to the Evolution of the earth and its inhabitants, and
only incidentally shall I refer to cosmic Evolution.
Indeed, properly speaking, the Evolution of which I
shall treat shall be limited almost entirely to organic
Evolution, or the Evolution of the plants and ani-
mals which live or have lived on this earth of ours.
All references, therefore, to the Evolution of the
earth itself from its primeval nebulous state, and to
the Evolution of organic from inorganic matter, will
be mostly by way of illustration, and in order to
show that there is no breach of continuity between
organic Evolution, which is my theme, and inorganic
or cosmic Evolution.

Literature of Evolution.

The subject is a vast one, and to treat it ade-
quately would require far more space than I have at
my disposal. It has indeed a literature and a bibli-
ography of its own — a literature whose proportions
are already stupendous, and are daily, and with
amazing rapidity, becoming more collossal. For
the past third of a century, since the publication of
Darwin's " Origin of Species," it has been uppermost
in the minds of everyone given to thinking on seri-
ous subjects. Everybody talks about Evolution, and
more write about it than about any other one subject.

More than five thousand distinct works, relating
to Goethe, who died in 1832, have, it is estimated,
already been printed, and additions are continually
being made to this enormous number. Peignot, who
wrote in 1822, declared that up to his day more than
eighty thousand distinct works had appeared on the

20 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

history of France. The number of volumes that
have been written on our Civil War can soon be
enumerated by myriads, and still other works on the
same subject are being published in rapid succession.
Startling, however, as these figures may appear, they
are insignificant in comparison with those relating
to the subject of Evolution. In every language of
the civilized world, books, brochures, and maga-
zine articles innumerable, have been written on Evo-
lution, and the number of publications of various
kinds specially treating of this topic is now almost
beyond computation.

Such being the case, it will evidently be impos-
sible for me to do more than give a brief sketch of
the history of Evolution, and of its status to-day in
the world of thought, religious, scientific and philo-
sophic. It is something that one cannot develop
dans un mot, as a certain French lady expected of a
noted savant, when asking him to explain his system
of philosophy. For a similar reason, also, I can dis-
cuss but briefly the bearings of Evolution on religion
and Catholic dogma. I shall, therefore, have to limit
myself to a few general propositions, and refer those
who desire a more exhaustive treatment of the sub-
jects discussed, to the many elaborate and learned
works that have been given to the world during the
past few decades.

Freedom Prom Bias in the Discussion of Evolution.

I may here be permitted, before going further, to
remind the reader that it is of prime importance, in
the discussion of the subject of Evolution, especially

NA TURE AND SCOPE OF E VOL UTION. 21

in its relation to religion and dogma, for one to
weigh fairly and dispassionately the arguments and
objections of evolutionists, and to divest one's self
of all bias that may proceed from prejudice or early
education, to consider the question on its merits, and
not to let one's mind be swayed by preconceived, or
it may be, by erroneous notions. Let the value of
the evidence adduced be estimated by the rules of
logic and in the light of reason. This is essential.
In the discussion of the subject during the past
thirty and odd years much has been said in the heat
of controversy, and on both sides, that had no
foundation in fact. There have been much exagger-
ation and misrepresentation, which have given rise to
difficulties and complications that might easily have
been avoided if the disputants on both sides had
always been governed by a love of truth, and the
strict rules of dialectics, rather than by passion and
the spirit of party. Misguided zeal and ignorance
of the true teachings of the Church, always betray
one into making statements which have no founda-
tion in fact, but, in the discussions to which the sub-
ject of Evolution has given rise, there has often been
exhibited, by both the defendants and the opponents
of the theory, a lack of fairness and a bitterness of
feeling that are certainly not characteristic of those
whose sole desire is the attainment of truth. Such
polemics have injured both parties, and have delayed
a mutual understanding that should have, and would
have, been reached years ago if the ordinary rules of
honest controversy had always been inviolably
observed.

22 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Now that the smoke of battle is beginning to
vanish, and that the participants in the contest have
time to reckon results and to look back to the causes
which precipitated the struggle, it is found, and I
think generally conceded, that certain of the repre-
sentatives of science were the ones who brought on
an imbroglio for which there was not the slightest
justification. But it is the old story over again —
hatred of religion concealed behind some new dis-
covery of science or enveloped in some theory that,
for the nonce, was raised to the dignity of an indis-
putable dogma. It was not, it is true, so much the
chief representatives of science who were to blame
as some of their ill-advised asseclce, who saw in the
new teachings an opportunity of achieving notoriety,
and, at the same time, of venting their spleen against
the Church and casting obloquy on religion and
Scripture.

CHAPTER II.

EARLY EVOLUTIONARY VIEWS.
First Studies of Nature.

EVOLUTION, as we now know it, is a product
of the latter half of the present century. It
would; however, be a mistake to imagine that Min-
erva-like it came forth from the brain of Darwin or
Spencer, or that of anyone else, as the fully-developed
theory which has caused so great a stir in the intel-
lectual world. No ; Evolution, as a theory, is not the
work of one man, nor the result of the work of any
body of men that could be designated by name.
Neither is it the product of any one generation or
epoch. On the contrary, it has been the joint achieve-
ment, if such it can be called, of countless think-
ers and observers and experimenters of many climes
and of many centuries. It is the focus towards which
many and divers lines of thought have converged
from the earliest periods of speculation and scientific
research down to our own. The sages of India and
Babylonia; the priests of Egypt and Assyria; the
philosophers of Greece and Rome ; the Fathers of
the early Church and the Schoolmen of the Middle
Ages, as well as the scholars and discoverers of sub-
sequent ages, contributed toward the estabHshment
of the theory on the basis on which it now reposes.

(23)

24 EVOLU TION A ND DOGMA .

This being the case, it will help us to a more
intelligent appreciation of the theory to take a brief
retrospect of the work accomplished by the earlier
workers in the field, and to review some of the more
important observations and discoveries which led up
to the promulgation of Evolution as a theory of the
universal application which is now claimed for it.
Such a review will likewise serve another purpose.
We are often disposed to imagine that all the great
discoveries and generalizations in science are entirely
the result of modern thought and investigation. We
forget that the way has been prepared for us by
those who questioned nature thousands of years ago,
but who, not having the advantages or appliances
of modern research, were unable to possess them-
selves of her secrets. We underrate and disparage
the work of the earlier students and speculators, be-
cause we are oblivious of the fact that they planted
the germ which we see developed into the full-grown
tree, because we do not realize that we are reaping
what others have sown. All great movements in
the world of thought are, we should remember,
simply the integration of infinitesimals; the sum-
mation of an almost infinite series of factors which
are ordinarily ignored or disregarded. The success-
ful generalizer and the framer of legitimate scientific
theories are, as a rule, those who avail themselves
of the data and patient indications of others, who
accumulate and correlate disjointed and independent
observations which, separately considered, have little
or no value, and which tell us little or nothing of
the operations of nature and nature's laws. Thus

EA RL r EVOLU TIONA R Y VIE WS. 25

Kepler's laws were based on the observations of
Tycho Brahe ; Newton's great discovery of the law
of universal gravitation was founded on Abb^ Pic-
ard's measurenaent of the earth's meridian; and
Leverrier's discovery of the planet Neptune was
suggested by the perturbations which various astron-
omers had observed in the motion of Uranus. So,
too, is it, but to a greater extent, in respect of
the theory of Evolution. It is the result not only
of the observations of the immediate predecessors
of those who are now regarded as the founders of
the theory, but of data which have been amassed
and of reflections which philosophers have been
making since our Aryan forefathers first began to in-
terrogate nature and seek a rational explanation of
the various mutations which were observed to char-
acterize the earth's surface and its inhabitants.

Evolution Among the Greeks.

Thales, who was one of the first philosophers
that attempted a natural explanation of the uni-
verse, in lieu of the myths which had so long ob-
tained, taught that all life had its origin in water.
Anaximander, who flourished six centuwes B.C.,
seems to forestall certain evolutionary theories
which were taught twenty-five hundred years later.
" The first animals," ra -rpwra Cwa, he tells us, " were
begotten in moisture and earth." Man, according
to the same philosopher, " must have been born from
animals of a difTerent form, i^ aXXoktdwv ^mmv, for,
whereas other animals easily get their food by them-
selves, man alone requires long rearing. Hence, had

26 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

man been originally such as he is now, he could never
have survived." He first propounded the theory of
" fish-men," which, in a modified form, was adopted
by Oken. Anaximenes, a pupil of Anaximander,
made air the cause of all things, while Diogenes
of Appolonia held that all forms of animal and
plant life originated from primordial slime — the
prototype of Oken's famous Urschleim. Anaxagoras
sought the beginnings of animated nature in germs
which preexisted in nature, and were distributed
throughout the air and ether. In Empedocles, who
is sometimes spoken of as the father of the Evolu-
tion idea, we find the germ of what Darwin calls
" natural selection," * and what Spencer denominates
"the survival of the fittest." With the representa-
tives of the Ionian schools, he was a believer in
spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis, but he ap-
proximated more closely to the teachings of modern
Evolution than did any of his predecessors or con-
temporaries. He recognized the gradual develop-
ment of the higher from the lower forms of life, and
taught that plants made their appearance before
animals.

Aristotle's Observations.

But the greatest of the Greek naturalists, as he
was also the greatest of Greek philosophers,- was

^ In his "Physics," II, cap. viii, Aristotle refers to natural
selection and the survival of the fittest, as taught by Empedocles
and others, as follows : " For when the very same combinations
happened to be produced which the law of final causes would have
called into being, those combinations which proved to be advan-
tageous to the organism were preserved ; while those which
were not advantageous perished, and still perish, like the mino-
taurs and sphinxes of Empedocles,"

EARLT EVOLUTIONARY VIEWS. 27

Aristotle. Unlike Plato, who laid special stress on
a priori reasoning as the source of true knowledge,
even in the natural and physical sciences, he insisted
on observation and experiment. " We must not,"
he tells us in his " History of Animals," "accept a
general principle from logic only, but must prove its
application to each fact. For it is in facts that we
must seek general principles, and these must always
accord with facts. Experience furnishes the partic-
ular facts from which deduction is the pathway to
general laws."

When we consider how happy the Stagirite was
in his generalizations from the meager facts at his
command, how remarkable was his prevision of
some of the most important results of modern
investigation, how he had not only a true concep-
tion of the modern ideas of Evolution, but had
likewise a clear perception of the principle of adap-
tation, when we remember that he was cognizant
of the analogies, and probably also of the homol-
ogies between the different parts of an organism,
that he was aware of the phenomena of atavism and
reversion and heredity, and that he foreshadowed
the theory of epigenesis in embryonic development,
as taught by Harvey long ages afterwards, when v/e
call to mind all these things, we are forced, I re-
peat, to conclude that the immortal Greek not only
fully understood the value of induction as an instru-
ment of research, but also that he was quite as suc-
cessful in its use, considering his limited appliances
for work, as was any one of his successors who lived
and labored in more favored times.

28 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

He, then, and not Empedocles, should be re-
garded as the father of the Evolution theory. The
poet-naturalist of Agrigentum made, indeed, some
observations in embryology, the first recorded,
and may thus have been led to some of his fortu-
nate guesses at the truth of Evolution ; but there is
reason to believe that most, if not all of his theories,
were based on a priori speculation rather than on
experiment. He had by no means the wide ac-
quaintance with nature which so distinguished Aris-
totle ; neither did he possess the logical acumen,
nor the skill in inductive reasoning we so much
admire in the Samian philosopher. So far as was
possible in his time, the Stagirite based his evo-
lutionary views on observation and experiment,
rather than on metaphysical ratiocination, and
this is more than can be said of any of his prede-
cessors, whether of the Ionian, Pythagorean or
Eleatic schools, or of those immediately subse-
quent.'

Mediaeval Writers.

The foregoing views of the Greek philosophers
found acceptance at a later date with the philoso-
phers of Rome, and prevailed, with but slight modi-
fications, during the entire period of the Middle
Ages. They were commented on by a number of
Arabian writers, notably Avicenna, Avempace, Abu-

' For an exhaustive exposition of the views of the Greeks, on
the subjects discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, consult Zel-
ler's " Philosophy of the Greeks." See also Ueberweg's "His-
tory of Philosophy."

EARLT EVOLUTWNART VIEWS. 29

bacer,' and Omar " the learned," as well as by many
of the Schoolmen, especially Albertus Magnus. The
last-named scholar was remarkable for his extended
knowledge of nature. Besides discussing the theo-
ries which had been framed by his predecessors, he
was a keen observer and skillful experimenter, and
it is not too much to say that he contributed more
towards the advance of science than anyone who
had lived since the time of Aristotle.

The illustrious pupil of Albertus Magnus, St.
Thomas Aquinas, deserves a special mention here
for his teachings respecting organic Evolution. Ac-
cepting the views of Aristotle, St. Gregory of Nyssa
and St. Augustine, regarding the origin and develop-
ment of animal and plant life, he laid down principles
concerning derivative or secondary creations, which

'In a curious philosophical romance Abubacer writes as
follows on the birth of what he designates the " nature-man : "
"There happens to be," he says, " under the equator an island,
where man comes into the world without father or mother. By
spontaneous generation he arises directly, in the form of a boy,
from the earth, while the spirit, which, like sunshine, emanates
from God. unites with the body, growing out of a soft, unformed
mass. Without any intelligent surroundings, and without educa-
tion, this ' nature-man,' through simple observation of the outer
world, and through the combination of various appearances, rises
to the knowledge of the world and of the Godhead. First, he
perceives the individual, and then he recognizes the various
species as independent forms, but as he compares the varieties
and species with each other, he comes to the conclusion that
they are all sprung from a single animal spirit, and, at the same
time that the entire animal race forms a single whole. He
makes the same discovery among the plants, and finally he sees
the animal and plant forms in their unity, and discovers that
among all their differences they have sensitiveness and feeling
in common ; from which he concludes that animals and plants
are only one and the same thing." How like unto many mod-
ern speculations this fancy of the old Arab philosopher !

30 B VOL UTION A XD DOGMA .

scientists and theologians now recognize to be of ines-
timable value. As we shall have occasion , in the sequel,
to examine at length the teachings of the Angelic Doc-
tor on this topic, it will suffice for the present sim-
ply to advert to them, and to signalize in advance
their transcendent importance.

CHAPTER III.

FOSSILS AND GIANTS.
Early Notions Regarding Fossils.

IN the beginning of the sixteenth century geolog-
ical phenomena began to attract more attention
than they had hitherto received. Special interest
was centered in fossils, which were so universally
distributed over the earth's surface, and their study
contributed materially towards placing the theory
of Evolution on a firmer basis than it ever before
possessed. Aristotle and other Greek writers had,
indeed, made mention of them, but did not, as it
appears, devote to them any particular study.

Theophrastus, a pupil of Aristotle, supposed
them to be due to "a certain plastic virtue" of the
earth, which possessed the power of fashioning
inorganic matter into organic forms.

The distinguished painter, Leonardo da Vinci,
one of the most gifted men that ever lived, was
among the first to dispute the absurd theories which
were currently accepted regarding the nature and
origin of fossils. " They tell us," he says, " that these
shells were formed in the hills by the influence-
of the stars ; but I ask, where in the hills are the stars
now forming shells of distinct ages and species ?
And how can the stars explain the origin of gravel,

(31)

32 E VOL U TION A ND DOGMA .

occurring at different heights and composed of peb-
bles rounded as by the motion of running water ; or
in what manner can such a cause account for the
petrification in the same places of various leaves,
sea-weeds and marine crabs?"

Fracostoro, a contemporary of Da Vinci, followed
in the footsteps of the illustrious artist, and taught
that fossils were the exuviae of animals that former-
ly lived where their remains are now found. He
showed the futility of the opinion then prevalent
which attributed fossils to the action of the Noa-
chian Deluge, which, according to the ideas then en-
tertained, not only strewed the earth's surface with
the remains of the animals which were destroyed,
but also buried them at great depths on the highest
mountains.

Clear and cogent arguments like those adduced
by Da Vinci and Fracostoro should have sufficed to
end all controversy regarding the true nature of
fossils, but unfortunately for the cause of science
the dispute was destined to last nearly three cen-
turies longer. All sorts of imaginary causes were
feigned to account for the petrified organic forms
everywhere abundant, and no theory was too fantas-
tical to attract supporters, provided only it was not
antagonistic to the notions of geogony and cos-
mogony then popularly received.

Thus, according to Agricola, fossils were the prod-
uct of a certain materia pinguis, or fatty matter,
set in fermentation by heat ; porous bodies, like
bones and shells, according to Mattioli, were petri-
fied by what he designated a "lapidifying juice,"

J^OSSILS AND GIANTS. 33

while according to Fallopio, of Padua, petrified
shells were produced by the " tumultuous move-
ments of the terrestrial exhalations." Olivi, of
Cremona, considered fossils as mere lusus naiurce,
or " sports of nature," while others regarded
them as mere stones which " had assumed their
peculiar configuration by the action of some oc-
cult ' internal principle ' from the influence of
the heavenly bodies;" and others still maintained
that they were bodies formed by nature " for no
other end than to play the mimic in the mineral
kingdom."

That such fanciful notions regarding the nature
of fossils could ever have been seriously entertained
by men of sound judgment now seems almost inex-
plicable. But if we reflect a moment we shall see
that almost equally ridiculous views of nature are
held by even eminent men of science at the present
day. As for the students of nature who lived some
centuries ago, it may be pleaded in extenuation of
the errors into which they lapsed, that some of the
theories which they deemed to be beyond question
appeared to give color to their beliefs.

Among these was the theory of spontaneous gen-
eration, or the theory that certain living plants and
animals are produced spontaneously from inorganic
matter, or spring from organic matter in a state of
decomposition. And then, too, they were confirmed
in their views by observing the peculiar forms as-
sumed by stalactites and stalagmites which grew
under their very eyes ; by the strange figures found
in agates, notably the moss agate, and the still

E.-3

34 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Stranger figures which often characterize what is
known as landscape marble, in which trees, castles,
mountains and other objects are frequently depicted
with striking fidelity.

But in spite of the yoke of authority, especially
of Aristotle, which bore heavily upon the students of
science, and notwithstanding the generally received
teaching, often based on the Bible, to oppose which
required considerable courage, new views were slowly
but surely supplanting the old. And strange as it
may seem, it was not some philosopher who was the
first to proclaim the truth, but the celebrated pot-
ter, Bernard Palissy. " He was the first," says Fon-
tenelle, " who dared assert in Paris that fossil re-
mains of testacea and fish had belonged to marine
animals."

Italian Geologists on Fossils.

A century after Palissy's time, in 1669, Nicholas
Steno, a Danish Catholic priest, showed the identity
of the teeth and bones of sharks then living in the
Mediterranean with those of fossil remains found in
Tuscany. " He also compared the shells discovered
in the Italian strata with living species ; pointed out
their resemblance and traced the various grada-
tions from shells which had only lost their animal
gluten, to those petrifactions in which there was a
perfect substitution of stony matter."

And yet, notwithstanding the observations of
such men as Steno, Palissy, and others, the old no-
tions, according to which fossils were the products
of a certain plastic virtue latent in nature, or were

FOSSILS AND GIANTS. 35

deposited in situ by Noah's flood, still found favor
with the majority of geologists. This was especially
the case with the physico-theological writers of Eng-
land, who, in spite of the discoveries of the Italian ge-
ologists, still persisted in accommodating all geolog-
ical phenomena to their fanciful interpretations of the
Scriptural accounts of the Creation and the Deluge.
Thus Woodward taught that " the whole terrestrial
globe was taken to pieces and dissolved by the
Flood," and that subsequently the strata " settled
down from this promiscuous mass as any earthy
sediment from a flood."

Such views were in marked contrast with those
held by the learned Carmelite friar, Generelli, who
strongly argued against the unreasonableness of
calling " the Deity capriciously upon the stage, to
make Him work miracles for the sake of confirming
our preconceived hypotheses." He insisted on it
that natural causes were competent to explain geo-
logical phenomena, and to account for the occurrence
of fossil remains on hills and mountains. In refer-
ring to the formation of mountains and their denu-
dation by the action of the elerrients, he forestalls the
teachings of modern geologists when he declares
" that the same cause which, in the beginning of
time, raised mountains from the abyss, has down to
the present day continued to produce others, in
order to restore from time to time the losses of all
such as sink down in different places, or are rent
asunder, or in other ways suffer disintegration." '

See Lyell's " Principles of Geology," vol. I, p. 54.

36 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Legends About Giants.

As illustrating the difficulties which students of
science had to contend with, I may here refer to
another curious but deeply-rooted notion that long
prevailed regarding certain fossils. Accepting as
certain the ordinary interpretation of the Hebrew
word nephilim, 'D''^''Q?^ in Genesis, vi, 4, as mean-
ing giants, or persons of extraordinary stature, and
taking as literal the mythical or exaggerated ac-
counts of giants who were reputed tQ have lived
in the early ages of the world, the discoverers of
large fossil bones had no hesitation in pronouncing
them the remains of some one or other great giant
of legendary lore.

Greek and Roman authors, no less than German,
French and English writers at a much later period,
give us very detailed descriptions of the remains of
giants discovered in various quarters of the earth.
The bones found in one place, were, it was asserted,
those of Antaeus or Orestes, those in another, of
the giant Og, King of Bashan, while those of still
another locality were identified as the skeleton of
the famous Teutobocchus, king of the Teutons and
Cimbri, who was defeated by the Roman general,
Marius. According to the accounts which have
come down to us, the teeth of these giants each
weighed several pounds and were in some instances
as much as a foot long, while the estimated stature
of others of the giants whose remains are described
was no less than sixty cubits. Later investigators,
however, had no difficulty in showing that the sup-
posed teeth of giants were nothing other than the

FOSS/LS AND GIANTS. 37

molars of some extinct elephant or mammoth ; that
what were regarded as the vertebrae and femurs of
Titans and giants belonged in reality to certain
monstrous pachyderms long since extinct, and that
what was exhibited as the hand of one of the huge
representatives of the human family proved, on ex-
amination, to be the bones of the fore-fin of a whale.
And, as science advanced, it was finally discovered
that there had never been any material difference in
the stature of men, that the races of antiquity were
no taller than those now existing, and that there is
no evidence whatever that there were ever, at any
period of the world's history, men of greater stature
than those occasionally seen in our own day.'

But notwithstanding the progress of discovery,
people were loath to give up their belief in giants, as
they were unwilling to change their opinions respect-
ing the plastic power of the earth and the universally
exterminating effects of the Flood. Men who be-
lieved in the existence of griffons and flying dragons,
and who regarded the horns of fossil rhinoceroses, so
numerous in parts of Europe and Asia, as the claws
of griffons and as certain proofs of the existence of
these fabled creatures, could not be blamed if they
gave more or less credence to the countless tradi-
tionary tales respecting Titans and giants.

True Significance of Fossils.

The true significance of fossils, however, was not
understood until the time of Cuvier, the illustrious

* See Howorth's " Mammoth and the Flood," chaps, i and ii,
and Wood's " Giants and Dwarfs."

38 EVOLU TION A ND D OGMA .

founder of paleontology. Many had asserted, as we
have seen, that fossil remains were the exuviae of
what were once living animals, but no one before
Cuvier had a true conception of their relation to the
existing fauna of the globe. At the close of the
last century this profound naturalist commenced an
exhaustive study of the rich fossiliferous rocks of
the Paris basin, and was soon able to announce to
an astonished world that the fossils there discovered
were not only the remains of animals long since ex-
tinct, but that they belonged to species and genera
entirely different from any now existing. To the
amazement of men of science he proved the exist-
ence of a tropical fauna in the latitude of Paris, and
exhibited animal forms totally unlike anything now
living. His discoveries carried men's minds back to
times far anterior to the Deluge of Noah ; back to
epochs whose remoteness from our own is to be
estimated by hundreds of thousands and millions of
years. The theory that the fossiliferous strata of the
earth were deposited by Noah's Flood was proven
to be untenable and absurd, and it was therefore
relegated definitively to the limbo of fanciful spec-
ulations and exploded hypotheses. Thinking men
were compelled to recognize the fact that the
world is much older than had been imagined ; that
far from having been created only a few thou-
sand years ago, it had been in existence for many
millions of years ; and that many strange forms of life
had inhabited the earth long before the advent of
man on our planet. Further investigations carried
on by Brongniart, Cuvier's collaborator, by D'Or-

FOSS/LS AND GIANTS 39

bigny, Sedgwick, Murchison, Smith, Lyell and
others, showed that there was a gradual develop-
ment from the forms of life which characterize the
earlier geological ages to those which appeared at
later epochs. From the simple, primitive forms of
the lower Silurian Age there was a steady progres-
sion towards the higher and more specialized types
of the Quaternary.

Did this succession betoken genetic connection?
Were the higher and later forms genealogically de-
scended from the simpler antecedent types? Was
there here, in a word, evidence of organic Evolution?

Controversy in the French Academy.

Such questions had been suggested before but
they were now asked in all seriousness, and by those
most competent to interpret the facts of paleontol-
ogy. A storm was brewing in the scientific world,
and when, in 1830, it burst in the French Acad-
emy, in the celebrated contest between Cuvier and
Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, it created an unpre-
cedented sensation in the whole of Europe, notwith-
standing the great political excitement of the time.

An anecdote, told of Goethe, shows in what light
the great poet-philosopher viewed the dispute which
was to have such an important bearing on the ques-
tion of the origin of species. The news of the out-
break of the French Revolution of July had just
reached Weimar, and the whole town was in a state
of excitement. " In the course of the afternoon,"
says Soret, " I went around to Goethe's. ' Now,'
exclaimed he to me, as I entered, 'what do you

40 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA.

think of this great event ? The volcano has come
to an eruption ; everything is in flames, and we have
no longer a transaction with closed doors! ' ' Terri-
ble affairs,' said I, ' but what could be expected un-
der such outrageous circumstances, and with such a
ministry, otherwise than that the whole would end
with the expulsion of the royal family ? ' ' My good
friend,' gravely returned Goethe, 'we seem not to un-
derstand each other. I am not speaking of those crea-
tures there, but of something quite different. I am
speaking of the contest, so important for science, be-
tween Cuvier and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, which has
just come to an open rupture in the French Acad-
emy! ' " This individual contest between two giants
was the signal for a general outbreak. The first gun
was fired and a war ensued, which has continued with
almost unabated vigor until the present time. The
scientific world was divided into two camps, those who
sympathized with the views of Geoffroy regarding
Evolution, and those who sided with Cuvier, the ad-
vocate of the traditional doctrine of special creations.
Much, however, remained to be accomplished be-
fore the views of Saint-Hilaire could be considered
as anything more than a provisional hypothesis.
The evidence of all the sciences had to be weighed,
a thorough survey of the vast field of animate nature
had to be made, before the new school could reason-
ably expect its views to meet with general accept-
ance. Special and systematic investigations were
accordingly inaugurated, in all parts of the world, in
which representatives of every department of science
took an active and interested part.

CHAPTER IV.

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION AND SCIENTIFIC DIS-
COVERY.

Early Views Regarding Abiogenesis.

BEFORE recounting the results of these investi-
gations, it may not, perhaps, be out of place,
briefly to summarize a chapter in the history of biol-
ogy which has always had a peculiar interest for
students of nature, and which, even to-day, notwith-
standing many long and animated controversies on
the subject, has probably a greater interest for a
certain school of evolutionists than almost any other
one topic. I refer to the subject of spontaneous
generation, or abiogenesis,' to which reference has
already been made en passant.

The discussion of this question has played such
an important part in the history of science, that any
treatment of the theory of Evolution which should
contain no reference to the subject of spontaneous
generation, would ignore one of the most essential
factors in a great and long-continued controversy.
In good sooth, some knowledge of the more salient
facts of abiogenesis are absolutely irtdispensable to a
proper appreciation of certain of the most interest-
ing problems connected with the theory of Evolution

* Generatio aequivoca, heterogenesis, and autogenesis, are
sometimes employed as synonyms of spontaneous generation.

(41)

42 E VOL UTION A ND D OGMA .

as now understood. In many respects, indeed, Evo-
lution and abiogenesis go hand in hand and what
throws light on the one at the same time illuminates
the other, diminishing, part passu, the difficulties of
both, or bringing, it may be, such difficulties into
bolder relief.

The doctrine that certain animals and plants
arise from the fortuitous concourse of atoms of inor-
ganic matter, or originate from decaying animal or
vegetable matter, that nature is capable of bringing
forth living bodies,

" Qui rupto robore nati,
Compositive luto, nullos habuere parentes."

is one of those errors in science that can be traced
back to the earliest period of scientific speculation.
It received the imprimatur of Aristotle, who was a
firm believer in spontaneous generation, and, like
many other errors indorsed by the famous Stagirite, it
was almost universally accepted as incontestable truth
until a few decades ago. How much this belief, by
engendering false notions regarding the unity and
relationship of the animal world, may have retarded
the progress of science, it is unnecessary here to in-
quire. Suffice it to say that the discussions to
which the subject gave rise from time to time had
no slight influence in predisposing many minds in
favor of the theory of Evolution, and of throwing a
certain light on the subject of organic development
that could come from no other source.

According to Aristotle many of the lower forms
of animal life originate spontaneously, sometimes

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. 43

from decomposing animal or vegetable matter, some-
times from the slime of the earth. Many insects, he
tells us, spring from putrid matter ; certain fish have
their origin in mud and sand, while eels, we are as-
sured, are spontaneously produced in marshy
ponds.* Aristotle's views were shared by his coun-
trymen as well as by the Romans — by poets and
philosophers as well as by naturalists. Pliny and
Varro speak of spontaneous generation as do also
Virgil and Lucretius and Ovid. All readers of Ovid
are familiar with the interesting account given in
the '* Metamorphoses" of the origin of bees, hornets
and scorpions from putrid flesh, of frogs from slime,
and of serpents from human marrow. *

Entertaining such notions regarding the origin
of living things, we can understand why Rome's
poet-philosopher declares " It remains, therefore, to
believe that the earth must justly have obtained
the name of mother, since from the earth all living

' See his " History of Animals," book V, chap, i, and book
VI, chaps. XIV and xv.

' '' Si qua fides rebus tamen est addenda probatis,
Nonne vides, quaecumque mora fluidove calore
Corpora tabuerint, in parva animalia verti?
I quoque, delectos mactatos obrue tauros;
Cognita res usu, de putri viscere passim
Florrilegie nascuntur apes . . .
Pressus humo bellator equus crabronis origo est.
Concava littoreo si demas brachia cancro ;
Cetera supponas terrae ; de parte sepulta
Scorpius exibit
*********

Semina limus habetviridea generantia ranas.

Sunt qui, cum clauso putrefacta est spina sepulchre,
Mutari credant humanas angue medullas."

Ovid, " Metamorphoses," Lib. XV., vv. 361, et seq.

44 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

creatures were born. And even now many animals
spring forth from the earth, which are generated by
means of moisture and the quickening heat of the
sun." '

Fathers and Schoolmen on Abiogenesis.

The views of Aristotle and his successors were
accepted and taught by the Fathers and the School-
men of the Middle Ages. St. Augustine, in discuss-
ing the question whether certain small animals were
created on the fifth or sixth day, or whether they
arose from putrid matter, says : " Many small ani-
mals originate from unhealthy vapors, from evapora-
tions from the earth, or from corpses ; some also
from decayed woods, herbs and fruits. But God is
the creator of all things. It may, therefore, be said
that those animals which sprang from the bodies,
and especially the corpses, of other living beings,
were only created with them potentialiter and mater-
ialiter. But of those which spring from the earth,
or water, we may unhesitatingly say that they were
created on the fifth and sixth days." St. Thomas
Aquinas acquiesces in this opinion of the great
bishop of Hippo, although he declined to accept
Avicenna's theory that all animals could originate
spontaneously.

I direct special attention to the teachings of the
Fathers and Schoolmen regarding abiogenesis, as

^ " Linquitur, ut merito maternum nomen adepta
Terra sit, e terra quoniam sunt cuncta creata,
Multaque nunc etiam existant animalia terris
Imbribus, at calido solis concreta vapore."

Lucretius, " De Rerum Natura,'" Lib. V. 793-796.

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. 45

they have a profound significance in the discussion
of certain questions which shall be referred to in the
sequel. The principles which they admitted have
an importance that is far-reaching, and should be
more generally known than they are. For the appli-
cation of these principles — broad and deep they
are — will enable us to refute many objections that
would otherwise be unanswerable, and enable us to es-
cape from many difficulties which frequently give both
scientists and theologians no inconsiderable trouble.

For centuries after the time of St. Thomas, the
theory of spontaneous generation was universally
held and taught in all the schools of Europe.

And more than this. Learned men of science
and grave theologians did not hesitate to give in-
structions as to how certain animals might be
brought into existence by the mysterious power of
abiogenesis. As late as the seventeenth century, the
famous Jesuit scholar, Athanasius Kircher, confi-
dently indicated the following method of produc-
ing serpents by spontaneous generation : " Take as
many serpents as you like, dry them, cut them into
small pieces, bury these in damp earth, water them
freely with rain water, and leave the rest to the
spring sun. After eight days the whole will turn
into little worms, which, fed with milk and earth,
will at length become perfect serpents, and by pro-
creation will multiply ad infinitum y Van Helmont
gave a recipe for making fleas, while there were
others who gave equally explicit directions for the
production of mice from cheese, or fish by the fer-
mentation of suitable material.

46 £ VOL UTION A ND DOGMA.

Even so late as the last century, there were
learned men who did not hesitate to declare that
mussels and shell-fish are generated from mud and
sand, and that eels are produced from dew.

Redi's Experiments.

The first one effectively to controvert the doc-
trine of abiogenesis was Francesco Redi, of the cele-
brated Academia del Cimento, of Florence. In his
remarkable work entitled " Esperienze intorno alia
Generazione degl' Insetti," published in 1668, he dis-
tinctly enunciates the doctrine that there is no life
without antecedent life — ontne vivum ex vivo — that all
living organisms have sprung originally from preexist-
ing germs, and that the apparent production of or-
ganized beings from putrefied animal matter, or vege-
table infusions, is due to the existence or introduc-
tion of germs into the matter from which such beings
seem to originate.

The experiments by which Redi proved his as-
sertion were as simple as they at the time were con-
clusive.

He placed some meat in a jar and then tied
fine gauze over the top of the jar. The meat
underwent putrefaction but no maggots appeared.
Redi hence inferred that maggots are not generated
by decomposing meat, but by something which is
excluded from the jar by the gauze. He soon dis-
covered that this something which had eluded all
previous observers, was the eggs of a blow-fly, which,
when deposited on meat, or dead animals, invariably
gave rise to the maggots that had hitherto been

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. 47

regarded as spontaneously generated. By a series of
similar experiments he showed that in all cases the
apparent production of living from dead matter was
due to the introduction, from without, of living
germs into the matter from which life seemed to
originate.

So deeply rooted, however, was the doctrine of
spontaneous generation in the minds of men, that
Redi's conclusions were far from meeting with ready
acceptance. All kinds of objections were urged
against his experiments and the inferences which he
drew from them. Some of his opponents even went
so far as to assert that his conclusions were con-
trary to the teachings of Scripture, which, they con-
tended, manifestly implied, if it did not expressly
affirm, the doctrine of abiogenesis. In proof of
their view they referred to the generation of bees
from the Hon which had been slain by Samson,
and which suggested the riddle that so puzzled the
Philistines : — " Out of the eater came forth meat,
and out of the strong came forth sweetness." '

From our present way of viewing the question
such an objection seems very strange, to say the
least, but stranger still does it appear when we re-
flect that it was urged in the name of theology and
Scripture. The spell of antiquity and authority was
still hanging over the students of nature, and it re-

'Judges, chap, xiv, 5-14. — Redi refers to the objections
of his adversaries in the following passage from his " Esper-
ienze: " " Molti e moltialtri ancora vi potrei annoverare, se non
fossi chiamato a rispondere alle rampogne di alcuni che
brusquamente mi rammentano cio che si legge nel capitolo
quattordicesimo del sacrosanto Libro de' Giudici." p. 45.

48 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

quired an intrepid investigator like Redi, strong in
his sense of right and certain in his interpretations
of the teachings of experiment, to assert his intellec-
tual freedom, and to cope with those who imagined
that Aristotle could not err, and that certain meta-
physical dicta, which were universally quoted, were,
in natural science, to be accounted as so many
canons of truth.

But, notwithstanding the opposition which he
excited, Redi was triumphant, and for a long time
the theory of spontaneous generation was very gen-
erally looked upon as something that had fallen into
disrepute.

Later Researches.

But the victory was but temporary. The inven-
tion of the microscope, and the discovery of the
world of infusorial animalculae, which before had
been invisible, resurrected the old theory of abio-
genesis, and many eminent naturalists now defended
it as strenuously as had any one of its supporters
before the experiments of Redi had called it in
question,

Arrong the most eminent champions of the
theory of the spontaneous generation of infusory
animalcules, were the English naturalist, Needham,
and the distinguished French savant, Buffon. As
the result of numerous experiments both these
observers came to the conclusion that, whatever
views might be entertained regarding the origin of
the higher forms of animal life, there could be no
doubt about the spontaneous production of certain

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. 49

of the lower animalculse, from suitably prepared in-
fusions of animal or vegetable matter.

This apparent victory was, however, but ephem-
eral. The experiments in question were taken up
by a distinguished Italian ecclesiastic, the Abbate
Spallanzani, who subjected them to a rigid and ex-
haustive examination. The result of his labors
issued in proving incontestably that the experiments
of Needham were defective, and that his conclusions,
therefore, were unwarranted. Spallanzani demon-
strated that when the necessary precautions are
taken against the admission of germs into the infu-
sions employed, no animalcules whatever are devel-
oped, and that the theories and conclusions of
Buffon and Needham were not sustained by the
facts in the case.

But, notwithstanding the investigations of Redi
and his successors, Leeuwenhoek, Swammerdam,
Reaumur and Vallisneri, and despite the researches
of Spallanzani, Schultze and Schwann, Van Siebold,
Leuckart, and Van Beneden, there were not wanting
men who still pinned their faith to the theory of
abiogenesis. Foremost among these were the cele-
brated chemists Berzelius and Liebig. " Was it
certain," they asked, "that in the experiments
which had hitherto been conducted, that the proper-
ties of the air, or oxygen of the air, or of the men-
strua themselves, had not been essentially changed,
and thus had rendered them incompetent to give
rise to the phenomena which they would exhibit
in their natural and chemically unchanged condi-
tion ?"

E.-4

50 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

These questions were taken up and answered in
the epoch-making researches of that prince of inves-
tigators, the universally revered and world-renowned
Pasteur. He demonstrated that in every instance
life originates from antecedent life — omne vivum ex
vivo — that the various forms of fermentation, putre-
faction and disease are not only caused by the pres-
ence and action of certain microbes, but that these
microbes, as well as organisms of a superior organ-
ization, are invariably produced by beings like them-
selves ; that, in all cases, like proceeds from like,
and that, consequently, spontaneous generation
is, to use his own characterization of it, a " chi-
mera."

Is the discussion finally closed? Has the theory
of abiogenesis received its coup dc grdce? At the
present moment Pasteur and his school are un-
doubtedly lords of the ascendant. Will they always
remain so? Time alone can answer this question.
In the opinion of such men as Pouchet and Bastian,
two of Pasteur's ablest antagonists, the question, so
far as experiment goes, is at best settled only pro-
visionally, and the same old controversy may break
out any day, as it has so often broken out since the
time of Redi, when it was declared to be definitively
closed.

But, whatever be the last word of science respect-
ing abiogenesis, the discussion of the subject has led
to the discovery of many new facts of inestimable
importance, and has vastly extended our view of
the domain of animated nature. It has disclosed
to our vision a world before unknown, the world

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. 51

of microbian life — a world which has been aptly
described as " the world of the infinitely little."

General Advance in Science.

The general progress of science, however, points
towards some process of Evolution far more unmis-
takably than does anything disclosed during the
long controversy regarding spontaneous generation.

Geology and physical geography have taught us
that our earth is subject to mutations and fluctua-
tions innumerable; paleontology has revealed a world
whose existence was not only not suspected, a few
generations ago, but a world whose existence would
have been unhesitatingly denied as contrary to both
science and Scripture, if anyone had been bold
enough to proclaim its reality. Far from being only
six thousand years old, as was so long imagined, our
globe, as the abode of life, must now, as is shown by
the study of the multifold extinct forms entombed
in its crust, reckon its age by millions, if not by tens
of millions of years.

By the naturalists of the last century the num-
ber of known species of plants and animals was esti-
mated at a few thousands, or a few tens of thousands
at most. But now, owing to the impetus which has
been given to the study of zoology and botany,
especially during the past few decades, the latest
census of organic beings places the number of spe-
cies at a million or more. Yet formidable as this
number is, the list is far from being complete. Fresh
additions are being made to it every day. The re-
searches of naturalists in the many unexplored

52 EVOLUTION AXD DOGMA.

fields of the earth ; the investigations of micro-
scopists in the boundless domain of microbian life;
the dredging of the ocean depths in various parts of
the globe by a constantly increasing corps of trained
votaries of science, show that we are yet very far
from having anything approaching a complete cen-
sus of the rich and varied fauna and flora which
adorn our planet.

But great as is the number of species actually
existing, it is but a small fraction of those which are
known to have lived and died since the dawn of life
on the globe. A hundred million species or more,
it has been computed, have appeared and died out
since the time the Eozobn Canadense began its hum-
ble existence. And as our knowledge of the past
history of the earth becomes more thorough, there
is every reason to believe that we shall find this esti-
mate, extravagant as it may appear to some, below,
rather than above, the reality.

Synchronously with this advance in the knowl-
edge of nature, the impression — which had all along
been entertained by a greater or lesser number of
philosophers and students of nature — has become
stronger that all the changes and developments
which the earth has witnessed ; all the prodigality
of form and size and color, which a bounteous
nature has lavished upon a fauna and flora whose
species are past numbering, is the result not of so
many separate creative acts, but rather of a single
creation and of a subsequent uniform process of
Evolution, according to certain definite and immu-
table laws.

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. 53

Chemistiy and Astronomy.

The indications of paleontology and biology
respecting Evolution have been corroborated by
the revelations of chemistry, astronomy and stellar
physics. Everything seems to point conclusively to
a development from the simple to the complex, and
to disclose "a change from the homogenous to the
heterogenous through continuous differentiations and
integrations."

It is simple elements that go toward building up
organic and inorganic compounds. And while it is
now generally believed that there are some three
score and odd substances which are to be classed as
elementary, there are, nevertheless, not wanting rea-
sons for thinking that all the so-called elements are
but so many modifications, so many allotropic forms,
of one and the same primal kind of matter. The
telescope discloses to us in the nebulae which fleck
the heavens, the primitive matter, the Urstoff, from
which the sidereal universe was formed : " the gas-
eous raw material of future stars and solar systems."
The spectroscope, in spite of Comte's dogmatic dec-
laration, that we should never know anything about
the chemical constitution of the stars, has not only
given us positive knowledge regarding the composi-
tion of the heavenly bodies, but, thanks to the la-
bors of Secchi, Huggins, Lockyer and others, has
also furnished information concerning their relative
ages, their directions of motion, and their velocities
in space.

As the astronomer, the chemist, and the physicist
view the material universe, it is constituted throughout

54 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

of the same material, a kind of cosmic dust,
similar to, if not identical with, that which com-
poses the existing nebulae. No form of matter has
yet been discovered in any of the heavenly bod-
ies which is not found on the earth, and there is
every reason to believe that in chemical constitution
the visible universe is everywhere identical. And
should it eventually be demonstrated that all the
known chemical elements are only modifications of
one primal form of matter, and this is far from im-
possible, or even improbable, then will be vindi-
cated the old Greek theory of a primordial matter,
TzpiuTri ukr/, a theory ardently championed by St.
Gregory of Nyssa and his school, and defended in
some form or other by many of the Schoolmen. And
then, too, will the theory of Evolution be furnished
with a stronger argument than any other single one
that has yet been advanced in its support.

Testimony of Biology.

But great as was the influence of discoveries in
geology, paleontology, microscopy, chemistry, astron-
omy and stellar physics, in preparing the minds of
scientific men for the acceptance of the theory of or-
ganic Evolution, the arguments which had the great-
est weight, which finally enlisted in favor of Evolu-
tion those who, like Lyell, still hesitated about
giving in their adhesion to the doctrine of derivation,
were those which were based on data furnished by
the sciences of botany, zoology, physiology, and by
those newer sciences, embryology and comparative
osteology.

CHAPTER V.

FROM LORD BACON TO CHARLES DARWIN.
First Materials for the Controversy.

I HAVE spoken of the celebrated dispute between
Cuvier and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, in which
Goethe was so much interested. Materials for this
controversy had been rapidly accumulating during
the half century preceding the date when it finally
broke out in the French Academy. Indeed, it would
be truer to say that materials had been accumulating
during two centuries prior to the historic debate
between Cuvier and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. From
the time of Bacon, Descartes and Leibnitz, more,
far more, had been done towards the development
of the Evolution idea than had been effected during
all the centuries which had elapsed between the
earliest speculations of the Ionian school and the
publication of the " Novum Organum."

We have already learned what geology and pale-
ontology contributed towards the establishment of
the theory of Evolution. We have seen how the study
of fossils and the careful and long-continued examina-
tion of the much-vexed question of spontaneous gen-
eration shed a flood of light on numerous problems
which were before obscure and mysterious in the ex-
treme. But while Da Vinci, Fracostoro, Palissy, Steno,
Generelli, Redi, Malpighi, Leeuwenhoek, Schwam-
merdam and their compeers, were carrying on their

(55)

56 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

investigations regarding fossils and infusoria, students
in other departments of science were not idle. Ges-
ner, Vesalius, Fallopius, Fabricius and Harvey were
then conducting their famous researches in zoology,
anatomy, and embryology, while Cesalpinus, Ray,
Tournefort and Linnaeus were laying the secure
foundations of systematic botany and vegetable anat-
omy. It was to this period, indeed, that, as has
been truthfully observed : " We owe the foundation of
microscopic anatomy, enriched and joined to physic
ology ; comparative anatomy studied with care ; class-
ification placed on a rational and systematic basis."

Bacon and Kant.

Lord Bacon was not only a firm believer in
organic Evolution but was one of the first to sug-
gest that the transmutation of species might be the
result of an accumulation of variations. Descartes,
too, inclined to Evolution rather than to special crea-
tion, and was the first philosopher, after St. Augus-
tine, who specially insisted that the sum of all
things is governed by natural laws, and that the
physical universe is not the scene of constant mira-
cles and Divine interventions. Leibnitz, like Bacon
and Descartes, accepted the doctrine of the muta-
bility of species, and showed in many passages in
his works, that no system of cosmic philosophy
could be considered complete which was not based
on the demonstrated truths of organic Evolution.
"All advances by degrees in nature," he tells us,
" and nothing by leaps, and this law, as applied to
each, is part of my doctrine of continuity."

LORD BACON TO CHARLES DARWIN. 57

Immanuel Kant, in common with his illustrious
contemporary, Buffon, accepted the ideas that spe-
cific mutability results from selection, environment,
adaptation and inheritance. Like the great French
naturalist, too, he derived all the higher forms of
life from lower and simpler forms. He recognized
also the law of degeneration from original types,
and the principle of the survival of the fittest, which
were subsequently to play such important roles in
all theories of organic Evolution. Indeed, I do not
think Kant has received due recognition for his con-
tributions towards the philosophy of the cosmos.
Like Aristotle, he had a faculty for correct gener-
alization which sometimes gave his views almost
the semblance of prophecy. Taking up the nebular
hypothesis, as it was left by St. Gregory of Nyssa,
he adapted it to the science of his time, and in many
respects forestalled the conclusions of Laplace and
Herschel. Similarly he took up the principles of
Evolution as they had been laid down by St. Augus-
tine and the Angel of the Schools, and, by giving
them a new dress, he anticipated much of the evolu-
tionary teaching of subsequent investigators. Con-
sidering the time in which he wrote, nothing is more
remarkable than the following comprehensive r^sum^
of his views on Evolution : —

" It is desirable to examine the great domain
of organized beings by means of a methodical, com-
parative anatomy, in order to discover whether we
may not find in them something resembling a sys-
tem, and that, too, in connection with their mode of
generation, so that we may not be compelled to stop

58 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

short with a mere consideration of forms that are,
which gives us no insight into their generation, and
need not despair of gaining a full insight into
this department of nature. The agreement of so
many kinds of animals in a certain common plan of
structure, which seems to be visible not only in
their skeletons, but also in the arrangement of the
other parts — so that a wonderfully simple typical
form, by the shortening and lengthening of some
parts, and by the suppression and development of
others, might be able to produce an immense va-
riety of species — gives us a ray of hope, though
feeble, that here, perhaps, some results may be ob-
tained by the application of the principle of the
mechanism of nature, without which, in fact, no
science can exist. This analogy of forms — in so far
as they seem to have been produced in accordance
with a common prototype, notwithstanding their
great variety — strengthens the supposition that they
have an actual blood relationship, due to derivation
from a common parent ; a supposition which is ar-
rived at by observation of the graduated approxima-
tion of one class of animals to another, beginning
with the one in which the principle of purposiveness
seems to be most conspicuous, namely man, and ex-,
tending down to polyps, and from these even down
to mosses and lichens, and arriving finally at raw
matter, the lowest stage of nature observable by us.
From this raw matter and its forces, the whole ap-
paratus of nature seems to have been derived ac-
cording to mechanical laws, such as those which
resulted in the production of crystals, yet, this ap-

LORD BACON TO CHARLES DARWIN. 59

paratus, as seen in organic beings, is so incomprehen-
sible to us, that we conceive for it a different prin-
ciple. But it would seem that the archaeologist of
nature, that is, the paleontologist, is at liberty to
regard the great family of creatures — for a family we
must conceive it, if the above-mentioned continuous
and connected relationship has a real foundation —
as having sprung from the immediate results of her
earliest revolutions, judging from all the laws of
their mechanisms known to, or conjectured by him." '
Passing over such speculative evolutionists as
De Maillet, Maupertuis, Bonnet, Robinet and Oken,
who did little more than revamp the crude notions
of the old Ionian speculators, we may scan in hasty
review the principal contributions made to the evo-
lutionary movement by the great naturalists who
flourished between the time of Linnaeus and Cuvier.

Linnaeus and Buffon.

Linnaeus, who adopted the well-known aphorism
of Leibnitz, natura non facit saltum, was as much of
a special creationist and, consequently, as much op-
posed to Evolution as was the illustrious Cuvier.
But although in the earlier part of his career he con-
tended that there were no such things as new
species — nulla species novce — still, at a later period,
he was willing to admit that " all species of one
genus constituted at first, that is, at creation, one
species" — ab initio unam constituerint speciem — but
maintained that " they were subsequently multiplied

^ Quoted in Osborne's useful little work " From the Greeks to
Darwin," pp. loi, 102,

60 E VOL U TION A ND D O GMA .

by hybrid generation, that is, by intercrossing with
other species.'"

The first one to formulate a working hypothesis
respecting the mutation of species was the eminent
French naturalist, Buffon. According to Lanessan,
he "anticipated not only Lamarck in his conception
of the action of environment, but Darwin in the strug-
gle for existence and the survival of the fittest." The
questions of heredity, geographical distribution, the
extinction of old and the apparition of new species
he discussed with rare perspicacity and suggestive-
ness. He was undoubtedly a believer in the unity
of type, and the community of origin of all animal
forms, although the diverse views he entertained on
these subjects at different periods of his life have
led some to minimize the importance of his contribu-
tions to the theory of Evolution."

^ •' Suspicio est," he saj'S, " quam diu fovi neque jam pro
veritate indubia venditare audeo, sed per modum hjpotheseos
propono ; quod scilicet omnes species ejusdem generis ab initio
unam constituerint speciem, sed postea per generationes hybridas
propagatse sint. . . . Num vero h^e species per manum Om-
nipotentis Creatoris immediate sint exortse in primordio, an vero
pernaturam, Creatoris executricem, propagatse in tempore, non
adeo facile demonstrabitur." " Amcenitates Academicae." Vol.
VI., p. 296.

It is interesting to observe that this view found favor with
the celebrated Scriptural commentator, Dom Calmet. Only on
the supposition that all the species of each genus originally
formed but one species, was he able to explain how all the ani-
mals could find a place in the ark of Noah.

" Speaking of the factors of evolutionary- changes he writes :
" What cannot nature effect with such means at her disposal ?
She can do all except either create matter or destroj- it. These
two extremes of power, the Deity has reserved for Himself alone;
creation and destruction are the attributes of His Omnipotence.
To alter and undo, to develop and renew — these are powers
which He has handed over to the charge of nature."

LORD BACON TO CHARLES DARWIN. 61

Buffon, also, was the first to formulate the law of
uniformitarianism which was subsequently devel-
oped with such care by Lyell and his school. In
his " Theorie da la Terre" he tells us that " in order to
understand what had taken place in the past, or
what will happen in the future, we have but to ob-
serve what is going on at present.'

Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck.

Erasmus Darwin, a contemporary of BufTon's and
the grandfather of the famous naturalist, did much
to popularize the idea of Evolution. In his " Zoono-
mia," " Botanic Garden," and above all in his post-
humous ** Temple of Nature," he embodies not
only the leading evolutionary views of the old Greek
philosophers, as well as those of Leibnitz and Buf-
fon, but he likewise introduces and developes new
ideas of his own. He is truly a poet of Evolution
and in his " Temple of Nature "we find selections of
verse that for beauty and force of expression compare
favorably with the finest lines of the " De Rerum
Natura" of the old Roman evolutionist, Lucretius.

As the founder of the complete modern theory
of descent, " Lamarck," justly observes Osgood, " is
the most prominent figure between Aristotle and
Darwin." He was an accomplished biologist, and a
prolific writer on botanical and zoological subjects.
He laid special stress on the effects of environment,
and of use and disuse in the modification of species.
He assumed that acquired characters are inherited,

* " Pour juger de ce qui est arrive et m^me dp ce qui arrivera,
nous n'avons qu'a examiner ce qui arrive."

62 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

but never attempted to demonstrate a postulate
which since his time has provoked such widespread
discussion.*

Among the contemporaries of Lamarck, who did
much to develop and corroborate the theory of
Evolution, must be mentioned Goethe, who has just-
ly been called the greatest poet of Evolution, and
Treviranus. As a morphologist and osteologist,
Goethe exhibited talent of the highest order, and,
had he devoted his life to science instead of litera-
ture, he would have ranked with the most eminent
naturalists of modern times. In referring to his
essays on comparative anatomy, Cuvier declares that
" One finds in them, with astonishment, nearly all
the propositions which have been separately ad-
vanced in recent times." As to Treviranus, Huxley
places him alongside Lamarck as one of the chief
founders of the theory of Evolution, although there
are many who dissent from this opinion of the great
English biologist. The truth is he was rather an

^ The nature and chief factors of Evohition according to
Lamarck, are expressed in the following four laws : —

Premiere Lot. — La vie, par ses propres forces, tend con-
tinuellement 4 accroitre le volume de tout corps qui la possede,
et a etendre les dimensions de ses parties, jusqu' a un terme qu'
elle amene elle-mSme.

Deuxieme Loi. — La production d'un nouvel organe dans un
corps animal resulte d' un nouveau besoin survenu qui continue
de se faire sentir, et d' un nouveau mouvement que ce besoin
fait naitre et entretient.

Troisieme Loi. — Ledeveloppement des organes et leur force
d'action sont constamment en raison de I'emploi de ces organes.

^uatrieme Loi. — Tout ce qui a ete acquis, trace ou change
dans rorganisation des individus pendant le cours de leur vie,
est conserve par la generation et transmis aux noaveaux individus
qui proviennent .de ceux qui ont eprouve ces changements. Cf.
" Histoire Naturelle," and " Philosophic Zoologique."

LORD HA CON TO CHARLES DARWIN. 63

exponent of the views of others than an originator
of any theory of his own.

Species and Varieties.

The diflficulty of distinguishing species from
varieties — a difficulty with which all botanists and
zoologists are familiar, and one which augments with
the progress of knowledge of the fauna and flora of
the world — and the almost perfect gradations charac-
terizing the forms of certain groups of animals and
plants, contributed more than anything else towards
impelling naturalists from the time of Lamarck to
accept the doctrine that species are derived from
one another by a process of development.

Observations similar to those made by Lamarck
and other naturalists, led the Rev. W. Herbert, of
England, to declare, in 1837, that " Horticultural ex-
periments have established, beyond the possibility
of refutation, that botanical species are only a higher
and more permanent class of varieties." He enter-
tained the same view regarding animals, and believed
" that single species of each genus were created in
an originally highly plastic condition, and that these
by intercrossing and by variation have produced all
our existing species."

In 1844 appeared the famous " Vestiges of Crea-
tion," an anonymous work by Robert Chambers.
This work created a profound sensation at the time,
and although lacking in scientific accuracy in many
points, and advocating theories that have long since
been demolished, it passed through many editions
and commanded a wide circle of readers. In Great

64 E V OL U TION A ND D O GMA .

Britain the opposition to the views expressed in the
work was violent in the extreme, although it seems
that most of the adverse criticism was ill-founded.
The main proposition of the author, determined on
as he himself declares " after much consideration,"
is, " that the several series of animated beings, from
the simplest and oldest up to the highest and most
recent, are, under the providence of God, the results,
first, of an impulse which has been imparted to the
forms of life, advancing them in definite times, by
generation, through grades of organization termi-
nating in the highest dicotyledons and vertebrata,
these grades being few in number, and generally
marked by intervals of organic character which we
find to be a practical difficulty in ascertaining affini-
ties ; second, of another impulse connected with the
vital forces, tending in the course of generations to
modify organic structures in accordance with exter-
nal circumstances, as food, the nature of the habitat
and the meteoric agencies, these being the adapta-
tions of the natural theologian."

Prior to this time the distinguished Belgian geol-
ogist, D* Omalius d' Halloy, had expressed the opin-
ion that new species are but modified forms of other
species from which they are descended. And a
short time subsequently the eminent French bota-
nist, M. Charles Naudin, promulgated similar views,
and taught that species as well as varieties are but
the result of natural and artificial selection. He did
not, it is true, employ these words — words which
were given such vogue a short time afterwards by
Darwin — but his theory implied all they express.

CHAPTER VI.

CONTROVERSY AND PROGRESS.
Darwin's " Origin of Species."

THE culmination of all the tentative efforts
which had hitherto been made, towards giving
a rational explanation of the mode of production
of the divers species of our existing fauna and flora,
was in the publication of Darwin's now famous work,
" The Origin of Species," which was given to the
world in 1859. Simultaneously and "independently
another naturalist, Mr. Alfred Wallace, who was then
far away in the Malay Archipelago, had come to the
same conclusions as Darwin. For this reason he is
justly called the co-discoverer of the theory which
has made Darwin so famous.

The publication of " The Origin of Species " was
the signal for a revolution in science such as the
world had never before witnessed. The work was
violently denounced or ridiculed by the majority of
its readers, although it counted from the beginning
such staunch defenders as Huxley, Sp-^ncer, Lyell,
Hooker, Wallace, and Asa Gray. Professor Louis
Agassiz, probably the ablest naturalist then living,
in his criticism of the book declared : " The argu-
ments presented by Darwin, in favor of a universal
derivation from one primary form of all the pecul-
iarities existing now among living beings, have

E.-5 (65)

66 EVOL U TION A ND DOGMA .

not made the slightest impression on my mind.
Until the facts of nature are shown to have
been mistaken by those who have collected them,
and that they have a different meaning from that
now generally assigned to them, I shall therefore
consider the transmutation theory as a scientific mis-
take, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method,
and mischievous in its tendency.'"

But in spite of the storm of criticism which the
work provoked, it was not long until the great ma-
jority of naturalists had executed a complete volte-
face in their attitude towards Darwinism. If they
were not willing to go to the same lengths as the
author of " The Origin of Species," or hesitated about
conceding the importance which he attached to nat-
ural selection as an explanation of organic Evolution,
they were, at least, willing to admit that he had
supplied them with the working hypothesis which
they were seeking.

Upon these, says Huxley, it had the effect " of
the flash of light, which to a man who has lost him-
self in a dark night, suddenly reveals a road, which,
whether it take him straight home or not, certainly
goes his way." What naturalists were then looking
for " was a hypothesis respecting the origin of
known organic forms which assumed the operation
of no causes but such as could be proved to be act-
ually at work." " The facts of variability," contin-
ues Huxley, "of the struggle for existence, of adap-
tation to conditions, were notorious enough ; but

^ Quoted by Huxley in the " Life and Letters of Charles
Darwin," by his son, vol. I., p. 538.

CONTROVERSr AND PROGRESS. 67

none of us had suspected that the road to the heart
of the species problem lay through them, until Dar-
win and Wallace dispelled the darkness, and the
beacon-fire of the ' Origin' guided the benighted.'"

Herbert Spencer and Compeers.

With Darwin came Herbert Spencer, " the phi-
losopher of Evolution," according to whom the en-
tire cosmos, the universe of mind as well as the
universe of matter, is governed by Evolution,' Evo-
lution being a " cosmical process," which, as Grant

'Op. cit., p. 551.

"^ It is but just to remark that an essay published by Spencer
in the Leader, in 1852, constitutes what has been called '' the
high-water mark of Evolution" prior to Darwin. In this essay
he writes as follows : " Even could the supporters of the devel-
opment hypothesis merely show that the production of species
by the process of modification is conceivable, they would be in
a better position than their opponents. But they can do much
more than this; they can show that the process of modification
has effected, and is effecting, great changes in all organisms
subject to modifying influences. . . . They can show that
any existing species, animal or vegetable, when placed under
conditions different from its previous ones, immediately begins
to undergo certain changes of structure fitting it for the new
conditions. They can show that in successive generations these
changes continue until ultimately the new conditions become
the natural ones. They can show that in cultivated plants and
domesticated animals, and in the several races of men, these
changes have uniformly taken place. They can show that the
degrees of difference so produced are often, as in dogs, greater
than those on which distinction of species are, in other cases,
founded. They can show that it is a matter of dispute whether
some of these modified forms are varieties or modified species.
And thus they can show that throughout all organic nature
there is at work a modifying influence of the kind they assign
as the cause of these specific differences; an influence which,
though slow in its action, does in time, if the circumstances de-
mand it, produce marked changes ; an influence which, to all
appearance, would produce in the millions of years, and under
the great varieties of condition which geological records im-
ply, any amount of change."

68 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

Allen phrases it, is one and continuous " from neb-
ula to man, from star to soul, from atom to so-
ciety."

Since its publication, the theory advocated by
Darwin has undergone many modifications. Much
has been added to it, and much has been eliminated
from it. Among those who have discussed it most
critically, and suggested amendments and improve-
ments are Moritz Wagner, Nageli, Huxley, Mivart,
Wallace, Spencer, Weismann, Cope, Hyatt and
Brooks, not to mention scores of others who have
distinguished themselves by their contributions to
Darwinian literature. But whatever may now be
the views entertained regarding natural selection as
a factor of organic Evolution, the theory of Evolu-
tion itself, far from being impaired, has been gaining
strength from day to day, and is, we are assured by
its advocates, finding new arguments in its favor in
every new discovery in biology and physical science.
Such being the case, it is, we are told, only a ques-
tion of time, and a very short time at that, until
every man who is competent to weigh evidence,
shall be compelled to announce his formal accept-
ance of the doctrine of Evolution, however much he
may now be opposed to it, and however much it
may seem counter to his preconceived notions, or to
traditions which he has long regarded as sacred and

inviolable.

Science and Philosophy.

Evolution, it is pertinent here to observe, may
be considered from two points of view, a fact which
it is of prime importance always to bear in mind. It

CONTROVERSr AND PROGRESS. 69

may be regarded as a scientific theory, devised to
explain the origination of the higher from the lower,
the more complex and differentiated from the simple
and undifferentiated, in inorganic and organic bod-
ies, or it may be viewed as d. philosophical system, de-
signed to explain the manifold phenomena of mat-
ter and life by the operation of secondary causes
alone, to the exclusion of a personal Creator. In
the restricted sense in which we are considering it, it
is a scientific hypothesis intended to explain the ori-
gin and transmutation of species in the animal and
vegetable worlds, by laws and processes disclosed by
the study of nature.

Important as it is, however, it is not always an
easy matter to keep the scientific theory separated
from the philosophical system. Hence, naturalists
and philosophers are continually intruding on each
other's territory. The naturalist philosophizes,
and the philosopher, if I may give a new meaning
to an old word, naturalizes. For naturalists and
physicists, as all are aware, are very much given to
making excursions into the domain of metaphysics
and to substituting speculations for rigid inductions
from observed facts.

And metaphysicians sin in a similar manner by
attempting to explain, by methods of their own, the
various phenomena of the material world, and in
seeking by simple a priori reasons to evolve from
their inner consciousness a logical system of the
physical universe. The result is inextricable con-
fusion and errors without number. It is neither
science nor philosophy, but a mixtum compositum,

70 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

which not only gives false views of nature but still
falser views of the Author of nature, if indeed it
does not positively ignore Him and relegate Him to
the region of the unknowable.

Such a philosophy, if philosophy it can be
called, is that of Herbert Spencer, which is now so
much the vogue; a philosophy which attempts to
explain the origin and constitution of the cosmos by
the sole operation of natural causes, and which
recognizes only force and matter as the efficient
cause of the countless manifestations of nature and
mind which constitute the province of science and
psychology.

I would not, however, have it inferred that I
regard science — and by this I mean natural and
physical science — and metaphysics as opposed to
each other. Far from it. They mutually assist and
supplement one another, and a true philosophy of
the cosmos is possible only when there is a perfect
synthesis between the inductions of science on the
one hand and the deductions of metaphysics on the
other.

Anticipations of Discoveries.
It is indeed remarkable, even in the subject
under discussion, how frequently philosophers, like
poets, seem to have proleptic views of nature that
are not disclosed to men of science until long after-
wards. All who are familiar with the history of
science and philosophy will be able, without diffi-
culty, to call to mind some of the marvelous scien-
tific intuitions of Pythagoras, Aristotle, St. Gregory
of Nyssa, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas.

CONTROVERSr AND PROGRESS. 71

The teachings of St. Gregory of Nyssa and of St.
Augustine were in this respect specially remarkable.
I have elsewhere' shown that the views of St. Greg-
ory respecting the origin of the visible universe,
were far more precise and comprehensive than were
those of the Ionian schools, and that he it was who
in very truth first laid the foundations of the nebu-
lar hypothesis, elaborated and rounded out long
centuries afterwards by Laplace, Herschel, and
Faye. It was the great bishop of Hippo who first
laid down the principles of theistic Evolution essen-
tially as they are held to-day.' He taught that God
created the various forms of animal and vegetable
life, not actually but potentially ; that He created
them derivatively and by the operation of natural
causes. And the teaching of St. Augustine respect-
ing potential creation was that which was approved
and followed by that great light of the Middle Ages,
St. Thomas Aquinas.

In modern times Hobbes spoke of the principle
of struggle — bellum omnium contra omnes — sug-
gested by Heraclitus and insisted on so strongly by
contemporary evolutionists. In discussing the scho-
lastic doctrine of real specific essences, Locke devel-
opes the idea of the continuity of species, the central
idea of Darwinism and of the theory of organic Evo-
lution. He also speaks of the adaptation of organic
arrangements to " the neighborhood of the bodies
that surround us," and thus indicates a factor on
which modern evolutionists lay much stress when

' " Bible, Science and Faith," part I, chaps, iii and iv.
''Ibid.

72 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

they discourse on " the circumstances of the en-
vironment," the conditions of life, or the monde
ambiant, of Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. Leibnitz in his
" Protogaea " expresses similar views on the continuity
of species, that is, of a graduated series of living
forms " that in each remove differ very little from
one another." Distinct evolutionary views had like-
wise been propounded by Spinoza, Herder and
Schelling, but it is unnecessary to dwell on them here.
In its growth, then, the modern theory of Evolu-
tion may aptly be compared with that of the cen-
tury plant. For long generations it had been gath-
ering material and strength, but at last, suddenly
and almost unexpectedly, it blossomed forth into a
working hypothesis of colossal proportions and uni-
versal application. Philosophy anticipated many, if
not all its leading tenets, but it was inductive science
which placed it on the foundation on which it now
rests and which gave it the popularity that it now
enjoys.

Species and Creation.

The pervading idea of Evolution, as we have
seen, is one of change, the idea of integration and
differentiation. As applied to plants and animals it
is the development, by the action of natural causes,
of the higher from the lower forms.

The various forms of animal and plant life ac-
cording to this view are genetically related to one
another. Species are therefore not immutable as
is generally imagined, but mutable. What we call
species are the results of descent with modification,

CONTRO VERS r A ND PROGRESS. 73

and instead of there having been as many species of
Hving beings in the beginning as there are now, as
Linnaeus believed, there was at first, as Darwin
taught, only one primordial form, and from this one
form, all that infinitude of forms of vegetable and
animal life, which we now behold, is descended.

The question raised, therefore, is manifestly one
that appeals to us .for a solution. I again ask, are
all the species of animals and plants, which have ex-
isted on the earth since the dawn of life, the results
of separate and successive creations by an almighty
Power, as has so long been believed, or are they
rather the product of Evolution, acting through long
ages and in accordance with certain fixed natural
laws and processes?

Until the celebrated controversy, already men-
tioned, between Cuvier and Geoffroy, there were, as
we have seen, comparatively few who were not firm
believers in the doctrine of special creations, at least
of all the higher forms of life. Subsequent to this
event, the number, especially among naturalists,
of those who favored the development hypothesis
began gradually to increase. After the publication of
Darwin's famous " Origin of Species," the advocates
of Evolution rallied their forces in a remarkable man-
ner, and before many years had elapsed a large
majority of the working naturalists of the world
were professed evolutionists.

Evolutionists and Anti- Evolutionists.

Of course there were many, even among the
ablest scientists of the age, who still withheld their

74 E VOL U TION A ND DOGMA .

assent. The most distinguished of these, as we
have already learned, was Professor Louis Agassiz,
who remained a strenuous opponent of the new
doctrine until the day of his death. Indeed, in the
last course of lectures he ever gave, we find a strong
arraignment of the development hypothesis, a hy-
pothesis which was fascinating indeed, but one,
so Agassiz declared, that was negatived by the facts
of nature and misleading and mischievous in its
tendencies. Even to-day the illustrious naturalist
has sympathizers and followers and that, too, among
the ablest and most conspicuous representatives of
modern science. Among anti-evolutionists, Hving
or recently deceased, I need instance only such
recognized savants as the noted geologists, Sir J, W.
Dawson, Barrande, Davidson, Grand Eury, Car-
ruthers, and that veteran biologist — the rival of
Pasteur on the importance and brilliance of his re-
searches on the lower forms of life — the late Profes-
sor P. J. van Beneden, of the great Catholic univer-
sity of Louvain.' In referring to the subject the
distinguished Belgian professor asserts : " It is evi-

^ The distinguished French savant, the Marquis de Nadail-
lac, is often spoken of as an anti-evolutionist, but this is an
error. So far he is neither an evolutionist nor an anti-evolu-
tionist ; he mereh' suspends judgment. Before the anthro-
pological section of the International Catholic Scientific Con-
gress, assembled last year at Brussels, he expressed himself on
the subject as follows : " Pour ma part, si je ne suis guere dis-
pose a admettre les conclusions de I'ecole evolutioniste, je ne
puis non plus les rejeter absolument. Le jury en Ecosse, outre
la reponse habituelle, a le droit, sans se prononcer sur le fait en
lui-m^me, de repondre not froven — cela n'est pas prouve.
Telle est la disposition de mon esprit; telle est aujourd'hui ma
conclusion ; et je crois qu'elle sera celle de tous ceux qui abord-
eront cette etude sans parti pris et avec I'unique desir d'arriver

CONTROVERSr AND PROGRESS. 75

dent to all those who place facts above hypotheses
and prejudices, that spontaneous generation, as well
as the transformation of species, does not exist, at
least if we only consider the present epoch. We
are leaving the domain of science if we take our
arms from anterior epochs. We cannot accept any-
thing as a fact which is not capable of proof." '

At the present day, among men of science, evolu-
tionists outnumber creationists fully as much as the
latter outnumbered the former a half century ago.
It is only rarely that we meet a scientist who does
not profess Evolution of some form or other, or who
does not at least think that the older views regard-
ing creation and the origin of species must be materi-
ally modified in order to harmonize with the latest
conclusions of science.

No Via Media Possible.

All the lines of thought which we have been
following converge, then, as has already been ob-
served, towards one point — the origin, or rather the
genesis, of species, and their succession and distribu-
tion in space and time. Between the two theories,
that of creation and that of Evolution, the lines
are drawn tautly, and one or the other theory must
be accepted by all who make any pretensions intelli-
gently to discuss the subject. No compromise, no
via media, is possible. We must needs be either
creationists or evolutionists. We cannot be both.

a la verite." " Compte Rendu," Section d' Anthropologic, p. 305.
Cf. also "Probleme de la Vie," pp. 175-178, by the Marquis de
Nadaillac.

^ Van Beneden's "Animal Parasites and Messmates," p. 106.

76 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

The theory of emanation is not here considered, it
being contrary to the principles of sound philosophy
as well as to the teachings of true science. How
shall we, then, regard the problem of the origin of
species, and what views, expressed not in general
terms but carefully formulated, have been enter-
tained by the great thinkers of the world on this
all-important, and, at present, all-absorbing topic?

Dr. Whewell, the learned historian of the " Induct-
ive Sciences," in referring to the forms of life of
geological times says: " Either we must accept the
doctrine of the transmutation of species, and must
suppose that the organized species of one geological
epoch were transmuted into those of another, by
some long-continued agency of natural causes, or
else we must believe in many successive acts of
creation and extinction of species, out of the com-
mon course of nature ; acts which therefore we may
properly call miraculous." '

Whewell, in common with the majority of his
contemporaries — he wrote his masterly work over
fifty years ago — and in common with the large body
of non-scientific people still living, unhesitatingly
accepted the doctrine of " many successive acts of
creation," as against the theory of the transmutation
of species, which he regards as negatived by " an in-
disputable preponderance" of evidence against it.
The Miltonic Hypothesis.

But even accepting the creational hypothesis,
how are we to picture to ourselves the appearance

^" History of the Inductive Sciences," vol. II, p. 564.

CONTROVERSr AND PROGRESS. 77

of new species? "Are these new species," asks the
erudite Master of Trinity, "gradually evolved from
some embryo substance ? Or do they suddenly
start from the ground, as in the creation of the poet ? "

" Perfect forms
Limbed and full grown : out of the ground up rose,
As from his lair, the wild beast where he wons
In forest wild, in thicket, brake, or den ; . . .
The grassy clods now calved ; now half appear'd
The tawny lion, pawing to get free
His hinder parts, then springs as broke from bonds,
And rampant shakes his brinded mane ; the ounce.
The libbard, and the tiger, as the mole
Rising, the crumbled earth above them threw
In hillocks; the swift stag from underground
Bore up his branching head ; scarce from his mould
Behemoth, biggest born of earth, upheaved
His vastness: fleeced the flocks and bleating rose.
As plants ; ambiguous between sea and land
The river-horse and scaly crocodile.
At once come forth whatever creeps the ground,
Insect or worm." '

We have here what Huxley calls the " Miltonic
hypothesis" fully developed even in its minutest de-
tails. But this view of special creation, it is but
just to state, may be offset by another passage, less
frequently quoted it is true, from the great bard,
which as clearly tells of creation by Evolution. In
both instances the archangel Raphael appears as the

»" Paradise Lobt," Book VII.

78 E VOL U Tl ON A ND DOGMA .

speaker. And if, in the verses just quoted, the poet
^s in accord with the Hteral interpreters of the Gene-
siac account of creation, in the following lines he re-
flects the ideas of creation entertained by St. Augus-
tine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Having spoken of
"one first matter," and its subsequent progressive
development, the poet continues : —

" So from the root
Springs lighter the green stalk, from thence the leaves
More airy, last the bright consummate flower
Spirit odorous breathes: flowers and their fruit,
Man's nourishment, by gradual scale sublimed,
To vital spirits aspire, to animal,
To intellectual; give both life and sense,
Fancy and understanding; whence the soul
Reason receives, and reason is her being,
Discursive or intuitive; discourse
Is oftest yours, the latter most is ours,
Differing but in degree, of kind the same."

Book V.

Again, were these new species created by single
or multiple pairs ; and, if by multiple pairs, was
there one, or were there many centers of distribu-
tion for the individual species ?

Views of Agassiz.

According to Linnaeus, the great Swedish nat-
uralist, who voiced not only the opinion of his time,
but of nearly all creationists since his time, species
were created by single pairs, and the present num-
ber is equal to that which was created in the begin-

CONTROVERSY AND PROGRESS. 79

ning.' According to Schouw, whose views were
shared by the eminent botanist, Alphonse de Can-
dolle, in the earUer portion of his career, there was
*' a double or multiple origin of species, at least of
some species." Professor L. Agassiz, however, went
much farther. He asserted not only the multiplic-
ity of species, but also denied that there was " any
necessary genetic connection among individuals of
the same species, or of any original localization more
restricted than the area now occupied by the spe-
cies." According to this eminent student of nature,
all animals and plants have occupied, from the be-
ginning, those natural boundaries within which they
stand to one another in such harmonious relations.
Pines originate in forests, heaths in heaths, grasses in
prairies, bees in hives, herrings in shoals, and men in
nations. He asserts that " all animals originated in
vast numbers — indeed, in the average number charac-
teristic of their species — over the whole of their
geographical area, whether its surface be continuous,
or disconnected by sea, lakes, rivers, or by differ-
ences of level above the sea, etc.'" Elsewhere he
declares: "There are in animals peculiar adaptations
which are characteristic of their species, and which
cannot be supposed to have arisen from subordinate
influences. Those which live in shoals cannot be
supposed to have been created in single pairs.
Those which are made to be the food of others can-
not have been created in the same proportions as

^"Species tot numeramus quot diversae formse in principio
sunt creatse." " Philosophia Botanica," No. 157.

*" An Essay on Classification," p. 59.

80 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

those which live upon them. Those which are
everywhere found in innumerable specimens, must
have been introduced in numbers capable of main-
taining their normal proportions to those which live
isolated, and are comparatively and constantly fewer.
For we know that this harmony in the numerical
proportions between animals is one of the great
laws of nature. The circumstance that species occur
within definite limits, where no obstacles prevent
their wider distribution, leads to the further infer-
ence that these limits were assigned to them from
the beginning ; and so we should come to the final
conclusion that the order which prevails throughout
nature is intentional, and that it is regulated by the
limits marked out the first day of creation, and that
it has been maintained unchanged through ages,
with no other modifications than those which the
higher intellectual powers of man enable him to im-
pose on some few animals more closely connected
with him."'

According to Agassiz, therefore, not only is the
origin of species supernatural, but their general
geographical distribution is also supernatural. And
more than this. Not only are all the phenomena of
origin, distribution and extinction of animal and
vegetable life, to be directly referred to the Divine
will, but also, he will have it, " Every adaptation of
species to climate, and of species to species, is as ab-
original, and, therefore, as inexplicable, as are the
organic forms themselves." " The facts of geology,"

'• Lake Superior," p. 337.

CONTROVERSr AND PROGRESS. 81

he tells us, " exhibit the simultaneous creation, and
the simultaneous destruction of entire fauna, and a
coincidence between these changes in the organic
world and the great physical changes our earth has
undergone." " The origin of the great variety of
types of animals and plants, can never," he declares,
" be attributed to the limited influence of monoto-
nous physical causes which always act in the same
way." On the contrary, it necessarily displays " the
intervention of a Creator " in the most striking man-
ner, in every stage of the history of the world.

Agassiz returns to these points time and again,
and illustrates his argument in ways that are always
interesting, if not always conclusive. As a r6sum^
of his teaching respecting the origin, distribution
and extinction of animals and plants, and as an indi-
cation of his spirit of reverence and piety, nothing
can be more explicit or edifying than the following
paragraphs taken from his profound " Essay on
Classification," so frequently quoted :

" The products of what are commonly called
physical agents are everywhere the same, that is,
upon the whole surface of the globe ; and have al-
ways been the same, that is, during all geological
periods ; while organized beings are everywhere
different, and have differed in all ages. Between
two such series of phenomena there can be no causal
or genetic connection.

" The combination in time and space of all these
thoughtful conceptions, exhibits not only thought ;
it shows also premeditation, power, wisdom, great-
ness, prescience, omniscience, providence. In one

82 E VOL U TION A ND DOGMA .

word, all these facts, in their natural connection, pro-
claim aloud the one God, whom we may know, adore
and love ; and natural history must, in good time,
become the analysis of the thoughts of the Creator
of the universe, as manifested in the animal and
vegetable kingdoms, as well as in the inorganic
world."'

Evolution.

As against the doctrine of separate and successive
creations, we have, as already stated, the theory of
the origin of species by derivation. But as in the
creational doctrine there are different views respect-
ing the manner in which species appeared, so, like-
wise are there, according to Evolution, different
hypotheses regarding the origin and devolopment of
the divers forms of organized beings.

In the first edition of his " Origin of Species "
Darwin expresses the belief that all " animals have
descended from at most only four or five progeni-
tors, and plants from an equal or lesser number."
In the second edition of his work he arrives at quite
a different conclusion and infers that " probably all
organic beings which have ever lived on the earth
have descended from some one primordial form,
into which life was first breathed by the Creator."

The majority of evolutionists, who admit the
existence of a personal God, accept the Darwinian
view that all the forms of life at present existing in
the world are derived, by the agency of natural
forces and the influence of environment, from

' P. 205 ; cf., also, chaps, x and xvi, of Agassiz' " Methods
of Studjr in Natural Historj."

CONTRO VERS T A ND PR OGRESS. 83

one primordial created form. Evolutionists of the
atheistic school, however, of which Ernst Haeckel is
the chief representative, contend not only that all
species of animals and plants are descended from a
speck of protoplasm, a simple, structureless primitive
moneron, but also that this primordial speck of pro-
toplasm was not the work of the Deity, but was the
result solely of the operation of some one of the
physical forces on brute matter.

But excluding the philosophical theories which
have been built on Evolution, and the religious dis-
cussions to which it has given rise, let us proceed to
examine the evidences for and against it as a scien-
tific theory. Let us inquire what are the grounds
for the almost universal acceptance of this theory by
contemporary scientists, and see whether the argu-
ments advanced in its support are in accord with the
canons of sound logic and the principles of true
philosophy. The question is entirely one of natural
science, not of metaphysics, and hence one of evi-
dence which is more or less tangible. What, then,
are the evidences of organic Evolution to which
modern scientists usually appeal ? This is the ques-
tion to which all that precedes is but little more
than a preamble, and a question, too, that well de-
serves our closest and most serious consideration.
I shall endeavor to give the answer succinctly, but
fairly, in the following chapter.

B

CHAPTER VII.

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION.
Systems of Classification.

EFORE discussing the evidences of Evolution,
or examining the arguments advanced in its
support, it is advisable to have some idea of the
different systems of classification which have ob-
tained in various periods of the history of science,
and to learn on what such systems were based.
Have naturalists in all ages employed essentially the
same systems of classification, or have their systems
been widely different, if not contradictory? Are
scientific classifications expressions of natural ar-
rangements existing in animated nature, or are they
but artificial devices for coordinating our knowledge
of nature and facilitating our investigations ? Have
species, genera, families, orders, classes and branches,
a real or an ideal existence? Are they manifestly
disclosed in the plan of creation or are they but
arbitrary categories hit upon by naturalists as con-
venient aids in arrangement and research ? These
are a few of the many questions which present
themselves for an answer as we approach the subject
of organic Evolution. Others there are also which
might be discussed but we have not space for them
now.
(84)

E VTDENCES OF E VOL UTION. 85

The system of classification of Aristotle, and of
the naturalists of antiquity generally, was of the most
primitive character. It recognized but two groups,
Yi\>o<i and eI5o9, genus and species. These terms, as
a rule, had only a very vague meaning, and were
frequently made to embrace groups of animals that
we should now refer to orders and classes. '

This system, however, incomplete and mislead-
ing as it was, prevailed for upwards of two thousand
years, and no serious attempt was made to improve
on it until the time of the great naturalist, Linnaeus.
He introduced new divisions and distinctions, gave
to the study of zoology an impetus which it had
never received before, and stimulated research in a
manner that was simply marvelous. He was the
first to introduce classes and orders into the system of
zoology, in addition to the vague genera and species
of the ancient philosophers." Until the appearance
of the *' Regne Animal" of Cuvier, in the beginning
of the present century, the "Systema Naturae"
of Linnaeus, first published in 1735, was the only
system of classification which received any recogni-
tion. All other attempts at classification were only

'In the sixth chapter of the first book of his " History of
Animals" Aristotle distinguishes between ym; //f7«Tra, yevrj fieyaJM.
and ytvoc simply. This chapter will well repay perusal as
illustrating the diversity of meanings given to a word which in
modern zoology has such a definite and restricted signification.
Although ddoq had sometimes a wider meaning than we now
give to this term, it must, nevertheless, in justice to the illustri-
ous Stagirite, be said that he usually employed it in the same
sense as naturalists now use the word species.

'Linnaeus called the class, ^«»«j sumtMttm ; the order , genus
tntermediurn ; the genus, genus proximum.

86 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

modifications of the system introduced by the Swed-
ish naturalist. But when Cuvier — "the greatest
zoologist of all time," as Agassiz denominates him —
began his epoch-making investigations, all was
changed. The divisions of Linnaeus were based on
external resemblances. Cuvier, as the result of an
extensive survey of the whole animal kingdom, and
more especially in consequence of his marvelous in-
vestigations in the domain of comparative anatomy,
a science of which he was the founder, demon-
strated that classification should be based, not on
external resemblance, but on internal structure. He
was indeed the first to introduce order into chaos,
and to place the science of zoology on something
Hke a firm foundation.

Cuvier and His Successors.

Before Cuvier's time no attempt had been made
to bring the various groups of animals under a more
comprehensive division than that which exhibited
the whole animal kingdom as composed of verte-
brates and invertebrates ; a division which was not
materially different from that of Aristotle, who
classed all animals as sanguineous, ^wa svatrm, and
asanguineous, ^wa avat/ia. But, in his memorable com-
munication to the French Academy in 1812, Cuvier
declared that his researches had led him to believe
" that all animals are constructed upon four different
plans, or as it were, cast in four different moulds." '

*The words of the French naturalist on this subject are:
" Si Ton considdre le regne animal d' apres les principes que
nous venons de poser, en se debarassant des prejuges 4tablis sur
les divisions anciennement admises, en n'ayant egard qu'a Tor-

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION. 87

The names given to the groups — embranchemens,
or branches, Cuvier calls them — constructed on these
four plans are vertebrates, mollusks, articulates and
radiates. It will thus be seen that Cuvier introduces
divisions above the classes of Linnaeus. In addition
to this he also interpolates families between orders
and genera. And then, again, the various divisions
of Cuvier admit of numerous secondary divisions,
such as sections, tribes, sub-genera and others besides.

Important as was the "Systema Naturae" in stimu-
lating research, its influence was almost insignificant
in comparison with Cuvier's masterly " Lemons sur
I'Anatomie Compar^e," and his no less remarkable
" R^gne Animal," and " Ossemens Fossiles." The
publication of these chefs-d'oeuvre not only gave to
the study of natural history a stimulus it had never
felt before, but it was likewise the occasion of
numerous new systems of zoological classification of
various degrees of merit.

Naturalists now vied with one another in estab-
lishing new divisions, in introducing new classes,
orders, genera and species into their systems, and in
claiming, each for his own system, some special value
or point of superiority not possessed by the others.
First came the system of Lamarck, then those of

ganisation et a la nature des animaux, et non pas a leur gran-
deur, a leur utilite, au plus ou moins de connaissance que nous
en avons, ou a toutes les autres circonstances accessoires, on
trouvera qu'il existe quatre formes principales, quatre plans
g^neraux, si I'on peut s'exprimer ainsi, d'apres lesquels tous les
animaux semblent avoir ete modeles et dont les divisions ulteri-
eures, de quelque titre que les naturalistes les aient decores, ne
sont que des modifications assez leg^res, fondees sur le developpe-
ment ou 1' addition de quelques parties qui ne changent rien a
I'essence du plan."

88 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

De Blainville, Ehrenberg, Burmeister, Von Siebold
and Stannius, Leuckart, Milne-Edwards, Kolliker,
Vogt, Van Beneden, Owen, Von Baer, Agassiz,
Huxley, Haeckel and Ray Lankester, not to men-
tion scores of others of lesser importance.

Points of View.

But what is more striking than the number of
zoological systems which our century has produced,
are the diverse points of view which systematists
have chosen in elaborating their systems. The pre-
Cuvierian taxonomists, as we have seen, based their
schemes of classification on external characteristics.
Cuvier insisted that taxonomy should be based on
internal structure, and that the structure of the en-
tire animal should be considered. Certain later sys-
tematists deemed this unnecessary, and attempted
to build systems of classification on the variations of
a single organ, or on the structure of the egg alone.
Again, according to Cuvier's classification, the
four branches of the animal kingdom are distin-
guished by four distinct plans of structure. Accord-
ing to Ehrenberg " the type of development of ani-
mals is one and the same from man to the monad."
According to Cuvier and his school, the four types
of structure proceed along four parallel lines. Ac-
cording to the evolutionary school, however, the
entire animal kingdom is to be conceived as a gen-
ealogical tree, Stamnibaum, the various branches
and twigs, twiglets and leaves of which, are to be
regarded as the classes, orders, genera and species of
which zoologists speak.

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION. 89

At first classification was based on only superfi-
cial characteristics. Now we must take into account,
not only external form and internal structure, not
only anatomical and histological characteristics, but
we must also incorporate in our classifications the
teachings of embryology and cytology. We must
study not only bone and muscle, but investigate the
nature and structure of the cell, and study the
embryo from its earliest to its latest state of devel-
opment. We can now call no one master, for the
days of magisier dixit have passed. Neither Aris-
totle, nor Linnaeus, nor Cuvier nor any other one
person is to be our sole guide, but we must per-
force elaborate a system from the combined ob-
servations and generalizations of not only the
great masters above-mentioned, but also from those
of Schwann and Von Baer, Johann and Fritz
Miiller, Kowalewsky and Darwin. We must dis-
card much, once accepted as true, which more ex-
act research has disproved, and combine into one
systematic whole the gleanings of truth which
are afforded by the investigations of so many stu-
dents in the various departments of natural knowl-
edge.

Taxonomic Divisions.

Our brief reference to some of the chief systems
of classification conducts us naturally to a more im-
portant topic, the nature of the various categories
which we have been considering.

Have branches, classes, orders, families, genera
and species a real existence in nature, or are they

90 EVOLU TION A ND D OGMA .

merely more or less successful devices of scientific
men to arrange and correlate the facts and phe-
nomena of nature? Are the divisions which natural-
ists have introduced into their systems artificial and
arbitrary, or have they rather been instituted by the
Divine Intelligence as the categories of His mode of
thinking? Are they but the inventions of the hu-
man mind or have " the relations and proportions
which exist throughout the animal and vegetable
worlds an intellectual and ideal connection in the
mind of the Creator?" " Have we, perhaps," asks
the eloquent Agassiz, " thus far been only the un-
conscious interpreters of a Divine conception, in our
attempts to expound nature ? And when in the
pride of our philosophy we thought that we were in-
venting systems of science, and classifying creation
by the force of our own reason, have we followed
only and reproduced in our imperfect expressions,
the plan whose foundations were laid in the dawn of
creation, and the development of which we are labo-
riously studying, thinking, as we put together and
arrange our fragmentary knowledge, that we are in-
troducing order into chaos anew ? Is this order the
result of the exertions of human skill and ingenuity ;
or is it inherent in the objects themselves, so that
the intelligent student of natural history is led un-
consciously, by the study of the animal kingdom
itself, to these conclusions, the great divisions under
which he arranges animals being indeed but the
headings to the chapter of the great book which he
is reading." '

* " Essa^ on Classification," pp. 8, 9.

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION. 91

On a correct answer to this last all-import-
ant question depends, in great measure, the truth
or falsity of the theory of organic Evolution. It
is a shibboleth which cannot be evaded, a crux
which must be explained before an intelligent dis-
cussion of the evidences of Evolution is even pos-
sible.

Plato's " Grand Ideas."

According to Plato, " the world of particular
things is somehow determined by preexisting uni-
versal ideas." Species and genera, therefore, are but
expressions of the ideas of the Creator ; and classifi-
cations of animals and plants, according to types,
are but translations of the thoughts of God ; expres-
sions of grand ideas which from all eternity have
been before the Divine mind. Types, then, are but
the copy ; the Divine ideas, the pattern or arche-
type. Species, as Plato conceived them, were im-
mutable, and organic Evolution, as now understood,
was, accordingly, impossible.

During the Middle Ages, Plato's doctrine of
types was accepted without question, and species
were looked upon as being as immutable as the
rules of dialectics, as unchangeable as truth itself.
Thus the great Scotus Erigena, probably the
profoundest philosopher of his time, declares that
" that art which divides genera into species, and re-
solves species into genera, which is called dialectics,
is not the product of human ingenuity, but has its
origin in the nature of things and is due to the
Author of all arts which are true arts, and has been

92 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

simply discovered by the wise." ' But this classifi-
cation, this division into species and genera, which,
according to Erigena, is something not artificial and
conventional, but something that is real and Divine,
applied, in the estimation of most philosophers
prior to the time of Darwin, not only to logic and
metaphysics but also to the natural sciences as
well.

Linnaeus held similar views. He tells us ex-
plicitly that " the number of species is equal to the
number of divers forms which the Infinite Being
created in the beginning ; which forms, according to
the prescribed laws of generation, produced others,
but always like unto themselves." '

Cuvier on Species.

But the strongest and most eminent advocate of
the creation and fixity of species was Cuvier. In the
introduction to his " Regne Animal " he asserts that
" there is no proof that all the differences which now
distinguish organized beings are such as may have
been produced by circumstances. All that has been
advanced upon this subject is hypothetical; experi-
ence seems to show, on the contrary', that, in the
actual state of things, varieties are confined within

' "Intelligitur quod ars ilia, quae dividet genera in species et
species in genera resolvit, quae 6ia7.eK-iKTj dicitur, non ab humanis
machinationibus sit facta, sed in natura rerum ab Auctore
omnium artium, quse verae artes sunt, condita et a sapientibus
inventa." *' De Divisione Naturae," iv, 4.

*" Species tot sunt, quot diversas formas ab initio produxit
Infinitum Ens; quae formae, secundum generationis inditas leges,
produxere plures, at sibi semper similes." " Philosophia Bo-
tanies," 99, 157.

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION. 93

rather narrow limits, and, so far as we can retrace
antiquity, we perceive that these limits were the
same as at the present. We are thus obliged to ad-
mit of certain forms which, since the origin of things,
have been perpetuated, without exceeding these
limits; and all the beings appertaining to one of these
forms constitute what is termed a species. Genera-
tion being the only means of ascertaining the limits
to which varieties may extend, species should be
defined as the reunion of individuals descended from
one another, or from common parents, or from such
as resemble them as closely as they resemble each
other; but although this definition is rigorous, it will
be seen that its application to particular individuals
may be very different when the necessary experi-
ments have been made."

But not only, according to Cuvier, are existing
species fixed and the result of special creative ac-
tion ; the same views must also be held regarding
the countless geological species which have so long
disappeared from the face of the earth. The great
naturalist was a firm believer in the doctrine of suc-
cessive creations and destructions, of a series of de-
populatings and repeoplings of the world. As is
well known, he was the author of the celebrated
Period or Concordistic theory, which attempts
to reconcile the statements of the Mosaic narra-
tive of creation with the declarations of geology
and paleontology — a theory which has had a
great vogue, and which, after the lapse of three-
quarters of a century, has even now not a few advo-
cates.

94 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Definition of Species.

We come now to the definition of the term spe-
cies, the critical point in the controversy between
creationists and evolutionists. Aristotle's concep-
tion of species was, as we have seen, far from being
precise. With his followers, for more than two thou-
sand years, the idea of a physiological species was
vague and nebulous in the extreme. It was usually
nothing more than a metaphysical concept, and was
of little or no value to the working naturalist. In-
deed, strange as it may seem, no definition of the
term species, as it is now used, was given until the
latter part of the seventeenth century. One of the
first definitions found is in the " Historia Plantarum "
of the noted English botanist Ray, although Yung, of
Hamburg, and Tournefort, the distinguished French
botanist, contemporaries of Ray, appear to have an-
ticipated the English naturalist in arriving at a true
conception of physiological species. According to
Ray, " specific characters rested not only on close
and constant resemblance in outward form, but also
on the likeness of offspring to parent, a considerable
measure of variability being, however, recognized."
Ray's definition of species and Linnaeus' binomial
system of nomenclature, which so greatly facilitated
classification, contributed immensely towards estab-
lishing order where chaos had so long reigned su-
preme.

It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that,
after the labors of Ray, Linnaeus, Cuvier, and their
collaborators, there was perfect unanimity respect-

E VtDBNCBS OF B VOL UTION. 95

ing the nature and signification of species. On
the contrary, the divergence of views was rendered
greater in proportion to the progress of research and
discovery, so that it soon became difficult to find
any two persons who could agree on a definition of
the term " species."

Everyone who wrote on zoology, as we have
learned, had his own system of classification. In
like manner, everyone who had occasion to treat of
questions of natural history found himself compelled
to define the little word " species," and the defini-
tion given usually differed in important respects
from those of previous investigators. Indeed, if
we compare the definitions of species which have
been given since the time of Ray, we shall find that
there has been as great a change of opinion respecting
its nature, as there has been displayed in the various
systems of classification that have been elaborated
since the period of Linnaeus. Everywhere there is
uncertainty, doubt, nebulosity.

The learned anthropologist, De Quatrefages, in
his interesting work, " Darwin et ses Precurseurs
Franqais," gives, besides his own definition of the
term, no fewer than twenty definitions of species —
he might have given many more — as proposed by as
many eminent naturalists.' Some, like Ray and Flou-
rens, base their definition on genealogical connection ;
others like Tournefort and De CandoUe regard like-
ness among individuals as the essential thing in a true
definition of species, while others still, and these for

'Pp. i86, 187.

96 E VOL U TION A ND DOGMA .

the nonce are in the majority, aver that both filia-
tion and resemblance must be taken into account in
any true definition of the term.

Thus, the illustrious botanist Antoine Laurent de
Jussieu, the founder of the "natural system" of
botany, which superseded the artificial or sexual
system of Linnaeus, defines species as " a succession
of individuals entirely alike, which are perpetuated
by generation." * Similar definitions have been
given by Lamarck, Cuvier, Johann Miiller, Isidore
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and others. According to De
Quatrefages a " species is a collection of individuals,
more or less resembling each other, which may be
regarded as having descended from a single primi-
tive pair by an uninterrupted and natural succession
of families."" Agassiz, however, who, as we have
seen, contended that individuals of the same species
existing in disconnected geographical areas had in-
dependent origins, insisted that we are forced "to
remove from the philosophic definition of species
the idea of a community of origin, and consequently,
also, the idea of a necessary genealogical connec-
tion.'"

To the foregoing I may add the declarations of
our eminent American botanist. Professor Asa Gray,
who declares : " We still hold that genealogical con-
nection, rather than mutual resemblance, is the fun-

' In his great work, '' Genera Plantarum," Jussieu savs of
species: " Nunc rectius definitur perennis individuorum similium
successio continuata generatione renascentium."

'"The Human Species," p. 36.

* " Essay on Classification," p. 256.

E VIDENCES OF E VOL UTION. 97

damental thing — first on the ground of fact, and
then from the philosophy of the case. Practically,
no botanist can say what amount of dissimilarity is
compatible with the unity of species ; in wild plants
it is sometimes very great, in cultivated races often
enormous."' What the learned professor here af-
firms of plants, may likewise, with equal truth, be
predicated of animals both wild and domestic.

Difficulties Regarding Species.

What, then, is species? Is it something real, as
some have averred, or is it, as others maintain, some-
thing which is only ideal? And if it have an exist-
ence, real or ideal, how may it be recognized? The
definitions given do not, as we have seen, throw
much light on the subject. On the contrary, they
are all more or less defective, and often quite con-
tradictory.

It is only, however, when we come to consider
the practical applications of these or similar defini-
tions, that we find how illusory and unsatisfactory
they are. We have but to compare the classifica-
tions of different botanists and zoologists when
treating of the same florse and faunae, to realize how
utterly inadequate are even the best definitions of
species as guides in the classificatory work of prac-
tical naturalists. No two naturalists, it may safely
be asserted, have ever yet agreed on the same clas-
sification as to species, even for the animals and
plants of restricted geographical areas. Some aug-

^ " Darwiniana," p. 203.

E.-7

98 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

ment the number of species; others diminish it.
Some make species out of what others regard as
only races or varieties ; whilst others again combine
in one what still others contend are demonstrably
two or more distinct species.

Thus, we have it on the authority of Gray that
*' In a flora so small as the British, one hundred and
eighty-two plants, generally reckoned as varieties,
have been ranked by some botanists as species.
Selecting the British genera which include the most
polymorphous forms, it appears that Babbington's
flora gives them two hundred and fifty-one species,
Bentham's only one hundred and twelve ; a differ-
ence of one hundred and thirty-nine doubtful forms.
These are nearly the extreme views, but they are
the views of two most capable and most experienced
judges in respect to one of the best-known floras of
the world. The fact is suggestive, that the best-
known countries furnish the greatest known number
of such doubtful cases." '

The relativity and variability of species are still
more strikingly illustrated in the case of the hawk-
weed, hieracium, of Germany. One author de-
scribes no fewer than three hundred species of this
plant, another makes the number one hundred and
six, a third reduces it to fifty-two, while a fourth is
equally positive that there are but twenty species
all told!"

* "Darwiniana," p. 35. Cf . "The Origin of Species," chap, 11.

* It was such difficulties of classification that led the natu-
ralist, Deslonchamps, to declare : " Plus on voit d'echantillons,
moins on fait d'especes." For a similar reason Darwin ex-
claims: "How painfully true it is that no one has a right to

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION. 99

Haeckel's well-known monograph on the calca-
reous sponges shows, even in a more remarkable
manner, to what an extent classification depends on
the personal equation of the systematist, or *' on his
predilection for lumping and splitting." In this
monograph the Jena professor, considering the same
set of forms from different points of view, offers no
fewer than twelve different arrangements, " among
which the two most nearly conventional propose
respectively twenty-one genera and one hundred
and eleven species, and thirty-nine genera and two
hundred and eighty-nine species."

Similar, although less marked instances of spe-
cific indefiniteness are exhibited regarding the oak,
willow, beech, birch, chestnut, and other well-known
trees. It is, however, in the lowest forms of life
that it is most difficult to draw the line of demarca-
tion between one species and another, and where,
as all admit, the grouping of species into genera is at
best a matter of conjecture. The countless and com-
plete series of transitional forms brought up from the
ocean depths by the dredge and trawl are cases in
point.

But more puzzling still to the systematist, are
those extraordinary microbian forms of life called
schisoniycetes, which embrace the numerous micro-
scopic organisms known as microbes, bacteria.

examine the question of species who has not minutelj described
many. . . . After determining a set of forms as a distinct
species, tearing them up and making them separate, and then
making them one again (which has happened to me), I have
gnashed my teeth, cursed species, and asked what sin I had
committed to be so treated."

100 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

microphytes, and their congeners. Here classifica-
tion is at best provisional and arbitrary, and depends
entirely on the point of view from which they are
studied. In such lowly forms of life, not only is the
certain discrimination of species impossible, but it is
impossible even to draw a hard and fast line between
what is incontestably animal life on the one hand,
and vegetable life on the other.

Such being the case, what, it may be asked, be-
comes of species ? What of classification ? What of
the various systems which have been proposed ?
Have species any real existence, the question is
again asked, or are they but mere figments of the
imagination, ignes fatui, which have ever eluded the
grasp of the investigator, and which are now even
farther away from it than they ever were before?
Are they but varying, metaphysical entities, airy
nothings, convenient only for purposes of specula-
tion and for a classification which, from the very
nature of the case, must at best be but provisional
and arbitrary ?

In reply to these questions it may be stated that
there are still those, and their number is far from
being small, who yet cling to the old idea of species
as something real, immutable, and always recogniza-
ble. The instances I have just alluded to may not
indeed, it is conceded, exhibit all the specific definite-
ness of the Venus' flytrap, or the pearly nautilus,
but nevertheless, it is contended, the species exist,
despite the difficulties which obscure their definition,
or which, for the time being, make their recognition
impossible.

E VIDENCES OF E VOL UTION. 101

Agassiz' Views.

Yet even in the face of the difficulties which have
been referred to, Agassiz persisted, as others still
persist, in maintaining that species are entities, real
or ideal, which continue to exist from generation to
generation. But he went further than this, further
even than most of his predecessors had been willing
to go. For not only, according to his views, are
species unchangeable units, but genera, orders,
classes, and the other groups as well, "are founded
in nature, and ought not to be considered as arti-
ficial devices, invented by man to facilitate his
studies." "To me," says Agassiz, "it appears in-
disputable, that the order and arrangement of our
studies are based on the natural, primitive relations
of animal life — those systems to which we have
given the names of the great leaders of our science
who first proposed them, being, in truth, but trans-
lations into human language of the thoughts of the
Creator." In the opinion of the illustrious Swiss
savant, " man has not invented, but only traced, the
systematic arrangement of nature." " The relations
and proportions which exist throughout the animal
and vegetable world, have an intellectual, an ideal
connection in the mind of the Creator. The plan of
creation, which so commends itself to our highest
wisdom, has not grown out of the necessary action
of physical laws, but was the free conception of the
Almighty intellect, matured in His thought before
it was manifested in tangible, external forms." " In

102 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

a word, species, genera, families, etc., exist as
thoughts ; individuals as facts." *

Species in the Making.

But while some of the old school who are not
naturalists, still subscribe to these or similar views,
and while a few, possibly even among naturalists,
may yet be found who entertain like notions, the
great majority of working naturalists have entirely
discarded the traditional idea of species, as some-
thing fixed and unchangeable, and substituted in
its stead the idea of a species which is variable and
transmutable. For evolutionists, all such variable
and doubtful forms as those I have indicated are but
" species in the making," which become definite in
proportion as certain varieties become especially
adapted to their environment, and become isolated
by the dying out of the intermediate forms. From
the evolutionary standpoint both species and classi-
fication have a significance which is not only ex-
cluded from the creationist's view, but which is
absolutely incompatible with it. By the aid of the
Evolution hypothesis, too, mysteries are solved which

^ Cf. " Essay on Classification," chap, i , sec. i , and "Amer-
ican Journal of Science," July, i860, p. 143. Very few naturalists,
even among Agassiz' predecessors, among those, namely, who
like himself, were from conviction special creationists, would, I
think, subscribe to this statement. The majority of them, I am
disposed to believe, regarded all divisions above species as purely
conventional. For, even in pre-Darwinian days, as Romanes
well observes, "the scientifically orthodox doctrine was, that
although species were to be regarded as fixed units, bearing the
stamp of a special creation, all the higher taxonomic divisions
•were to be considered as what may be termed the artificial cre-
ation of naturalists themselves." — " Darwin and After Darwin,"
vol. I, p. 20.

E VI DEN CBS OF EV OL U TION. 103

had long baffled the efforts of the keenest investi-
gators of the old school, and a simple explanation
is afforded of difficulties and apparent anomalies
which, without this hypothesis, are simply inexpli-
cable. A few simple examples will illustrate my
meaning, and at the same time indicate the nature of
one of the arguments adduced in favor of organic
Evolution.

De Candolle and Baird.

The eminent Swiss botanist, M. Alphonse de
Candolle, as the result of an exhaustive study under
particularly favorable circumstances, of the oak, es-
pecially the oak of the Old World, comes to the con-
clusion that current notions regarding this important
genus must be materially modified ; that far from
having the large number of species usually attrib-
uted to it, the number is in reality very small; that
what are so frequently considered as species, are at
best but varieties and races ; that there is every rea-
son to believe, if indeed there is not positive proof,
that all the multitudinous gradations observed among
oaks are originally derived from but a few forms, or
that all of them may be traced back to the same pri-
meval ancestor. His investigations regarding the oak,
demonstrate beyond question what other naturalists
had observed and suspected, viz : that what appears
to be a distinct species, when only a few specimens
from a limited area are examined, proves on the ex-
amination of a larger number of specimens, from a
wider geographical area, to be, at most, but a race
or a variety.

104 EVOLUTION A ND D OGMA .

Considering the relations to each other of only
existing species, De Candolle felt obliged to curtail
greatly the number of species of the genus quercus,
but when the genealogy of the oak is studied in the
light of geology and paleontology, it is found that it
originated far back in the Cretaceous Period, and
that this ancient geologic form is undoubtedly the
common ancestor of all the species and varieties now
existing. For we have it on the testimony of such
a competent witness as Lesquereux, that not only
the oak but all " the essential types of our actual
flora are marked in the Cretaceous Period, and have
come to us, after passing without notable changes
through the Tertiary formations of our conti-
nent."

Baird's researches upon the birds of North Amer-
ica, admirably corroborate De Candolle's induction,
to wit: "That when a large number of specimens
from a sufficiently extensive territory are examined
and compared, it is found that what are ordinarily
regarded as quite distinct species are often no more
than races and varieties, or what evolutionists would
denominate incipient species. For along the border-
ing lines of the habitats of such species, it is observed
that the specific characters of the divers forms are so
blended that it is often difficult, if not impossible, to
distinguish one species from another. Indeed,
whether the birds observed in such cases belong to
the same or to different species will depend, mainly
or entirely, either on the naturalist's point of view,
or on the number of intermediate forms which he
may be able to collect and compare."

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION. 105

Evidence of Organic Evolution.

After this long preamble respecting classification
and species — a preamble which the nature and scope
of the topic now under discussion have rendered
necessary — we are at length prepared for an intelli-
gent appreciation of the arguments commonly ad-
duced in support of the theory of organic Evolution.
If species are not the immutable units they have so
long been considered ; if, far from being easy of rec-
ognition, as is so often fancied, they are with diffi-
culty recognizable, if at all ; if, far from being perma-
nent and unchangeable, they are, on the contrary,
variable and mutable ; we have legitimate a priori
reasons for believing in the possibility of Evolution,
if not in its probability. The actuality, however,
of Evolution, is a question of evidence ; not indeed of
evidence based on metaphysical assumptions, but of
evidence derived from observation and a trustworthy
interpretation of the facts of nature. To the discus-
sion of this evidence, which I shall make as brief as
is consistent with clearness and the nature of the
argument involved, I shall now direct the reader's
attention.

The evidence usually advanced in support of
organic Evolution is fourfold, and is based: First,
on the classification of animals and plants ; second,
on their morphology ; third, on their embryology ;
and fourth, on their distribution in space and
time. This, especially the evidence derived from
paleontology, is what Huxley designates as "the

106 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

demonstrative evidence of Evolution," and is well
worthy of our most serious consideration.

Of course it will be understood that I can give
only the baldest outline of the arguments ad-
vanced in favor of the theory of Evolution as applied
to plants and animals. Space precludes my doing
more than this ; besides it is unnecessary, as count-
less treatises by specialists have been written, in
which the various arguments in favor of Evolution
are given in extenso, and to these is referred the
reader who is desirous of more detailed information.

The argument from classification has been inci-
dentally touched upon in what precedes. We have
noted the differences of views entertained by divers
naturalists respecting the classification of certain
plants and animals, and how difficulties of classifica-
tion increase as we descend from higher to lower
types of animated nature. On the theory that all
the manifold forms of animal and vegetable life are
descended from one primitive form, these difficul-
ties, which on the special creation theory are simply
inexplicable, find a ready and simple explanation.
Assuming that all forms of life are originally de-
rived from simple monera or undifferentiated parti-
cles of protoplasm, and that all are but more or less
modified descendants of the same humble ancestor,
we can understand why there are such striking re-
semblances in some instances, and such wide diver-
gencies in others.

A Philological Illustration.

An illustration taken from philology will make
this statement clearer. In the Romance languages,

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION. 107

for instance, we observe many marked similarities of
form and structure, but no one would think of assert-
ing that all these different tongues are directly due
to Divine intervention, or that Spanish is derived
from Italian, or Italian from French. And yet, they
are genetically related to one another, because we
know that they are all derived from an older speech
— the Latin. In like manner we are able to trace
relationships between the numerous members of the
great Aryan family of languages — between, for ex-
ample, such widely dissimilar tongues as Sanscrit,
Latin, Greek, Slavic, Zend, Gothic, German, Irish.
We cannot, of course, arrange them in a linear
series, but it can be shown that all of them are de-
scended from the same mother-tongue and that they
all, therefore, belong to the same family tree.

Tree- Like System of Classification.

As in philology, so also in botany and zoology,
we must look upon the whole of animated nature as
constituting but a single genealogical tree. The
trunk of this tree represents those lower forms of life
which cannot be said with certainty to be either
animal or vegetable. It first bifurcates into two
minor trunks, or large branches, which are known as
the vegetable and animal kingdoms. Each of these
trunks or branches bears other branches which de-
note classes, and these, in turn, ramify in such wise as
to produce boughs, twigs, twiglets, and leaves, repre-
senting families, orders, genera, and species.

This tree-like system of classification of animals
and plants obtained long before the time of Darwin,

108 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

but he gave it a significance it never before pos-
sessed. He showed that it was in reality the only
natural system, and the only one which was compe-
tent to explain the varied and complicated facts of
the organic world. He demonstrated more clearly
than had any of his predecessors the impossibility of
attempting, as had Lamarck and others, to arrange
animals and plants in a series of linear groups. By
classifying animals in lineally ascending groups,
Lamarck had placed snails and oysters above such
marvelously organized creatures as bees and butter-
flies. The same system of classification would place
the humble duck-bill, because it is a mammal, above
the eagle and the condor, the lowly amphioxus
above the crab, and the degraded lepidosiren above
the salmon.

Again, the tree-like system of classification eludes
such blunders and shows that differences of structure,
and not complexity of organization, are to be con-
sidered in every rational attempt to ascertain the
true position of any organism in the animal king-
dom. Unlike all popular classifications, it is not
based on mere external resemblances, but on resem-
blances which are deeper and more fundamental.
Thus, for instance, a whale is often regarded as a
fish, because, forsooth, it bears some likeness to a
fish in form and habits. A closer examination, how-
ever, reveals the fact that it is more like a dog or an
ox than a fish. The same may be said of other
cases that might be cited, wherein the true position
of an organism in the scale of life can be determined,
not by superficial resemblances, but by likenesses

E VIDBNCES OF E VOL UTION. 109

which are revealed only by dissection — likenesses
which can be fully appreciated only by the trained
anatomist.

The more closely, then, one examines the divers
forms of life, the stronger grows the conviction that
they are genetically related in the manner indicated
by a Stammbaum, or genealogical tree. No other
system is competent to explain the facts observed ;
neither is there any other system which can explain
the " progressive shading off of characters common
to larger groups into more and more specialized
characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller
groups." It is just such a system as we should ex-
pect to find if the theory of descent be true ; just
such a system as would obtain if the law of parsi-
mony be admitted, the law, to-wit, that " forbids us
to assume the operation of higher causes when lower
ones are found sufficient to explain the observed
effects." Indeed, so powerful does the argument from
classification appear to some minds, that it alone is
regarded as decisive in favor of Evolution. Referring
to this matter Mr. Fiske declares: " In my own case
the facts presented in Agassiz* ' Essay on Classifica-
tion ' went far toward producing conviction before
the publication of Mr. Darwin's work on the ' Origin
of Species,' where the significance of such facts is
clearly pointed out and strongly insisted upon." '

The Argument from Structure and Morphology.

We now pass to the argument from structure
and morphology. To confine ourselves to the ver-

1" Cosmic Philosophy," vol. I, p. 454.

110 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

tebrates, which are more famih'ar to the general
reader, we observe that all the members of this ex-
tensive group are constructed on the same general
type. They belong, as it were, to the same style of
architecture, and we can trace the variations of
structure of similar parts with ease and precision.
They are all descendants of but one archetypal
form, of one primal vertebrate, from which all
others are derived by adaptive modification. This
is beautifully illustrated in the homologies of the
vertebrate skeleton.

And here it is necessary to remark that analo-
gous organs are by no means homologous organs.
Analogous organs are those wHIcTi are sTiiinar in
form and function, but of different origin. Homol-
ogous organs, on the contrary, are those which,
however different their form and functions, can be
shown to have community of origin. Thus, the
wings of birds and butterflies are analogous, but
not homologous. They have the same general
form and function, but they have not the same
origin ; that is, they have not been produced by
modification from the same organ or part. On the
other hand, the arms of men and apes, the fore-legs
and fore-paws of mammals and reptiles, the wings of
bats and birds, and the paddles of cetacea and the
breast-fins of fishes are homologous, because, how-
ever diverse their forms and functions, they can all
be demonstrated to have a common origin. They
have essentially the same structure and are com-
posed of the same pieces, although in view of their
diverse functions they are so modified that the

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION. Ill

superficial resemblance has entirely disappeared.
But although the modifications are so great, they
are, nevertheless, just such modifications as would
have originated from the fore-limb of some arche-
typal form, if this limb had been called upon to
perform entirely different functions from those for
which it was first adapted, or if the archetypal an-
cestor had been introduced to an entirely different
environment from the one in which it was originally
placed. Analogy, then, is but a superficial resem-
blance, whereas, homology is an essential and fun-
damental one which, in many cases, can be detected
only by experts in comparative anatomy.

Now, it is precisely the fact of homology of
structure, which finds its sole explanation in com-
munity of origin, that constitutes one of the strong-
est proofs of the theory of Evolution.

According to the evolutionary theory of natural
selection, it is inferred that hereditary characters
undergo a change whenever a change will better
adapt an organism to changed conditions of life.
The whale is again a case in point. From the best
evidence obtainable, it is concluded that the ances-
tors of whales were land quadrupeds, which became
aquatic in their habits. But such a change in their
mode of life would necessitate a corresponding
change in the functions of various parts and organs.
The hind-legs would not be required for purposes
of locomotion, and hence they would disappear.
The fore-legs would be adapted for swimming, and
would, therefore, be transformed into fins or pad-
dles. There would also be important changes in

112 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

the skin, teeth, muscles and form of the organism,
rendering it more fish-like in shape, and better
adapted for moving in the water.

But even with all these modifications, necessi-
tated by changes of environment and consequent
mode of life, the anatomist would experience no
difficulty in demonstrating that the whale is not a
fish, but a mammal, and in exhibiting the various
homologies existing between the divers parts of this
monster of the deep, as we now know it, and parts
of its hypothetical terrestrial progenitor. Thus, the
paddles, as we have seen, correspond to the arms
of man, the fore-legs of quadrupeds, the flippers of
turtles, and the wings of birds. The hind-legs are
not visible, externally, it is true, but they exist in-
ternally in a rudimentary state. The same may be
said of the teeth. The fully-developed baleen whale,
for instance, has no teeth, for it has no need of
them, but in its embryotic condition it possesses a
complete rudimentary set of teeth, which are never
cut, but are absorbed during the embryonic life of
the organism. Similarly, the bones of the head of
the whale are exactly homologous with those of the
mammal, although the better to adapt it for aquatic
locomotion, the shape of the head more closely re-
sembles the head of a fish. But great and numer-
ous as are the modifications observed, they have all
been effected with the least possible divergence from
the ancestral type which is compatible with the
changed conditions of life. In form and in the
functions of certain of its parts, the whale is a fish;
in type and structure it is a mammal — a lineal de-

I

E VIDBNCBS OF EV OL U TION. 113

scendant, according to the Evolution theory, of some
mammoth terrestrial quadruped of which no trace
has as yet been discovered.

Rudimentary Organs.

It were easy to multiply indefinitely examples
of such rudimentary organs as those exhibited by
the cetacea. We see them in the tails of birds, in
the gill-arches of reptiles, in the dew-claws of a dog's
foot, in the splint-bones of the horse, and in the
wings of the ostrich and apteryx. Indeed, there is
not a single representative of the higher forms of
animal life, which does not exhibit one or more
parts in an atrophied or rudimentary condition.

But what is the significance of such aborted and
useless organs? What is their origin, and can any
reason be assigned for the existence of such func-
tionless parts? The only natural explanation which
can be offered, the only rational solution of the
difficulty which science can give, is that suggested by
the theory of Evolution. According to the theory
of descent with adaptive modification, rudimentary
organs are remnants of " some generalized primal
form," in which they were useful, and had a definite
function to perform. By reason of changed condi-
tions of life of the individual, and corresponding dis-
use of certain parts, great modifications in size and
form and function ensued, and thus what was useful
and necessary in the ancestral form ceased to be of
value in its successor.

" Rudimentary organs," then, to quote from Dar-
win, " by whatever steps they may have been

114 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

degraded into their present useless condition,
are the record of a former state of things and have
been retained solely through the power of inherit-
ance. They may be compared with the letters in a
word still retained in the spelling, but become use-
less in pronunciation, but which serve as a clue for
its derivation. On the view of descent with modifi-
cation, we may conclude that the existence of
organs in a rudimentary, imperfect and useless con-
dition, or quite aborted, far from presenting a
strange diflficulty, as they assuredly do on the old
doctrine of creation, might even have been antici-
pated in accordance with the views here ex-
plained." '

Considering, then, these wonderful homologies,
of which but brief mention has been made, and pon-
dering over the problems raised by the existence of
rudimentary or vestigial organs, in such a large por-
tion of the animal kingdom, what inference are we
to draw from the point of view of science ? " What
now," demands Spencer, " can be the meaning of
this community of structure among these hundreds
of thousands of species filling the air, burrowing in
the earth, swimming in the water, creeping among
the sea-weed, and having such enormous differences
of size, outline and substance, that no community
would be suspected between them ? Why, under
the down-covered body of the moth, and under the
hard wing-cases of the beetle, should there be discov-
ered the same number of divisions as in the calcare-

The Origin of Species," vol. II, p. 263.

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION. 115

ous framework of the lobster ?" ' But two answers
have been given or can be given — the answer of the
special creationist," that all forms of life were cre-
ated as we find them, and the answer of the
evolutionist, who contends that community of struc-
ture betokens community of origin.

Argument from Embryology.

The argument from embryology is next in order,
but it is of such a character that its full import can
be appreciated only by experts in the science on
which it is based. The most remarkable character-
istic of the argument is that we find in the life-
history of the individual, ontogeny, an epitome of
its ancestral history, phylogeny. And this charac-
teristic is not only in complete accordance with the
theory of organic Evolution, but is, moreover, just
what we should expect if the theory be true.

The great embryologist, Von Baer, was the
first to call attention to the remarkable agreement

* " Principles of Biology," vol. I, p. 381.

* Replying to the argument that rudimentary organs were
specially created by God in order to complete the symmetry
and harmony of the organism, Dr. Maisonneuve observes: "II
me semble etrange que I'on soit oblige d'en venir a preter a
Dieu I'idee de faire des trompe-l'ceil — passez-moi I'expres-
sion — et de supposer que I'Auteur de toutes choses a si mal pris
ses mesures, qu'il a ete oblige d'en venir a proceder comme un
architecte, dont les plans mal con5us ne lui permettent plus de
ne placer des fenetres ou des lucarnes que seulment la ou
leur existence se trouve justifiee a tous points de vue. Car, vous
reconnaitrez sans peine, j'imagine, que I'ideal pour I'architecte,
c'est d'arriver a ce que chaque detail du palais qu'il construit
presente a la fois toutes les qualites,utilite, agrement et beaute."
" Compte Rendu du Congres Scientifique International des
Catholiques," tenu a Paris, 1891, Section d' Anthropologic, p. 59.

116 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

between the development of the individual and the
development of the ancestral line to which the indi-
vidual belongs. He showed that in every organism,
as well as in its component parts, there is a gradual
progress from the simple to the complex, from the
general to the special. As Haeckel puts it, " ontog-
eny is a recapitulation of phylogeny, or, somewhat
more explicitly, the series of forms through which
the individual organism passes during its progress
from the egg-cell to its fully developed state, is a
brief compressed reproduction of the long series of
forms through which the animal ancestors of that
organism, or the ancestral forms of its species, have
passed from the earliest period of so-called organic
creation down to the present time." '

Thus, observation shows, as the theory of Evolu-
tion demands, that the germs of all animals are, at
the outset, exactly like each other; but in the
process of development each germ acquires, first,
the differential characteristics of the sub-kingdom to
which it belongs ; then, successively, the characteris-
tics of its class, order, family, genus, species and
race. For example, the highest mammal, man, be-
gins his corporeal existence as a simple germ-cell, in
form and appearance like unto an adult amoeba,
and utterly indistinguishable from the germ-cell of
other vertebrates. As development progresses the
embryo gradually becomes more and more differen-
tiated. In its earlier stages it may be recognized as
the embryo of a vertebrate, but it is impossible to
tell to which class of vertebrates it belongs. So far

» " The Evolution of Man," vol. I, pp. 7-S.

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION. 117

as appearances go, it may be that of a fish, a rep-
tile, a bird, or a mammal. Subsequently it exhibits
the characteristics of a bird or a mammal, but the
order to which it pertains is disclosed only at a yet
later period. At a still later stage, after manifest-
ing the characteristics of the family, genus, and
species of which it is a member, it acquires the dis-
tinguishing attributes of its race.

Amphioxus and Loligo.

A more striking instance of recapitulation is
exhibited in the life-history of the amphioxus, or
lancelet, interesting, among other things, for being
the lowest known form of vertebrate. Here, as in
the case of all other animals, the first stage of devel-
opment is a simple germ-cell. This soon subdi-
vides, but the subdivisions, instead of separating, as
occurs in many of the lower forms of life, remain
together and constitute what is known as the mor-
ula stage, because of the resemblance in shape of
the group of cells to a mulberry or blackberry.
They subsequently assume a tubular form, in which
condition the cells are disposed around a central
tube-like cavity, open at each end. This is suc-
ceeded by the blastula stage, in which the cells are
grouped together in the form of a hollow ball, the
outer cells being provided with cilia, thus enabling
the embryonic amphioxus to move freely in the
water. This condition is followed by a series of
other changes, until, finally, the animal, after numer-
ous and instructive transformations, acquires the
adult form.

118 EVOLUTION AXD DOGMA.

Now, the interesting fact in connection with the
development of this curious animal is, that the vari-
ous stages through which it passes can be paralleled
by organisms which remain permanently in the con-
ditions in which the amphioxus rests but temporarily.

The simple unicellular monad illustrates the in-
cipient condition or first stage of the amphioxus.
The second stage is paralleled by the pandorina,
which is but a group of cells, each similar to the
monad, living together in a common capsule. The
third stage is represented by the remarkable salin-
ella, which is a tubular structure composed of a
single layer of simple, monad-like cells. The fourth
condition is found in a common fresh-water volvox,
which, like the blastula stage, is an organism con-
sisting of a hollow sphere composed of a single
layer of simple flagellate cells.

The four organisms just mentioned do not, it is
true, constitute a lineal series, a series, namely, in
which the more complex is genetically derived from
the simpler. But they prove, nevertheless, that all
the earlier temporary stages of the amphioxus, the
several curious embryonic conditions through which
it passes, can be paralleled by organisms which
have an actual permanent existence as adults, and
which are classed as so many distinct species. This,
to students of embryology, is a very remarkable
fact, and to the evolutionist, who believes that the
history of the individual is but a recapitulation of
the history of the race, it is profoundly suggestive and
significant and seems to indicate unmistakably the
derivative origin of higher from lower forms of life.

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION. 119

But this recapitulation may be observed, not
only in the organisms themselves, but likewise in
their constituent parts. A striking illustration is
afforded in the development of the eye of the loligo,
one of the higher cephalopoda, as compared with
the rudimentary eyes of various species of mollusca.
Thus, as the late Mr. Marshall tells us: '.' In solen we
find the simplest condition of the molluscan eye,
merely a slightly depressed and slightly modified
patch of skin, which can only distinguish light from
darkness, and in which the sensitive cells are pro-
tected by being situated at the bottom of the fold
of skin. In patella the next stage is found, where
the eye forms a pit with a widely-open mouth.
This is a distinct advance on the preceding form,
for, owing to the increased depth of the pit, the
sensory cells are less exposed to accidental injury.
The next stage is found in haliotis, and consists of
the narrowing of the mouth of the pit. This is a
simple change but a very important step forward,
for, in consequence of the smallness of the aperture,
light from any one part of an object can only fall
on one particular part of the pit or retina, and so an
image, though a dim one, is formed. The next step
consists in the formation of a lens at the mouth of
the pit, by a deposit of cuticle-; this form of eye is
found in fissurella. The gain here is two-fold, viz.,
increased protection and increased brightness of the
image, for the lens will focus the rays of light more
sharply on the retina, and will allow a greater quan-
tity of light, a larger pencil of rays from each part
of the object, to reach the corresponding part of

120 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

the retina. Finally, the formation of the folds of
the skin, known as the iris and eyelids, provides for
the better protection of the eye, and is a distinct
advance on the somewhat clumsy method of with-
drawal seen in the snail. This is found in the
cephalopoda, such as loligo.

" If now we study the actual development of the
eye of a cuttle-fish, we find that the eye, although
a complicated one, yet passes in »ts own develop-
ment through all the above series of stages from the
slight depression in the skin, through the stages of
the pit with large and small mouth, lens, and finally
eyelids, being developed." *

In the case of the cuttle-fish, as well as in that
of the lancelet, we have transitory stages paralleled
by permanent conditions In lower forms of life.
The eye of the cuttle-fish, as just stated, not only
gives an epitome, as it were, of the history of devel-
opment of the visual organ in several distinct spe-
cies of mollusca, but also traces out for us, according
to evolutionists, the gradual development of the
eyes of the ancestral forms from which the cuttle-
fish itself is descended. Each stage indicated in
the development of the cuttle-fish's eye, marks a
distinct advance on the one preceding, as each
stage in the development of the amphioxus exhibits
progress from the simple to the more complex, from
the less highly to the more highly organized.

It is not, indeed, always possible to adduce such
remarkable examples of recapitulation as those just

^ " Lectures on the Darwinian Theor3'," by Arthur Milnes
Marshall, pp. io6 et seq.

E VIDENCES OF E VOL U TION. 121

instanced, but this is a consequence of the newness
of the science of embryology, and of our ignorance
of details which shall be disclosed by future re-
search, rather than of the non-existence of such
recapitulatory illustrations. Nor is it necessary that
we should be able to trace such parallelisms in all
cases. The countless numbers which embryologists
have already pointed out are abundantly ample for
the purpose of the argument in question.

Meaning of Recapitulation.

The marvelous coincidences and analogies we
have just considered, and it were easy to add
others, suggest questions that clamor for an an-
swer. Why, then, is it, that every complex organ-
ism thus epitomizes the history of its ancestors ;
that in its embryonic life it exhibits a series of
forms characteristic of organisms lower in the series
of which it is a member? Many of the stages
through which it passes in the course of its develop-
ment have no adaptation either to its embryonic or
to its adult condition. Wherefore, then, the reason
of the existence of these curious stages?

On the special creation hypothesis they admit of
no rational explanation whatever. " What," queries
Mr. Lewes, " should we say to an architect who was
unable, or being able, was obstinately unwilling to
erect a palace, except by first using his materials in
the shape of a hut, then pulling it down, and re-
building them as a cottage, then adding story to
story and room to room, not with any reference to
the ultimate purposes of the palace, but wholly with

122 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

reference to the way in which houses were con-
structed in ancient times? What should we say to
the architect who could not directly form a museum
out of bricks and mortar, but was forced to begin
as if going to build a mansion ; and after proceeding
some way in this direction, altered his plan into a
palace, and that again into a museum ? Yet this is
the sort of succession on which organisms are con-
structed." On the theory of Evolution all this
recapitulation of ancestral forms, so characteristic of
higher organisms, admits of an explanation which is
as beautiful as it is consonant with fact and reason.
And, from the theistic point of view, it exhibits the
Deity creating matter and force, and putting them
under the dominion of law. It tells of a God who
inaugurates the era of terrestrial life by the creation
of one or more simple organisms, unicellular mon-
ads, it may be, and causing them, under the
action of His Providence, to evolve in the course of
time into all the myriad, complicated, specialized
and perfect forms which now people the earth.
Surely this is a nobler conception of the Creator
than that which represents Him as experimenting,
as it were, with crude materials, and succeeding,
only after numerous attempts, in producing the or-
ganism which He is supposed to have had in view
from the beginning. To picture the Deity thus
working tentatively, is an anthropomorphic view of
the Creator, which is as little warranted by Catholic
dogma as it is by genuine science. It is rather on
a par with the view of those theologians and scien-
tists who fancied fossils to be "rejected models" of

E VIDENCES OF E V OL U TION. 1 23

creatures subsequently perfected, or tentative and
unfinished efforts toward the creation of organisms
which were never endowed with vitality because the
Creator was not satisfied with His work. This is,
certainly, as we shall see in the sequel, not the Au-
gustinian view of creation, and, to those who are
familiar with even the elementary facts of embry-
ology, it cannot be the scientific view. From the
point of view of embryology the great body of
facts make for the theory of Evolution, as against
the theory of special creation, and it is not surpris-
ing, therefore, to find that those who are most com-
petent to interpret the facts of the case, are disposed
to regard the argument from embryology as of itself
sufificient to demonstrate the derivation theory of all
forms of animal life.

Geographical Distribution of Organisms.

There yet remains another testimony to be con-
sidered, and that is the argument based on the dis-
tribution of organisms in space and time, or in other
words, the argument based on the facts of geograph-
ical distribution and geological succession.

One of the most striking facts of natural history
is that which regards the marked diversity of the
fauna and flora of regions widely separated, or of
adjacent regions separated by impassable natural
barriers. Thus, the animals and plants of Europe
are to a great extent unlike those of America, while
those of Africa and Australia are entirely different.
Even in passing from one portion of the continent
to another, the observant traveler cannot help being

124 B VOL UTION A ND D OGMA .

impressed with the divers new and strange organ-
isms which are continually presented to his view.
The fauna on the opposite sides of mountain chains
are often quite unlike, although the conditions of
existence may be essentially the same. The animals
on the contiguous islands of an archipelago are specif-
ically distinct from one another, and generically dif-
ferent from the animals on the nearest mainland.
The marine fauna on the opposite sides of the
Isthmus of Panama, although the conditions of ex-
istence on the eastern and western shores are appre-
ciably the same, are almost wholly distinct, when, if
we considered only their environment, we should
expect them to be exactly alike.

Whithersoever we go, we observe that " barriers
of any kind, or obstacles to free migration, are related
in a close and important manner to the differences
between the productions of various regions. We
see this in the great difference in nearly all the ter-
restrial productions of the New and Old Worlds,
excepting in the northern parts where the land
almost joins, and where, under a slightly different
climate, there might have been free migration for
the northern temperate forms, as there is now for
the strictly Arctic productions. We see the same
fact in the great difference between the inhabitants of
Australia, Africa and South America under the same
latitude; for these countries are almost as much
isolated from each other as is possible. On each
continent, also, we find the same fact ; for on the
opposite side of lofty and continuous mountain
ranges, of great deserts and even of large rivers, we

E VIDBNCBS OF E VOL UTION. 125

find different productions; though as mountain
chains, deserts, etc., are not as impassable, or likely
to have endured so long as the oceans separating
continents, the differences are very inferior in degree
to those characteristic of distinct continents.'"

An instructive illustration of the matter under
discussion is afforded by Darwin, in his observations
on the flora and fauna of the Galapagos Archipel-
ago. This is a group of islands situated between
five and six hundred miles west of South America, the
constituent islands being separated from one another
by straits from twenty to thirty miles in width.
'* Each separate island of the Galapagos Archipel-
ago," says the great naturalist, " is tenanted, and the
fact is a marvelous one, by many distinct species ;
but these are related to each other in a very much
closer manner than to the inhabitants of the Ameri-
can continent, or of any other quarter of the world." '

From observations made by naturalists all over
the world, it is learned that the foregoing is but one
of countless similar instances that might be adduced.
Hence the general conclusion reached by the dis-
tinguished German savant, Moritz Wagner, that "the
limits, within which allied species are found, are de-
termined by impassable natural barriers."

Pacts of Geological Succession.

It is only, however, when we come to compare
the facts of geographical distribution with those of
geological succession, that we are able to appreciate

' Darwin's '• Origin of Species," vol. II, pp. 130-131.
' Op. cit., vol. II, p. 190.

126 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

the full significance of the observations of Darwin,
Wagner and their compeers. It is then found that
the distribution of species in space is intimately con-
nected with their succession in time ; that the ani-
mals which occur in a determinate locality at pres-
ent, closely resemble extinct animals which inhabited
the same locality in ages long past, and hence the
inference the naturalist draws, that existing types in
a given area are genetically related to antecedent
types of the same area. Thus, the marsupials which
now inhabit Australia are allied to their fossil prede-
cessors in the same part of the world. Similarly, the
sloths, ant-eaters and armadillos now found in South
America, are intimately related to numerous fossil
forms which have been brought to light in this part
of the Western continent.

Indeed, it is just such facts as these which im-
pelled Darwin and others to conclude, that existing
species must have originated by derivation from an-
tecedent species, and that the divers species of any
given area are but modified descendants of species
long extinct.

" I was so much impressed with these facts,"
declares Darwin, "that I strongly insisted, in 1839
and 1845, on this 'law of succession of types,' on
this wonderful relationship in the same continent,
between the dead and the living ! Prof. Owen sub-
sequently extended the same generalization to the
mammals of the Old World. We have the same
law exhibited in his restoration of the extinct and
gigantic birds of New Zealand. We see it also in
the birds of the caves of Brazil. Mr. Woodward

M VIDMJ^CES of E vol UTtON. l2t

has shown that the same law holds good with sea-
shells, but from the wide distribution of most mol-
lusca it is not well displayed by them. Other cases
could be added, as the relation between the extinct
and living brackish-water shells of the Aralo-Caspian
sea.'"

It is no explanation of the facts of geographical
distribution to say that species are specially adapted
to the habitats in which they are found ; that South
America, for instance, is especially fitted for eden-
tates, and Australia for marsupials. " That it is not
the suitability of organisms to the areas which they
inhabit that has determined their creation upon
these areas, is," says Romanes, "conclusively proved
by the effects of the artificial transportation of
species by man. For in such cases it frequently
happens, that the imported species thrives quite as
well in its new as in its old home, and indeed often
supplants the native species. As the Maoris say :
'As the white man's rat has driven away the native
rat, so the European fly has driven away our fly, so
the clover kills our fern, and so will the Maori him-
self disappear before the white man.* "'

The Demonstrative Evidence of Evolution.

We come now to what Huxley designates spe-
cifically "the demonstrative evidence of Evolution,"
the evidence based on the lineal succession of
several carefully-studied types, and above all, the

'•'The Origin of Species," vol, II, p. 121.

' " Scientific Evidence of Organic Evolution," chap. iv.

128 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

evidence based on the ancestors of the horse dis-
covered by Marsh and others. So strong, indeed, is
this evidence considered, that it has been said that
if the theory of Evolution had not existed before,
"paleontology would have been compelled to invent
it, so clearly are the traces of it to be seen in the
study of Tertiary mammalia discovered since 1859."

According to Prof. Huxley, "the primary and
direct evidence in favor of Evolution can be fur-
nished only by paleontology." Again he avers that:
" The only perfectly safe foundation for the doctrine
of Evolution lies in the historical, or rather archaeo-
logical evidence, which is furnished by fossil remains,
that particular organisms have arisen by the gradual
modification of their predecessors." He tells, too,
that " On the evidence of paleontology, the Evolution
of many existing forms of life from their predeces-
sors is no longer a hypothesis, but a historical fact ;
it is only the nature of the physiological factor to
which that Evolution is due which is still open to
discussion."'

But what about the pedigree of the horse ? What
about those ancestral equine forms about which so
much has been said and written?

The ancestors of the horse, as revealed by the
discoveries of Marsh and others, are " Protohippus or
kipparion, which is found in the Pliocene ; miohip-
pus and mesohippus, found in the Miocene ; orohippus
in the Eocene ; and eohippus, at the base of the Eo-
cene. In the protohippus each foot has three well-
formed digits ; miohippus, in addition to this, has a

^"Encyclopaedia Britannica," vol. VIII, p. 751.

B VIDENCES OF E VOL UTION. 129

rudimentary metacarpal bone of a fourth digit in
the fore-foot ; in tnesohippus this rudimentary meta-
carpal bone is more fully developed ; in orohippus
there are four well-developed digits in the fore-foot,
three in the hind-foot ; while in eohippus five digits
are present. Thus, this series of fossil forms fur-
nishes a complete gradation, from the older Tertiarj'
forms with four toes, up to the horse with one toe.
These forms differ not only as regards the number
of toes, but also in other respects, chiefly in the
gradual diminution and loss of independence of the
ulna and fibula, and in the gradual elongation of the
teeth and increasing complexity of the grinding
surfaces." *

Another interesting example frequently cited, of
transitionary forms, is the fossil, planorbis, found in
the bed of an old lake near the small village of
Steinheim, in Wurtemberg. In the successive strata
of this lake bottom occur an immense number of
shells of divers forms, and all from a few varieties
of one and the same species. In passing from the
lowest to the highest layers a great modification of
forms is observed, so much so, indeed, that were it
not for the countless intermediate forms one should
unhesitatingly say that the extreme forms belong,
not only to different species, but even to different
genera. As it is, however, the gradations are so in-
sensible that the conclusion is almost irresistible

^ " Lectures on the Darwinian Theory," by Dr. A. M. Mar-
shall, p. 67. For an interesting discussion with diagrams, of
this remarkable series of ancestral equine forms, see the third of
Huxley's " Lectures on Evolution," entitled The Demonstra-
tive Evidence of Evolution.

E.-9

130 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

that the various species observed are, at least in
this case, originated by derivation with modifica-
tions.'

The case just adduced is frequently appealed to
by evolutionists, not only because it has been exhaus-
tively studied, but also because it tells so strongly in
favor of the theory of derivation.

An equally striking instance, perhaps, is found
in the case of another group of mollusca belong-
ing to the paludina. At first, the six or eight
known gradational forms of this mollusc were reck-
oned as entirely distinct species. Subsequently,
however, numerous connecting forms were discov-
ered, so that now over two hundred varieties are
counted. But so gradual are the transitions of
one form into another, that shells which other-
wise would be considered as belonging to dif-
ferent genera are, by reason of the known con-
necting links, regarded as constituting but one and
the same species. "

Similar gradations have been shown by Cope to
exist among certain extinct mammalian forms, not-
ably among the species of the generalized family,
oreontitcB, but it is unnecessary to give further illus-
trations of this character, as those just instanced are
quite sufficient to exhibit the nature and force of
the argument which is based on the existence of
such gradational forms.

' Cf. A. Hjatt's "Anniversarj Memoir of the Boston Societj
of Natural History, 1880, on Genesis of Tertiary Species of
Planorbis at Steinheim."

' Cf. Romanes' •' Darwin after Darwin," vol. I, p. 19.

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION. 131

Generalized Types.

Confirmatory of the argument founded on the re-
markable series of transitional forms we have just been
considering, are those curious extinct animals called
by Huxley generalized, and by Dana, comprehen-
sive types ; types which by Agassiz were variously
designated as combining, connecting, synthetic and
prophetic types, and which embrace those strange
creatures that embodied the characters of two or
more groups at present widely separated from each
other. Among these were certain early verte-
brates which possessed both fish-like and reptilian
characters. At a later geologic epoch there existed
other animals, which possessed the characters of rep-
tiles and birds in such a curious combination, that we
are yet unable to decide whether they should be
called reptilian birds or bird-like reptiles. Among
these generalized types there were, in the words of
Grant Allen : " Lizards that were almost crows, mar-
supials that were almost ostriches, insectivores that
were almost bats, rodents that were almost mon-
keys." "Just on the stroke, when they were most
needed," declares the same writer, "connecting links
turned up in abundance between fish and amphibians,
amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, birds and
mammals, and all of these together in a perfect net-
work of curious cross-relationships."

Among these generalized forms may be men-
tioned the archcBopteryx, the pterodactyl and the
compsognathus. "In the archceopteryx,'' sdiys Hux-
ley, " we have an animal which, to a certain extent,
occupies a midway place between a bird and a

132 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

reptile." The pterodactyl was a reptile which was
avi-form and capable of flying. The compsognathus,
like the archceopteryx, was intermediate in form be-
tween a reptile and a bird, but was probably rather
an avian reptile than a reptilian bird.

Again we have such fossil vertebrates as Cuvier's
anoplotherium, which was intermediate in charac-
ter between pigs and ruminants ; the palcBotherium
which connected together such dissimilar animals
as the horse, the tapir, and the rhinoceros. More
remarkable still are the generalized types known as
the condylarthra, the primitive form of which Cope
considers the common ancestor of all true mam-
malia.'

And so we might mention other synthetic types
brought to light by Gaudry, Riitimeyer, and other
paleontologists. It was, indeed, M. Gaudry 's re-
searches in Attica, where he discovered an extraor-
dinary number of gradational forms among the
higher vertebrates, which convinced him that Evolu-
tion is the only theory that is competent to ex-
plain the existence of those remarkable connecting
types which are every day, thanks to the investiga-
tions now conducted throughout the world, becom-
ing more numerous and marvelous. "A few strokes
of the pick-axe at the foot of Mount Pentelicus,"
says the eminent French savant, " have revealed to
us the closest connecting links between forms which
before seemed very widely separated."

How much closer and more remarkable these
links will become with the progress of research, when

* Cf. " Origin of the Fittest,'' pp. 343, et seq.

E VIDENCBS OF E VOL UTION. 133

the as yet vast and unexplored regions of the earth
shall have yielded up a portion of their fossil treas-
ures, can easily be divined. Already the general-
ized fossil types which have been discovered, have
completely revolutionized all systems of classifica-
tion which were based on existing specialized forms.
For, by tracing the widely separated groups of the
present back to past geologic time, we find that
the specialized types of our day gradually converge
towards, and merge into, the generalized types long
since extinct. Species the most diverse gradually
approach each other, and eventually unite to form
common branches, and these again coalesce in a
common trunk.'

And this is just what the theory of Evolution
demands. For, " If the theory of Evolution be
true," says Huxley," it follows that however diverse
the different groups of plants and of animals may
be, they must all, at one time or other, have been
connected by gradational forms ; so that, from the
highest animals, whatever they may be, down to
the lowest speck of protoplasmic matter in which
life may be manifested, a series of gradations, lead-
ing from one end of the series to the other, either
exists or has existed." "

^" Hence," declares Huxley, in his article on Classification
in the Encyclopsedia Britannica, " it follows that a perfect and
final zoological classification cannot be made until we know all
that is important concerning: i, the adult structure; 2, the per-
sonal development; 3, the ancestral development of animals.
It is hardly necessary to observe that our present knowledge,
as regards even the first and second heads, is very imperfect ;
while as respects the third it is utterly fragmentary.

* " Lectures on Evolution." Lecture H.

134 E VOL UTION AND DOGMA.

Probability of Evolution.

Such, then, in brief, is the argument in favor of
Evolution from classification, morphology, embry-
ology, geographical distribution and geological suc-
cession. The argument, as based on any one of
these four classes of facts, is strong, and to many,
if not most contemporary naturalists, conclusive.
But when we consider the joint effect of the argu-
ment built on the four classes of facts, and note in
detail the perfect harmony, the argument becomes
still stronger and, to all appearances, irrefragable.
The evidence furnished by one class of facts corrob-
orates and explains those offered by the others, and
thus the cumulative force of the testimony, given by
all the four classes, renders the theory, to say the
least, in the highest degree probable. We may not
be prepared to admit that the theory has the force of a
demonstration. If it had, organic Evolution would
cease to be any longer a matter of scientific inquiry
and would at once become a matter of scientific fact.

But although Evolution is but a theory, and not
a demonstration, a probability and not a certainty,
it nevertheless possesses for the working naturalist a
value that can be fully appreciated only by those
who have labored in the museum and in the labora-
tory. " Probability," Bishop Butler tells us, " is the
guide of life." It is no less truly the guide of sci-
ence, and a highly probable theory often contributes
as effectually towards the advancement of science
and the acquisition of truth as would a demon-
strated fact.

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION. 135

From what precedes it is evinced, that Evolu-
tion as a theory, to claim no more for it, is in the
highest degree probable. It is, in fact, the sole natu-
ral explanation of the facts discussed ; the sole theory
that is in accordance with what Sir William Hamil-
ton calls the law of parsimony ; a law which was
fully recognized by Fathers and Scholastics when
they taught that we should not invoke the action of
supernatural causes, when natural agencies are ade-
quate to account for the facts and phenomena ob-
served.

special Creation and Evolution.

Special creation, as an explanation of the multi-
tudinous fornis of life with which the earth teems,
and has teemed during long aeons past, is but an
assumption, and an assumption, too, that has no
warrant outside of the individual opinions of certain
commentators of Scripture; opinions which, by the
very nature of the case, can carry with them no
greater weight than would attach to the views of
their authors on any other question of natural sci-
ence. As to Scripture itself, and the teaching of the
Fathers and Doctors of the Church, we shall see in
the sequel that their testimony is as strongly in favor
of derivative creation. Evolution under the Provi-
dential guidance of natural causes, as it possibly can
be in favor of the old and now almost universally
discarded theory of special creations.'

1' En paleontolog-ie,'' declared the Abbe Guillemet before
the International Catholic Scientific Congress at Brussels last
year, " les inductions evolutionistes expHquent sans peine par la
descendance d'ancStres communs ces enchaincments si bien mis

136 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

As a theory, Evolution certainly reposes on as
firm a foundation as do the atomic theory of matter
and undulatory theory of light, or as does Newton's
theory of universal gravitation. And as these theo-
ries have been of priceless service to the chemist, the
physicist and the astronomer, in the study of their
respective sciences, so also has Evolution been of
untold value to the naturalist, in enabling him to
coordinate a vast body of facts, that else were naught
but a stupendous chaotic mass. It has proved to
him to be an "open sesame" to many of nature's
secrets, and Hke the clue of Ariadne, it has enabled
him to find his way out of the bewildering labyrinth
in which every true student of nature must pass at
least a portion of his existence.

It is said that " a striking corroboration of a scien-
tific theory is furnished when it enables us correctly
to predict discoveries." Judged by this standard
Evolution can compare favorably with the best ac-
credited theories of modern science. It will suffice
to refer to but two cases in point, although it were
easy to adduce numerous others.

en evidence par des savants spiritualistes et Chretiens, tels que
D'Omalius d'Halloy et Albert Gaudry, et dont M. de Nadaillac
nous a concede la realite. Le fixisme, au contraire, en est
r^duit a invoquer une filiation intellectuelle dans la pensde du
Createur, une sorte d'evolutionisme ideal. On comprend cela
pour un architecte humain, qui ne pent pas tirer une cath^drale
d'une cathedrale sinon par imitation. Mais celui dont ' les
dons sont sans repentance' detruira-t-il sans cesse ce qu'il a
cree pour recreer a nouveau ? Ne preferera-t-il pas conserver
a ses creatures une vie renouvelee et raieunie dans une descend-
ance qu'il perfectionnera de generation en generation, recom-
pensant par I'ascension de fils la fidelite des prog^niteurs a leur
lois naturelles." " Compte Rendu," Section d'Anthropologie,
p. 27.

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION. 137

In the first edition of his " Origin of Species " Dar-
win wrote : " We may thus account even for the
distinctness of whole classes from each other — for
instance, of birds from all other vertebrated animals,
by the belief that many animal forms of life have
been utterly lost, through which the early progeni-
tors of birds were formerly connected with the
early progenitors of other vertebrate classes."

At the time this prophecy was made there was
no positive evidence of the existence of such inter-
calated forms as Darwin required. Three years
later the archceoptcryx was discovered, meeting
completely all the requirements of theory. Subse-
quent discoveries, notably by Marsh, disclosed other
transitional forms which "bridge over the gap be-
tween reptiles and birds, in this sense, that they en-
able us to picture to ourselves forms from which
both birds and reptiles as we know them could have
sprung."

In his lecture on the Evolution of the horse, in
1876, Prof. Huxley spoke as follows: "Thus, thanks
to these important researches [those of Marsh and
other paleontologists], it has become evident that
so far as our present knowledge extends, the history
of the horse type is exactly and precisely that which
could have been predicted from a knowledge of the
principles of Evolution. And the knowledge we now
possess justifies us completely in the anticipation
that, when the still lower Eocene deposits, and
those which belong to the Cretaceous epoch, have
yielded up their remains of ancestral equine animals,
we shall find first, a form with four complete toes,

138 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

and a rudiment of the innermost or first digit in
front, with probably a rudiment of the fifth digit in
the hind foot ; while in still older forms the series of
the digits will be more and more complete, until we
come to the five-toed animals, in which, if the doc-
trine of Evolution is well founded, the whole series
must have taken its origin."

Only a few months after this declaration, Prof.
Marsh unearthed in the Eocene deposits of the West
an equine animal, eohippus, having four complete
toes and a rudimentary one in the front foot, thus
making good the first part of the prophecy. As to
the remaining part, it is, for men of science, only a
question of time until it, too, sees its fulfillment.

But the theory of Evolution enables not only pal-
eontologists, but also morphologists and embryolo-
gists, to predict the unseen and unknown. And this,
to say no more, is certainly a strong substantiation
of its truth. For we can ask no more of a theory
than that it accord with the facts it is designed to
explain. And the more perfectly the theory har-
monizes with the facts observed, the more nearly is
it demonstrated, so far as any purely inductive con-
clusion can be demonstrated.

The theory of organic Evolution may not, as yet,
be susceptible of an experimental demonstration —
although there are not wanting those who think such
a demonstration is forthcoming, if, indeed, it has not
already been furnished — but it unquestionably occu-
pies a high rank among the best accredited theories
of contemporary science. It seems, even now, to re-
pose on as firm a basis as did the Copernican theory

EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION. 139

in the days of Galileo and Tycho Brahe. For Evo-
lution, like the heliocentric theory, is in perfect har-
mony with all the manifold facts which it is designed
to integrate and interpret. How long will it be
before it passes from a theory to a demonstration ?
Or, will it ever be demonstrated in such wise as to
command the assent of all who are capable of weigh-
ing evidence, and discriminating between a scientific
fallacy and a legitimate scientific induction ? " These
are questions which only the future can answer.
Judging, however, by the progress which has been
made during the past half century towards the solu-
tion of many of the problems which have been dis-
cussed in this chapter, it does not seem unreasonable
to express the belief that it is only a question of time,
and probably not a very long time, until the theory
of organic Evolution shall be as firmly established as
is now the Copernican one of the solar system.

CHAPTER VIII.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST EVOLUTION.
Declarations of Anti- Evolutionists.

HAVING considered some of the arguments
which are usually adduced in support of Evo-
lution, we may now proceed to examine certain of
the objections which are urged against it. But as it
would require a large volume for anything approach-
ing a detailed presentation of the reasons advanced
for the acceptance of Evolution, so, likewise, would
it demand far more space than can here be afforded
for even a cursory discussion of the difficulties
which anti-evolutionists have raised against a theory
which, they contend, is discredited both by sound
philosophy and the incontestable facts of science.
" The theory is easy," declared De Quatrefages, " but
the application is difficult ; hence it is that those
transformists who have attempted this application
have invariably found that their hypotheses have led
to conditions which are inadmissible." '

' 'Journal des Savants, May, 1891.

It was in view of the hypothetical character of current
evolutionary teachings, especially of natural selection, that
Mgr. d'Hulst in referring to them expressed himself in the
following forcible and epigrammatic manner: " Le besoin de
vivre creant la vie, le besoin d'organes creant les organes, le
besoin d'ordre creant I'harmonie." Le Correspondani, Dec.
25, 1889.

(140)

OBJ EC TIONS A GA INS T BVOLU TION. 141

The distinguished French savant, Dr. Charles
Robin, is even more pronounced in his views. Evo-
lution, he asserts, is at best but "a poetical accumu-
lation of probabilities without proofs, of seductive
explanations without demonstration."

As to the defenders of the theory of Evolution,
they are accused of drawing universal conclusions
from particular premises ; of mistaking resemblance
for blood relationship ; of confounding variability
with transmutability, and of falsely proclaiming the
existence of a genealogical succession where there is
nothing more than a hierarchy of organic forms.
Anti-evolutionists may not, indeed, deny the possi-
bility of the derivation of higher from lower forms
of life ; they impugn the reality of such derivation.
They love to descant on the dictum of the Scholas-
tics, a possibili ad actum non valet consecutio — possi-
bility is far from implying existence. They charge
their opponents with making species of what are
only races, and confidently challenge them to indi-
cate a single instance in which one species has been
changed into another species, either in historic or in
geologic time." Species, they insist on it, are Divine

^ A few years ago, in 1888, M. Emile Blanchard, a distin-
guished naturalist and a member of the French Institute, wrote
as follows in the preface to his interesting work, " La Vie des
Etres Animes : " " J'ai souvent declare autour de moi que si un
investigateur par%enait a faire la demonstration scientifique
d'une certaine transformation chez quelques representanls d'un
groupe du regne animal, je me tenais a sa disposition pour pre-
senter ce resultat a I'Academie des Sciences, pour affirmer, pour
proclamer le triomphe de I'auteur." So far, it seems, no one
has accepted his challenge; a challenge made not in the spirit
of animosity or party, but solely in the interests of truth. For
as yet, the eminent savant contends, the theory of transformism
is not supported by a single serious and logical argument. And

142 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

and immutable. With Linnaeus, they declare species
and genera to be the work of nature/ and contend
that the ingenuity of man is incompetent to produce
anything beyond races and varieties.

The spider, they will have it, still spins its weh
as it did in the time of Aristotle, and the ant col-
lects its store of provisions in precisely the same
manner as was its wont in the days of Solomon.

For the sake of brevity, I shall limit myself to
the consideration of three of the chief objections
urged by anti-evolutionists against the theory of
derivation. The first refers to the alleged ab-
sence of all evidence regarding the transmutation of

hence, he continues, " Plus que jamais je renouvelle mon appel,
je declare ma bonne volont^, assurant que je ne soufFrirais en
aucune fajon de me trouver vaincu. Ayant pour me consoler
la perspective d'un progres scientifique dont Timportance serait
immense, c'est de toutes les forces de mon ame que je jette cette
parole a tous les amis des sciences naturelles: Montrcz-nous
une fois Vexemfle de la transformation d'une es/ece.''

'" Natura opus semper est species et genus ; culturje s^epius
varietas; artis et naturae classis et ordo." Elsewhere he writes
" Classes and orders are the inventions of science, species the
work of nature — Classis et ordo est sapientiae, species naturae
opus." In his " Philosophia Botanica," ^ 59, he declares that
genera, like species, are primordial creations. "Genus omne est
naturale, in primordio tale creatum."

In contradistinction, however, to the above dogmatic state-
ments, Linnaeus, as we have already learned, was not averse
from the idea that certain closely allied species had a common
origin and were the products of extended variation or hybridiza-
tion. Such species he called " the daughters of time " — tem-
poris filije. He seemed also to have a presentiment that the
day would come when botanists would regard all the species of
the same genera as descended from a common parent " Tot
species dici congeneres quot eadem matre sint progenitae," he
writes in vol. VI, p. 12, of the "Amoenitates Academicse." Nay,
more, in this same work, vol. I, p. 70, he suggests that not only
species but even genera, may have arisen from hybrids. " Novas
species immo et genera, ex copula diversarum specierum in
regno vegetabili oriri."

OBJECTIONS A GA INS T E VOL UTION. 143

species in times past, whether historic or geologic ;
the second to the imperfection of the geological rec-
ord; while the third is based on the infecundity
among individuals of different species. All three
objections are obvious and popular ones, and they
are, it must be admitted, not without their difficul-
ties. Men of science, however, are satisfied that
they have met these difficulties, and flatter them-
selves that they have long since given adequate, if
not complete, answers to the three objections men-
tioned. But the objectors themselves, are not so
minded. They still persist in asserting that their
difficulties remain unexplained, and that their ob-
jections have lost little, if any, of their original
cogency.

Historical and Archaeological Objections.

The first objection, then, is based on certain well-
known facts of history, prehistoric archaeology, and
paleontology.

As to history and archaeology we are informed,
that all their indications positively negative the con-
tention of evolutionists that there is not the slight-
est evidence, from the earliest dawn of civilization
until the present time, that there has ever been a sin-
gle instance of the transmutation of any one species,
whether plant or animal, into another species. On
the contrary, it is averred, all the well-attested facts
of history bearing on the subject, make unmistak-
ably for the absolute stability and immutability of
species in both the great kingdoms of nature, animal
and vegetable.

144 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Regarding animals, the testimony elicited is as
interesting as it is apparently conclusive. Thus, a
collection of shells has been unearthed in the house
of a painter in Pompeii, and all of them, even in their
minutest details, are identical with shells of the same
species now existing. As Pompeii was buried in
ashes A. D. 79, we have, therefore, certain proof that
the shells of the species in question have undergone
no change during the last eighteen hundred years.
The anatomical descriptions given by Galen of the
monkeys which he dissected in Alexandria, in the
second century of our era, enabled Camper not only
to recognize the species to which they belonged, but
to affirm that the species had, during the long period
elapsed, remained perfectly immutable. Aristotle,
who lived in the fourth century B. C, has left us ac-
counts of many marine and terrestrial animals, and
so accurate is he in his statements that naturalists
are able to assert positively, that the species described
have undergone no change during the long centuries
which have intervened between the days of the Stag-
irite and our own.

But the monuments of the Nile valley permit
us to extend our observations far beyond the times
of Galen and Aristotle. In the numerous paintings,
sculptures and bas-reliefs of this marvelous land, we
have to hand an astonishing mass of evidence and
apparently of such a character as to satisfy the ob-
jections of even the most critical and skeptical.

Egyptian Mummies.
The attention of the scientific world was first
directed to the value of these monuments in the

OBJECTIONS AGAINST EVOLUTION. 145

beginning of the present century. During the
French occupation of Egypt, from 1797 to 1801, the
men of science who accompanied the army made a
large collection of the embalmed bodies of conse-
crated animals and sent them home to swell the
treasures of the museums of Paris. Some idea of the
enthusiasm excited by the reception of these precious
remains of an age long past, may be formed from
the following passage of an official report regard-
ing them drawn up by Cuvier, Lamarck and Lac6-
p^de, professors in the Museum of Natural History.
" It seems," they write, "as if the superstition of
the ancient Egyptians had been inspired by nature
with a view of transmitting to after ages a monu-
ment of her history. That extraordinary and eccen-
tric people, by embalming with so much care brutes
which were the objects of their stupid adoration,
have left us, in their sacred grottoes, cabinets of
zoology almost complete. The climate has con-
spired with the art of embalming to preserve the
bodies from corruption, and we can now assure
ourselves by our own eyes what was the state of a
great number of species three thousand years ago.
We can scarcely restrain the transports of our imag-
ination on beholding thus preserved, with their
minutest bones, with the smallest portions of their
skin, and in every particular most perfectly distin-
guishable, many an animal, which at Thebes or
Memphis, two thousand or three thousand years
ago, had its own priests and altars." '

^ "Annales du Museum d'Histolre Naturelle," Tom. I, p. 234.

E.— 10

146 iB VOL U TION A ND DOGMA .

Among the mummies thus collected were those
of wild as well as those of domestic animals. " My
learned colleague, M. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire," writes
Cuvier in his great work, " Discours sur les Revolu-
tions de la Surface du Globe," ' " has collected in
the temples of upper and of lower Egypt all the
mummies of animals he was able to procure. He
has brought back ibises, birds of prey, dogs, mon-
keys, crocodiles, the head of a bull, all embalmed ;
and one does not discern any greater difference
between them and those we now see, than ■ is ob-
served between human mummies and the skeletons
of men of the present day."

Interesting, however, as are the mummified
remains of wild animals, those of domestic animals
have a greater value in all discussions bearing on
the question of transmutation of species. Among
the animals frequently embalmed were the dog, the
cat and the bull. But since the times when these
animals were worshipped on the banks of the Nile,
representatives of their species have been trans-
ported by man to almost every portion of the Old
and New Worlds, and have been exposed to every ex-
treme of climate and to the most diverse conditions
of life. And yet, notwithstanding all these great
changes of environment, the cat and the dog have
undergone little or no mutations, and the bull Apis
which was such a special object of worship among
the Egyptians, was in no wise different from repre-
sentatives of the same species now living.

^ P. 132, edition of 1830.

OBJECTIONS A GA INS T E VOL UTION. 147

Testimony of the Monuments.

The testimony afforded by mummies is corrob-
orated by that of the monuments; by the paintings,
sculptures and bas-reUefs which adorned the temples
and tombs of the Pharaohs. Thanks to the re-
searches of Nott, Broca and others, we are now able
to assert positively that the greyhound and the
terrier of the days of Rameses II., and even of an
earlier date, were the same in form and appearance
as they are at present, and that, consequently, they
have suffered no perceptible change during the last
four thousand or more years.'

And what holds good for the dog holds good also
for other animals which are represented on the
monuments of the Nile valley. " I have," says
Cuvier, " examined with care the figures of animals
and of birds engraved on the numerous obelisks
brought from Egypt to ancient Rome. In their
ensemble, which alone was the object of special atten-
tion on the part of the artists, these figures bear a
perfect resemblance to species now in existence.
Anyone may examine the copies of them given by
Kircher and Zoega. Without preserving the defini-

* There is in Egypt an indigenous type of dog, the parias,
formerl3' in a domestic, now in a semi-wild state, which can
claim a much greater antiquity than the greyhound or the
terrier. It is the image of this dog that constitutes the sole and
invariable sign for the word " dog " in all hieroglyphical inscrip-
tions, even the most ancient. This dog, there is reason to
believe, existed in a domestic state as early as the time of Mena,
of the first dynasty, a date which, according to Brugsch, would
carry us back over an interval of more than six thousand years.
And yet, despite all the vicissitudes through which they have
passed, the parias of to-day, so far as observation can discern,
are exactly what they were in the days of Egypt's first ruler.

148 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

tion of the original engravings, they nevertheless
offer figures which are readily recognizable. Among
them one may distinguish the ibis, the vulture, the
screech-owl, the falcon, the Egyptian goose, the lap-
wing, the rail, the asp, the horned viper, the long-
eared Egyptian hare and the hippopotamus.'

The monuments of Chaldea and Babylonia tell
the same story as those of Egypt, On a magnifi-
cent bas-relief found among the ruins of Babylon,
dating, it is said, from the time of Nabuchodonosor,
is depicted the figure of a noble mastiff, which in
form, proportions and physiognomy is so like unto
that of the finest type of a modern mastiff, that one
would say the engraving was made from a photograph
of one of our prize exhibition dogs. Similarly, Layard
gives us, in his " Nineveh and Babylon," a drawing of
a type of dog of which the characteristics are so
marked that naturalists have had no difficulty in
identifying it with a race still occurring in Thibet.

Evidence From Plants.

What has been said of animals may also be
iterated, and with equal truth, of plants both wild
and cultivated. There is no certain evidence that
even one of them has undergone any specific change
since the earliest dawn of history. More than this.
as far back even as paleobotany will serve as a
guide, we are unable to point to a single well-at-
tested instance of transmutation in a single species
of plant.

' Op. cit.

OBJECTIONS A GA INS T E VOL UTION. 149

Thus, the woods used in mediaeval buildings, as
well as those found in the buried ruins of British
and Roman villages, differ in no appreciable feature
from existing woods. Again, chestnuts, almonds and
other fruits found in the shop of a fruit-dealer in
Herculaneum, under the lava deposits made eight-
een centuries ago, are identical with those still
grown in the vicinity of Vesuvius.

But it is Egypt which supplies us with the best
preserved vegetable, as it has furnished the best ani-
mal specimens of an ancient date. Recent explora-
tions, particularly in the Nileland, have put us in
possession of materials which are far better for pur-
poses of comparison than anything which had been
previously known. "And happily," says Mr. Car-
ruthers, '* the examination of these materials has been
made by a botanist who is thoroughly acquainted
with the existing flora of Egypt, for Dr. Schwein-
furth has been a quarter of a century exploring the
plants of the Nile valley. The plant remains were
included within the mummy-wrappings, and being
thus hermetically sealed, have been preserved with
scarcely any change. By placing the plants in warm
water, Dr. Schweinfurth has succeeded in preparing a
series of specimens, gathered four thousand years ago,
which are as satisfactory for the purposes of science as
any collected at the present day. These specimens,
consequently, supply means for the closest examina-
tion and comparison with their living representatives.
The colors of the flowers are still present, even the
most evanescent, such as the violet of the larkspur
and the knapweed, and the scarlet of the poppy ; the

150 B VOL VTION AND DOGMA .

chlorophyll remains in the leaves, and the sugar in
the pulp of the raisins. Dr. Schweinfurth has deter-
mined no less than fifty-nine species, some of which
are represented by the fruits employed as offerings
to the dead, others by flowers and leaves made into
garlands, and the remainder by branches on which
the body was placed and which were inclosed within
the wrappings." *

Among the fruits used as votive ofTerings. dates,
figs and palm fruits are common, and are identical
with those which are still seen in the markets of
Egypt. Branches of the sycamore, one of the sacred
trees of Egypt, which had been used for the bier of
a mummy belonging to the twelfth dynasty, a thou-
sand years B.C., "were moistened and laid out by
Dr. Schweinfurth, equaling," he says, " the best sp>eci-
mens of this plant in our herbaria, and consequently
permitting the most exact comparison with living
sycamores, from which they dififer in no respect."

Very large quantities of linseed, found in tombs
three thousand and four thousand years old, differ
in nowise from the linseed still cultivated in the
Nile valley. And from the seeds examined it has
also been evinced, that the weeds which infest the
cultivated fields of today were not absent from the

* See opening address before the Biological Section of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science, as reported
in Nature^ Sept. 9. 1886. Mr. Carruthers is recognized as one
of the most eminent of contemporarj English botanists, and
hence, his words in the matter under discussion have special
weight.

I hare mjself examined Dr. Schweinfurth 's wonderful col-
lections in Curo, and can testify that Mr. Carruthers" account of
them is in no waj exaggerated.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST EVOLUTION. 151

gardens and plantations of the Pharaohs. The spiny
medick and the charlock, for instance, were as much
of a pest to the growers of barley and flax during
the age of the pyrann id-builders, as they are to the
fellahin of the last quarter of the nineteenth century.

" It is difficult," continues Mr. Carruthers, " with-
out the actual inspection of the specimens of plants
employed as garlands, which have been prepared by
Dr. Schweinfurth, to realize the wonderful condition
of preservation in which they are. The color of the
petals of papaver rheas, and the occasional presence
of the dark patch at their bases, present the same
peculiarities as are still to be found in this species
growing in Egyptian fields. The petals of the lark-
spur not only retain their reddish violet color, but
present the peculiar markings which are still found
in the living plant. A garland composed of wild
celery and small flowers of the blue lotus, fastened
together by fibers of papyrus, was found on a
mummy of the twelfth dynasty, about three thou-
sand years old. The leaves, flowers and fruits of the
wild celery have been examined with the greatest
care by Dr. Schweinfurth, who has demonstrated in
the clearest manner their absolute identity with the
indigenous form of this species now abundant in
most places in Egypt. The same may be said of
the other plants used as garlands, including two
species of lichens."

Nor is this all. The evidence afforded by archae-
ology and paleobotany is as direct and as unequivocal
as that of history. The cereals cultivated in prehis-
toric times, during the Roman occupation of Britain,

152 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

during the times of the mound-builders in the
Mississippi valley, and during the reign of the Incas
in Peru, were specifically the same and of as good
quality as those harvested by the scientific farmer
of to-day.

And yet more. We may even go so far back as
the Glacial and pre-Glacial periods — periods so re-
mote that, according to the calculations of Lyell,
Ramsay and others, they antedate our own era by
fully two hundred and fifty thousand years — and we
fail to find from an examination of the vegetable re-
mains of the time, that there has been any transi-
tion from one species to another. Scores of trees
and plants are known to have existed during pre-
Glacial times, which were in every respect, even in
the venation of the leaf, identical with their living
representatives of the present day. And yet, it is
urged by anti-transmutationists, this is not what one
should expect if the teachings of Evolution be true.
For as Mr. Carruthers pertinently observes : " The
various physical conditions which necessarily af-
fected these species, in their diffusion over such
large areas of the earth's surface, in the course of,
say, two hundred and fifty thousand years, should
have led to the production of many varieties, but
the uniform testimony of the remains of this con-
siderable pre-Glacial flora, as far as the materials
admit of a comparison, is that no appreciable change
has taken place."

Views of Agassiz, Barrande and Others.

One of the favorite arguments of Professor
Louis Agassiz against the transmutation of species.

OBJBCTTONS A GAINS T E VOL UTION. 153

was, as is well known, based on the observed perma-
nence of divers species of the marine forms which
contributed towards the production of the coral reefs
of Florida. In his charming work, "Methods of Study
in Natural History," ' the illustrious Swiss savant
declares that " upon the lowest calculation, based
upon the facts thus far ascertained as to their growth,
we cannot suppose that less than seventy thousand
years have elapsed since the coral reefs already
known to exist in Florida began to grow." And
as there is reason to believe that the entire penin-
sula of Florida is formed " of successive concentric
reefs, we must," the same authority asserts, "believe
that hundreds of thousands of years have elapsed
since its formation began."

Continuing, he writes : " So much for the dura-
tion of the reefs themselves. What, now, do they
tell us, of the permanence of the species of which
they were formed ? In these seventy thousand
years has there been any change in the corals living
in the Gulf of Mexico ? I answer, most emphat-
ically. No. Astraeans, pontes, maeandrinas, and
madrepores were represented by exactly the same
species seventy thousand years ago as they are
now. Were we to classify the Florida corals from
the reefs of the interior, the result would corre-
spond exactly to a classification founded upon the
living corals of the outer reefs to-day. Every spe-
cies, in short, that lives upon the present reef is
found in the more ancient one. They all belong to
our own geological period, and we cannot, upon the

' Chap. XII.

154 E VOL U TION A ND DOGMA .

evidence before us, estimate its duration at less than
seventy thousand years, during which time we have
no evidence of any change in species, but, on the
contrary, the strongest proof of the absolute perma-
nence of those species whose past history we have
been able to trace."

But strong as is the evidence just adduced, against
the mutability of species, that based on the investi-
gation of the eminent French paleontologist, Joachim
Barrande, is, so we are told, even more conclusive,
and that for the reason that it extends over a vastly
longer period of time. Barrande was undoubtedly
one of the most careful and most successful inquirers
into the life-history of certain periods of the remote,
geologic past, whom the world has yet known. In
Bohemia he had an exceptionally favorable area for
the study of the fossiliferous strata of the Silurian
Age, and his masterly work, " Syst^me Silurien de
la Boh^me," the most complete production of the
kind in existence, will ever remain a noble monu-
ment to his untiring industry and his incomparable
genius for research in the domain of the earlier forms
of terrestrial life.

The conclusion which this eminent man of science
arrives at, after long years of patient investigation,
and after the most careful examination of many
thousands of specimens, is, to quote his own words,
as follows : "Among the three hundred and fifty
species (of trilobites) of Bohemia, there is not a sin-
gle one which can be considered as having produced
by its variations a new specific form, distinct and
permanent. Thus, the traces of transformation by

OBJE C TIONS A GA INS T B VOL U TION. 1 55

way of filiation, are completely imperceptible among
the trilobites of the Silurian Age in Bohemia." *

Concerning cephalopods, of which more than a
thousand distinct forms are described, M. Barrande
declares, that there is not one among them, however
long the species may have lasted, which, during the
different stages of its existence, presents more marked
differences than do those which coexist on the same
horizon ; that not a single one of the countless ceph-
alopods which were examined by him, can be consid-
ered as even the first step towards transformation,
for all these forms disappear simultaneously, with-
out any recognizable posterity.

* In view of the importance of M. Barrande-S testimony, I
here present his conclusions in full, as found in his work entitled,
"Defense des Colonies," p. 155.

" I. Les Trilobites de Boheme qui offrent dans leurs formes
la trace de quelques variations sont au nombre de 10. Comme
nous connaissons aujourd'hui 350 especes de cette tribu, dans
notre bassin, on voit qu'il en reste environ 340 qui paraissent
conserver une forme invariable, pendant toute la duree de leur
existence.

" 2. Les variations signalees dans les especes qui ont joui de
la plus grande longevite, sont relatives seulement aux dimensions
du corps, a la grosseur des yeux, au nombre correspondant des
lentilles, au nombre des articulations visibles du pygidium, et au
nombre des pointes ornementales.

" 3. Ces variations ne sont pas permanentes, xnz.\%puretnent
temporaires, et, dans la plupart des cas, nous avons constat^ le
retour des derniers reprSsentants de Tespece a la forme typique
ou primitive. Ainsi ces variations ne semblent etre que des
oscillations transitoires. Elles se manifestent quelquefois parmi
des individus contemporains, et, par consequent, sans I'influence
des ages geologiques.

"4. Parmi les 350 especes de Boheme, il n'en existe aucune
qui puisse etre consideree comme ayant produit, par ses varia-
tions, une nouvelle forme specifique, distincte et permanente.
Ainsi, les traces de la transformation, par voie de filiation, sont
conpletement imperceptibles parmi les trilobites du Silurien de
Boheme."

156 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Davidson's exhaustive researches on the brachio-
pods of the English formations, lead him to the same
conclusions as those arrived at by Barrande after his
prolonged studies of the trilobites and cephalopods
of Bohemia, viz., that there is not the slightest
trace of any tendency towards development on the
part of the species examined.

Similar testimony is given by Mr. Williamson
regarding fossil plants. After forty years of patient
study of the vegetable remains of different geolog-
ical ages, he does not hesitate to affirm that the ferns
whose imprints are of such frequent occurrence in
certain strata of the Carboniferous Age, have re-
tained their essential characteristics until the present
time. For, if we compare those which now abound
in our forests with those which gave beauty to the
landscape in Paleozoic time, we find that they have
neither advanced nor retrograded.

It were easy to add to the list of persistent types
of animals and plants, of those, namely, which en-
dured unchanged during long geologic periods. I
might speak of the terebratulae and globigerinae
which take us back to the Cretaceous Period ; of
certain types of scorpions which flourished during
the Carboniferous Age and which are scarcely dis-
tinguishable from modern scorpions ; of the lingulae
and lingulellae which, appearing in the lower Silu-
rian rocks, have persisted practically unchanged
through all the grand climacterics of the world.'

* For able and dignified discussions of the questions here
considered, see " Paleontologie et Darwinisme," by the eminent
Belgian geologist, Charles de la Vallee Poussin, in the '' Revue

OByECTIONS AGAINST EVOLUTION. 157

In the preceding pages I have presented fully,
and somewhat in detail, one of the stock arguments of
anti-evolutionists against the transmutation of spe-
cies. I have allowed the ablest and most noted oppo-
nents of the Evolution theory to present their objec-
tion in their own words, and have endeavored to select
what have always been considered the most telling
arguments against transpeciation. What, now, is the
answer to the objection, or is any answer possible ?
What explanation can be given of facts which seem
so utterly irreconcilable with the cardinal principles
of Evolution, and so antagonistic to the fundamen-
tal tenets of the leading exponents of transformism.

Misapprehension of the Nature of Evolution and Answer
to Objections.

The objection, as presented, rests on a total
misapprehension of the nature of Evolution. It
assumes that when an animal or a vegetable form
once comes into existence, it must necessarily and
continuously undergo progressive modifications. It
assumes, too, that such modifications as may oc-
cur, must take place at the same rate in one form of
life as in another. Both these postulates are equally
unwarranted, for they are both totally at variance
with Evolution as understood by its founders and
approved spokesmen.

An answer, however, to the objection, was indi-
cated nearly a century ago by Cuvier's great con-

de Questions Scientifiques " for January, 1S77, and " Le Trans-
formisme et la Discussion Libre," in the same review for Janu-
ary and April, 1889, by De. Kirwan, who writes under the
pseudonym of Jean d' Estienne.

158 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

temporary, Lamarck. Replying to the argument
based on the unchanged condition of the fauna
and flora of Egypt, he observed that " the animals
and plants referred to had not experienced any
modification in their specific characters, because the
climate, soil and other conditions of life had not
varied in the interval. But if," he continued, " the
physical geography, temperature and other natural
conditions of Egypt, had altered as much as we
know they have done in many countries in the
course of geological periods, the same animals and
plants would have deviated from their pristine types
so widely as to rank as new and distinct species." *

This answer of Lamarck's is, with some modifi-
cations, the answer which is now given by men of
science to the objection under consideration. When-
ever the environment remains unchanged, where the
conditions of life are always identical, the fauna and
flora of a given area may persist without any spe-
cific mutations for an indefinite period of time. Re-
garding Egypt it is notorious, that its climate and
soil are to-day precisely what they were during the
reign of the first of the Pharaohs, and precisely what
they were when the bull Apis was led in solemn pro-
cession to the temples of Memphis and Heliopolis.
As to other examples of animals and plants which
.have resisted specific change, not only during thou-
sands, but also millions of years, the same answer
may be given. The environment may have been
modified more or less, but not sufficiently to effect

Philosophie Zoologique," pp. 70, et seq.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST EVOLUTION. 159

transmutation of the species named. For it must
be borne in mind, that all species are not equally
susceptible of change in consequence of mutations
of climate and physical geography. Some are more
stable and more cosmopolitan than others, and
hence are capable of accommodating themselves
within certain limits to quite considerable changes
in surrounding conditions, without exhibiting the
slightest indications of specific transmutations.

Then, too, we have " elastic types," those types,
namely, which as M. Gaudry tells us, have the
power of undergoing greater or less modifications
and of returning sooner or later to their original
condition. The rhynconella is a case in point.
When the ocean bed is in anywise modified, rhyn-
conella exhibits a corresponding change ; when the
ocean returns to its original state, rhynconella re-
verts to its pristine condition. Thus, in virtue of
its elasticity, of its facility of accommodating itself
to changes of environment, this marvelous brachio-
pod has been able to pass unscathed through
mutations and catastrophes innumerable.

Again, it may be observed, that the changes of
environment are not always so great as they are
sometimes imagined to be. Thus, the conditions of
life in a given area of the ocean may remain practi-
cally unchanged for long geological periods. The
temperature and depth of the water might easily
remain constant for untold sons, and, in such an
event, there is no reason why the ocean fauna should
not endure without variation for an indefinite
time.

180 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Even in the case of the vegetable organisms
which Mr. Carruthers puts in evidence, there is
reason to beHeve that the variations in cHmate to
which they have been subject, have been far less
than is usually thought. We can say of these what
Darwin asserts of certain Arctic forms, that " they
will not have been exposed to any great diversity of
temperature and, as they all migrated in a body
together, their mutual relations will not have been
much disturbed." ' Where, however, Arctic species
have been left stranded on Alpine areas by the
retreat of glaciation, and where the species thus
isolated have been subsequently exposed to differ-
ences of climate, and to the influences of foreign
plants and insects, we would expect to discover
evidences of transmutation, to find the stranded
species to differ, not only from their parent Arctic
forms, but to differ also from those of the same
origin occurring on neighboring mountain ranges.
And this is what Darwin tells us is the fact, " for if,"
he says, " we compare the present Alpine plants and
animals of the several great European mountain
ranges, one with another, though many of the
species remain identically the same, some exist as
varieties, some as doubtful forms or sub-species, and
some as distinct, yet closely allied species, repre-
senting each other on the several ranges." *

In the instance just quoted, as in countless
others that might be adduced, we have an illustra-
tion of a phenomenon with which all naturalists are

^ " The Origin of Species," vol. II, p. 154.
'Op. cit. vol. II, p. 155.

OBJE C TIONS A GA INS T EVOLU TIO^ . 161

familiar, to-wit, that some types, both of animals
and plants, are more plastic than others. Those
which are the most plastic most readily undergo
specific transformation, whilst, on the contrary,
those which are rigid experience little or no change,
even when exposed to very considerable mutations
of environment.

Existence and Cause of Variations.

Of the existence of variations, numerous and im-
portant, there can then be no reasonable doubt. This
fact, long known, is daily corroborated by evidence
which cannot be gainsaid. But the existence of
variations must not be confounded with the cause
which originates them, for this, as yet, is shrouded
in mystery. Huxley admits this without hesitation
and refers to it as follows : " The cause of the pro-
duction of variations is a matter not at all properly
understood at present. Whether variation depends
upon some intricate machinery, if I may use the
phrase, of the living organism itself, or whether
it arises through the influence of conditions upon
that form, is not certain, and the question for the
present may be left open. But the important point
is that, granting the existence of the tendency to the
production of variations, then, whether the varia-
tions which are produced shall survive and supplant
the parent, or whether the parent form shall survive
and supplant the variations, is a matter which de-
pends entirely on those conditions which give rise
to the struggle for existence. If the surrounding
conditions are such that the parent form is more

162 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

competent to deal with them, and flourish in them,
than the derived forms, then in the struggle for exis-
tence the parent form will maintain itself and the
derived forms will be exterminated. But if, on the
contrary, the conditions are such as to be more fa-
vorable to a derived than to a parent form, the parent
form will be extirpated and the derived form will take
its place. In the first place there will be no pro-
gression, no change of structure, through any
imaginable series of ages ; and in the second place
there will be modification and change of form." '

Paucity of Transitional Forms.

The second objection, like the preceding, is an
obvious one, and at first sight equally plausible. It
is based on the paucity of transitional forms, or
" missing links," in the various sedimentary strata of
the earth's crust. At first blush the objection
seems to be fatal to the theory of Evolution, as it
certainly would be fatal, if well founded, to the the-
ory of natural selection, which supposes that species
have advanced from lower to higher forms by infini-
tesimal increments. So much importance, indeed,
does Darwin attach to this objection, that he devotes
a whole chapter in his " Origin of Species " to its so-
lution. And although he frankly admits that the
geological record, so far as at present known, still
opposes insuperable difficulties to his theory of nat-
ural selection, it does not follow, as we shall see far-
ther on, that such difficulties can validly be urged

*" Science and Hebrew Tradition," pp. 83 and 84.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST EVOLUTION. 163

against the general theory of organic Evolution, as
distinguished from Evolution through natural selec-
tion.

In the first place it is to be observed, that transi-
tional forms are the first to become extinct in the
struggle for existence; for it is well known that
competition is more marked and devastating among
intermediate or intercalated forms, than among forms
which are more widely divergent. Thus, in phi-
lology it is remarked, that among a large number of
dialects, certain closely allied ones die out, whilst
others, more widely differentiated, become the domi-
nant forms of speech. The means perish, while the
extremes wax strong and end by attaining suprem-
acy. Hence, of the countless dialects which in Italy,
France and Spain had their origin in the Latin
tongue, but three have attained to the dignity of a
dominant language, and of being the vehicle of a
national literature. These three are what are now
known as the Italian, French and Spanish languages,
the competing dialects having been worsted in the
struggle for existence, and condemned to an earlier or
later extinction.

A process quite analogous to this goes on among
the divers forms of animated nature, the means
showing themselves the weaker, and the extremes
exhibiting themselves the stronger in the contest
for supremacy. Commenting on this fact, Darwin
writes as follows: "As the species of the same genus
usually have, though by no means invariably, much
similarity in habits and constitution, and always in
structure, the struggle will generally be more severe

164 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

between them, if they come into competition with
each other, than between the species of distinct
genera. We see this in the recent extension over
the United States, of one species of swallow, having
caused the decrease of another species. The recent
increase of the missel-thrush in parts of Scotland has
caused the decrease of the song-thrush. How fre-
quently we hear of one species of rat taking the place
of another species under the most different climates !
In Russia, the small, Asiatic cockroach has every-
where driven before it its great congener. In Aus-
tralia, the imported hive-bee is rapidly exterminating
the small, stingless, native bee. One species of char-
lock has been known to supplant another species ;
and so in other cases. We can dimly see why com-
petition should be most severe between allied forms
which fill nearly the same place in the economy of
nature ; but probably in no one case could we pre-
cisely say why one species had been victorious over
another in the great battle of life." '

Variations and the Formation of Fossiliferous Deposits.

Then again, it must be observed that it is not
probable that variation has been going on at a uniform
rate during the long course of the life-history of the
earth. On the contrary, it is more likely that long
periods of stability have alternated with brief periods
of disturbance of greater or less extent. During the
former periods specific forms would experience com-
paratively little change, whereas, during the latter,
variations would rapidly accumulate and be strongly

* "The Origin of Species," vol. I, pp. 93 and 94.

OBJB C TIONS A GA TNS T B VOL UTION. 1 65

accentuated. Such being the case, the number of
gradational forms will be far less numerous than the
forms contained in the species which persist with
little or no modifications during long cycles of time.
Furthermore, it is now generally admitted that
the strata which are richest in fossils were usually, if
not always, deposited during eras which were least
favorable for the development of transitional forms,
that is, during eras when variation and extinction
were least rapid. On the theory that natural selec-
tion has been the dominant factor in Evolution ; on
the theory, namely, that progress has resulted solely,
or at least chiefly, in consequence of the accumula-
tion of infinitesimal increments, a condition of things
must have existed during the formation of fossilifer-
ous strata, which it is certain could have obtained
only at extremely rare intervals. For, as Darwin
points out : " In order to get a perfect gradation be-
tween two forms in the upper and lower parts of the
same formation, the deposit must have gone on con-
tinuously accumulating during a long period suffi-
cient for the slow process of modification ; hence
the deposit must be a very thick one, and the spe-
cies undergoing change must have lived in the same
districts throughout the whole time. But we have
seen that a thick formation, fossiliferous throughout
its entire thickness, can accumulate only during a
period of subsidence ; and to keep the depth approxi-
mately the same, which is necessary that the same
marine species may live on the same space, the sup-
ply of sediment must nearly counterbalance the
amount of subsidence. But this same movement of

166 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

subsidence will tend to submerge the area whence
the sediment is derived, and thus diminish the sup-
ply whilst the downward movement continues. In
fact, this nearly exact balancing between the supply
of sediment and the amount of subsidence is prob-
ably a rare contingency ; for, it has been observed
by more than one paleontologist, that very thick de-
posits are generally barren of organic remains, except
near their upper or lower limits." '

The foregoing are but a few of the reasons that
might be assigned for the paucity of intermediate
forms which characterizes the earth's fossil-bearing
strata. When we come to reflect on the matter,
however, the wonder is not that there is such a small
number of gradational forms, but rather that there
are any fossils at all. For everything has tended to
render their formation impossible ; and in the com-
paratively few instances in which circumstances have
been favorable to the fossilization of animal or vege-
table forms, a variety of circumstances has intervened
to compass their destruction. Such being the case,
therefore, we should be surprised, not at the exist-
ence of such extensive tracts that are utterly devoid
of any traces of organic life, but rather at the fact
that there are so many formations in different parts
of the world which contain such a wealth of fossil
remains.

For let us consider for a moment under what ad-
verse conditions the slight vestiges of the fauna and
flora of the ancient world have been preserved ;
what are a few of the agents of destruction, how

* Op. cit., vol. II. pp. 68 and 69.

OByECTIONS A GAINST E VOL UTION. 1 67

continuous their action, and how inevitable their ef-
fect. We shall then learn that evolutionists have
reason for insisting so strongly on the imperfection
of the geological record, and for appealing to the re-
sults of future research and discovery for a confirma-
tion of certain facts of their theory, and for an ex-
planation of certain difficulties which, as matters now
stand, are admittedly insoluble.

As to the formation of fossils, it is, as is well
known, only the hard portions of organisms which
are ever fossilized. But even these, as well as the
softer parts, soon suffer disintegration unless in some
way screened from sub-aerial agencies competent to
decompose them, and unless they are protected from
the solvent action of salt water, or fresh water hold-
ing carbonic acid in solution.

Again, as Darwin remarks, '' we probably take a
quite erroneous view, when we assume that the
sediment is being deposited over nearly the whole
bed of the sea at a rate sufficiently thick to embed
and preserve fossil remains. Throughout an enor-
mously large proportion of the ocean, the bright
blue tint of the water bespeaks its purity. The
many cases on record of a formation conformably
covered, after an immense interval of time, by an-
other and later formation, without the underlying
bed having suffered in the interval any wear and
tear, seem explicable only on the view of the bottom
of the sea not rarely lying for ages* in an unaltered
condition." ' " In regard to the mammiferous re-
mains," the same authority continues, "a glance at

*Op. cit., vol. II, p. 5S.

168 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

the historical table published in Lyell's * Manual*
will bring home the truth, how accidental and rare is
their preservation, far better than .pages of detail.
Nor is their rarity surprising when we consider how
large a proportion of the bones of Tertiary mammals
have been discovered either in caves or in lacustrine
deposits ; and that not a cave or true lacustrine
bed is known belonging to the age of our secondary
or Palaeozoic formations."'

But if the formation of fossils be rare and some-
thing wholly exceptional, when we consider the
myriad organisms which are never fossilized ; if
shells and bones are always disintegrated unless
adequately protected from the countless unfavorable
and destructive agencies to which they are exposed,
their preservation, after having been formed, is
something which, when the facts of the case are
known, must appear even more remarkable.

Romanes on Difficulties Attending Preservation of Fossils.

Mr. George Romanes, Darwin's favorite and most
ardent disciple, has so accurately and picturesquely
described the divers agencies which contribute to
the annihilation of fossil forms, that I need make no
apology for quoting him at length.

" But of even more importance," he writes, "than
this difficulty of making fossils in the first instance, is
the difficulty of preserving them when they are
made. The vast majority of fossils have been
formed under water, and a large proportional num-
ber of these, whether the animals were marine, ter-

' Ibid, pp. 59 and 60.

OBJECTIONS A GA INS T E VOL UTION 169

restrial, or inhabitants of fresh water, have been
formed in sedimentary deposits either of sand,
gravel or other porous material. Now, where such
deposits have been afterwards raised into the air
for any considerable time, and this has been more
or less the case with all deposits which are avail-
able for exploration, their fossiliferous contents will
have been, as a general rule, dissolved by the per-
colation of rain-water charged with carbonic acid.
Similarly, sea-water has recently been found to be
a surprisingly strong solvent of calcareous material ;
hence, Saturn-like, the ocean destroys its own prog-
eny as far as shells and bones of all kinds are con-
cerned, and this to an extent of which we have
probably no adequate conception.

" Of still greater destructive influence, however,
than these solvent agencies in earth and sea, are the
erosive agencies of both. Anyone who watches
the pounding of the waves upon the shore ; who
then observes the effect of it upon the rocks broken
into shingle, and on the shingle reduced to sand ;
who, looking behind him at the clifTs, sees there evi-
dence of the advance of this all-pulverizing power — an
advance so gradual that no yard of it is accomplished
until within that yard the * white teeth ' have eaten
well into the ' bowels of the earth ; ' who then reflects
that this process is going on simultaneously over
hundreds of thousands of miles of coast-lines through-
out the world ; and who finally extends his mental
vision from space to time, by trying dimly to im-
agine what this ever-roaring monster must have
consumed during the hundreds of millions of years

170 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

that slowly rising and slowly sinking continents have
exposed their whole areas to her jaws ; whoever
thus observes and thus reflects must be a dull man, if
he does not begin to feel that in the presence of
such a destroyer as this we have no reason to wonder
at a frequent silence in the testimony of the rocks.
" But although the erosive agency of the sea is
thus so inconceivably great, it is positively small as
compared with erosive agencies on land. The con-
stant action of rain, wind and running water, in
wearing down the surfaces of all lands into * the
dust of continents to be ; ' the disintegrating effects
on all but the hardest rocks of winter frosts alter-
nating with summer heats ; the grinding power of
ice in periods of glaciation, and last, but not least,
the wholesale melting up of sedimentary forma-
tions whenever these have sunk any considerable
distance beneath the earth's surface — all these
agencies taken together constitute so prodigious
a sum of energies, combined through immeasurable
ages in their common work of destruction, that
when we try to realize what it must amount to,
we can scarcely fail to wonder, not that the geolog-
ical record is highly imperfect, but that so much of
the record has survived as we find to have been the
case. And, if we add to these erosive and solvent
agencies on land the erosive and solvent agencies of
the sea, we almost begin to wonder that anything
deserving the name of geological record is in exist-
ence at all."'

' " Darwin and After Darwin," vol. I, pp. 423-425. For an
exhaustive discussion of the disintegrating and destructive ef-

OBJE C TIONS A GA TNS T EVOLU TION. 1 71

That the effects of denudation are not exag-
gerated in the preceding quotation, is manifest from
a number of facts to which Darwin has directed at-
tention, and of which he was the first to realize the
true import in their bearings on Evolution. In
Europe, but especially in North and in South Amer-
ica, there are immense areas, embracing many thou-
sands of square miles, in which the surface rocks are
entirely granitic or metamorphic. This implies that
denudation has here taken place on a tremendous
scale. And the utter absence of fossils in such rocks
shows conclusively how completely the work of de-
struction was accomplished, so completely, indeed,
that of the animal and vegetable remains which
must have originally existed in these portions of the
earth not a vestige now remains. In view of such
facts Darwin considers it "quite probable, that in
some parts of the world whole formations have
been completely denuded, with not a wreck left be-
hind."

Small Percentage of Fossil Forms.

But this is not all. We have positive evidence
that during certain periods many species existed in
countless numbers, although, so far, not a fragment
of bone has been found within the area in which
they once flourished. The strange, bird-like forms
that once inhabited the Connecticut valley are in-
stances in point. Although more than a score of

fects of aqueous, glacial and igneous agencies, the reader may
consult with profit the pages of Lyell's admirable " Principles of
Geology."

172 E VOL U TION A ND DOGMA .

species of this character had their habitat in the
district, and in its vicinity, the only tangible evidences
which we yet possess that they ever existed, are the
tracks and foot-prints which they left in the shales
and sandstones of Connecticut and New Jersey.

In other cases, again, all that has so far been
discovered of what, in their time, were manifestly
important species, is a single tooth, or a single bone,
or even only a small fragment of bone. That future
research will disclose remains of these species, in
larger quantities or in greater numbers, there is
reason to believe, but however rich the finds may
be, it will always be true that the fossils which have
been preserved are but an insignificant portion of
those which were actually formed, and that the re-
mains of organisms which were fossilized were but an
infinitesimal part of those which were completely
destroyed before fossilization was possible.

Darwin's observations on sessile cirripeds corrob-
orate in the most striking manner what has been
stated in the preceding paragraphs, and show how
a large group of animals, represented by an extraor-
dinary number of individuals all over the world, in
every latitude and " inhabiting various zones of
depths from the upper tidal limit to fifty fathoms,"
may fail to leave even a trace of their existence during
long geological periods. " Not long ago, paleontolo-
gists maintained that the whole class of birds came
suddenly into existence during the Eocene Period ;
but now we know, on the authority of Prof. Owen,
that a bird certainly lived during the Upper Green-
sand ; and still more recently that strange bird, the

OBJECTIONS AGAINST EVOLUTION. 173

archaeopteryx, with a long lizard-like tail bearing a
pair of feathers on each joint, and with its wings
furnished with two free claws, has been discovered
in the Oolitic slates of Solenhofen. Hardly any
recent discovery shows more forcibly than this how
little we as yet know of the former inhabitants of
the world."'

Another important fact we should not lose sight
of is, that as yet but a comparatively small portion
of the earth has been explored by geologists. The
formations of the earth in North America are fairly
well known, but even in these portions of the world
there is still much to be learned. As to South
America, Asia, Africa, Australia, they are for the
most part terr(e incognitcB to the paleontologist.
Such being the case it were foolish in the extreme to
dogmatize on the sequence of organic forms in past
geologic time, or to attempt to base an argument
against Evolution on the absence of certain transi-
tional types and on the consequent imperfection of
the record so far at our disposal.

It has been estimated that not so much as one
per cent., of the countless species of animals which
have flourished since the first dawn of life, has left
the slightest trace of its past existence. Marine
forms, as might be expected, are better represented
than land forms. Indeed there are not wanting
those who assert, that of terrestrial types not more
than one species in a thousand is represented by
known fossils.

" The Origin of Species," vol. II, pp. 79 and 80.

174' EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Extraordinary Intercalary Forms.

But in spite of the rarity of fossils in comparison
with the almost infinite number of individuals repre-
sented ; in spite of the paucity of fossil species as
compared with the total number which must have
existed since the advent of life ; in spite of the lim-
ited area of the earth which has so far been ex-
plored by the paleontologist, there are, as indicated
in the preceding chapter, many examples of inter-
calary forms of the most extraordinary character.
And all the instances adduced, be it remembered,
constitute so much positive evidence in behalf of
the theory of organic Evolution. The absence of
transitional varieties in certain formations is, at best,
but negative evidence, and such evidence is of but
little value, or rather it is of no value, in face of all
the positive evidence which recent research has
brought to light. Thanks to the discoveries of
Gaudry, Marsh, Cope and others, the number of
intermediate forms has, within the past few years,
been wonderfully augmented, and there is every
reason to believe that future exploration will, in like
manner, contribute towards filling up many of the
lacunae which at present are pointed to as difficulties
in the way of yielding rational assent to the current
theory of transformism.

** Indeed, it may be asserted," Prof. Fiske truth-
fully observes, " cis one of the most significant truths
of paleontology, that extinct forms are almost al-
ways intercalary between forms now existing. Not
only species, genera and families, but even orders of

OBJB C TIONS A GA INS T BVOLV TION. 1 75

contemporary animals, apparently quite distinct, are
now and then fused together by the discovery of
extinct intermediary forms. In Cuvier's time, horse,
tapir, pig and rhinoceros were ranked as a distinct
order from cow, sheep, deer, buffalo and camel.
But so many transitional forms have been found
in Tertiary strata, that pachyderms and ruminants
are now united in a single order. By numerous
connecting links the pig is now seen to be closely
united with the camel and the antelope. Similar
results relating to the proboscidians, the hyena
family of carnivora, the apes, the horse and the rhi-
noceros, have been obtained from the exploration
of a single locality near Mount Pentelicus in Greece.
Among more than seventy species there discov-
ered, the gradational arrangement of forms was so
strongly marked, that the great paleontologist, M.
Gaudry, became a convert to Mr. Darwin's theory
in the course of the search." * Indeed, so much was
M. Gaudry, who renews in our own day the tri-
umphs of Cuvier in paleontology, impressed by
the fossil remains of Greece and the transitional
forms of other lands, that he did not hesitate thirty
years ago to declare, that " the more we advance and
fill up the gaps, the more we feel persuaded that
the remaining voids exist more in our knowledge
than in nature. A few blows of the pick-axe at the
foot of the Pyrenees, of the Himalayas, of Mount
Pentelicus ; a few diggings in the sand-pits of Ep-
pelsheim or in the Mauvaises Terres of Nebraska,
have revealed to us the closest connecting links

^ " Cosmic Philosophj'," vol. II, pp. 40 and 41.

176 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

between forms which seemed before so widely sepa-
rated. How much closer will these links be drawn
when paleontology shall have escaped from its
cradle." '

Imperfection of the Geological Record.

What precedes supplies us with an answer re-
garding two great difficulties on which anti-evolu-
tionists have always laid special stress. These
difficulties, briefly stated, are the sudden apparition
of whole groups of allied species in certain forma-
tions, even in the lowest fossiliferous strata, with-
out any previous transitional forms leading up to
such groups, and the occurrence in geological time
of numerous animal forms of a much higher
grade than an evolutionist should antecedently ex-
pect.

From what has already been said not only respect-
ing the absence of countless species, but also of the de-
nudation of immense areas which must at one time
have been rich in important fossiliferous deposits, it is
manifest that the objection is at best but a neutral
one, and as such may be dismissed as in nowise se-
riously affecting the contention of evolutionists. Re-
garding the appearance in the earlier strata of ani-
mals which are zoologically of a higher grade than
the principles of Evolution would lead one to look
for, it may be said in reply that the objection urged
proves, at most, that the imperfection of the geolog-
ical record is even more extensive than it has usually
been thought to be, and, likewise, that the advent of

" Les Animaux Fossiles de Pikermi," p. 34.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST EVOLUTION. Vll

life on the earth must date back much farther than is
commonly thought. Not long since, it was the gen-
eral opinion, that the first living organisms had their
origin in the lower strata of the Silurian Age, but
since then the Cambrian, the Huronian, and the
Laurentian formations have been discovered, the
united thickness of which, according to the eminent
geologist. Sir W. Logan, " may possibly far surpass
that of all the succeeding rocks from the base of the
Palaeozoic series to the present time," and may,
therefore, carry us back to a period so remote, that
the oldest Silurian fauna may in comparison be re-
garded as comparatively modern. So far as the in-
formation of paleontologists now extends, Eozoon
Canadense, found even in the lowest deposits of the
Laurentian, was the earliest form of life, but it is not
impossible that in yet lower strata, beneath the
ocean's floor perhaps, there are still more primitive
types which as much antedate the time of Eozoon
Canadense, as it antedates the advent of the last
highest vertebrate.

Time, Change and Equilibrium.

But, it will be objected that the existence of such
formations implies far more time than geologists can
reasonably claim, far more than can be allowed by
the almost certain conclusions of thermodynamics
and astronomical physics. In reply it will suf-
fice to observe, that much, very much, yet remains to
be learned, concerning the time which has elapsed
since the earth became a fit abode for the lower
forms of life, and that until physicists, astronomers

l78 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

and mathematicians can agree among themselves, as
to the data on which they base their calculations, and
until they can furnish more satisfactory results than
they have hitherto offered, geologists will be quite
within their right in regarding the objections urged
as negative or indifferent.

In all discussions relating to the ascent of life and
the paucity of transitional forms, we should not lose
sight of the fact that ours is a period of tranquility,
and that, therefore, in accordance with the principles
of Evolution, there should now be fewer changes in
the fauna and flora of the earth than during periods
of change and widely-extended disturbance. But
the earth has not always been so stable and tranquil.
During the inconceivably long interval which has
elapsed since the first beginnings of life on our globe,
there have been countless periods of equilibrium
alternating with changes which were more or less
paroxysmal. The last of these critical epochs was
during that long stretch of time, known as the Gla-
cial Period, when ice and snow reigned supreme over
a great portion of Europe and North America. And
during these long geologic rhythms, these alterna-
tions of upheaval and subsidence, of denudation and
sedimentation, during these periods of comparative
tranquility and almost cataclysmal mutation, there
were alternately periods which in the one case fa-
vored the permanence of species, and in the other
were conducive to their rapid metamorphosis, and to
the speedy production of intercalary forms which
connected all the links of living organisms in one
grand unbroken chain.

OBJB C TiONS A GA INS T B VOL V TION. 1 79

Paleontology Compared with Egyptology and Assyriology.

The work of the paleontologist resembles in great
measure the work of those who, from fragmentary
and unpromising materials, have revived for us the
histories, so long buried in oblivion, of those great
nations of the Orient which erstwhile flourished
amid such splendor on the banks of the Nile, the
Tigris and the Euphrates. In the beginning of the
present century the history of Egypt was almost a
sealed book, and as to Chaldea, Assyria and Baby-
lonia, it could be affirmed, and with truth, scarcely
yet a generation ago, that many of the most impor-
tant features of their respective histories had little
more for a basis than myth and conjecture. But
thanks to the labors and discoveries of Champollion,
Lassen, Burnouf, Rawlinson, Layard, George Smith,
Mariette, Maspero, and their compeers, the myste-
rious hieroglyphics and curious cuneiform characters
have been deciphered, and the treasures of knowledge
so long concealed by them have been opened up to
the world. In Egypt, temples and tombs have been
searched for records bearing on the past. Pyramids
and obelisks, sphinxes and cartouches, have been
carefully scrutinized and compelled to give up their
secrets to the persistent and determined votaries of
history and science. And so, too, it has been in
Mesopotamia and in the territory adjacent. From
the Persian Gulf to the site of ancient Nineveh,
from Tyre and Sidon to glorious Palmyra, the pick
and the spade of the archaeologist have been busy,
especially during the past four decades, and the
result has been that we now have more complete and

180 EVOLU TION A ND D OGMA .

more accurate information respecting peoples who
lived four and five thousand years ago, than we have
in regard to the inhabitants of many of the most
powerful nations of Europe during periods which
carry us back but a few hundred years. Rolls of
papyrus and mummy cases, tablets and cylinders,
which were once but so many meaningless objects for
the curious, have been converted into trustworthy
records regarding an almost forgotten past. Seti and
Rameses, Sennacherib and Assurbanipal live again,
and in all their salient features they come before us
with fully as much distinctness as do the historic
and romantic figures of Charlemagne and Coeur de
Lion.

Thus, likewise, is it in respect of paleontology.
Thanks to the discoveries and labors of Cuvier, Smith,
Sedgwick, Hugh Miller, Murchison, Hall, Barrande,
Gaudry, Marsh, and a host of other successful students
of nature, who have consecrated their lives to the
work of collecting and coordinating the testimony of
the rocks, we have now light where before all was
darkness ; we have knowledge where all was mystery.
And though paleontology, like Egyptology and As-
syriology, is still in its infancy, it has, nevertheless,
already achieved marvels. From a few scattered
fragments, the disjecta membra of organisms long
since extinct, it has constructed for us a history which
embraces periods of such duration, that in compari-
son with them the long dynasties of the Pharaohs
sink into positive insignificance. It tells us the story
of life from its humblest beginnings till the advent
of man, the paragon of God's visible universe. It

OBJECTIONS AGAINST EVOLUTION. 181

shows us the grand unity of plan which has character-
ized the fauna and flora of the world, and exhibits to
our view the direction Evolution must have taken in
its progress from the simple to the complex, from
the general to the special, from the primitive monad
to the highest vertebrate. Like the records of the
Egyptologist and the Assyriologist, those of the
student of the past history of the earth have been
imperfect and fragmentary in the extreme, but, not-
withstanding this, and notwithstanding the enormous
gaps which are everywhere discernible, the paleontol-
ogist has been able to give us an account which,
considering the difificulties under which it has been
written, all thoughtful minds must recognize as
singularly complete and satisfactory, even in many
of its details.

Darwin, in closing \\% interesting chapter on the
imperfection of the geological record, makes a com-
parison which so beautifully illustrates the character
of the materials from which the paleontologist must
weave his story of the earth and its former inhabi-
tants, that I reproduce it here in his own words:
" For my part, following Lyell's metaphor, I look at
the geological record as the history of the world, im-
perfectly kept and written in a changing dialect. Of
this history we possess the last volume alone, relating
only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only
here and there a short chapter has been preserved ;
and of each page, only here and there a few lines.
Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or
less different in the successive chapters, may repre-
sent the forms of life, which are entombed in our

182 EVOLUTIOX AND DOGMA.

consecutive formations, and which falsely appear to
have been abruptly introduced. On this view the
difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or
even disappear." '

Sterility of Species when Crossed.

The third objection against Evolution, the last one
we shall consider, is based on the sterility of species
when crossed and on the infertility of hybrids. The
argument as usually advanced appears well-founded,
and is, it must be confessed, not without its difficulties.

According to anti-evolutionists species have been
rendered barren by a special provision of nature, in
order thereby to prevent confusion which would
result from intercrossing. So convinced, indeed,
was Frederick Cuvier, the brother of the illustrious
paleontologist, of this view, that he did not hesitate
to declare: "Without the employment of artificial
means or without derogation to the laws of Provi-
dence, the existence of hybrids would never have
been known." And Dufr^noy affirmed that "animals
instinctively mate with individuals of their own
species only, and avoid those of others, as they
instinctively select food and eschew poison."

"In fact," writes De Quatrefages, who to the day
of his death was opposed to the transmutation
theory, " if in the organized world there exists any-
thing which ought to strike the superficial observer,
it is the order and constancy which we see there
reigning during the past ages; it is the distinction
which is maintained among those groups of beings

» "The Origin of Species," vol. II, p. 88.

OBJECTTONS AGAINST EVOLUTION. 183

which Darwin and Lamarck, like ourselves, call
species, even when in general form, function, instinct
and habit, they resemble one another so closely
that their discrimination is a matter of difficulty.
Certainly the cause which maintains this order, this
constancy over the entire surface of the globe, is of
far greater importance than any mere particularity
affecting individual life, or the simple local existence
of a domestic race.

" Now, this cause is simple and unique. Suppress
infecundity among different species; suppose that
the unions among wild species were to become in
every way fertile, and indefinitely so, as they are in
our dove-cotes, cow-houses and dog-kennels among
domestic races. And instantly what comes to pass?
Barriers separating species and genera are taken
away ; crosses are effected in all directions ; every,
where intermediate types make their appearance,
and everywhere existing distinctions are gradually
effaced. As for myself, I cannot see where the con-
fusion would end. Entire orders and probably even
classes would, after a few generations, present noth-
ing but a group of bastard forms of doubtful charac-
ters, irregularly allied and intercrossed, among which
disorder would go on increasing, thanks to the mix-
ture rendered more and more complete, and thanks
to atavism which would doubtless struggle for a long
time with direct heredity. This is not an imaginary
picture. Every reader, when asked what will be
produced by promiscuous unions among the one-
hundred-and-fifty races of pigeons recognized by
Darwin, and the one-hundred-and-eighty races of

184 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

dogs shown at our expositions, will certainly give
the same answer as I do.

" Infertility among species, therefore, has, in the
organic world, a role which is almost analogous to
gravitation in the sidereal world. It preserves the
zoological or botanical distance among species, as
attraction maintains the physical distances among
the stars. Both have their perturbations, their un-
explained phenomena. But, has anyone called in
question the great fact which fixes in their respective
places both satellites and suns? No. And can one,
on this account, deny the fact which assures the sep-
aration of species the most closely allied, as well as
of groups the most widely separated? By no means.
In astronomy we should reject incontinently every
hypothesis in opposition to the first. And, although
the complication of phenomena is much greater in
botany and zoology, serious study will always lead
us to discard all doctrines that are at variance with
the second." '

Infertility among distinct species, as De Quatre-
fages here views the matter, is thus seen to be de-
manded by the fitness of things. It is required for
the harmony of animated nature, and is rendered
necessary by the hopeless confusion which would re-
sult if such infertility did not exist.

But the argument from infertility, as urged
against evolutionists, has even greater force when
regarded from another point of view — I mean from
the standpoint of fact. Evolution, it is alleged, is
disproved, not because it seems fit and necessary

^"Darwin et ses Precurseurs Franjais," pp. 259 and 260.

OBJECTIONS J\ GAINST EVOLUTION. 185

that species should be reciprocally sterile, but be-
cause of the fact of in fecundity ; because, so it is
said, not a single instance can be cited of continued
fertility among the hybrid offspring of any two spe-
cies, however closely related. Here is the core of
the difficulty, '' le fait,'' as the Marquis de Nadaillac
phrases it, ^' qui domine toute la qiiestionr^ Evolu-
tionists, say their opponents, confound species
with race, assert of one what is true only of the
other, pile hypothesis upon hypothesis, and ulti-
mately deny the reality of species, or see in this
fundamental group only an artificial combina-
tion.

Morphological and Physiological Species.

As is evident, we are here again confronted with
the old question of the reality and permanence of
species. And, unfortunately, most of the reasoning
one is asked to follow on the subject is carried on in
a vicious circle, or is based on assumptions which
are wholly unwarranted. What is species ? This is a
question which again comes to the fore. Morpho-
logically, many of the domesticated pigeons, of
which Darwin makes mention, notably the pouter, the
tumbler, the fantail, and the carrier, are so unlike

* For a masterly presentation of the Marquis de Nadaillac's
objections against Evolution, see his " Problemede la Vie," and
•' Le Progres de 1 'Anthropologie," in the Compte Rendu of
the International Catholic Scientific Congress at Paris, in 1891.
For a critical examination of his views, see a paper on " Crea-
tion et fivolution," by Dr. Maisonneuve, in the same Compte
Rendu, Section of Anthropology, as also a paper entitled, " Pour
la Theorie des Ancdtres Communs," by the Abbe Guillemet,
in the Compte Rendu of the same Congress, held at Brussels
in 1894.

186 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

each other that they would be regarded as belong-
ing not only to different species, but even to differ-
ent genera, did we not know that they are all de-
scended from the ordinary rock pigeon, Columbia
livia. For these birds, Huxley tells us, " not only
differ most singularly in size, color, and habit, but in
the form of the beak and the skull ; in the number
of tail feathers ; the absolute and relative size of the
feet ; in the presence or absence of the uropygial
gland ; in the number of the vertebrae in the back ;
in short, in precisely those characters in which the
genera and species of birds differ from one another."
And so it is with the different races of dogs. Whether
they are all originally descended from one or more
species is yet a moot question, although there is
reason to believe that most, if not all of them, are
descended from the wolf and the jackal. But be
this as it may, when we compare the divers races of
the domestic dog, when we observe how they differ
in the number of their teeth, toes and vertebrae, and
note the divergencies in the form and disposition of
other portions of the body, we see that they are so
unlike that if found in a state of nature they would
unhesitatingly be pronounced distinct species. Even
Cuvier was forced to admit, that the differences in
the forms of the skulls of certain canine races are so
great, as to justify one in assigning them to distinct
genera.

What has been said of pigeons and dogs may
also, in great measure, be iterated in respect of sun-
dry races of fowls, rabbits, sheep and horses. Mor-
phologically their differences are so marked, that

OBJE C TIONS A GA INS T EVOLU TION. 187

they should be reckoned not only as distinct species,
but also as distinct genera, but because they are fer-
tile when crossed inter se, they must be regarded, anti-
evolutionists insist, as all belonging to one and the
same species. And for this reason, too, we are told
that the species of any given organism is to be de-
termined, not by its form, but by its filiation. Ac-
cording to this view, therefore, the determining
characteristic of species is not something morpholog-
ical, as Tournefort opined, but rather something, as
Ray and Flourens taught, which is physiological.

But even physiological species is not the con-
stant quantity it is represented to be by anti-trans-
formists. Infertility of species and of their hybrid
progeny does not constitute the positive line of
demarcation, so often claimed by the advocates of
the immutability of specific forms. On the con-
trary, as Darwin and others have shown, " neither
sterility nor fertility affords any certain distinction
between species and varieties." Long-continued
experiments, of the most ingenious character, have
demonstrated beyond question that sterility in ani-
mals is not to be regarded as an indelible charac-
teristic, but as one capable of being removed by
domestication. And, observations on numberless
groups of plants and animals have disclosed the
remarkable fact, that " the degree of fertility, both
of first crosses and of hybrids, graduates from zero
to perfect fertility."

From the foregoing, then, it is evinced that physi-
ological species present as many and as grave diffi-
culties as do morphological species. If it be true,

188 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

as is so often contended, that species have been
endowed with sterility in order thereby to prevent
their becoming confounded in nature, why is it that
we find so many exceptions to what is said to be an
invariable law? "Why," asks Darwin, "should the
sterility be so extremely different in degree when
various species are crossed, all of which we must
suppose it would be equally important to keep from
blending together? Why should the degree of
sterility be innately variable in the individuals of
the same species ? Why should some species cross
with facility, and yet produce very sterile hybrids ;
and other species cross with extreme difficulty, yet
produce fairly fertile hybrids? Why should there
often be so great a difference in the result of a re-
ciprocal cross between the same two species? Why,
it may even be asked, has the production of hybrids
been permitted ? To grant to species the special
power of producing hybrids, and then to stop their
further propagation by different degrees of sterility,
not strictly related to the facility of the first union
between their parents, seems a strange arrange-
ment." '

To show to how great absurdities a too strong
insistence on physiological species, as an absolute
criterion as to what is a true species and what is
but a simple variety, may sometimes lead, I need
only refer to a large number of groups of flowers, in
which individuals of a given species can be more
easily fertilized by pollen from a different plant, or
even by the pollen of a different species, than by

' " The Origin of Species," vol. II, p. 17.

OBJB C TIONS A GA INS T BVOLU TION. 189

their own pollen. The corydalis cava is a striking
illustration of this strange phenomenon. Accord-
ing to Hildebrand, the flowers of this species are
absolutely incapable of being fecundated by their
own pollen, and are rendered but imperfectly fertile
by pollen from other flowers of the same stem.
They are, however, always perfectly fecundated
when the pollen is brought from a flower of a differ-
ent stalk, or from the flower of a closely allied
species. In this case we are absolutely certain that
the stamens and carpels of any given flower, came
from the same seed ; that they have, consequently,
a common parentage. Wherefore, then, their ste-
rility ; and why is it that the carpel of the given
flower can be perfectly fecundated only by pollen
from the flower of an independent stem, or of a dif-
ferent species? The only answer which can con-
sistently be given by anti-evolutionists, who pin
their faith to the usually-accepted definition of
physiological species, is that the stamens and car-
pels, not only of the different flowers of the same
stem, but also those of the same flower of the given
stalk, belong to distinct species, and that only the
stamens and carpels of flowers of independent plants,
or of different species, belong to the same species.
It is scarcely necessary to observe that a more
perfect reductio ad absurdum can hardly be im-
agined.

Strictly speaking, the infertility of hybrids is
rather an objection against the theory of natural
selection than against that of Evolution. From
what is known of the extreme sensitiveness of the

190 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

reproductive system of most forms of life, and of the
intimate dependence of this system on the organism
to which it belongs, it appears a priori quite natural
that species or races, which in the beginning were
reciprocally fertile, should, in the course of time,
owing to some change in the conditions of existence,
or to protracted subjection to different sets of cir-
cumstances, become completely infertile. Many
causes have been assigned for this infecundity, but
the answers given are, it must be confessed, far
from satisfactory. "He who is able," says Darwin,
" to explain why the elephant, and a multitude of
other animals, are incapable of breeding when kept
under only partial confinement in their native coun-
try, will be able to explain the primary cause of
hybrids being so generally sterile. He will, at the
same time, be able to explain how it is that the races
of some of our domesticated animals, which have
often been subjected to new, and not uniform, con-
ditions, are quite fertile together, although they are
descended from distinct species which would prob-
ably have been sterile if originally crossed."*

True Significance of the Term " Species."

From what precedes, then, it is manifest that
whether viewed from the standpoint of morphology,
or from that of physiology, species is something
which is extremely vague, and pregnant with diffi-
culties of all kinds. But it is also equally manifest
that the sterility of species, and of their hybrid prog-
eny, is something which establishes different groups

' Op. cit., p. 28.

Oii^BCtiONS AGAINST EVOLUTION. 191

of organisms that require to be designated by a
special term. Evolutionists are willing to accept the
term " species," provided, however, it be understood
that this term does not imply specific immutability
during all time. That species may be immutable
during a relatively brief period, or during the time
it may have been possible to study them, evolution-
ists are ready to concede, but they decline to admit,
that because certain forms are known to have been
permanent for a limited period, they must, therefore,
have been immutable during an indefinite past time.
This indefinite immutability is what De Quatrefages
and his school demand, but it is, as is obvious, a
simple begging of the question.

Even more than a third of a century back, the
eminent comparative anatomist, Richard Owen, al-
though never in sympathy with the dominant school
of contemporary Evolution, felt himself constrained
to write regarding species as follows : " I apprehend
that few naturalists, nowadays, in describing and
proposing a name for what they call a new species,
use that term to signify what was meant by it thirty
years ago ; that is, an originally distinct creation,
maintaining its primitive distinction by obstructive
generative peculiarities. The proposer of the new
species now intends to state no more than he actu-
ally knows, as, for example, that the differences on
which he founds the specific characters are constant
in individuals of both sexes, so far as observation
has reached ; and that they are not due to domesti-
cation, or to artificially superinduced circumstances,
or to any outward influence within his cognizance ;

192 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

that the species is wild, or is such as it appears in
nature.'"

Nothing could better illustrate the uncertain
character of species and the impossibility of distin-
guishing species from varieties, or one species from
another species, even when they are widely diverg-
ent, than certain experiments made some years ago
by a Russian naturalist, Schmankewitsch, upon a
species of crustacean known as artemia Muhlhaus-
enii. Normally, this organism lives in water which
is slightly saline. By increasing the salinity of the
water, this experimenter was enabled to transform
the species in question into an entirely different
one, artemia salina. Reversing the process, the
original species was obtained. But this was not all.
By continuing to diminish the amount of salt in the
water, a species was finally obtained that was so
entirely different from the original one, that it had
previously been regarded as belonging to a distinct
genus, branchippus. The changes mentioned took
place slowly, the complete transformation being
effected only after several generations. And all the
types here referred to as having been artificially pro-
duced, were known before, and had always been
considered as distinct species and genera. Now,
however, that their genetic relationship has been
demonstrated, anti-transformists assert that all the
three forms spoken of are but varieties of one and
the same species. And so they must assert, for

' Cf. contribution " On the Osteology of the Chimpanzees
and Orangs," in the Transactions of the Zoological Societies
^or 1858.

OBJECTIONS A GAINST E VOL UTION. 193

otherwise they would be confronted with what
they have always challenged their opponents to pro-
duce— a tangible instance of the transmutation of
species. Here, then, we have another illustration
of the impossibility of satisfying those who, in
spite of all evidence to the contrary, persist in af-
firming specific immutability. They group organ-
isms into species and genera, in accordance with
their preconceived notions of species and genus, but
when it is shown that these organisms are genetic-
ally related to one another, they hasten to proclaim
that such forms of life are all only varieties of the
same species. Such being the case, it is obviously
impossible to give an experimental proof of Evolu-
tion, for just the moment that organisms, however
widely divergent they may appear, are proved to
be connected by filiation, they are forthwith pro-
nounced to be but simple varieties, no matter what
views taxonomists may have previously held regard-
ing them. Phantom-like, the proof desired vanishes,
just at the moment it is thought to be established.
And such, doubtless, will continue to be the case,
until naturalists shall discover some infallible
method of distinguishing species, a highly improba-
ble event, or until they shall be willing to agree that
species, as ordinarily understood — that is, something
permanently immutable — has, in nature, no real
existence.

Factors of Evolution.

In this and the preceding chapters I have con-
sidered the arguments for and against Evolution in

E.-I3

194 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

general, aside from any of the numerous theories
which have been advanced to account for the com-
monly accepted fact of Evolution. But, before
closing this protracted discussion, it is important, for
a proper understanding of our subject, to make a
few brief observations respecting the factors which
have been operative in the origination and develop-
ment of species, and to say a few words regarding
some of the most popular theories concerning the
modus operandi of Evolution.

As has incidentally been observed in the forego-
ing pages, the principal factors of Evolution are: i,
the ph)7sical environment ; 2, the use or disuse of
organs ; 3, natural selection. The first two of these
were recognized by Lamarck ; ' while the third owes
its prominence to the labors and speculations of
Charles Darwin. In addition to these three factors,
two others have attracted some attention, namely,
sexual selection, suggested by Darwin, and physio-
logical selection, which was especially insisted on by
the late Professor Romanes.

By physical environment are understood, among
other things, the external conditions of life, such as
temperature, nature of the soil, humidity, dryness
and rarity of the atmosphere. That organisms,
whether animal or vegetable, are markedly affected
by changes of environment has long been admitted,
and it suffices here to refer to the well-known results

* The action of the environment was not unknown to
Buffon, and hence some of his admirers are wont to speak of
this factor as " BufFon's factor." It was, however, reserved for
Lamarck to demonstrate the important role which environment
plays in causing variation of organic forms.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST EVOLUTION. 195

of adaptation due to changes of climate. Thus, to
go no further, '^ pigs with fleece are to be found on
the cold plateaus of the Cordilleras, sheep with hair
in the warm valleys of the Madeleine, and hairless
cattle in the burning plains of Mariquita." That use
and disuse are factors in Evolution is evinced by
facts within the experience of everybody, such, for in-
stance, as the general development of the body of the
athlete, the highly delicate senses of touch and hear-
ing of the blind, or the atrophied limb of the paralytic.

The Lamarckian factors were deemed of little
importance by Darwin, but recently they have, with
some modifications, come into special prominence
in America, and constitute the basis of the new the-
ory of Neo-Lamarckism. According to Cope and
Hyatt, two of the most prominent exponents of this
theory, the Lamarckian factors, especially the activi-
ties of animals in their constant endeavor to accommo-
date themselves to their environment, have been the
chief agencies in producing varieties and species, and
consequently, the chief agencies also in the Evolu-
tion of higher from lower forms of life.

Natural selection, or the "survival of the fittest,"
as Spencer loves to call it, is an abbreviated expres-
sion for several well-recognized causes of evolution-
ary change. Among the more prominent of these
are heredity, variation and struggle for existence.
Darwin, however, did not teach, as is sometimes
imagined, that natural selection is the sole factor of
Evolution, although he did, indeed, contend that it
is the chief factor. He frankly admitted, especially
in his later works, that it left much unexplained, and

196 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

that he had at first over-estimated its importance.
Sexual selection, and the two Lamarckian factors
just referred to, he always considered as quite sec-
ondary and subordinate to natural selection. But
some of Darwin's disciples, notably Wallace, Haeckel,
and Ray Lankester, attribute a far greater potency
to natural selection than did Darwin himself, and are
disposed to regard it as the sole and sufficient cause
of all organic development. So different, indeed,
are their views from those of their master, that they
have given rise to a new school of thought known as
Neo-Darwinism.

Evolutionary Theories and Their Difficulties.

But all the theories of Evolution connected with
the above-named factors, Lamarckism and Darwin-
ism, Neo-Lamarckism and Neo-Darwinism, involve
numerous and grave difficulties, which, so far, have
not been satisfactorily answered. Thus, it is not
yet positively demonstrated that the effects of use
and disuse are inherited. To obtain direct evidence
of the inheritance of acquired variations of this kind
has hitherto been attended with insuperable diffi-
culties. As to natural selection, it labors under dif-
ficulties which are apparently even more serious,
and to such an extent is this true, that it may well
be questioned if there is a single pure Darwinian
now living. *

' Many years ago, it -will be remembered, Mivart charac-
terized natural selection as "a puerile hypothesis." Time seems
to have confirmed him in his opinion, for in a recent magazine
article he refers to natural selection as an "absurd and childish
theory."

OBJECTIONS A GA INS T B VOL UTION. 197

Why do animals tend to vary? Why do they
transmit their characteristics to their offspring?
How can chance, irregular, infinitesimal variations,
give rise to all the countless species which are known
to have existed since the dawn of life, and that
within the interval of time which astronomers and
physicists are willing to allow? Why, if species
have originated by minute, indefinite and irregular
variations, are there not more transitional forms
than the geological record actually discloses? And
how can variations be of any avail in the production
of a new species, if these variations, as seems to be
the case, are always eliminated by crossing, and if ac-
quired characters are not transmitted by inheritance?
Why is it that certain features, which are demon-
strably useless to the individual, are preserved, and
how is it that organs which are useful only when
highly developed, could ever have had a beginning?
These are but a few of the many questions which
might be asked, to which the advocates of natural
selection have not as yet given satisfactory an-
swers.

Many attempts, it is true, have been made to
overcome the objections against natural selection,
but the success of all such attempts is still open to
question. Thus, Moritz Wagner, observing that
isolation is favorable to the development of varieties,
formulated his theory of isolation by migration. To
overcome the difficulty embodied in the slow and
irregular variations which Darwin postulated, Mivart
and others have formulated their theory of extraor-
dinary births. They deny the truth of Leibnitz'

198 E VOL UTIOX A ND DOGMA .

aphorism, natura non facit saltum, and contend that
species are always formed by what has been desig-
nated as saltatory Evolution, that is, Evolution
which effects such notable change in an organism
that it is constituted a distinct species from the be-
ginning. Among the extraordinary births which
are appealed to as evidence of the existence of sal-
tatory Evolution, are the Ancon and Mauchamp
breeds of sheep, Niata cattle, pug dogs, tumbler
pigeons, hook-bill ducks, and a large number of vege-
table forms that have suddenly appeared with
essentially the same characteristic features which
they now exhibit. '

To the objection that we have no evidence that
wild species ever originate in this way, it is- replied
that " we have never witnessed the origin of a wild
species by any process whatever; and if a species
were to come suddenly into being in a wild state, as
the Ancon sheep did under domestication, how could
you ascertain the fact? If the first of a newly- be-
gotten species were found, the fact of its discovery
would tell nothing about its origin. Naturalists
would register it as a very rare species, having been
only once met with, but they would have no means

^ The real author of the theory of saltatory Evolution was
Geoffroy Saint- Hilaire. It has, however, been specially devel-
oped and supported by such eminent authorities as Mivart,
Owen, KoUiker, and the Duke of Argyll. Even Huxley is in-
clined to take a favorable view of it. " We greatly suspect," he
says, " that she (nature) does make considerable jumps in the
way of variation now and then, and that these saltations give
rise to some of the gaps which appear to exist in the series of
known forms." Mr. Bateson's recent theory of " discontinuous
variations," is essentially only a modification of the theory of
saltatory Evolution as held by Mivart and others.

OBJECTIONS A GAINS T E VOL UTION. 199

of knowing whether it were the first or the last of
its race."

Regarding the laws governing such extraordinary
births, Mivart is unable to vouchsafe any informa-
tion. He is, however, of the opinion, that sufficiently
numerous instances of such births are known to jus-
tify one in accepting the theory. If it could be
demonstrated to be true, it would at once remove
all the difficulties presented by the lack of geolog-
ical time, the absence or paucity of transitional forms,
the origin of rudimentary organs, and the elimina-
tion of variations by crossing ; difficulties which
natural selection has been thus far impotent to re-
move. As is manifest, Mivart's theory does not
explain the facts it deals with ; it simply refers the
sudden changes demanded to the action of unknown
internal forces. This, at bottom, is not unlike the
theory of the German botanist, Nageli, who would
account for development by assuming that there ex-
ists in all organisms an internal tendency towards
progression. But this is obviously only another way
of expressing the action of the " perfecting principle "
of Aristotle, as Darwin's theory of chance variations
is but a modification of the conjecture of " fortuity
in nature," of old Empedocles.

Concerning Weismann's theory of heredity,
Haeckel's speculations on perigenesis, Jager's notions
regarding soul-stufif, and Brooks' hypothesis respect-
ing both heredity and variation, we need say noth-
ing except that Weismann's theory has many points
of weakness, that the views of Hseckel and Jager are
based mostly on fancy, and that the hypothesis of

200 E VOL U TION A ND DOGMA .

Brooks is an attempt to combine the theories of some
of his predecessors, especially those of Darwin and
Weismann.

From the preceding paragraphs, therefore, it is
clear that, as yet, we have no theory of Evolution
which is competent to coordinate all the facts that
Evolution is supposed to embrace. Neither singly
nor collectively do the theories just discussed meet
the many objections urged against them. All of
them, doubtless, contain an element of truth, but
how far they can be relied upon as guides in re-
search it is still impossible to say. The same may
be said concerning the so-called factors of Evolution.
All of them, there is reason to believe, are more or
less potent in organic development, but it is gener-
ally admitted that other factors, factors probably
more important than any of those yet mentioned,
remain to be discovered before we can properly un-
derstand the working of Evolution, and account for
numberless phenomena of the organic world which
are still involved in mystery.

The Ideal Theory.

The discovery of a true, comprehensive, irrefraga-
ble theory of Evolution ; of a theory of the " or-
dained becoming " of new species by the operation
of secondary causes ; of a theory which will admit
a preconceived progress "towards a foreseen goal;"'
of a theory which in its " broad features " will disclose
the unmistakable evidence and the certain impress of
a Divine intelligence and purpose — this is something

' Cf. Owen's '• Anatomy of Vertebi-ates," vol. III, ch. xl,

OBJE C TIONS A GA INS T BVOLU TION. 201

which still remains to be accomplished, but some-
thing which can scarcely be realized before many
years shall have elapsed, and until much serious
labor shall have been expended on the vast, and as
yet but partially explored, domain of animated na-
ture.' Such a theory, when fully worked out, will
do for biology what the heliocentric theory has
achieved for astronomy. It will place in the clear
light of day what is now veiled in darkness, and
render certain what at present can but vaguely be
surmised. The lack of this perfected theory, how-
ever, does not imply that we have not already an
adequate basis for a rational assent to the theory of
organic Evolution. By no means. The arguments
adduced in behalf of Evolution in the preceding
chapter, are of sufficient weight to give the theory
a degree of probability which permits of little doubt
as to its truth.

Whatever, then, may be said of Lamarckism,
Darwinism and other theories of Evolution, the
fact of Evolution, as the evidence now stands, is
scarcely any longer a matter for controversy. Hence,
it is the factors which have been operative during
the long course of organic development, and a
theory that can be brought into harmony with these
factors, and which is at the same time in consonance
with the phenomena observed, that men of science

* In the American Naturalist for May, 1895, Professor
Osborn, in concluding an interesting article on the " Search for
the Unknown Factors of Evolution," pertinently observes : "Mj'
last word is that we are entering the threshold of the Evolution
problem instead of standing within its portals. The hardest
tasks lie before us, not behind us, and their solution will carry
US well into the twentieth century."

202 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

are now seeking. Whether the divers conjectures
which at present obtain, regarding the method ac-
cording to which Evolution has acted in past time,
and according to which it must still act, be true or
false, matters little so far as Evolution itself is con-
cerned. The true, the all-embracing theory, which
is now the object of the earnest quest of so many
ardent investigators the world over, and which, as
Professor Owen believed, should constitute the chief
end and aim of biological research, is something
which we must look to the future to supply. And
when such a theory shall have been elaborated, as
every advance in science leads us to believe it will
be, then will it be found to be as superior in sim-
plicity, beauty and comprehensiveness, to all current
theories of Evolution, as the grand and far-reaching
conceptions of Copernicus and Newton are superior
to the almost forgotten speculations of Ptolemy and
Aristarchus.

PART II.

EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

£lvai yap naa?}s n7.avi]s koi ilievSoSo^ias alriov, to fi^ Svvaadat
6iaKpiveiVf nij re oXkiffMis ra ovra Koivuvei, kol nfj diEvfyvoxsv. £1 6s fitj
Kara Siupiafitva tis tov ?.6yov i:(j>o6e{joi, Ayaerai cvyx^as rd re mcva koi
TO. idia rovTov de yivofihov, els avoSiav koi nAavr/v ifiir'nTTeiv avayKoiov.

" For the cause of all error and false opinion, is inability to
distinguish in what respect things are common, and in what re-
spect they differ. For unless, in things that are distinct, one
closely watch speech, he will inadvertently confound what is
common and what is peculiar. And where this takes place, he
must of necessity fall into pathless tracts and error."

Clement of Alexandria. — " Stromata." Book VI, chap. x.

(804)

PART II.

EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

CHAPTER I.

MISCONCEPTIONS OF THEORY, ERRORS IN DOCTRINE
AND MISTAKES IN TERMINOLOGY.

Evolution of the Evolution Theory.

IN the preceding pages we have considered what
might be termed the evolution of the theory of
Evolution. We traced its development from its
earliest germs, as disclosed in the speculations of
Hindu and Greek philosophy, and reviewed some of
the evidence ordinarily adduced in its support, as well
as the objections which are commonly urged against
its acceptance. We also adverted to some of the
many attempted explanations of Evolution, which
have been proposed since the publication of Darwin's
" Origin of Species," and noted the wide divergence
of views which obtains respecting some of the most
fundamental elements of the theory. We learned
that the great majority of contemporary scientists_
are believers in some theory of organic Evolution ;
that the controversy is no longer about the fact o7
Evolution — that being assumed, if not demonstrated —
but rather regarding the factors which have been

— (206) _

206 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

operative in the onward march of animal and vege-
table life, and the processes which have characterized
organic development in its divers phases and epochs.
We may not be prepared to go the same lengths as
do Spencer, Huxley and Fiske, in the demands which
they make for Evolution as the one controlling agency
in the world of phenomena ; we may refuse assent to
the theories of Darwin, Mivart, Cope, Brooks, Weis-
mann, Nageli and others ; but it seems difficult, if
not impossible, to ignore the fact that some kind of
Evolution has obtained in the formation of the
material universe, and in the development of the
divers forms of life with which our earth is peopled.
The question now is : How are we to envisage
this process of Evolution, and what limits are we to
assign to it? Is it as universal in its action as it is
usually claimed to be, or, is the sphere of its activity
restricted and confined within certain definite, fixed
limits, beyond which it may not extend ? And then,
a far more important question comes to the fore, a
question to which all that has hitherto been said is
but a preamble — a long one, it is true, but still only
a preamble — and that is, how is faith affected by
Evolution, or, in other words, what is the attitude
of Dogma towards Evolution ?

Evolution and Darwinism. ^f\DT 'fkt ^^M/€

To this last question various answers have been ,

given, many of them contradictory, more of them f'"^'^

absurd, few of them satisfactory or philosophical. -//^y
All remember the storm that was raised against ^^
Darwinism on its first appearance, a few decades

MISCONCEPTIONS OF THBORT. 207

ago. Darwinism, however, is not Evolution, as is so
often imagined, but only one of the numerous at-
tempts which have been made to explain the modus
operandi of Evolution. Nevertheless, for a long time
Darwinism and Evolution were regarded as synony-
mous— as in the popular mind they are still synony-
mous— even by those who should have been better
informed. The objections which were advanced
against Darwinism were urged against Evolution,
and vice versa. And in most of the controversies
relating to these topics there was a lamentable, often
a ridiculous, ignorance of the teachings of the
Church, and this, more than anything else, accounts
for the odium theologicum, and the odium scientifi-
cum, which have been so conspicuous in religious
and scientific literature during the past third of a
century.

During the first few years after the publication
of " The Origin of Species," there were but few, even
among professed men of science, who did not con-
demn Darwinism as irreligious in tendency, if not
distinctly atheistic in principle. "Materialistic" and
** pantheistic," were, however, the epithets usually
applied both to Evolution and the theory so pa-
tiently elaborated by Darwin. Prof. Louis Aga&^
siz, as we have already seen, did not hesitate to
denounce " the transmutation theory as a scientific
mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method,
and mischievous in its tendency." Certain others of
Darwin's critics characterized his theory as " an acer-
vation of endless conjectures," as an " utterly rotten
fabric of guess and speculation," and reprobated his

208 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA.

"mode of dealing with nature" as "utterly dis-
honorable to natural science," and as contradict-
ing "the revealed relation of the creation to its
Creator." '

Darwinism was spoken of as " an attempt to de-
throne Godj" as " the only form of infidelity from
which Christianity has anything to fear;" as doing
" open violence to everything which the Creator
Himself has told us in the Scriptures of the methods
and results of His work." It was declared to be " a
dishonoring view of nature;" "a jungle of fanciful
assumption ;" and those who accepted it were said
to be "under the frenzied inspiration of the inhaler
of mephitic gas." " If the Darwinian theory is true,"
averred another, " Genesis is a lie, the whole frame-
work of the Book of Life falls to pieces, and the
revelation of God to man, as we Christians know it,
is a delusion and a snare."

Evolution naturally shared in the denunciations
hurled against Darwinism. It was designated as "a
philosophy of mud;" as "the boldest of all the
philosophies which have sprung up in our world ; "
as "a flimsy framework of hypothesis, constructed
upon imaginary or irrelevant facts, with a complete

' M.Flourens, perpetual secretary of the French Academy
of Sciences, thus wrote of Darwin's " Origin of Species,"shortly
after its appearance :

" Enfin I'ouvrage de M. Darwin a paru. On ne peut
qu'6tre frapp6 du talent de I'auteur ; mais que d'idees obscures,
qued'idees fausses! Quel jargon metaphysique jete mal-a-propos
dans I'histoire naturelle, qui tombe dans le galimatias des
qu'elle sort des id^es claires, des idees justes. Quel langage
pretentieux et vide ! Quelles personifications pueriles et
surannees! O lucidite ! O solidite de I'esprit franjais, que
devenez-vous?"

MISCONCEPTIONS OF THEORT. 209

departure from every established canon of scientific
investigation." It was stigmatized as "flatly op-
posed to the fundamental doctrine of creation," and as
discharging God " from the governing of the world."
The distinguished Canadian geologist, Sir J. W.
Dawson, in speaking of the subject, affirms that
" the doctrine [of Evolution] as carried out to its
logical consequences excludes creation and Theism.
It may, however, be shown, that even in its more
modified forms, and when held by men who main-
tain that they are not atheists, it is practically
atheistic, because excluding the idea of plan and
design, and resolving all things into the action of
unintelligent forces."'

^^/..^/^^ ^^
Evolution, Atheism and Nihilism. ,j ,>^/P y">

To judge from the declarations of some of the
most ardent champions of Evolution, it musX_be ad-
mitted that orthodoxy had reason to be _at least
suspicious, of the theory that was heralded forth
with such pomp and circumstance. For it was
announced with the loudest flourish of trumpets,
not only that Evolution is a firmly established doc-
trine, about whose truth there can no longer be
any doubt, butjt^was alsq_boldly declared^ by some
of its most noted exponents, to be subversive of all
religioji jnd^f all belief_in a Deity. Materialists,
/atheists, and anarchists the world over, loudly pro-
y claimed that there is no God, because, they would
^ have it, science had demonstrated that there is no

* " Story of the Earth and Man," p. 348.
E.-14

210 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

longer any raison d'Hre for such a Being. Evolu-
tion, they claimed, takes the place of creation, and
eternal, self-existent matter and force exclude an
omnipotent personal Creator. " God," we are told,
" is the world, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in
its being and in its laws, but ever-varying in its cor-
relations." A glance at the works of Haeckel, Vogt,
Biichner, and others of this school, is sufficient to
prove how radical and rabid are the views of these
*' advanced thinkers."

It is in accordance with the spirit of such teach-
ing that " science," as Caro observes, "conducts God
with honor to its frontiers, thanking Him for His
provisional services." It is such science that de-
clares that " faith in a personal and living God is
the origin and fundamental cause of our miserable
social condition ; " and that advances such views as
these ; " The true road to liberty, to equality, and to
happiness, is Atheism. No safety on earth, so long
as man holds on by a thread to heaven. Let noth-
ing henceforth shackle the spontaneity of the hu-
man mind. Let us teach man that there is no other
God than himself; that he is the Alpha and Omega
of all things, the superior being, and the most real
reality."

It was in consequence of the circulation of such
views among the masses, that Virchow and others
declared Evolution responsible, not only for the at-
tempts made by Hodel and Nobeling on the life of
the emperor of Germany, but also for all the miser-
ies and horrors of the Paris Commune. For the
theory of Evolution, in its atheistic form, is one of

MISCONCEPTIONS OF THE OR T. 211

the cardinal tenets of nihilists, and their device is :
"Neither God, nor master," Ni Dieu, ni maitre.
It is at the bottom of the philosophy of the Krapot-
kins and R^clus, who " see in the hive and the
ant-hill the only fundamental rule of right and
wrong, although bees destroy one class of their
number and ants are as warlike as Zulus," And we
all remember how Vaillant, the bomb-thrower in the
Chamber of Deputies, boastfully posed as the logical
executant of the ideas of the Darwins and the
Spencers, whose teachings, he contended, he was but
carrying out to their legitimate conclusions.*

Evolution and Faith. ^ ^ 1 1 " r ' /

But all evolutionists have not entertained, and
do not entertain, the same opinions as those just
mentioned. America's great botanist. Prof. Asa
Gray, was not so minded. One of the earliest and
most valiant defenders of Darwinism, as well as a
professed Christian believer, he maintained that
there is nothing in Evolution, or Darwinism, which
is incompatible with Theism. In an interesting
chapter on Evolution and Theology, in his " Dar-
winiana,"' he gives it as his opinion, arrived at after
long consideration, that " Mr. Darwin has no atheis-
tical intent, and that, as respects the test question
of design in nature, his view may be made clear to
the theological mind by likening it to that of the

* Ravachol, another dynamitard, of the same school as
Vaillant, confessed on his way to the guillotine : *^Si favais cru
en Dicti, je n' aurais fait ce que fai faitT

212 EVOLU TION A ND DOGMA .

'believer in general, but not in particular, Provi-
dence.'" So far, indeed, was Darwin from having
any " atheistical intent," that when interrogated re-
garding certain of his religious views he replied: "In
my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an
atheist in the sense of denying the existence of
God." ' And the late Dr. McCosh declared, that he
had " never been able to see that religion, and in
particular that Scripture, in which our religion is
embodied, is concerned with the absolute immuta-
bility of species." *

The Rev. Doctor Pohle thus expresses himself
in an able and interesting article on Darwinism and
Theism : " I feel bound to confess that I never
could prevail upon myself to believe, that Darwinism
contains nothing short of a hot-bed of infidelity and
iniquity, brought into a system, and is, therefore,
irreconcilable on principle with a sincere and pious
belief in a First Cause and Designer of the world." *

The illustrious Dominican confer encier. Father
Monsabr^, records it as his opinion that the theory
of Evolution, " far from compromising the orthodox
belief in the creative action of God, reduces this
action to a small number of transcendent acts, more
.in conformity with the unity of the Divine plan and
the infinite wisdom of the Almighty, who knows
how to employ secondary causes to attain his
ends." * This is in keeping with the view of the dis-

^" Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," vol. I, p. 274.
*"The Religious Aspect of Evolution," p. 27.
^American Ecclesiastical Reviev.\ Sept. 1892; p. 163.
* " L'fivolution des Especes Organiques, par le Pere M. D.
Leroy, O. P.," p. 4.

MISCONCEPTIONS OF THEORY . 213

tinguished German Catholic writer, Doctor C. Giitt-
ler, who asserts that " Darwin has eliminated neither
the concept of creation, nor that of design ; that, on
the contrary, he has ennobled both the one and the
other. He does not remove teleology, but merely
puts it farther back." '

Evolution and Science. —

But there are yet others to be heard from. Ac-
cording to Huxley, who is an avowed agnostic, the
*' doctrine of Evolution is neither anti-theistic nor
theistic. It simply has no more to do with Theism
than the first book of Euclid has." " It will be ob-
served that with Huxley, Evolution is neither a hy-
pothesis nor a theory, but a doctrine. So is it with
many others of its advocates. It is no longer some-
thing whose truth may be questioned, but something
which has been established permanently on the solid
foundation of facts. It has, we are assured, success-
fully withstood all the ordeals of observation and
experiment, and is now to be counted among those
acquisitions of science which admit of positive dem-
onstration. Thus, a few years ago, in an address be-
fore the American Association for the Advancement

' " Lorenz Oken und sein Verhaltniss zur modernen Ent-
wickelungslehre," p. 129.

" Transformismus Darwinianus," declares the Rev. J. Cor-
luy, S. J., "dicendus est sensui Scripturse obvio contradicere,
non tamen aperte textui sacro adversari ; tacet enim Scriptura
tnodum quo terra varietatetn illam specierum produxerit, an
statim an decursu temporum, an cum specierum firmitate an
cum relativa duntaxat. Sed et de sensu disputari posset quern
Scriptura hie assignet nomini 7 ''tp," Min., " Specilegium Dog-
matico-Biblicum," torn. I, p. 198.

* " Life and Letters of Darwin," vol. I, p. 556.

214 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

of Science, Prof. Marsh said : " I need offer no argu-
ment for Evolution, since to doubt Evolution is to
doubt science, and science is only another name for
truth." " The theory of Evolution," writes M. Ch.
Martins, in the Revue de Deux Mondes, " links to-
gether all the questions of natural history, as the
laws of Newton have connected all the movements
of the heavenly bodies. This theory has all the
characters of Newtonian laws." Prof. Joseph Le
Conte, however, goes much further : '* We are con-
fident," he declares, "that Evolution is absolutely
certain, not indeed Evolution as a special theory —
Lamarckian, Darwinian, Spencerian — but Evolution
as a law of derivation of forms from previous forms ;
Evolution as a law of continuity, as a universal law
of becoming. In this sense it is not only certain, it
is axiomatic." '

Ignorance of Terms.

But, wherefore, it may be asked, have we such
diverse and conflicting opinions regarding the nature
and tendency of Evolution ? Why is it that some
still persist in considering it a *' flimsy hypothesis,"
while others as stoutly maintain that it is a firmly
established doctrine? Why is it that some believe
it to be neutral and indifferent, so far as faith is con-
cerned, and others find in its tenets illustrations and
corroborations of many of the truths of Dogma ; that
there are so many who see, or fancy they see in it,
the negation of God, the destruction of religion, and
the subversion of all order, social and political?

' "Evolution, and Its Relation to Religious Thought," p, 65.

MISCONCEPTIONS OF THEORY. 215

These are questions which are frequently asked,
and that press themselves upon even the most su-
perficial reader. Are they insoluble? Must they
be relegated forever to the domain of paradox and
mystery, or is there even a partial explanation to be
offered for such clashing opinions and such glaring
contradictions ? With all due deference to the judg-
ment of those who see nothing good in Evolution,
nothing which must not incontinently be con-
demned as false and iniquitous, I think that the
enigma may be solved, and that it may be shown
that the contradictions, as is usually the case in such
matters, are due mostly, if not wholly, to an ignoratio
elenchi^ a misapprehension of terms, or to a delibe-
rate intention of exploiting a pet theory at the ex-
pense of religion and Dogma, which are ostenta-
tiously repudiated as based on superstition and
falsehood.

The two words most frequently misunderstood
and misemployed are " creation " and " nature."
They are of constant occurrence in all scientific
treatises, but no one who is not familiar with the
writings of modern evolutionists has any conception
of the extent to which these terms are misapplied.
For this reason, therefore, it is well, before proceed-
ing further, briefly to indicate the meaning which
Catholic theology attaches to these much-abused
words.

Materialism and Dualism.

From the earliest times, the dogma of creation
has been a stumbling-block to certain students of

216 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA.

science and philosophy. The doctrines, however,
which have met with most general acceptance re-
garding the origin and constitution of the universe,
can be reduced to a few typical and comprehensive
classes.

First of all, comes the Materialism of Leucippus
and Democritus, of Heraclitus and of Empedocles,
of Epicurus and the philosophers of the Ionian
school. The only reality they recognized was matter.
Simple atoms, infinite in number, eternal and uncre-
ated, moving eternally ij) a ym4mfiniteln^xteiit,_are,
of themselves, the only postulate demanded byjnate^^
rialists to explain thejiniverse and all thephenom-
ena which it exhibits. It excludes the intervention
ofan intelligent cause, and attributes all life and
thought to the mere interaction of the ultimate
atoms of brute matter. Morality, according to this
teaching, is but " a form of the morality of pleasure,"
religion is the outcome of fear and superstition, and
God the name of a being who has no existence out-
side of the imaginations of the ignorant and the self-
deceived.

Materialism, as is obvious, is but another name
for Atheism, and is a blank negation of creatjon^s
well as of God. " Rigorously speaking," as M.
Caro well observes, " Materialism has no history,
or, at least, its history is so little varied that it can
be given in a few lines. Under what form soever it
presents itself, it is immediately recognized by the
absolute simplicity of the solutions which it proposes.
Contemporary Materialism has in nowise changed
the framework of this philo.sophy of twenty centuries'

MISCONCEPTIONS OF THE OR T. 217

standing. It has never deviated from its original
program ; it has but been enriched with scientific
notions ; it has been transformed in appearance only,
by being surcharged with the data, the views, the
hypotheses, infinite in number, which are the out-
growth of the physical, chemical, and physiological
sciences. Democritus would easily recognize his
teaching, if he were to read the works of M. Buch-
ner ; even the language used has undergone but a
trifling change.'" Indeed, "the history of Material-
ism," as has well been remarked, " may be reduced
to indicating the influence which it has exercised at
divers epochs, and to recording the names of its
most famous representatives."

The advocates of Dualism, like the defenders of
Materialism, taught the eternity of matter, but in
addition to eternal, uncreated matter, recognized the
existence of a personal God. Many of the philoso-
phers of antiquity, who escaped the errors of Mate-
rialism and Pantheism, fell headlong into those of
Dualism, which possessed as many forms as Proteus
himself. Thus, the Manicheans asserted the exist-
ence of two principles, one good, the other evil ;
the former, the creator of souls, the latter, the crea-
tor of bodies. According to the gnostics, the world
is the work of the angels, and not the immediate re-
sult of Divine creative action. Even according to
J. Stuart Mill, matter is uncreated and eternal. God,
he will have it, but fashioned the universe out of
self-existent material, and far from being the Crea-

* " Le Mat^rialisme et la Science," p. 136.

218 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

tor of the world, in the strict acceptation of the
term, is but its architect and builder.

Both Materialism and Dualism are one in assert-
ing the eternity of matter. Materialism, however,
is atheistic, in that it excludes a Creator, while Dual-
ism, although rejecting creation, properly so called,
admits the existence of a Supreme Being. But
God, according to dualists, is little more than a
demiurge. He is powerful, but not omnipotent.
The eternal, self-existent matter which is postulated,
and which exists outside of God, rebels against His
action, and becomes a cosmic power against which
He is powerless. ' /

Pantheism. - /^^^ d/Z'^^/^cfK J

Pantheism is the opposite of Materialism. Ac-
cording to the latter, as we have seen, everything
is matter; according to the former, as the word
indicates, everything is God. The finite and the
infinite ; the contingent and the necessary ; beings,
which appear in time, and God, who is from eternity,
are, according to the teachings of pantheists, but dif-
ferent aspects of the same existence. Whether we
consider the emanation of the Brahmans, the Pan-
theism of the Eleatics, or that of the neo-Platonists
of Alexandria, or that of Spinoza, Fichte, Schelling
and Hegel, the doctrines so taught issue in the nega-
tion of creation as well as in the negation of the
true nature of God. For to predicate, in what
manner soever, an identity of God with the world,
or to conceive God as the material principle, or the
primal matter, from which everything emanates, as
pantheists do, is to negative completely not only

7

MTSCONCEPTTONS OF THEORT. 219

the Christian idea of God, a Being eternal, spiritual
in substance, and distinct from the world in reality
and essence, but also the Christian and the only true
idea of creation.

Having briefly adverted to some of the principal
philosophical doctrines which exclude creation in
the Christian and Scriptural sense, and having given
a hasty glance at some of the more widely-spread
errors respecting the nature of the Creator and His
creatures, we are now prepared to consider the
teachings of Catholic philosophy and theology as
to creation, and as to the origin and nature of the
material universe.

' <^-^^'"^ Dogrma'; of Creation, "^/^ff ))if^ -f-k^ r^C'^i'<k>i

Creation, in its strictest sense, is the production, /j-jj^/^m
by God, of something from nothing. The universe
and all it contains was called into existence ex nihilo,
by an act of the Creator, which was not only super-
natural, but also absolute and free. It was, there-
fore, in no wise formed from preexisting material,
for none existed, nor by any emanation from the
Divine substance. God alone is necessary and
eternal ; the world of matter and the world of spirit,
outside of God, are contingent, and have their exist-
ence in time. But, notwithstanding that the nature
of the world of created things is finite, and entirely
different from the Divine nature, which alone is in-
finite and necessary, nevertheless, all the creatures
of God have a real existence, although limited in
its duration and dependent entirely on Divine
Providence for its continuance.

220 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

A secondary meaning of the word " creation," is
the formation, by God, of something from preexist-
ing material. This is the natural action of God in
the ordaining or administering of the world, as dis-
tinguished from the supernatural act of absolute
creation from nothing. In this sense God is said to
create derivatively, or by the agency of secondary
causes. He creates potentially ; that is, He gives to
matter the power of producing or evolving, under
suitable conditions, all the manifold forms it may
ever assume. In the beginning He created matter
directly and absolutely, once for all ; but to the mat-
ter thus created He added certain natural forces —
what St. Augustine calls rationes seminales — and put
it under the action of certain laws, which we call
" the laws of nature." Through the operation of
these laws, and in virtue of the powers conferred on
matter in the beginning, God produces indirectly,
derivatively, by the operation of secondary causes,
all the various forms which matter may subsequently
assume, and all the divers phenomena of the phys-
ical universe.

In another sense, also, the word " creation " may
be employed, as when we speak of the creations of
genius, or refer to creations of Raphael, Michael
Angelo, or Brunelleschi. In these cases, the work
of the artist or of the architect consists simply in
making use of the laws, and powers and materials of
nature, in such wise as to effect a change in form or
condition. The action of the intelligent agents in
this case being natural, but more than physical, may
conveniently be designated as hyperphysical.

MISCONCEPTIONS OF THEORT. 221

With hyperphysical creation we shall have little
to do. Our chief concern will be with absolute, or
direct creation, and with secondary or derivative
creation, both of which are so often misunder-
stood and confounded, if not positively denied. It
would, indeed, seem that the sole aim and purpose
of a certain school of modern scientists, is to discover
some means of evading the mystery of creation. For
they not only deny creation, but also deny its possi-
bility, and all this because they, with "the fool," per-
sist in saying in their hearts " There is no God." So
great, indeed, is their hatred of the words " Creator"
and " creation," that they would, if possible, obliter-
ate them from the dictionary, and consign all works
containing them to eternal oblivion. *

The Vatican Council on Creation. — ^^'^ Hyj)/i^

For a clear and succinct statement of Catholic
doctrine, in respect of God as Creator of all things,
as well for an expression of the Church regarding the
errors of Materialism and Pantheism now so rife, we
can have nothing better or more pertinent to our pres-
ent subject than the constitution and canons of the
Vatican Council: De Deo Rerum Omnium Creator e.

The " Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic
Faith," in reference to " God, the Creator of all
things," reads as follows : " The Holy Catholic
Apostolic Roman Church believes and confesses, that

' " In properly scientific works," sajs Buchner, who de-
clares that '' science must necessarily be atheistic," " the word
[God] will seldom be met with ; for, in scientific matters the
word 'God' is only another expression for our ignorance."
" Man in the Past, Present, and Future," p. 329.

222 EVOLUTION AXD DOGMA.

. there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord
of heaven and earth, Almighty, Eternal, Immense,
Incomprehensible, Infinite, in intelligence, in will,
and in all perfection, who, as being one, sole, abso-
lutely simple and immutable spiritual substance, is
to be declared as really and essentially distinct from
the world, of supreme beatitude in and from Him-
self, and ineffably exalted above all things which
exist, or are conceivable, except Himself.

" This one only true God, of His own goodness
and Almighty power, not for the increase or acquire-
ment of His own happiness, but to manifest His
perfection by the blessings which He bestows on
creatures, and with absolute freedom of counsel,
created out of nothing, from the very beginning of
time, both the spiritual and the corporeal creature,
to wit, the angelical and the mundane, and afterward
the human nature, as partaking in a sense of both,
consisting of spirit and body."

But the canons of the Council relating to God
as Creator of all things, are, if anything, stronger
and more explicit than what precedes.

They are as follows :

**i. If anyone shall deny one true God, Creator
and Lord of things visible and invisible , let him be
' -^ anathema.

" 2. If anyone shall not be ashamed to affirm
that, except matter, nothing exists; let him be
anathema.

" 3. If anyone shall say that the substance and
essence of God and of all things is one and the same ;
let him be anathema.

MISCONCEPTIONS OF THEORY. 223

" 4. If anyone shall say that infinite things, both
corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have
emanated from the Divine substance ; or that the
Divine Essence by the manifestation and evolution
of Itself becomes all things ; or lastly, that God is
universal or indefinite being, which by determining
itself constitutes the universality of things, distinct
according to genera, species and individuals ; let him
be anathema.

" 5. If anyone confess not that the world and all
things which are contained in it, both spiritual and
material, have been, in their whole substance, pro-
duced by God out of nothing ; or shall say that
God created, not by His will free from all necessity,
but by a necessity equal to the necessity whereby
He loves Himself ; or shall deny that the world was
made for the glory of God ; let him be anathema."

We have here in a nutshell the Catholic doctrine
of creation, as well as an authoritative pronounce-
ment, which cannot be mistaken, respecting the
attitude of the Church towards the Atheism, Mate-
rialism and Pantheism which have infected so many
minds in our time, and exerted such a blighting
influence on contemporary science.

Meaning of the Word " Nature."

Knowing, now, in what sense we may interpret
the word " creation," in what sense it must be under-
stood according to Catholic teaching, we next pro-
ceed to the discussion of the word " nature," about
which so much crass ignorance prevails, even among

224 E VOL UTION AXD DOGMA.

those who employ it most frequently, and whom it
behooves to have clear ideas as to its import.

" Nature " is frequently employed to designate
" the material and spiritual universe as distinguished
from the Creator ; " to indicate the " world of sub-
stance whose laws are cause and effect ; " or to
signalize " the aggregate of the powers and proper-
ties of all things." It is used to signify " the forces
or processes of the material world, conceived as an
agency intermediate between the Creator and the
world, producing all organisms, and preserving the
regular order of things." In this sense it is often
personified and made to embody the old gnostic
notion of a demiurge, or an archon ; a subordinate,
creative deity who evolved from chaos the corporeal
and animated world, but was inferior to the infinite
God, the Creator of the world of spirits. It is made
to refer to the " original, wild, undomesticated con-
dition of an animal or a plant," or to " the primitive
condition of man antecedent to institutions, espe-
cially to political institutions," as when, for instance,
we speak of animals and plants being found, or men
living in a state of nature. It likewise distinguishes
that which is conformed to truth and reality " from
that which is forced, artificial, conventional, or re-
mote from actual experience."

These are only a few of the many meanings of
the word " nature," and yet they are quite sufficient
to show us how important it is that we should al-
ways be on our guard lest the term, so often ambig-
uous and so easily misapplied, lead us into grave
mistakes, if not dangerous errors. In works on nat-

M/SCONCEPTIONS OF THE OR 7'. 225

ural and physical science, where the word " nature "
is of such frequent occurrence, and where it pos-
sesses such diverse meanings, having often different
significations in a single paragraph, there is a special
danger of misconception. Here, unless particular
attention be given to the changed meanings of the
term, it becomes a cloak for the most specious fal-
lacies, and a prolific source of the most extravagant
paralogisms.

Any one of the diverse meanings of the word" na-
ture," as just given, is liable to be misconstrued by
the unwary. But the chief source of mischief with
incautious readers arises from the habit scientific
writers have, of indiscriminately personifying nature
on all occasions ; of speaking of it as if it were a single
and distinct entity, producing all the various phe-
nomena of the visible universe, and of referring to
it as one of the causes that " fabricate this corporeal
and sensible world ; " as a kind of an independent
deity " which, being full of reasons and powers,
orders and presides over all mundane affairs."

When poets personify nature there is no danger
of misconception. In their case the figurative use
of the term is allowed and expected. Thus, when
Bryant tells us that nature speaks "a various lan-
guage," or when he bids us —

" Go forth under the open sky, and list
To nature's teachings ; "
or when Longfellow declares that —

"No tears
Dim the sweet look that nature wears,"
we understand at once that " nature " is but a

E.-is

226 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

poetical fiction ; and that the term is to be inter-
preted in a metaphorical and not in a literal sense.

With naturalists, however, and philosophers, who
are supposed to employ a more exact terminology,
such a figurative use of language cannot fail, with
the generality of readers, to be both misleading and
mischievous.

Darwin, and writers of his school, are continually
telling us of the useful variety of animals and plants
given to man " by the hand of ' nature,' " and recount-
ing how " 'nature' selects only 'for the good of the
being which she tends,' " how " every selected char-
acter is fully exercised by her," and how " natural
selection entails divergence of character and ex-
tinction of less improved forms." Huxley loves to
dilate on how " ' nature ' supplied the club-mosses
which made coal," how she invests carbonic acid,
water, and ammonia " in new forms of life, feeding
with them the plants that now live." He assures
us that ** thrifty * nature,' surely no prodigal ! but
the most notable of housekeepers," is " never in a
hurry, and seems to have had always before her
eyes the adage, ' Keep a thing long enough, and you
will find a use for it ; ' " that " it was only the other
day, so to speak, that she turned a new creature
out of her workshop, who, by degrees, acquired
sufficient wits to make a fire."

Nature and God.

Now, there is no doubt but that all these quota-
tions can be understood in an orthodox sense, but
the fact, nevertheless, remains, that they are not

MISCONCEPTIONS OF THEORY. 227

always so construed, and for the simple reason that
both the writers from whom these citations are
made, are avowed agnostics. So far as Huxley and
Darwin are concerned, there may be a personal God,
the Creator of the universe ; but, they will have it,
there is no evidence of the existence of such a Be-
ing. On the contrary, according to their theory,
there is nothing but matter and motion, and if they
do not, like King Lear, say: "Thou, nature, art
my goddess," their teachings tend to incline others
to the belief that there does really exist an entity
subordinate to God, if not independent of Him,
that produces all existing phenomena, not only in
the world of matter, but also in the world of spirit.

It is, then, against this constant misuse of the
word "nature," and especially against the many
false theories which are based on the misapprehen-
sion of its true significance, that it behooves us to
be constantly on our guard. Errors of the most
dangerous character creep in under the cover of am-
biguous phraseology, and the poison of false doc-
trine is unconsciously imbibed, even by the most
cautious. We may, if we will, personify nature, but,
if we do so, let it not be forgotten that nature, with
all her powers and processes, is but a creature of
Omnipotence ; that far from being merely an in-
ward, self-organizing, plastic life in matter, inde-
pendent of God, as was asserted by the hylozoist,
Strato of Lampsacus, nature, as good old Chaucer
phrases it, is but " the vicar of the Almightie Lord."

" What else," asks Seneca, " is nature, but God,
and a certain Divine purpose manifested in the world?

d28 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA,

You may, at pleasure, call this Author of the world
by another name." ' Again, in referring to the Deity,
under the name of Jupiter, he inquires, "Wilt thou
call Him nature? Thou wilt not sin. For it is from
Him that all things are born, and by whose Spirit
we live."* All this, and more, is affirmed with equal
beauty and terseness by the " Christian Cicero," Lac-
tantius: "If nature," he asks, "does all that she
is said to do ; if she everywhere displays evidences
of power, intelligence, design, wisdom ; why call her
nature, and not God?"°

Having explained the meaning of the words
"creation," and "nature," we are now prepared to
consider the subject of Evolution in relation to the
teachings of faith. Here, however, we must again
distinguish, and explain. There are evolutionists, and
evolutionists. There are evolutionists who give us
in a new guise the old errors of Atheism, Materialism
and Pantheism ; there are others who assert that our
knowledge is confined to the phenomenal world, and
that, consequently, we can know nothing about the

* " Quid enim aliud est natura quam Deus et di\ ina ratio toti
mundo et partibus ejus inserta ? Quoties voles, tibi licet aliter
hunc auctorem rerum nostrarum compellare." Seneca, " De
Beneficiis." Lib. IV, chap. i.

*" Vis ilium naturam vocare ? non peccabis. Est enim ex
quo nata sunt omnia, cujus Spiritu vivimus." " Natural. Qusest."
Lib. n.

'" Natura, quam veluti matrem esse reruni putant, si men-
tem non habet, nihil efficiet umquam, nihil molietur. Ubi enim
non est cogitatio, nee motus est ullus ; nee efficacia. Si autem
concilio suo utitur ad incipiendum aliquid, ratione ad disponen-
dum, arte ad efficiendum, virtute ad consummandum, potestate
ad regendum, et eontinendum, cur natura potius quam Deus
nominetur." " De Ira Dei," cap. x.

MISCONCEPTIONS OF THBORT. 229

absolute and the unconditioned ; and there are
others still, who contend that Evolution is not incon-
sistent with Theism, and maintain that we can hold
all the cardinal principles of Evolution without sac-
rificing a single jot or tittle of Dogma or revelation.
For the sake of simplicity, we shall designate
these three classes of evolutionists as: i, monists ; 2,
agnostics ; and 3, theists. Their doctrines are clearly
differentiated, and naturally distinguish three schools
of contemporary thought, known respectively as: i,
Monism ; 2, Agnosticism ; and 3, Theism. This is
the most convenient and comprehensive grouping
we can give, of the tenets of the leading representa-
tives of modern science and philosophy, and, at the
same time, the most logical and satisfactory. In
order to secure as great exactness, and make my ex- 9^
position as concrete and tangible as possible, I shall,
when feasible, allow the chief exponents of Monism, '
Agnosticism, and Theism, to speak for themselves^
and to present their views in their own words. This
will insure not only greater accuracy, but will also be
fairer, and more in keeping with the plan I have fol-
fowed in the preceding pages.

f'

CHAPTER II.

MONISM AND EVOLUTION.
Hseckel and Monism.

HISTORICALLY considered, Monism, as a sys-
tem of philosophy, is as old as speculative
thought. It has, however, had various and even
contradictory meanings. Etymologically, it indi-
cates a system of thought, which refers all phenom-
ena of the spiritual and physical worlds to a single
principle. We have, accordingly, idealistic Monism,
which makes matter and all its phenomena but
modifications of mind ; materialistic Monism, which
resolves everything into matter ; and, finally, the
system of those who conceive of a substance that
is neither mind nor matter, but is the underlying
principle or substantial ground of both. In each
and all of its forms. Monism is opposed to the phil-
osophical Dualism which recognizes two principles —
matter and spirit.

The Monism, however, with which we have to
deal here, is not the idealism of Spinoza, Berkeley,
Hume, Hegel or Schopenhauer, nor the atheistic
Materialism of D'Holbach and La Mettrie, which
was but a modified form of Epicureanism, but rather
a later development of these errors. An outgrowth
of recent speculations in the natural and physical

(230)

MONISM AND EVOLUTION. 231

sciences, its origin is to be traced to certain hypoth-
eses connected with some of the manifold modern
theories of Evolution.

The universally-acknowledged protagonist of con-
temporary Monism is Ernst Haeckel, professor of
biology in the University of Jena. He is often
called " the German Darwin," and is regarded, with
Darwin and Wallace, as one of the founders of the
theory of organic Evolution. From the first appear-
ance of Darwin's " Origin of Species," he has been
a strong and persistent advocate of the development
theory, and did more than anyone else to popularize
it in Germany and throughout the continent of
Europe. He has, however, gone much further than
the English naturalist, in his inductions from the
premises supplied by the originator of the theory of
natural selection. He draws conclusions from Dar-
winism at which many of its advocates stand aghast,
and which, if carried out in practice, would not only
subvert, religion and morahty, but would sap the
very foundations of civilized society. Anti-monists,
of course, contend that Haeckel's conclusions are
not valid, and that there is nothing either in Dar-
winism, or Evolution, when properly understood,
which warrants the dread inductions which have
been drawn from them by the Jena naturalist.

To understand the nature of Haeckel's doctrines,
and to appreciate the secret of his influence, we
must consider him in a three-fold capacity — as a
scientist, as a philosopher, and as the hierophant
of a new form of religion, " the religion of the
future."

232 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Haeckel as a Scientist.

As a scientist, especially as a biologist, he deserv-
edly occupies a high place. Of unquestioned ability,
of untiring industry, and of remarkable talent for
original research, he is distinguished also for a cer-
tain intrepidity and assertiveness in promulgating
his views, which have given him, not only a reputa-
tion, but a notoriety which is world-wide. His best
work, probably, has been done in connection with his
investigations of some of the lower forms of life,
especially the protista, the radiolaria, and the calca-
reous sponges. His researches in this direction would
alone have been sufficient to make him famous in
the world of science. But concerning these researches
the general public knows little or nothing. The
works of Haeckel which have made his name familiar
the world over, are his popular expositions of evolu-
tionary doctrines, viz., his '* Natiirliche Schopfungs-
geschichte," or " Natural History of Creation," and
"Anthropogenie,"or " Evolution of Man." In these
works, his chief endeavor is to present the theory of
Evolution in a popular form, and to give the evi-
dences on which it is founded.

Haeckel's Nature-Philosophy,

But he does more than this. Not satisfied with
being an expounder of the truths of science, he
promulgates views on philosophy and religion which
are as radical as they are irrational. He appears not
only as a professor of biology, but poses as the
founder of a new school of philosophy, and as the
high-priest of a new system of religion. He commits

MONISM AND EVOLUTION. 233

the error into which so many have fallen, of con-
founding the methods of metaphysics with those of
experimental science, and of mistaking a priori rea-
soning for strict inductive proof.

The name which Haeckel gives his nature-philos-
ophy, as he loves to call it, is, as already stated. Mon-
ism. The word " Monism " is often attributed to the
Jena professor, but erroneously, as it was coined by
Wolf long before. Haeckel has, however, given it a
new meaning, and the one which is now generally
understood when Monism is in question. He has,
as he tells us, chosen this term so as to eliminate the
errors attaching to Theism, Spiritualism, and Mate-
rialism, as well as to the Positivism of Comte, the
Synthetism of Spencer, the Cosmism of Fiske, and
other like evolutionary systems of philosophy. But
here I shall let Haeckel speak for himself.

In his " Evolution of Man," ' he declares that
" this mechanical or monistic philosophy asserts that
everywhere the phenomena of human life, as well as
those of external nature, are under the control of
fixed and unalterable laws ; that there is everywhere
a necessary causal connection between phenomena,
and that, accordingly, the whole knowable universe
forms one undivided whole, a * monon.' It further
asserts that all phenomena are produced by mechan-
ical causes, causa efficientes, not by prearranged, pur-
posive causes, causes ^na/es. Hence, there is no such
thing as ' free-will ' in the usual sense. On the con-
trary, in the light of this monistic conception of
nature, even those phenomena which we have been

1 Vol. II, p. 455.

234 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

accustomed to regard as most free and independent,
the expressions of the human will, appear as subject
to fixed laws as any other natural phenomenon. In-
deed, each unprejudiced and searching test applied
to the action of our free will, shows that the latter is
never really free, but is always determined by pre-
vious causal conditions, which are eventually refera-
ble either to heredity or to adaptation. Accordingly,
we cannot assent to the popular distinction between
nature and spirit. Spirit exists everywhere in nature,
and we know of no spirit outside of nature." Else-
where, he tells us that " unitary philosophy, or Mon-
ism, is neither extremely materialistic, nor extremely
spiritualistic, but resembles rather a union and com-
bination of these opposed principles, in that it con-
ceives all nature as one whole, and nowhere recog-
nizes any but mechanical causes. Binary philosophy,
on the other hand, or Dualism, regards nature and
spirit, matter and force, inorganic and organic na-
ture, as distinct and independent existences." *

Again, he assures us that the theory of develop-
ment of Darwin must, " if carried out logically, lead
us to the monistic, or mechanical, causal, conception
of the universe. In opposition to the dualistic, or
teleological conception of nature, our theory con-
siders organic, as well as inorganic bodies, to be the
necessary products of natural forces. It does not
see in every species of animal and plant the em-
bodied thought of a personal Creator, but the ex-
pression, for the time being, of a necessarily active
cause, that is, of a mechanical cause, causa efficiens.

^ Op. cit., vol. II, p 461.

MONISM A ND E VOL UTION. 235

Where teleological Dualism seeks the thoughts of a
capricious Creator in the miracles of creation, causal
Monism finds in the process of development the
necessary effects of eternal, immutable laws of
nature."*

Five Propositions of Hseckel.

These quotations would seem to be sufficiently
explicit, but Haeckel, not satisfied with such gen-
eral statements, has been pleased to lay down five
theses, respecting the theory of Evolution, which ad-
mit neither doubt nor ambiguity. They are worded
as follows :

1. " The general doctrine [of Evolution] appears
to be already unassailably founded.

2. " Thereby every supernatural creation is com-
pletely excluded.

3. " Transformism and the theory of descent are
inseparable constituent parts of the doctrine of Evo-
lution.

4. "The necessary consequence of this last con-
clusion is the descent of man from a series of verte-
brates.

5. " The belief in an ' immortal soul,' and. in * a
personal God * are therewith — i. e., with the four pre-
ceding statements — completely ununitable \ydllig
unvereinbar\y *

Such, then, in brief compass, is Monism as ex-
pounded by its latest and most applauded doctor
and prophet. Such is Haeckelism, about which so

* " History of Creation," vol. I, p. 34.

'"Evolution in Science, Philosophy and Art," p. 454

236 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

much is said, but concerning which there is so little
accurate knowledge. As is manifest from the above
five propositions, it is but a neologistic formulation
of old errors ; a recrudescence, in modern scientific
terminology, of the teachings of the Ionian and
Greek materialistic schools ; a rechauffe of the well-
known atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus
of Abdera ; a mixtum compositum of science, philoso-
phy and theology ; an olla podrida compounded of
the most glaring errors and absurdities of Atheism,
Materialism and Pantheism, ancient and modern.

God, and the Soul.

God, according to Haeckel, is but a useless hy-
pothesis. A personal *' Creator is only an idealized
organism, endowed with human attributes ; a gross
anthropomorphic conception, corresponding with a
low animal stage of development of the human or-
ganism." Haeckel's idea of God, an idea which, he
assures us, " belongs to the future," is the idea which
was expressed by Giordano Bruno when he asserted
that : "A spirit exists in all things, and no body is so
small but contains a part of the Divine substance
within itself, by which it is animated." In the words
of one of Haeckel's school, the true God is the
totality of the correlated universe, the Divine reality,
and there is, therefore, "no possible room for an
extra-mundane God, a ghost, or a spook, anyway or
anywhere."

The atom, eternal and uncreated, is the sole God
of the monist. Haeckel's atom, however, is not the
atom of the chemist — an infinitesimally small par-

MONISM AND E VOL UTION. 287

tide of inorganic matter, the smallest constituent
part of a molecule. It is far more. It is a living
thing, endowed not only with life but also possessed
of a soul. And this is no mere hypothesis with
him. It is, he will have it, a demonstrated doctrine,
an established fact. "An atom soul," "a molecule
soul," " a carbon soul," are among the first corollar-
ies of Monism, which, one of its advocates tells us,
is now " irrefragable, invincible, inexpugnable."

Organic and Inorganic Matter.

There is, in Haeckel's estimation, no essential dif-
ference between inorganic and organic matter; no
impassable chasm between brute and animated sub-
stance. All vital phenomena, especially the funda-
mental phenomena of nutrition and propagation, are
but physico-chemical processes, identical in kind
with, although differing in degree from, those which
obtain in the formation of crystals and ordinary
chemical compounds. Like D'Holbach, he identifies
mental operations with physical movements; and,
like Robinet, he attributes the moral sense to the
action of special nerve-fibres. His Weltseele is not
like that of Schelling, a spiritual principle or intelli-
gence, but a blind unconscious force which always
accompanies, and is inseparably connected with,
matter.

According to his views, sensation is a product of
matter in movement, and consciousness is but a
summation of the rudimentary feeling of ultimate
sentient atoms. The genesis of mind is thus en-
tirely a mechanical process, and the conceptions of

288 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

genius are but the result of the clash of atoms and
the impact of molecules. Intellectual work is the
correlative of certain brain-waves ; thrills of grati-
tude, and love of friends and country, are mere
oscillations of infinitesimal particles of brute matter.
Pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow, are the direct
product of vibratory motion, and the difference in
the nature of these emotions arises solely from the
difference in the character of the generating shakes
and quivers. Like Cabanis, Haeckel makes thought
a secretion of the brain, and holds, with Vogt, that
the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.
With Moleschott, he would assert that thought is
dependent on phosphorus, and with Biichner he
would declare it to be a product of nervous elec-
tricity. In the words of Caro, he teaches that : " In
matter, resides the principle of movement ; in move-
ment, is the reason of life ; in life, is the reason of
thought." Hence, in returning to the first term of
the series, we observe that thought and life are only
forms of movement, which is the original inherent
property of eternal matter.'

With Hugo, Haeckel would exclaim :

'• Learn that everything knows its law, its end,
its way ; . . .

That everything in creation has consciousness.

Winds, waves, flames,

Trees, reeds, rocks, all are alive I All have
souls ...

Compassionate the prisoner, but compassionate

the bolt ;

* "Le Materialisme et la Science," p. ii6.

MONISM AND EVOLUTION. 239

Compassionate the chain, in dark, unhealthy prisons ;
The axe and the block are two doleful beings,
The axe suffers as much as the body, the block
as much as the head." '

The Religion of the Future.

Such, in brief outline, are the leading conclu-
sions of Haeckel's teachings in science and philoso-
phy. What, now, are his views on religion ? For his
friends and disciples assert that he is not only a
great scientist, and a great philosopher, but that he
is also to be saluted as the prophet and high-priest
of the religion of science, which means, we are
assured, the religion of the future. According to a
recent exponent of Haeckelism, " We find the reli-
gious history of our race to consist of a gradual Evo-
lution of its leading peoples from a broad base of
general Animism and Fetichism, thence to astrology,
thence to Polytheism, thence to Monotheism, and
thence to Scientism, expressed chiefly to us in the
Pantheism of Goethe, the Positivism of Comte, the
Synthetism of Spencer, the Cosmism of Fiske, and
finally by the Monism of Haeckel."" His new form

■" Sache que tout connait sa loi, son but, sa route ; . .
Que tout a conscience en la creation ...

Vents, ondes, flamines,

Arbres, roseaux, rochers, tout vit ! Tout est plein d'ames.
Ayez pitie ! Voyez ames dans les choses . . .
Plaignez le prisonnier, mais plaignez le verrou ;
Plaignez la chaine au fond des bagnes insalubres ;
La bache et le billot sont deux fitres lugubres ;
La hache souflfre autant que le corps, le billot
Souffre autant que la tfite."

" Les Contemplations." Tom. II, p. 315.
*" Evolution in Science, Philosophy and Art," p. 41.

240 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA

of religion, we are told, " rises above all religions as
the culmination of all. If anything can be, it is, the
universal faith," and this because " it is based upon
verified science."

Truth to tell, however, Haeckel's own views con-
cerning religion are as crude and as extravagant as
many of his expressed opinions respecting philoso-
phy and science. The monistic religion of nature,
he informs us, " which we should regard as the ver-
itable religion of the future, is not, as are all the
religions of the churches, in contradiction, but in
harmony with a rational knowledge of nature.
While the latter have no other source than illusions
and superstitions, the former reposes on truth and
science. Simple, natural religion, based on a per-
fect knowledge of nature and its inexhaustible
treasure of revelations, will, in the future, impress on
Evolution a seal of nobility, which the religious
dogmas of divers peoples have been incapable of
giving it. For these dogmas rest on a blind faith in
obscure mysteries, and in mythical revelations formu-
lated by priestly castes. Our epoch, which shall
have had the glory of achieving the most brilliant
result of human research, the doctrine of Evolution,
will be celebrated in coming ages as having inaugu-
rated a new and fecund era for the progress of
humanity; an era characterized by the triumph
of freedom of investigation over the domination of
authority, through the noble and puissant influence
of monistic philosophy." '

"' Schopfungsgeschichte,'' 7th edition, p. 6S1.

MONISM AND EVOLUTION. 241

This brief extract from Haeckel's inept state-
ments about religion, concerning which, it is mani-
fest, he is crassly ignorant, will relieve us from the ne-
cessity of following further this trumpeted reformer
of religion and omniscient seer of Monism. It would
be difficult to collect together, in the same space, a
greater number of misstatements of fact, more glar-
ing absurdities, or more preposterous propositions,
than those contained in the foregoing quotation
from one of his best-known and most popular works.
I shall not attempt categorically to refute his errors
of history and philosophy, of science and theology,
as this is beyond the scope of the present work.
Neither shall I waste time in indicating wherein he
has put himself, especially in matters of theology
and religion, against the unanimous teaching of the
saints and sages of all time. A mere presentation
of his errors, in a clear light and in bold relief, is a
sufficient, if not the best refutation, for all reasona-
ble men. Haeckel's vagaries but emphasize once
more a fact which has often been signalized — the
danger incurred by specialists, particularly by mere
physicists and biologists, when they attempt to dis-
cuss matters of which they are not only ignorant,
but which are entirely foreign to their ordinary trend
of thought, and when they pass the frontiers with
which they may be familiar, and, entering upon a do-
main of knowledge with which they are entirely unac-
quainted, seek the discussion of topics for which both
their temper and education totally disqualify them.

Such a congeries of errors, scientific, philosophic
and theologic, error personified, as it were, as that

24^ E VOL U TION A ND DOG MA .

which we have just been contemplating, forcibly re-
minds one of the words of the Mantuan bard when
he describes the giant Polyphemus, whose solitary
orb was burnt out by Hercules,

•* Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui
lumen ademptum.'"

But if Haeckel is the accomplished biologist he is
reputed to be, if he is one of the leading representa-
tives of contemporary science, and even his enemies
will not deny that he is all this, how comes it, it
will be asked, that he has fallen into so many errors
and that he has so many enthusiastic followers?

• " A frightful, misshapen, huge monster deprived of
sight."

In his latest work, " The Confession of Faith of a Man of
Science," Hreckel gives expression to absurdities which are
almost incredible. It would, indeed, seem impossible that any
sane man, much less one who pretends to be a leader in science
and philosophy, should be guilty of such utterances as the
following :

" The Monistic idea . . . can never recognize in
God a 'personal being,' or, in other words, an individual of
limited extension in space, or even of human form. . . .
Every atom is . . . animated, and so is the ether ; we might,
therefore, represent God as the infinite sum of all natural forces,
the sum of all atomic forces, and all ether vibrations. . . .
• Homotheism,' the anthropomorphic representation of God, de-
grades this loftiest cosmic idea to that of a gaseous vertebrate."
Pp. 78-79.

Again, on p. 92 of the same work, he says : " As the simpler
occurrences of inorganic nature, and the more complicated phe-
nomena of organic life, are alike reducible to the same natural
forces, and as, further, these in their turn have their foundation
in a simple primal principle pervading infinite space, we can
regard this last [the cosmic ether] as all-comprehending Divin-
ity, and upon this found the thesis : ' Belief in God is recon-
cilable with science.' "

Similar unphilosophical language, to use no stronger terms,
is found in " The Religion of Science," by Paul Carus, the
chief trumpet and propagandist of Hseckelism in the United
States.

MONISM AND k VOL UTION. 243

For those who are familiar with the life-work of
the Jena professor, and know how blindly the multi-
tude follow one who is looked upon as an authority
in science, how prone they are to hero worship, ther?
will be no diflficulty in answering those questions and
in reconciling what are, at least, apparent contradic-
tions.

Haeckers Limitations.

Haeckel, no one questions it, has achieved de-
served eminence in his chosen field of work. But
Hjeckel is a specialist, an ardent specialist, and his
limitations are very strongly marked. As a student
of the lower forms of life, to which he has devoted
the greater portion of his time, he has probably no
superior, and but few peers. But the very ardor with
which he has cultivated science, and forced every-
thing to corroborate a pet theory, has made him one-
sided and circumscribed in his views of the cosmos
as a whole, so as practically to incapacitate him for
the discussion of general questions of science and
philosophy, and much more those of theology.
Like all specialists, he suffers from intellectual my-
opia, and it is almost inevitable that such should be
the case. He examines everything as he would a
microbe or a speck of protoplasm, under the ob-
jective of his microscope. He applies the methods
of induction to questions of metaphysics, and con-
founds the principles of metaphysics with the data of
experimental science. The result, as might be an-
ticipated, is to " make confusion worse confounded."
For such a one, the only cure is a broader knowledge
and a rigid and systematic drill in the fundamental

844 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

rules of dialectics. Verily, for a specialist afflicted
as Haeckel is, and he is but a type of the majority
of specialists, it behooves him to purge —

" With euphrasy and rue
The visual nerve, for he hath much to see."

But is this the sole explanation of the manifold
errors into which the German naturalist has lapsed,
and will this account for his false declamation against
religion, and his vehement denunciation of the Church,
and of what she regards as most sacred ? It is to be
feared not. There is more than simple antipathy in
his case. There is downright hatred. Only on this
assumption can we explain the use of the violent and
blasphemous language which is of such frequent
occurrence in his more popular works.

As to the reading public, their position is not
difficult to understand. They are, as it were, hyp-
notized, by what a German writer, Wiegand, aptly
designates, " the confused movement of the mind of
our age," and are, so far as their ability to think and
judge for themselves goes, in a state of chronic cata-
lepsy. They mistake assertions for proof, theories
for science, and regard a conglomeration of neolo-
gisms, which explain nothing, as so much veritable
knowledge.

Verbal Jugglery,

The secret of Haeckel's prestige and influence
with his readers, is not due simply to the extent of
his information in his special line of study, nortothe
astonishing mass and variety of facts which he dis-
cusses and compares, but rather to his manner of

MONISM AND EVOLUTION. 245

presenting facts, and to his adroitness in drawing the
conclusions which suit him,whether such conclusions
are warranted by the facts or not. With Haeckel,
especially when treating of his favorite topics, Evo-
lution and Monism, the wish is always father to the
thought, and he has a way of convincing his readers
that he is right, even when they have reason to suspect,
if they are not certain, that he is positively wrong.

One of the chief reasons for Haeckel's success as
a theorist, is to be found in the fact that he is an ex-
pert in verbal jugglery, and a consummate master in
the art of sophistry. Whether his use of sophism is in-
tentional or not, is not for me to say. It does, how-
ever, seem almost incredible, that anyone endowed
with ordinary reasoning powers could unconsciously
fall into so great, and so frequent, errors of logic, as
may be seen on almost every page of Haeckel's evo-
lutionary works. He possesses in an eminent de-
gree, as has been well said of him, what a French
prestidigitator declared to be the leading principle of
legerdemain, viz., "the art of making things appear
and disappear." This is true. What Robert Houdin
is among conjurers, that is Haeckel among what the
Germans call the " nature-philosophers " of the pres-
ent generation.

A striking illustration of adroitness in verbal
jugglery is given in his genealogy of man. In his
genealogical tree Haeckel recognizes twenty-two
"form-stages," through which he traces human an-
cestry from monad to man, from the beginning of the
Laurentian to the Quaternary Period, when homo
sapiens first appeared on this planet.

246 E VOL UTION A XD DOGMA .

In accordance with his theory of Monism,
Haeckel, as might be supposed, is a strenuous advo-
cate of spontaneous generation, to which he gives
the new names, plasmogeny and autogeny. His
chief reason for believing in autogeny is, that if we
do not do so, we must beheve in creation and a Crea-
tor, which, according to his notions, is both anti-
scientific and anti-philosophical.

The first product of spontaneous generation was
the moneron, a simple unicellular, structureless bit
of slime or protoplasm, or, as Haeckel himself de-
scribes it, a form of life of such extreme simplicity as
to deserve to be called an " organism without or-
gans." It is due to the action of some natural force,
heat, electricity, or what not, on brute matter, and is
not only the simplest form of life that can exist, but
also the simplest form conceivable. No one, it is
true, has ever seen a moneron, not even Haeckel
himself. But this matters not. The moneron, if it
did not exist, should have existed — because theory
demands it.

To confirm his views regarding this first form-
stage of the human ancestral line, Haeckel appeals to
the famous bathybins, over which Huxley and him-
self went into such ecstasies for awhile, but which
eventually proved to be as imaginary as the moneron
itself.

The immediate successor of the monera in the
phylogeny of man were the amoebae. These differed
from the former in having a nucleus in the cell-sub-
stance or protoplasm. Both these stages existed as
simple individuals. They were, however, succeeded

MON'ISM A ND EVOLU TION. 247

by what are termed amoeboid communities, ** simple
societies of homogeneous, undifferentiated cells."
Under the action of a favorable environment, these
amoebae developed into various larval or gastrula
forms, and these, in turn, by the action of inherent
forces, evolved into worms, and into animals similar
to our modern sea-squirts, lancelets, lampreys, sharks
and mud-fish. The mud-fish, or its prototype, a
kind of salamander fish, was followed by animals
nearly related to existing sirens, axolotls, and by a
cross between tailed amphibians and beaked ani-
mals, the precursor of the monotremata. The next
in the order of succession were marsupials or pouched
animals, semi-apes ; tailed, narrow-nosed apes ; tail-
less, narrow-nosed apes, or men-like apes ; speechless
men, or ape-like men ; and finally, as the culmination
of all, the crown and glory of the genealogical tree,
whose germ was but a simple speck of slime, or plas-
son, we have homo sapietis — man, dowered with the
power of reason and articulate speech.'

The twenty-two parent forms of the human an-
cestral line indicated by Haeckel are, we are assured,
but a few of those which actually existed. They are

' In marked contrast with the atheistic, mechanical theory
of Haeckel are the views entertained by Darwin's great rival,
Alfred Russel Wallace. Writing in his " Darwinism," chap.
XV., of " the introduction of sensation or consciousness," as
"constituting the fundamental distinction between the animal
and vegetable kingdoms," he expresses himself as follows :
" Here, all idea of mere complication of structure producing the
result is out of the question. We feel it to be altogether prepos-
terous to assume, that at a certain stage of complexity of atomic
constitution, and as a necessary result of that complexity alone,
an ego should start into existence — a thing that feels, that is
conscious of its own ejfistence, Here we have the certainty that

248 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

given only as typical stages, and are far from com-
plete. In reality, instead of being only a score in
number, there were thousands and tens of thousands
of transitional forms, intermediate between the first
moneron and primitive man.

I have said that the existence of the first form of
life indicated in this genealogical tree is purely imag-
inary. So, likewise, are many others. So far as
paleontology teaches, fully ten of the twenty-two
groups mentioned by Haeckel are unknown as fossils,
while a number of the others do not, so far as our
present knowledge extends, belong to the periods to
which he assigns them. But this matters not. Se
non i vero e ben trovato. If the facts required for the
support of the theory do not exist, they must be
manufactured. And if facts are found which contra-
vene the theory which has been elaborated with such
care, tant pis pour les faits. The facts must be
wrong, because, forsooth, the theory is right.

something new has arisen — a being whose nascent consciousness
has gone on increasing in power and definiteness till it has
culminated in the higher animals. No verbal explanation or
attempt at explanation — such as the statement that life is the re-
sult of the molecular forces of the protoplasm, or that the whole
existing organic universe from amoeba up to man was latent in
the fire-mist from which the solar system was developed — can
afford any mental satisfaction, or help in anj' way to a solution
of the mj'stery."

Referring to the origin of man he concludes : " We thus
find that the Darwinian theory, even when carried out to its ex-
treme logical conclusion, not only does not oppose, but lends a
decided support to a belief in the spiritual nature of man. It
shows us how a man's body may have been developed from that
of a lower animal form under the law of natural selection ; but
it also teaches us, that we possess intellectual and moral facul-
ties which could not have been so developed, but must have had
another origin ; and for this origin we only find an adequate
cause in the unseen universe of spirit."

MOlfiSM AND E VOL UTION. 249

False Analogy.

Some of the most striking and characteristic of
Haeckel's methods of ratiocination are specially dis-
played in the foregoing attempt to outline the
genealogy of our species. Among these may be
noted the fallacy of regarding analogous processes as
identical. Thus, to his mind the development of
the individual animal — man, for instance — from a
simple germ, is but a repetition within a short space
of time of what has actually occurred in the develop-
ment of the species. Embryological facts in the
life-history of the individual animal, ontogenesis, are
considered as corresponding exactly with those which
must have characterized phylogenesis, or the devel-
opment of any species in geological time. The
former being open to observation and study, while
the latter are not, the facts which must have ob-
tained in phylogeny are inferred from the known
facts of ontogeny.

This fallacy of false analogy is one into which
Haeckel is constantly lapsing, and one, therefore,
against which the reader must always be on the
alert. But it is by no means peculiar to Haeckel
alone. It is a frequent occurrence in most of our
current scientific literature, and has probably been
more productive of error than any other one form of
sophism. Instead of being employed in its strict
sense, as it should always be used in science and
philosophy, analogy is taken most loosely or given
a meaning it will not bear. In lieu of being under-
stood to imply a similarity of relations, which is its

250 B VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

proper and specific meaning, it is used to signify
essential resemblance, which is wholly inexact.

In order that the argument of analogy should be
valid, the data given should be identical, and should
refer to two different classes of beings viewed under
the same bearings. When this is the case, the iden-
tical data given may be regarded as premises, from
which conclusions may be drawn applicable to both
classes of beings. Until, therefore, Haeckel and his
school can demonstrate, that the causes which have
operated and the conditions which have prevailed
in phylogeny, are identical with those which exist
in respect of ontogeny, his argument is inconclusive,
if not worthless, and the theories based on his as-
sumptions are at best but simple hypotheses and
should be so considered. '

The suppositions which he continually makes,
and the postulates which everywhere abound in
his writings, show the looseness of his reasoning and
the flimsiness of the structure which he has reared
with such a flourish of trumpets, and to which he
points with such evident feelings of arrogant exalta-
tion. On almost every page of his " Evolution of
Man," and his " History of Creation," we find such
phrases as " there can be no doubt ;" " which may

^ It is not my purpose to minimize the force or plausibilit}'
of the argument in favor of Evolution which is based on the
teachings of embryology. On the contrary, I am quite willing to
accept the argument for what it is worth, and in the earlier part
of this work I have endeavored to present it as fairly as possible
within a brief compass. The facts of embryology may justify-
the conclusions which evolutionists draw from them, but so far
there is no positive evidence that such is the case. The argu-
ment fropi analogy may, in this particular instance, be warrant-

MONISM AND EVOLU TION. 251

safely be regarded;" "as is now very generally
acknowledged ;" " we can with more or less certainty
recognize ;"" it might be argued;" "a conception
which seems quite allowable ;" " we can, therefore,
assume ;" " we may assert ;" " this justifies the con-
clusion ;" and numberless others of similar import,
which, like the paraphernalia of the magician, are
designed to perplex and deceive. Attention, how-
ever, to the matter under discussion, will always re-
veal the imposture in Haeckel's case, and disclose the
fact that his plausible statements are often nothing
more than rhetorical artifices and tricks of dialectics ;
the reasonings of a special pleader who has before
his mind but one aim, to give vraisemblance to an
assumption that cannot be substantiated by fact.

Understanding his methods of reasoning, and the
reckless manner in which he draws conclusions not
contained in the premises, we need not be surprised
to have Haeckel tell us, as he does in his fanciful
pedigree of man, that we must " regard the am-
phioxus with special veneration, as that animal which
alone, of all extant animals, can enable us to form an
approximate conception of our earliest Silurian verte-
brate ancestors." Neither need we be surprised,
because we know the man's flippancy and cynicism,

ed, but this remains to be demonstrated. What I take excep-
tion to in Hicckel's argumentation are, the exaggerated impor-
tance he attaches to faint or imaginary resemblances, and his
continual attribution to the argument from analogy of a value
which it rarely, and which, as he ordinarily uses it, it never
possesses and never can possess. As usually employed in
biology, analogical reasoning can at best afford us nothing more
than probability ; Haeckel would have his readers believe, in the
instances referred to, that it gives physical certainty, which it is
very far from doing.

252 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

when he declares that " the amphioxus, skull-less,
brainless and memberless as it is, deserves all re-
spect as being of our own flesh and blood," and that
this same brainless creature " has better right to be
an object of profoundest admiration and devoutest
reverence, than any of that worthless rabble of so-
called 'saints,' in whose honor our 'civilized and en-
lightened ' cultured nations erect temples and decree

processions."

Type of a Class.

But we need not follow further the Jena profes-
sor in his extravagant speculations and his wild dia-
tribes against religion and Christian philosophy. He
has already been given more attention than his work
deserves. He is, however, a type of a class, and of
quite a large class of scientific men who hold sim-
ilar views, and who reason in a similar manner. The
saying, ab uno disce omnes, is specially applicable here,
because to know one, and, especially, to know the
leader, is to know all. The methods of all those be-
longing to the school of which Haeckel is such an
outspoken exponent are identical. They are all ex-
perts in the " art of making things appear and dis-
appear," and if not as adroit as their master in the use
of sophism, they are, nevertheless, able to deceive
the unwary and thus accomplish untold mischief.

Considering the nature of the teachings of Mon-
ism, it is not surprising that Haeckel and his school
should have such a multitude of adherents and sym-
pathizers as they are known to have.

"In the troublous times in which we live," ob-
serves the distinguished savant, the Marquis de

MONISM AND EVOLUTION. 253

Nadaillac, " and in the midst of the confusion of ideas
of which we are the sorrowful witnesses, human pride
has attained proportions hitherto unknown. Science
has become more dogmatic and more imperious than
was ever theology. It counts, by thousands, adepts
who speak Avith emphasis of modern science, with-
out very often knowing the first word about it. But
I am mistaken — they have been taught that modern
science is the negation of creation, the negation of
the Creator. God belongs to the old regime; the
idea of his justice weighs heavily on our enervated
consciences. Accordingly, when a hypothesis, or a
discovery, seems to contravene Christian beliefs, it is
accepted without reflection and promulgated with
inexplicable confidence. It is in this fact, rather
than in its scientific value, that we must seek the
raison d'etre of transformism." '

But probably no better explanation could be
given of the confusion and perplexity which now
reign supreme, especially among the masses, in mat-
•ters of science, philosophy and theology, than is ex-
pressed by the old Epicurean poet when he affirms :

" Omnia enim stolidei magis admirantur amantque,
Inversis quae sub verbis latitantia cernunt ;
Veraque constituunt, quae belle tangere possunt
Aureis, et lepido quae sunt fucata sonore." *

* " Le Probleme de la Vie," p. 64, et seq.

*" For fools rather admire and delight in all things which
they see hid under inversions and intricacies of words, and con-
sider those assertions to be truths which have power to touch
the ear agreeably, and which are disguised with pleasantness of
sound." Lucretius, " De Rerum Natura," Lib. I, 642-45.

CHAPTER III.

AGNOSTICISM AND EVOLUTION.
Nature and Scope of Agnosticism.

A MORE popular form of error than Monism, or
scientific Atheism, and one which is more
wide-spread and devastating in its effects, is the new-
fangled system, if system it can be called, known as
Agnosticism. To the superficial student it is not
without color of plausibility, and by concealing the
objectionable and repulsive features of Monism, it
now counts more adherents, probably, than any
other form of scientific error.

Like Monism, Agnosticism is a system of thought
which has allied itself with the theory of Evolution,
from which, as ordinarily understood, it is insepara-
ble. Like Monism, it is a mixtum compositum of sci-
ence, philosophy and theology, in which science
and Evolution are predominant factors. And, like
Monism, too, it is a new name for an old form of
error. Unlike Monism, however, Agnosticism af-
fects to suspend judgment, where Monism makes a
positive assertion, or enters a point-blank denial. In
many questions of fundamental importance, Agnos-
ticism is ostensibly nothing more than simple doubt,
or gentle skepticism, while Monism is always arro-
gant, downright affirmation, or negation. In its

(254)

A GNos Tic/sM Aisfb k Vol trtloN. 25b

ultimate analysis, however, Agnosticism as well as
Monism issues in a practical denial of a personal
God, the Creator of the universe, and relegates
Providence, the immortality of the soul, and the
moral responsibility of man to a Divine Being, to
the region of fiction.

Again, Agnosticism, like Monism,, is peculiarly
and essentially the product of a combination and a
succession of causes and conditions. As no one
individual can be pointed to as the: father of Mon-
ism, so no one person can be singled out as the
founder of Agnosticism. Both may have, and have
had, their recognized exponents ; both, like a Greek
drama, have their choragi and coryphei, but these
exponents, these choragi and coryphei, are not spon-
taneous growths. They do not, Minerva-like, leap
suddenly into the intellectual arena, fully developed
and armed cap-a-pie. On the contrary, they are
the product of their environment, as affected by a
series of antecedent factors and influences. They
had their predecessors and prototypes; those who
planted the seeds which lay dormant until new con-
ditions favored germination and development. Then
the fruit contained in the germ was made manifest,
and the poison which had been so surreptitiously
instilled, was discovered when it was too late to
administer an antidote.

The word "agnostic" was invented by the late
Prof. Huxley in 1869. He took it from St. Paul's
mention, in the Acts of the Apostles, of the altar
erected by the Athenians " to the unknown God,"
dpxoffrat »9ec5, and, to the inventor's great satisfaction,

256 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

the term took, and soon found a recognized position
in the languages of all civilized nations.'

Late Developments of Agnosticism.

As a creed, or system of philosophy, Huxley
derives Agnosticism from the teachings of Kant,
Hume and Sir William Hamilton. At an early age
his mind, he informs us, " steadily gravitated towards
the conclusion " of Kant, who aflfirms, in his " Kritik
der reinen Vernunft," that " the greatest and per-
haps the sole use of all philosophy of pure reason is,
after all, merely negative, since it serves not as an
organon for the enlargement (of knowledge), but as

' Father Clarke, S. J., in a note to an interesting series of
articles on Agnosticism in The Month , for June, July and
August, 1882, declares that the term Agnosticism is " an impos-
tor from the Greek vocahulary," and further that " the analogy
of other Greek formations is fatal to its claims of recognition."
" The word Agnosticism," he tells us, " is founded on a false
analogy to Gnosticism. Gnosticism is the doctrine of those
who are yvu<mKot, men professing yvum^, or knowledge. In the
same way Agnosticism would be the doctrine of ayvuariKol, or
those who profess ayvuaia, or ignorance. But ayvoxniKos is an im-
possible Greek word. The Greeks never prefix the privitive a,
or av, to the adjective expressing the possession of a faculty
to indicate its absence. If we are reminded of ansesthetic,
avaiadrjTiKds, as formed on the analogy of agnostic, we answer (i)
that it is not a classical Greek word at all ; (2) that it means not
men who profess want of perception, but that which tends to
destroy perception. By a parity of reasoning, agnostic would
mean that which tends to destroy or banish knowledge. In this
sense we admit the appropriateness of the name."

"Greek philosophers," says Max Miiller, "called it [Agnos-
ticism] with a technical name, Agnoia, or if they wished to
express the proper attitude of mind towards transcendental ques-
tions, they called it Epoche, i. e., suspense of judgment. Dur-
ing the Middle Ages, exactly the same idea which now goes by
the name of Agnosticism, was well known as Docta Ignorantia,
i. e., the ignorance founded on the knowledge of our ignorance
or impotence to grasp anything beyond what is phenomenal."
See Nineteenth Century^ for Dec, 1894, pp. 892-95.

A GNOS TICISM AND B VOL UTION. 257

a discipline for its delimitation ; and instead of
discovering truth, has only the modest merit of
preventing error."

The writings of " that prince of agnostics," David
Hume, and Sir William Hamilton's essay on The
Philosophy of the Unconditioned, confirmed Hux-
ley in this view, and stamped upon his mind " the
strong conviction that, on even the most solemn
and important questions, men are apt to take cun-
ning phrases for answers; and that the limitations
of our faculties, in a great number of cases, render
real answers to such questions, not merely actually
impossible, but theoretically inconceivable." '

Huxley, however, although the coiner of the
word Agnosticism, and one of its most zealous and
popular exponents, is not its coryphaeus. This posi-
tion is held by the philosopher of " the unknowa-
ble," Herbert Spencer, who has done far more than
any other one person to establish what might be
called a school of agnostic philosophy. When it is
remembered that Spencer is likewise the philosopher
of Evolution, "our great philosopher," as Darwin
calls him, we can see what an intimate connection
there must be between Evolution, as a scientific
theory, and Agnosticism as a system of philosophy.

But if Spencer is the coryphaeus of modern
Agnosticism, who was his choragus, who was the
teacher and the fautor-in-chief, of the system of
thought which he has developed at such length in
his numerous volumes on science and philosophy ?

'Collected Essays," by T. H. Huxley, vol. V, p. 236.

E.-.7

258 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Strange as it may appear, Spencer's master was
none other than an Anglican divine, whose ortho-
doxy an-d loyalty to the established church of Eng-
land were never suspected, and who, at the time of
his death, held the honorable position of dean of St.
Paul's, London. The name of this divine was Dean
Mansel, one of the most distinguished theologians
and metaphysicians of England in the latter half of
the nineteenth century.

The germs of modern Agnosticism, according to
Spencer's showing, are unequivocally contained in
Mansel's Bampton " Lectures on the Limits of Re-
ligious Thought," delivered in the University of
Oxford in 1859. ^" ^"^ sentence he stated by im-
plication, if not directly, all that Spencer has devel-
oped in his " First Principles," and supplied, as it
were, the charter for all the extreme forms of Agnos-
ticism which have had such a vogue during the past
generation, and whose progress has been marked
with such dire results to faith, not only in Great
Britain, but also throughout the entire Christian
world.

" Of the nature and attributes of God in his infi-
nite being, philosophy," asserts Mansel, " can tell us
nothing ; of man's inability to apprehend that na-
ture, and why he is thus unable, she tells us all that
we can know, and all that we need to know." '

God being thus separated from His creatures by
an impassable gulf, it is useless for us to attempt to
investigate His nature and attributes. No knowledge
that we can acquire of God will satisfy the demands

1 Lecture VIII, p. 126.

A GNOS TICISM A ND E VOL UTION. 259

of philosophy, or be capable " of reduction to an
ultimate and absolute truth." The only response
that may be given to our inquiries, " the only voice
which sounds back from the abyss where dwells the
Being whom we designate as the Absolute and the
Infinite, is a solemn warning that we possess no
faculties which qualify us for the attainment of any
knowledge of God."

This, in brief, is Manselism, the elimination of
God from the domain of human knowledge, and a
substitution, in its place, of a dreary, hopeless, de-
risive skepticism ; the abolition of theology as an
aimless, bootless pursuit, and the virtual recognition
of a dark, blighting, forbidding Atheism.

Mansel, Huxley and Romanes.

There is every reason to believe that Mansel
never apprehended the full significance of the de-
structive principles enunciated in his Bampton
lectures. Not so, however, with the enemies of
Christianity. They saw, at a glance, the real bear-
ing of the Oxford professor's teachings, and were
not slow to give them all the publicity possible.

Spencer quotes from him, at length, in his " First
Principles," and makes his declaration the basis of the
agnostic philosophy. Huxley, Romanes and others
followed in the wake of Spencer, and were not long
in bringing the principles of Mansel, as expounded
by Spencer, within the comprehension of the general
reading public.

Huxley, indeed, has done more, probably, than
anyone else to popularize Agnosticism, and by the

260 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

majority of readers he is regarded as its chief ex-
ponent and defender. He, however, disclaims any-
thing like a creed, and declares that agnostics are
precluded from having one by the very nature of
their mental status. He prefers to regard Agnos-
ticism, not as a creed, but as "a method, the essence
of which lies in the rigorous application of a single
principle." " Positively," he informs us, " the prin-
ciple may be expressed : In matters of the intellect,
follow your reason as far as it will take you, with-
out regard to any other consideration. And nega-
tively : In matters of the intellect do not pretend
that conclusions are certain which are not demon-
strated or demonstrable. That I take to be the
agnostic faith, which, if a man keep whole and un-
defiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe
in the face, whatever the future may have in store
for him."'

The profession of faith of G. J. Romanes is more
explicit, at least in so far as it refers to God, and
gives us in a few words the views entertained by the
two leading classes of agnostics regarding the First
Cause, or the Absolute or Unconditioned.

"By Agnosticism," asserts Romanes, "I under-
stand a theory of things which abstains from either
affirming or denying the existence of God. It thus
represents with regard to Theism a state of sus-
pended judgment; and all it undertakes to affirm is,
that upon existing evidence the being of God is un-
known. But the term Agnosticism is frequently
used in a widely different sense, as implying belief

' " Science and Christian Tradition," p. 246.

A GNOS TIC ISM A ND B VOL U TION. 261

that the being of God is not merely now unknown,
but must always remain unknown."

Docta Ignorantia.

The agnostic creed, then, is a creed based on ig-
norance rather than on knowledge. We can know
nothing that does not come within the range of
sense; nothing which we cannot observe with our
microscopes, spectroscopes and telescopes, or exam-
ine with our scalpels, or test in our alembics and
crucibles. Our knowledge is and must be, by the
very nature of the case, limited to things material
and phenomenal. Every attempt to fathom the
mysteries of the super-sensible or spiritual world, if

' Contemporary Review, vol. L, p. 59. In his posthumous
" Thoughts on Religion," Romanes distinguishes two kinds
of Agnosticism, pure and impure, the former held by Huxley,
the latter by Spencer. "The modern and convenient term
'Agnosticism,' " writes Romanes, "is used in two very different
senses. Bj its originator. Professor Huxley, it was coined to
signify an attitude of reasoned ignorance touching everything
that lies beyond the sphere of sense-perception, a professed in-
ability to found valid belief on any other basis. It is in this, its
original sense, and also, in my opinion, its only philosophically
justifiable sense, that I shall understand the term. But the
other, and perhaps more particular sense, in which the word is
now employed, is as a correlative of Mr. H. Spencer's doctrine
of the unknowable.

"This latter term is philosophically erroneous, implying
important negative knowledge, that if there be a God, we know
this much about him, that He cannot reveal Himself to man.
Pure Agnosticism is as defined by Huxley." Pp. 107-108.

It is a matter of regret that the lamented author of these
"Thoughts on Religion," did not live to complete his work.
Not long before his premature death, it is pleasing to record, he
recognized the weakness and fallacies of Agnosticism, and re-
turned to " a full and deliberate communion " with the Church
of England, from which he had so long been separated. " In
his case," writes Canon Gore, " the ' pure in heart ' was, after a
long period of darkness, allowed in a measure, before his death,
to ' see God.' "

262 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

there be such a world, or to trace a connection be-
tween noumenal cause or phenomenal effect, if there
be such a connection, must, we are told, prove use-
less and abortive. There may or there may not be,
a God; we hope there is a God, but we have no
warrant for asserting His existence. We cannot af-
firm either that He is personal or impersonal, intel-
ligent or unintelligent ; we cannot say whether He is
mind or matter. We cannot, by searching, find
Him out, and our every assertion regarding Him is
but a contradiction in terms. If there be a Supreme
Being, a First Cause, an Absolute Existence, an
Ultimate Power; if, in a word, there be a God, He
not only is now, but ever must be, unknown and
unknowable.

"There may be absolute Truth, but if there is, it
is out of our reach. It is possible that there may be
a science of realities, of abstract being, of first prin-
ciples and a priori truths, but it is up in the heav-
ens, far above our heads, and- we must be content to
grovel amid things of earth — to build up as best we
can our fragments of empirical knowledge, leaving
all else to that future world, in which, in a clear light,
if there is ever to be a clearer light for us, we shall
know, if there is such a thing as knowledge, the na-
ture and attributes of God, if there is a God, and if
His nature can be known, and if His attributes are
anything more than a fiction of theologians." *

The Duke of Argyll in his interesting work, " The
Unity of Nature" well observes that "This funda*
mental inconsistency in the agnostic philosophy,

' The Month, vol. XLV, p. 156.

A GNOS TICISM A ND EVOLU TION. 263

becomes all the more remarkable when we find, that
the very men who tell us that we are not one with
anything above us, are the same who insist that we
are one with everything beneath us. Whatever
there is in us or about us which is purely animal, we
may see everywhere ; but whatever there is in us
purely intellectual, or moral, we delude ourselves if
we think we see it anywhere. There are abundant
homologies bet\yeen our bodies and the bodies of
beasts ; but there are no homologies between our
minds and any Mind which lives and manifests itself
in nature. Our Hvers and our lungs, our vertebrae
and our nervous systems, are identical in origin and
in function with those of the living creatures around
us; but there is nothing in nature, or above it, which
corresponds to our forethought or design or purpose,
to our love of the good, or our admiration of the
beautiful, to our indignation with the wicked, or to
our pity for the suffering or the fallen. I venture to
think that no system of philosophy that has ever
been taught on earth, lies under such a weight of an-
tecedent improbability ; and this improbabiHty in-
creases in direct proportion to the success of science
in tracing the unity of nature, and in showing step
by step, how its laws and their results can be
brought into more direct relation with the mind and
intellect of man." *

Agnosticism as a Via Media.

Agnosticism professes to be a kind of via media
between Theism and Atheism. It does not deny

> P. i66.

264 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA,

the existence of God, but declares that a knowl-
edge of Him is unattainable. Whether He has
personality or not ; whether He has intelligence
or not ; whether He is just, holy, omnipotent, om-
niscient or not ; whether He has a care for man
and watches over him or not ; whether He has
created man and the earth he inhabits or not —
all these are questions which are simply insoluble ;
are matters which are, and must forever be, be-
yond the ken and apprehension of the human in-
tellect.

A very slight examination will suffice to convince
•anyone that such a via media cannot exist ; that,
notwithstanding what its advocates may assert to
the contrary, Agnosticism is but Atheism in dis-
guise. More than this ; it is worse than Atheism.
An atheist, although he may deny the existence of
God, is nevertheless open to discuss the subject.
An agnostic, however, takes away all matter for dis-
cussion by insisting that God, if there be a God, is
unknowable, and being so, is beyond and above the
reach of reason and consciousness. Far from being
the Creator of heaven and earth and all things, as
faith teaches, God, according to the agnostic, is but
a creature of the imagination, a figment of theolo-
gians, and religion, even in its pure and noblest
form, is but a development of fetichism or ghost-
worship.

Our present concern, however, is not so much
with Agnosticism as a system of belief or unbelief,
as with Agnosticism in relation to the theory of the
origin and Evolution of the visible universe.

A GNOSTICISM A ND B VOL UTION. 265

Origin of the Universe.

The great and perpetual crux for agnostics, as
well as for atheists, is the existence of the world.
For the theist, the origin of the material universe
offers no difficulty. He accepts as true the declara-
tion of Genesis, that: "In the beginning God created
heaven and earth," and with the acceptance of this
truth, all difficulty, based on the fact of creation,
vanishes forthwith. But to the agnostic, as well as
to the atheist, the query: Whence the world and the
myriad forms of life which it contains? — is constantly
recurring, and with ever-increasing persistency and
importance. It is, as all must acknowledge, a fun-
damental question, and no system of thought is
worthy of the name of philosophy, that is not able
to give an answer which the intellect will recog-
nize as rational and conclusive.

According to Herbert Spencer, there are but
"three verbally intelligent suppositions" resfJecting
the origin of the universe. "We may," he says,
"assert that it is self-existent ; or that it is self-cre-
ated ; or that it is created by an external agency.
That it should be self-existent is inconceivable, be-
cause this" implies the conception, which is an im-
possibility, of infinite past time. To this let us add,
that even were self-existence conceivable, it would
not in any sense be an explanation of the universe,
nor make it in any degree more comprehensible.
Thus the atheistic theory is not only absolutely un-
thinkable, but even if it were thinkable would not
be a solution.

266 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

"The hypothesis of self-creation," the English
philosopher continues, "which practically amounts
to what is called Pantheism, is similarly incapable of
being represented in thought. Really to conceive
self-creation, is to conceive potential existence pass-
ing into actual existence by some inherent necessity;
which we cannot do. And even were it true that
potential existence is conceivable, we should still be
no forwarder. For whence the potential existence ?
This would just as much require accounting for exist-
ence, and just the same difficulties would meet us."
According to Spencer, therefore, both the pantheis-
tic and the atheistic hypotheses must be dismissed, as
utterly inadequate to explain the fact of the world's
actual existence.

The third hypothesis, and the one generally re-
ceived, is known as the theistic hypothesis; creation
by an external agency. But "the idea," I am still
quoting Spencer, " of a Great Artificer shaping the
universe, somewhat after the manner in which a
workman shapes a piece of furniture, does not help
us to comprehend the real mystery ; viz., the origin
of the materials of which the universe consists.
. . . But even supposing that the genesis of the
universe could really be represented in thought as
the result of an external agency, the mystery
would be as great as ever, for there would still
arise the question : How came there to be an ex-
ternal agent, for we have seen that self-existence
is rigorously inconceivable? Thus, impossible as
it is to think of the actual universe as self-exist-
ing, we do but multiply impossibiHties of thought

A GNOS TIC ISM A ND E VOL U TION. 267

by every attempt we make to explain its exist-
ence.'"

According to Spencer, then, the theistic hypothe-
sis of creation is as unthinkable as the hypotheses of
Atheism and Pantheism. The theistic, as well as the
atheistic and the pantheistic views, he will have it,
imply a contradiction in terms, and, such being the
case, we must, perforce, resign ourselves to the ac-
ceptance of the agnostic position, which is one of
ignorance and darkness.

Spencer's Unknowable.

But, strive as he may, Spencer cannot think of
the world around him without thinking of it as
caused — and hence he is forced to think of a First
Cause, infinite, absolute and unconditioned. And
in spite of his assertion that God is and must be un-
knowable, he is continually contradicting himself by
assigning characteristics and attributes to that of
which he avers we can know absolutely nothing.
For He of whom nothing can be known, of whom
nothing can be declared, is, Spencer affirms, the First
Cause of all, the Ultimate Reality, the Inscrutable
Power, that which underlies all phenomena, that
which accounts for all phenomena, that which tran-
scends all phenomena, the Supreme Being, the In-
finite, the Absolute, the All-Being, the Creative
Power, the Infinite and Eternal Energy, by which
all things are created and sustained ; a mode of
being as much transcending intelligence and will
as these transcend mechanical motion.

*'' First Principles," chap. ii.

268 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Max Mtiller on Agnosticism.

The distinguished philologist and orientalist,
Max Miiller, although not a philosopher by profes-
sion, reasons far more philosophically than Herbert
Spencer, when he writes: "I cannot help discover-
ing, in the universe an all-pervading causality or
reason for everything; for even when, in my phe-
nomenal ignorance, I do not yet know a reason for
this or that, I am forced to admit that there exists
some such reason ; I feel bound to admit it, because,
to a mind like ours, nothing can exist without a
sufficient reason. But how do I know that? Here
is the point where I cease to be an agnostic. I do
not know it from experience, and yet I know it
with a certainty greater than any which experience
can give. This, also, is not a new discovery. The
first step towards it was made at a very early time
by the Greek philosophers, when they turned from
the observation of outward nature to higher spheres
of thought, and recognized in nature the working
of a mind, or Nnu'i^ which pervades the universe.
Anaxagoras, who was the first to postulate such a
Nobq in nature, ascribed to it not much more than
the first impulse to the inter-action of his homoiom-
eries. But even his A'^y? was soon perceived to be
more than a mere Primum Mobile \ more than the
xivam ay.ivazuv. We, ourselves, after thousands of
years of physical and metaphysical research, can say
no more than that there is voD?, that there is mind
and reason in nature. Sa Majesty le Hasard has
long been dethroned in all scientific studies, and

A GNOS TICISM AND B VOL UTION. 269

neither natural selection, nor struggle for life, nor
the influence of environment, nor other aliases of
it, will account for the logos within us. If any
philosopher can persuade himself, that the true and
well-ordered genera of nature are the results of me-
chanical causes, whatever name we may give them,
he moves in a world altogether different from my
own. To Plato, these genera were ideas; to the
peripatetics, they were words, or logoi; to both,
they were manifestations of thought." '

Sources of Agnosticism.

One of the chief sources of the Agnosticism
now so rampant, is to be sought in the lamentable
ignorance of the fundamental principles of true
philosophy and theology everywhere manifest, and
especially in the productions of our modern scien-
tists and philosophers. And the only antidote for
agnostic, as well as atheistic teaching, is that scho-
lastic philosophy which contemporary thinkers ig-
nore, if they do not positively contemn ; for it alone
can clear up the fallacies which are constantly ad-
mitted in the name of philosophy, and which have
done so much to confuse thought and to make
sound ratiocination impossible.

Another not unfrequent cause of error arises from
a false psychology, from confounding or identifying
a faculty — imagination — which is material, with a
faculty — reason — which is immaterial. Mind is made
a function of matter, and that which cannot be pic-
tured to the imagination is regarded as impossible of

* The Nineteenth Century^ December, 1894.

270 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

apprehension by the intellect. That, therefore, which
the imagination cannot admit, cannot be accepted by
reason ; that which is unimaginable is, ipso facto, un-
thinkable. Such is the suicidal skepticism of those
who confuse the immaterial thought, which is above
and beyond sense, with the material imagination,
which is always intimately connected with sense, and
which, by its very nature, is incompetent to rise above
the conditions and limitations of matter.

Again, probably no two terms are more prolific
of fallacy and confusion than the much-abused words
time and space.

Infinite Time.

One of the gravest objections against the exist-
ence of God, from Spencer's point of view, is that
we cannot conceive of a self-existent being, because
self-existence implies infinite past time, which is a
contradiction in terms. We cannot conceive of
God existing from all eternity, because eternity is
but time multiplied to infinity, and we cannot con-
ceive time multiplied to infinity.

The diflficulty here indicated arises from a mis-
apprehension of the nature of time, and from an an-
thropomorphic view of God, which subjects Him to
the conditions and limitations of His creatures. God
has not existed through infinite time, as is supposed.
He does not exist in time at all. He exists apart
from time ; and before time was, God was. Time
implies change and succession ; but in God there is
neither change nor succession. As the measure of the
existence of created things, it is something relative;

A GNOS TICISM AND B VOL UTION. 271

but in God all is absolute. Eternity is not, as the
agnostic has it, time raised to an infinite power, no
more than the attributes of God are human attributes
raised to an infinite power. God has existed from all
eternity, but He is, by His very nature, above time, and
before time, and beyond time, even infinite time.
To make God exist through infinite past time, be-
cause He has existed from all eternity, would be tanta-
mount to imposing on Him the conditions of cre-
ated things, and to degrading Him as much as do
the most extravagant of anthropomorphists.

Infinite Space.

And as God does not exist in time, so He does
not exist in space. Infinite space, like infinite time,
is a contradiction in terms. If there were nothing
to be measured, if material objects could be anni-
hilated, space would disappear. For space is not
an independent entity, as agnostics suppose, not a
kind of a huge box, which was created for the re-
ception of material things, but the necessary and
concomitant result of the creation of matter, of
what is limited and capable of measurement. And
as God is above and before and beyond time, so is
He likewise above and before and beyond space.
As time began only when God uttered His creative
fiat, so space had no existence until the creation of
the material universe. Neither space nor time,
therefore, can be used as a foundation on which to
base an argument against creation, or the existence
of a First Cause, for both space and time imply
limitation, and God, the Absolute, is above and in-

272 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

dependent of all limitation. Agnostics, who protest
so strongly against Anthropomorphism, are, there-
fore, themselves anthropomorphists, when they at-
tempt, as they do by their irrational theory, to tie
down the Creator to the conditions of His creatures.

Mysteries of Nature. .

I have said that one of the chief causes of Agnos-
ticism is ignorance of Christian philosophy and the-
ology. This is true. But there is also another
reason. The mysteries of nature which everywhere
confront us, and which baffle all attempts at their
solution ; the impossibility of lifting the veil which
separates the visible from the invisible world, are
other sources of skepticism, and contribute not a
little to make Agnosticism plausible, and to give it
the vogue which it now enjoys. "Hardly," says the
Wise Man, " do we guess aright at things that are
upon earth ; and with labor do we find the things that
are before us. But the things that are in Heaven,
who shall search out ? " The mysteries of the natural
order, those which confront us on the threshold of
the unseen, are great and often insoluble; but how
much greater, how much more unfathomable, are
those that envelop the world beyond the realm of
sense, the world of spirit and soul, the world of an-
gelic and Divine intelHgence !

The difficulties indicated are grave indeed, but
skeptics are not the only ones who have given them
thought or fully appreciated their magnitude. There
is a Christian as well as a skeptical Agnosticism, and
all the difficulties suggested by the mysteries of the

AGNOSTICISM AND EVOLUTION. 273

natural and supernatural orders, were long ago real-
ized and taken into account by Christian philosophy
and Christian theology. They were before the
minds of Origen and Clement of Alexandria ; they
occupied the brilliant intellects of St. Basil, St. John
Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Augus-
tine ; they entered into the disputations of the
Schoolmen, and have found a prominent place in
the writings of their successors up to the present
day. No, these difBculties have not been ignored ;
neither have they been underrated nor dismissed
without receiving the consideration their importance
demands. Far from being new, as certain writers
would have us believe; far from being the product
of the research of these latter days ; far from being
the result of those deep and critical investigations
which have been conducted in every department of
knowledge, sacred and profane, they are as old as
the Church, as old even as speculative thought.

Christian Agnosticism.

Unlike the Agnosticism of skepticism, however,
Christian Agnosticism is on firm ground, and,
guided by the principles of a sound philosophy, is
able with unerring judgment to discriminate the
true from the false, and to draw the line of demar-
cation between the knowable and the unknowable.
Christian Agnosticism confesses aloud that God is
incomprehensible, that we can have no adequate
idea of His perfections, but, unlike skeptical Agnos-
ticism, it brushes aside the false and delusive hope,
that in the distant future, when our faculties arc

E.-I8

274 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA.

more nighly developed, when the work of Evolu-
tion is farther advanced than it now is, we may per-
haps be able to comprehend the Divine nature, and
have an adequate notion of the Divine perfections.
Christian Agnosticism tells us that not even the
blessed in Heaven, who see the whole of the Divine
nature, can ever have, even after millions and
billions of ages, a knowledge which shall be com-
mensurate in depth with the Divine Object of their
adoration and love. They shall see God in the clear
light of the Beatific Vision, facie ad faciem, and
shall know as they are known. Nothing shall be
hidden from them. Their intelligence will be illu-
mined by the light of God's glory. The veil that
now intervenes between the Creator and the crea-
ture will be removed, and the created intellect will be
in the veritable presence of the Divine Essence. But
even then, it will be impossible to have an adequate
or a comprehensive knowledge of God. He will, as
the Scholastics phrase it, be known totus sed non
totaliter. The soul will always have new beauties
undiscovered, fresh glories to arrest its enraptured
gaze, and unfathomable abysses of love and wisdom
to contemplate, whose immensity will be as great
after millions of aeons shall have elapsed, as when
it was ushered into the Divine Presence, when it
caught the first glimpse of the glory of the Beatific
Vision, and experienced the first thrills of ecstasy in
the contemplation of the fathomless, limitless ocean
of God's infinite perfections. The soul will know
God, but its knowledge will always be limited by
the fact that it is created, that it is finite, that it is

A GNOS TIC ISM A ND EVOL UTJON. 275

human, that its capacity is narrowed and restricted
by its very nature, and is, therefore, incompetent to
fathom the depths, or comprehend the immensity,
of the ocean of Divine Wisdom and Divine Love, to
comprehend, in a word, that which is immeasurable,
and infinite, and eternal.

If, then, the blessed may drink for all eternity at
the fountain of the Godhead, without exhausting or
diminishing the infinitude of joy and love and knowl-
edge which is there found, we should not be sur-
prised to encounter difficulties and mysteries, in the
natural as well as in the supernatural order, which
are above and beyond our weak and circumscribed
intellects. We admit, and admit frankly, that there
is much that we do not know, much that we can
never comprehend. But our ignorance of many
things does not make us skeptics in all things be-
yond the range of sense and experiment. We may
not know God adequately, but we do know much
about Him, aside from what He has been pleased to
reveal regarding Himself. With St. Paul, we believe
that " the invisible things of God from the creation
of the world are clearly seen, being understood by
the things that are made: His eternal power also
and divinity." '

^ Romans, chap, i, 20. I take pleasure in again quoting
from Max Miiller, who, in speaking of the matter under dis-
cussion truthfully observes : "In one sense I hope I am, and have
always been, an agnostic, that is, in relying on nothing but his-
torical facts, and in following reason as far as it will take us in
matters of the intellect, and in never pretending that conclusions
are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. This
attitude of the mind is the conditio sine qua non of all philoso-
phy. If in future it is to be called Agnosticism, then I am a
true agnostic ; but if Agnosticism excludes a recognition of an

876 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Of the essence of God we can know nothing.
Even of matter we are ignorant as to its essence.
From the existence of the world, we infer the exist-
ence of God ; for our primary intuitions teach us
that there can be no effect without a cause. The
evidences of order and design in the universe, prove
the existence of a Creator who is inteUigent, who
has power and will, and who, therefore, is personal,
and not the blind fate and impersonal energy and
unknowable entity of the agnostic.

Gods of the Positivist and the Agnostic.

The gods of the heathen were manifold and
grotesque, but what shall we say of the objects
which the positivist and agnostic propose for our
worship and love ?

The Greeks and Romans gave Divine honors to
demi-gods and heroes. Comte, one of the apostles
of modern Agnosticism, affects to recoil before such
gross idolatry ; but is he more of a philosopher, or
less of an idolator, when he proclaims that it is not
man taken individually, or any particular man, but
man taken collectively, man considered in the ag-
gregate, that is to be regarded as the object of our
cult ? The Roman and the Athenian worshipped
Apollo and Hercules, Jupiter and Venus; Comte

eternal reason, pervading the natural and the moral world, if
to postulate a rational cause for a rational universe is called
Gnosticism, then I am a gnostic, and a humble follower of the
greatest thinkers of our race, from Plato and the author of the
Fourth Gospel to Kant and Hegel." The Nineteenth Century,
Dec, 1894; see also, "The Christian Agnostic and the Chris-
tian Gnostic," by the Very Rev. A. F. Hewit, D. D., C S. P.,
in the American Catholic Quarterly Revie-iV, January, 1S91.

A GNOS TIC ISM A ND E VOL UTION. 277

says we must worship humanity in its entirety.
Huxley, however, dissents from this view, and tells
us that it is not humanity, but the cosmos, the vis-
ible material universe, which should constitute- the
object of our highest veneration and religious emo-
tion. Herbert Spencer is even more nebulous and
mystical. His deity is an unknowable energy, "im-
personal, unconscious, unthinking and unthinkable."
God is " the great enigma which he [man] knows
cannot be solved," and religion can at best be con-
cerned only with "a consciousness of a mystery which
can never be fathomed." According to Mr. Harri-
son, however — the brilliant critic of the views pro-
pounded by Huxley, the doughty combatant who
has so frequently run full atilt against the champions
of Agnosticism — Spencer's Unknowable is " an ever-
present conundrum to be everlastingly given up ; "
his Something, or All-Being, is a pure negation, "an
All-Nothingness, an x^ and an Everlasting No."
Verily it is of such, " vain in their thoughts and
darkened in their foolish heart," that the Apos-
tle of the Gentiles speaks when he declares that
they " changed the truth of God into a lie ; and
worshipped and served the creature rather than the
Creator." '

But it is not my purpose to dilate on the teach-
ings of Agnosticism. My sole object is to indicate
briefly some of its more patent and fundamental
errors. A detailed examination and refutation of
them does not come within the purview of our sub-
ject. ,For such examination and refutation, the

* "Romans," chap, i, 25.

278 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

reader is referred to works which treat of these
topics ex professo. ' It suffices for our present pur-
pose to know the relation of Agnosticism to Evolu-
tion ; to know that a particular phase of Evolution
is so intimately connected with Agnosticism, that it
cannot be disassociated from it, to realize that
Agnosticism, and agnostic Evolution, are practically
as synonymous as are Atheistic Evolution and
Monism. It is enough for us to appreciate the fact
that Agnosticism and Monism are fundamentally
erroneous, to understand that both monistic and
agnostic Evolution are untenable and inconsistent
with the teaching of Theism and with the doctrines
of Christianity ; that they are illegitimate inductions
from the known data of veritable science, and utterly
at variance with the primary concepts of genuine
philosophy. We need, consequently, consider them
no further. Evolution, in the sense in which it is
held by the Monist and Agnostic, is so obviously in
positive contradiction to the leading tenets of
Theism, that it may forthwith be dismissed as not
only untenable, but as unwarranted by fact and
experiment, and negatived by the incontestable
principles of sound metaphysics and Catholic Dogma.

' See especially : "Agnosticism and Religion," by the Rev.
George J. Lucas, D.D.; chaps, in and iv of " The Great En-
igma," by W. S. Lilly, and the succinct and philosophical
" Agnosticism," by the Right Rev. J. L.Spalding, D.D. The
reader will likewise find many valuable and suggestive pages in
Balfour's " Foundations of Belief," and in a review of this work
bv Mgr. Mercier, in the Revue Neo-Scolastiqne, for October,
1S95.

CHAPTER IV.

THEISM AND EVOLUTION.
Evolution and Faith.

HAVING eliminated from our discussion the
forms of Evolution held by the divers schools
of monists and agnostics, there now remains but
the third form, known as theistic Evolution. Can
we, then, consistently with the certain deductions of
science and philosophy, and in acy:ordance with the
positive dogmas of faith — can we as Christians, as
Catholics, who accept without reserve all the teach-
ings of the Church, give our assent to theistic Evolu-
tion ? This is a question of paramount importance,
one which is daily growing in interest, and one for
an answer to which the reading public has long been
clamoring. And with it must also be answered
a certain number of cognate questions, of scarcely
less interest and importance than the main question
of Evolution itself.

I have elsewhere' shown that the principles of
theistic Evolution — the Evolution, namely, which
admits the existence of a God, and the develop-
ment, under the action of His Providence, of the
universe and all it contains — were accepted and de-
fended by some of the most eminent Doctors of the
early Greek and Latin Churches. It was a brilliant

'"Bible, Science and Faith," part I, chaps, in and iv.

(279)

280 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

luminary of the Oriental Church, St. Gregory of
Nyssa, who first clearly conceived and formulated
the nebular hypothesis, which was long centuries
subsequently elaborated by Laplace, Herschel and
Faye. The learned prelate found no difficulty in
admitting the action of secondary causes, in the for-
mation of the universe from the primal matter which
the Almighty had directly created. According to
Gregory and his school, God created matter in a
formless or nebulous condition, but impressed on
this matter the power of developing into all the
various forms which it afterwards assumed. The
universe and all it contains, the earth and all that
inhabits it — plants, animals, man — were created by
God, but they were created in different ways. The
primitive material, the nebulous matter, from which
all things were fashioned, was created by God
directly and immediately ; whereas, all the multi-
tudinous creatures of the visible world, were produced
by Him indirectly and mediately, that is, by the
operation of secondary causes and what are com-
monly called the laws of nature.

Teachings of St. Augustine.

St. Augustine not only accepted the conclusions
of his illustrious Greek predecessor, but he went
much further than the Bishop of Nyssa. He was,
likewise, much more explicit, especially in what con-
cerned the development of the various forms of ani-
mal and vegetable life. According to the Doctor of
Hippo, God did not create the world as it now appears,
but only the primordial matter of which it is composed.

THEISM AND EVOLUTION. 281

Not only the diverse forms of inorganic matter, rocks,
minerals, cr>'stals, were created by the operation of
secondary causes, but plants and animals were also
the products of such causes. For God, the saint in-
sists, created the manifold forms of terrestrial life,
not directly but in germ ; potentially and causally —
potcntialiter atque causaliter. In commenting on
the words of Genesis : " Let the earth bring forth the
green herb," he declares that plants were created
not directly and immediately, but causally and po-
tentially, in fieri, in causa ; that the earth received
from God the power of producing herb and tree,
produccndi accepisse virtntem.

In his great work on the Trinity, the illustrious
Doctor tells us that : " The hidden seeds of all things
that are born corporeally and visibly, are concealed
in the corporeal elements of the world." We are un-
able to see them with our eyes, " but we can con-
jecture their existence from our reason." They are
quite different from " those seeds that are visible at
once to our eyes, from fruits and living things." It
is indeed from such hidden and invisible seeds that
" The waters, at the bidding of the Creator, produced
the first swimming creatures and fowl, and that the
earth brought forth the first buds after their kind,
and the first living creatures after their kind." They
lay dormant, as it were, until long aeons after the
creation of matter, because " suitable combinations of
circumstances were wanting, whereby they might be
enabled to burst forth and complete their species."

"The world," he avers, "is pregnant with the
causes of things that are coming to the birth ;

282 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

which are not created in it, except from the highest
essence, where nothing either springs up or dies,
either begins to be or ceases." But the Creator of
these seeds, the Cause of these causes. Causa
causarum, is at the same time the Creator of all
things that exist. He carefully distinguishes " God
creating and forming within, from the works of the
creature which are applied from without." " In the
creation of visible things it is God," he affirms, " that
works from within, but the exterior operations,"
that is, the operations of creatures or those of
divers physical forces, "are applied by Him to that
nature of things wherein He creates all things."
** For," the Saint continues, " it is one thing to make
and administer the creature from the innermost and
highest turning point of causation, which He alone
does who is God, the Creator; but quite another
thing to apply some operation from without, in pro-
portion to the strength and faculties assigned to each
by Him, that that which is created may come forth
into being at this time or at that, or in this way or
that way. For all things, in the way of origin and
beginning, have already been created in a kind of
texture of the elements, in quadam textura element-
orum ; but they can come forth only when oppor-
tunity offers, acceptis opportunitatibus!' '

^ "Aliud est enim ex intimo at summo causarum cardine con-
dere atque administrare creaturam, quod qui facit, solus creator
est Deus : aliud autem pro distributis ab illo viribus at iacultati-
bus aliquam oparationem foris secus admovere, ut tunc vel tunc,
sic vel sic, axaat quod creatur. Ista quippe originaliter ac pri-
mordialiter in quadam textura elementorum cuncta jam creata
sunt, sed acceptis opportunitatibus prodeunt." " De Trinitate,"
lib. Ill, cap. IX. In his great work, " De Genesi ad Litteram,"

THEISM A ND E VOL UTION. 288

God, then, according to St. Augustine, created
matter directly and immediately. On this primor-
dial or elementary matter He impressed certain
causal reasons, causales rationes; that is, He gave it
certain powers, and imposed on it certain laws, in
virtue of which it evolved into all the myriad forms
which we now behold. The saint does not tell us
by what laws or processes the Creator acted. He
makes no attempt to determine what are the factors
of organic development. He limits himself to a
general statement of the fact of Evolution, of prog-
ress from the simple to the complex, from the
homogeneous to the heterogeneous, from simple
primordial elements to the countless, varied, com-
plicated structures of animated nature.

Has any modern philosopher stated more clearly
the salient facts of organic Evolution ? Has anyone

lib. IV, cap. XXIII, the saint beautifully develops the evolu-
tionary idea, when he exhibits the analogy between the growth
of a tree from the seed and the Evolution of the world from its
primordial elements. Speaking of the gradual growth of the
tree — trunk, branches, leaves, fruit — from the seed, he declares :
" In semine ergo ilia omnia fuerunt primitus, non mole corporeae
magnitudinis sed vi potentiaque causali." After asking the ques-
tion : " Quid enim ex arbore ilia surgit aut pendet, quod non ex
quodam occulto thesauro seminis illius extractum atque de-
promptum est ? " he continues with rare philosophical acumen :
" sicut autem in ipso grano invisibiliter erant omnia simul quae
per tempora in arborem surgerent; ita ipse mundus cogitandus
est, cum Deus simul omnia creavit, habuisse simul omnia quae in
illo et cum illo facta sunt, quando factus est dies ; non solum
coelum cum sole et luna et sideribus, quorum species manet motu
rotabili, et terram et abyssos, quie velut inconstantes motus pa-
tiantur atque inferius adjuncta partem alteram mundo conferunt;
sed etiam ilia quae aqua et terra produxit potentialiter atque
causaliter, priusquam per temporum moras ita exorirentur, quo
modo nobis jam nota sunt in eis operibus, quae Deus usque nunc
opera tur."

284 E VOL UTION AND DOGMA.

insisted more strongly on the reign of law in na-
ture, or discriminated more keenly between the
operations of the Creator and those of the creature?
Has anyone reahzed more fully the functions of a
First Cause, as compared with those of causes which
are but secondary or physical? If so, I am not
aware of it. Modern scientists have, indeed, a far
more detailed knowledge of the divers forms of
terrestrial life than had the philosophical Bishop
of Hippo; they have a more comprehensive view of
nature than was possible in his day, but they have
not, with all their knowledge and superior advan-
tages, been able to formulate the general theory of
Evolution a whit more clearly, than we find it ex-
pressed in the writings of the Doctor of Grace, who
wrote nearly fifteen centuries ago.

Views of the Angelic Doctor.

The Angelic Doctor takes up the teachings of
St. Augustine and makes them his own. He dis-
cusses them according to the scholastic method, and
with a lucidity and a comprehensiveness that leave
nothing to be desired. He carefully distinguishes
between creation proper, and the production or gen-
eration of things from preexisting material; be-
tween the operations of absolute Creative Energy,
and those which may be performed by secondary
causes. Indeed, so exhaustive and so complete is
his treatment of the origin and Evolution of the
material universe and all it contains ; so clear and
so conclusive his argumentation, that his successors
have found but little to add to his brilliant proposi-

THEISM AND EVOLUTION. 285

tions respecting the genesis of the world and its
inhabitants.

The primordial Divine act of creation, according
to St. Thomas, following St. Augustine, consisted in
the creation, ex nihilo, of three classes of creatures ;
spiritual intelligences, the heavenly bodies and sim-
ple bodies, or elements. According to the physical
theories of the time, the composition of the celes-
tial bodies was supposed to be different from that
of the earth. They were supposed to be incapable
of generation or corruption ; ' to be constituted of
elementary matter, indeed, but matter unlike that
of sublunary bodies, in that it is incorruptible. We
now know that mediaeval philosophers were in error
on this point. Spectrum analysis has demonstrated
that all the celestial bodies have the same compo-
sition as our earth, and that the constitution of the
material universe is identical throughout its vast
expanse. Eliminating this error, which was one
of physics, and not one of philosophy or theology,
and one which in nowise impairs the teachings of

* The scholastic use of the words '• generation " and " corrup-
tion " must carefully- be distinguished from the ordinary meaning
of these terms. " In its widest sense," as Father Harper tells us,
"generation includes all new production even b_y the creative
act. In a more restricted sense, it includes all transformations,
accidental as well as substantial. In a still more restricted
sense, substantial transformations only. Yet more specially,
the natural production of living things ; most specially, the
natural production of man." Corruption, as understood by the
Schoolmen, means, not "retrograde transformation, such as
occurs, for instance, in the death of a living entity," but " the
dissolution of a body by the expulsion of that substantial form by
which it had been previously actuated. In the order of nature,
it is the invariable accompaniment of generation." Cf. " Meta-
physics of the School," vol. II, glossary, and pp. 273-279.

286 E VOL UTION AND DOGMA.

the Angelic Doctor regarding creation, we have,
according to St. Thomas, the creative act termi-
nating in elementary matter and spiritual sub-
stance.

But here we must clearly distinguish between
elementary matter, properly so called — the elements
of which St. Thomas speaks — and primal matter,
materia prima, which was given such prominence
in the philosophical works of the Schoolmen. Ac-
cording to Aristotle, who follows Empedocles, there
are four primitive elements, earth, air, fire and
water; and from these, by suitable combinations, all
other material substances are derived. The Scho-
lastics, in accepting the philosophy of the Stagirite,
naturally adopted his theory of the four elements.
Chemistry, however, has long since exploded this
theory, as spectrum analysis has disproved the me-
diaeval view regarding the composition of the heav-
enly bodies. But whether there are four elements,
as the Schoolmen imagined, or some sixty odd, as
modern chemists maintain, or but one only, as some
of the old Greek philosophers believed, and as cer-
tain men of science still contend, it is quite immaterial
so far as our present argument is concerned. What
is necessary to bear in mind is, that the elementary
matter of which the universe is composed, whether
it be of one or of many kinds, was, in the beginning,
created by God from nothing. For it is manifest
that it was not the intention of the Angel of the
Schools, to commit his followers to any mere phys-
ical theory respecting the number and nature of
the elements, especially when the ideas entertained

THEISM AND E VOL UTION. 287

regarding these subjects were as vague and diverse
as they are known to have been in his day. Neither
he nor his contemporaries had any means of throw-
ing light on the questions involved. Even now,
after all the splendid triumphs which chemistry
has witnessed since the epoch-making achievements
of Lavoisier, we are still in ignorance as to the
exact number of elements existing, and are yet de-
bating whether all the so-called elements may not
be so many allotropic conditions of one and the
same kind of matter. But what the Angelic Doctor
did wish to insist on, what he wished specially to
bring home to his hearers, was the great dogmatic
truth according to which God is the Creator of all
things, material and immaterial, visible and invisi-
ble.

Materia prima, however, as understood by the
Scholastics, is quite different from what we know as
elementary matter. In all bodies subject to genera-
tion and corruption, it is, they tell us, numerically
one — una numero in omnibus. ' It is one and the same
in all the components of the earth, and in all the con-
stituent orbs of space. Of its very nature it is " un-
generated, ungenerative, indivisible, incorruptible,
indestructible." * But this materia prima, although
an entity, is not a complete substance. It cannot
exist by itself, but must be actuated by some form.
For it is form which determines matter and gives

* " Sciendum est etiam, quod materia prima dicitur una
numero in omnibus." Opusc. XXXI, " De Principiis Nature,"
ante med.

* " Sciendum est quod materia prima, et etiam forma, non
generatur neque corrupitur." Op. cit.

288 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

it being.' An element, accordingly, is a composite
entity, a composttum, constituted of matter — which
is the subject, potentiality or inferior part of the
composite — and form, which is the act or superior
part. And although there is but one matter, there
are many forms." And it is because this one matter
is actuated by diverse forms, that we have the mani-
fold elements which constitute the material uni-
verse.

Seminales Rationes.

But these elements, composed of matter and
form, required something more, in order to be com-
petent to enter into combinations and to give rise to
higher and more complex substances.

1 " Simpliciter loquendo, forma dat esse materiae. . . .
Sciendum etiam, quod licet materia prima non habeat in sua
ratione aliquam formam, . . . materia tamen numquam
denudatur a forma. . . . Per se autem numquam potest esse;
quia cum in ratione sua non habeat aliquam formam, non potest
esse in actu, cum esse actu non sit nisi a forma ; sed est solum
in potentia." Ibidem. The whole of this masterly and inter-
esting treatise should be carefully pondered by those who desire
to know the mind of the saintly Doctor respecting the nature
of matter.

"The words " matter" and "form," it will be observed, are
here employed in a strictly metaphysical or technical sense.
Matter is that element in an entity which is indeterminate, pas-
siv-e, potential, " of all real entities the nearest to nothingness."
It is one of the two essential constituents of all bodies. The
other element or constituent of bodies is form. It is that which
differentiates and actuates matter ; which determines the spe-
cific nature of any composite. " The matter in which form ad-
heres," according to Aristotle, " is not absolutely non-existent ;
it exists as possibility — 6vvaiiis, potentia. Form, on the con-
trary, is the accomplishment, the realization — hTE?.exEta, htpyeia,
actus — of this possibility. For an elaborate explanation of these
terms, see chaps, ii and in, vol. II, of Harper's " Metaphysics
of the School." Cf. also, § 48, vol. I, of Ueberweg's " History
of Philosophy."

THEISM AND EVOLUTION. 289

This something more, the Angelic Doctor desig-
nates seminal forces, or influences — seminales rationes.
" The powers lodged in matter," he tells us, " by
which natural effects result, are called seminales ra-
tiones. The complete active powers in nature, with
the corresponding passive powers — as heat and cold,
the form of fire, the power of the sun, and the
like — are called seminales rationes. They are called
seminal, not by reason of any imperfection of en-
tity that they may be supposed to have, like the form-
ative virtue in seed ; but because on the individual
things at first created, such powers were conferred by
the operations of the six days, so that out of them,
as though from certain seeds, natural entities might
be produced and multiplied." The physical forces —
heat, light, electricity and magnetism — would, doubt-
less, in modern scientific terminology, correspond to
the seminales rationes^ of the Angelic Doctor, as
they are efficient in producing changes in matter
and in disposing it for that gradual Evolution which
has obtained in the material universe.

In the beginning, then, God created primordial
matter, which was actuated by various substantial
forms. With the elements thus created were asso-
ciated certain seminal infiuences — certain physical
forces, we now should say — and the various com-
pounds which subsequently resulted from the action
of these forces, on the diverse elements created, were

* For an elaborate explanation of the meaning of seminales
rationes, according to the mind of the Angelic Doctor, see the
"Metaphysics of the School," vol. II, appendix A, nn. iii and
IV, and vol. Ill, part I, glossary, sub vocibus.

E.-19

290 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

the product of generation and not of creation. There
was development, Evolution, under the action of
second causes, from the simple elements to the high-
est inorganic and organic compounds ; from the
lowest kinds of brute matter to the highest bodily
representatives of animated nature ; but there was
nothing requiring anew creative action or extraor-
dinary interventions, except, of course, the human
soul.

After this primordial creation, God continued
and sustained His work by His Providence. Matter
was then under the action of secondary causes, under
what science calls the reign of law, and under the
action of these secondary causes, under the influence
of forces and laws imposed on it by God in the be-
ginning, it still remains, and shall remain, until time
is no more

Creation According to Scripture.

This teaching is in perfect harmony with the dec-
larations of the opening chapter of Genesis, which
speaks first of the creation of matter, then of the
production from matter of plants and animals. It is
consistent, too, with the teachings of science, which
affirm that the material universe was once but a
nebulous mass, which in the course of time condensed
into solid bodies, the stars and planets, and which,
after countless ages and by a gradual Evolution un-
der the action of natural laws, generated those myr-
iad objects of passing beauty and marvelous com-
plexity which we now so much admire.

THEISM AND B VOL UTION. 291

Matter alone, insists St. Thomas, in speaking of
the visible universe, was created, in the strict sense
of the term, and in this he but follows the indications
of the Mosaic narrative of creation, and St. Augus-
tine's interpretation of the work of the six days.
Plants and animals were generated or produced from
preexisting material — "were gradually developed,
by natural operations, under the Divine administra-
tion."

" In those first days," he tells us, " God created
the creature in its origin and cause — originaliter, vel
causaliter, and afterwards rested from this work.
Nevertheless, He subsequently, until now, works ac-
cording to the administration of created things by
the work of propagation. Now, to produce plants
from the earth belongs to the work of propagation ;
therefore, on the third day plants were not produced
in act, but only in their cause — Non ergo in tertia die
product CB sunt plant CB in actu sed causaliter tantum." '

Elsewhere, in defending the opinion of St. Au-
gustine, he writes : " When it is said, ' Let the earth
bring forth the green herb,' Gen. i, ir, it is not
meant that plants were then produced actually in
their proper nature, but that there was given to the
earth a germinative power to produce plants by the
work of propagation ; so that the earth is then said
to have brought forth the green herb and the tree
yielding fruit in this wise, viz., that it received the
power of producing them— producendi accepisse vir-
tutem^ And this he confirms by the authority of

* " Summa," Ise, Lxix : 2.

292 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Scripture, Gen. ii, 4 — where it is said : " These are
the generations of the heaven and the earth, when
they were created, in the day that the Lord God
made the heaven and the earth, and every plant of
the field, before it sprung up in the earth, and every
herb of the ground before it grew.''

" From this passage," continues the Angelic
Doctor, '* two things are elicited : First, that all the
works of the six days were created in the day that
God made the heaven and earth and every plant of
the field; and, accordingly, that plants, which are
said to have been created on the third day, were pro-
duced at the same time that God created the heaven
and the earth. Secondly, that plants were then pro-
duced, not in act, but according to causal virtues
only ; in that the power of producing them was given
the earth — fuerunt productcB non in actu, sed secun-
dum rationes causales tantuin, quia data fuit virtus
terrcB producendi illas. This is meant, when it is said
that it produced every plant of the field before it act-
ually sprang up in the earth by the work of adminis-
tration, and every herb of the earth before it actually
grew. Prior, therefore, to their actually rising over
the earth, they were made causally in the earth —
Ante ergo quam actu orirentur super t err am, facta
sunt causaliter in terra. This view is likewise con-
firmed by reason. For in those first days God
created the creature either in its cause or in its
origin, or in act, in the work from which He after-
wards rested. Nevertheless, He subsequently, until
now, works according to the administration of cre-
ated things by the work of propagation. But to

THEISM AND EVOLUTION. 293

produce plants in act out of the earth, belongs to
the work of propagation ; because it suffices for their
production that they have the power of the heav-
enly bodies, as it were, for their father, and the ef-
ficacy of the earth in place of a mother. Therefore,
plants were not actually produced on the third day,
but only causally.' After the six days, however,
they were actually produced according to their
proper species, and in their proper nature by the
work of administration." " In like manner fishes,
birds and animals were produced in those six days
causally and not actually — Similiter pisces, aves et
animalia in illis sex diebus causaliter, et non actu-
aliter product a sunt.'' '

Such, then, is the teaching of the illustrious
bishop of Hippo and of the Angel of the Schools, re-
specting creation and the genesis of the material
universe. To the striking passages just quoted, I
can do nothing better than add Father Harper's
beautiful and eloquent commentary as found in his
splendid work, " The Metaphysics of the School."

• ' In the creation," declares the learned Jesuit,
"represented by Moses in the manner best suited to
the intellectual calibre of the chosen people, under
the figure of six days — as St. Thomas, quoting from
St. Augustine, remarks — the elements alone, among
earthly things, were actually produced by the crea-
tive act ; but simultaneously, in the primordial mat-

* It will be noted that a portion of this extract from "De
Potentia," is verbally identical with a part of what is found in the
preceding quotation from the " Summa."

^ " Pot." q. iv, a 2, 28 m.

294 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

ter thus actuated by the elemental forms, a virtue
was implanted, dispositive towards all the material
forms conditionally necessary to the perfection of
the earthly universe. But it was an ordered poten-
tiality ; so that in the after Evolution of the substan-
tial forms, the lower should precede the higher ; and
that these latter should presuppose and virtually ab-
sorb the former. Thus were the figurative six days
completed with the sowing of the seed of the future
cosmos. There ensued thereupon a Sabbath of rest.
The fresh, elemental world was sown with the germs
of future beauty in diverse forms of life, in diversity
of species, and possibly, varieties under the same
species. But these, as yet, lay hidden in the womb
of nature. No earthly substance existed in act save
the simple bodies ; primordial matter under its first
and lowest forms. Such was the earthly creation
when the first Sabbath closed in upon it. After this
Sabbath followed the order of Divine administra-
tion, wherein, as it continues to the present hour, the
Divine Wisdom and Omnipotence superintended the
natural Evolution of visible things, according to a
constant order of His own appointing, amid cease-
less cycles of alternate corruptions and genera-
tions.

"Compound inanimate substances were first
evolved by means of the seminal forces bestowed on
nature. Then, from the bosom of these compounds
sprang into being the green life of herb, plant and
tree, gradually unfolding into higher and more com-
plex forms of loveliness as the ages rolled on, accord-
ing to the virtual order imprinted at first upon the

THEISM A ND EVOLU TION. 295

obedient matter. Thence onward marched the
grand procession of Hfe, marking epochs as it went
along, till it culminated in man, the paragon of
God's visible universe."

The Divine Administration.

But what, it may be inquired, does St. Thomas
mean by the work of Divine administration ? This
phrase has been frequently employed, and it is of
sufficient importance to demand an explanation.

No creature, as theology teaches, is competent to
elicit a single act, even the smallest and most insig-
nificant, without the cooperation of God. We can-
not raise a foot, or move a finger, without Divine
assistance. This is included in Divine administra-
tion, but it is far from being all that is so included.
Over and above this the Divine administration em-
braces the order, or laws, by which the world is
governed. It embraces, too, the Evolution of living

*"The Metaphysics of the School," vol. II, p. 741.

For one who wishes to master the doctrines and methods of
Scholasticism, there is no work in English — if, indeed, there is
in any language — that can be studied with more profit than this
thorough and exhaustive treatise of Father Harper's. No one
should attempt to discuss the teachings of the Schoolmen re-
specting derivative creation, who has not mastered Appendix
A, in vol. II, on The Teaching of St. Thomas Touching the
Genesis of the Material Universe, and the appendix in vol. Ill,
part I, on The Teaching of the Angelic Doctor Touching the
Efficient Causes of the Generation of Living Bodies in Its Bear-
ings on Modern Physical Discoveries. Both these appendices
are veritable magazines of fact and argumentation that cannot
be duplicated elsewhere. I am indebted to the distinguished
author, not only for the translation of many of the preceding
quotations from the Angelic Doctor, but also for manj- valuable
suggestions regarding the manner of treatment of theistic
Evolution from the standpoint of patristic and scholastic
philosophy.

296 E VOL U TION A ND D OGMA .

things, without parentage, out of the potentiality of
matter, or, what amounts to the same thing, it in-
cludes the proximate disposition of matter for the
Evolution of organic from inorganic matter, and the
higher from the lower forms of life. God, conse-
quently, " must have been the sole efificient Cause of
the organization requisite, and, therefore, in the
strictest sense. He is said to have formed such living
things, and, in particular, the human body, out of pre-
existent matter."

In the teachings of St. Augustine and St. Thomas
respecting the creation and Evolution of the sum of
all things, there is nothing uncertain, equivocal or
vacillating. True to the declaration of the Inspired
Record, and true to the faith of the Church from
the earliest ages of her history, they teach that in
the beginning God created all things, visible and in-
visible, and that He still continues to protect and
govern by His Providence all things which He hath
made, " reaching from end to end mightily, and or-
dering all things sweetly." ' They tell us, not only
that the Creator is " Lord of Heaven and earth, Al-
mighty, Eternal, Immense, Incomprehensible, Infin-
ite in intelligence, in will and in all perfections," not
only that He is '* absolutely simple and immutable
spiritual substance, really and essentially distinct
from the world," but also that he is omnipresent,
omniscient ; that for Him there is no past nor future ;
that all is present, and that " all things are bare
and open to His eyes."'

^ Wisdom, viii, i.
"^ Heb. iv, 13.

THEISM AND EVOLUTION. 297

According to the Fathers and the Schoolmen,
therefore, as well as according to Catholic Dogma,
God is the First Cause ; finite beings are but second-
ary causes. God is the Primary Cause — Causa Caus-
arum; while all finite causes are merely instrumental.
God is preeminently the integral and efficient Cause
of all things, for He, preeminently, is the Cause
" whence," to use the words of Aristotle, "is the first
beginning of change or of rest."

In the language of the Scholastics, He is the
Form of forms ; Absolute Form because Absolute
Act. He is the Principiant of principiants, the first
Beginning — Apyjj, Principium — of all that exists or
can exist.

Efficient Causality of Creatures.

But God, although the true, efficient Cause of
all things, has willed, in order to manifest more
clearly His wisdom and power and love, to re-
ceive the cooperation of His creatures, and to con-
fer on them, as St. Thomas puts it, *' the dignity of
causality — dignitatem causandi conferre voluit." It
is not, however, as the Angelic Doctor declares,
** from any indigence in God that He wants other
causes for the act of production." He does not re-
quire the cooperation of secondary causes because
He is unable to dispense with their aid. He is none
the less omnipotent because He has chosen to act in
conjunction with works of His own hand, for it is
manifest that He who has created the causes, is able
to produce the effects which proceed from such
causes.

298 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA

I have said that the efficient causality of crea-
tures serves to disclose the wisdom and power and
love of the Creator. It is true, but here again I
shall quote from the eloquent and profound Father
Harper, who so beautifully sums up all that may be
said on the subject, that I need make no apology for
quoting him in full.

The efficient causality of the creature serves to
manifest God's wisdom, " for there is greater elabora-
tion of design. To plan out a universe of finite en-
tities, differing in essence and in grades of perfection,
is doubtless a work of superhuman wisdom ; but to
include in the design the further idea, of conferring
on these entities a complex variety of forces, quali-
ties, active and passive, faculties by virtue of which
nature should ever grow out of itself and develop
from lower to higher forms of existence, and should
multiply along definite lines of being ; to conceive a
world whose constituents should ceaselessly energize
on one another, yet without confusion and in an ad-
mirable order; to allow to the creature its own proper
causality, and yet, even spite of the manifold action
of free will in a countless multiplicity of immortal in-
telligences, to elaborate a perfect unity ; surely this
is an incalculably higher manifestation of wisdom.
It serves to manifest the power of the Creator ; for
every cause is proportioned to the effect. But the
completion of a design such as has been described, is
a more noble effect than if every production of
natural operation were the result of immediate crea-
tion. The manufacture of a watch is a noble work
of art; but if a watch should be made capable of

THEISM A ND EVOLU TION. 290

constructing other watches in succession, and of wind-
ing up, regulating, cleaning, repairing its offspring,
there is no one who would not be free to admit, that
the inventor would possess a virtue of operation in-
comparably superior to his fellow-men. It serves to
manifest the love and goodness of the Creator ; since
the Divine communication is more complete. Love
shows itself in the desire of communicating its own
perfection to the object of love ; it is essentially self-
diffusive. By bestowing on the creature existence
which is a likeness to His own existence, the Crea-
tor communicates of His own, so to say, to the ob-
ject of His charity ; but by bestowing likewise an in-
trinsic activity proportioned in each case to the
exigencies of the particular nature, he completes the
similitude. By this consummation of the creature
He causes it to partake, in its own proper measure,
of the diffusiveness of His goodness. There is
nothing of solitariness in nature. By the very con-
stitution of things, being is impelled to impart to
being of its own perfection. Not only does the sub-
stantial form bestow upon the matter a specific deter-
mination, and the matter sustain the form in being;
not only does accident give its complement of per-
fection to substance, and substance give and preserve
the being of accident ; not only does part conspire
with part towards the completeness of the whole,
and the whole delight in the welfare of each part ;
but substance generates substance, accident, in its
way, accident, and the whole visible universe is knit
together in the solidarity of a common need and of
mutual support. Passing upwards, the orders of

300 E VOL U TION A ND DOGMA .

spiritual being, both those that are included in
the visible creation and those which are pure in-
telligences, bear in the activity of their will, which
acts upon all that is around it, a yet nearer resem-
blance to the charity of the Creator. Assuredly,
then, the causal activity of finite being is not
superfluous ; even though God can, by His sole
omnipotence, do all that is effected by His crea-
ture." '

Such then, is the theistic conception of Evolu-
tion ; such the Catholic idea as developed and taught
by the Church's most eminent saints and Doctors.
It were easy to add the testimony of other philoso-
phers and theologians ; but this is not necessary. It
is not my purpose to write a treatise on the subject,
but merely to indicate by the declarations of a few
accredited witnesses, to show from the teachings of
those "whose praise is in all the churches," that
there is nothing in Evolution, properly understood,
which is antagonistic either to revelation or Dogma ;
that, on the contrary, far from being opposed to
faith. Evolution, as taught by St. Augustine and St.
Thomas Aquinas, is the most reasonable view, and
the one most in harmony with the explicit dec-
larations of the Genesiac narrative of creation.
This the Angelic Doctor admits in so many
words. God could, indeed, have created all things
directly ; He could have dispensed with the coopera-
tion of secondary causes; He could have remained in
all things the sole immediate efficient Cause, but in
His infinite wisdom He chose to order otherwise.

' "Metaphj'sics of the School," vol. Ill, part I, pp, 36 jind 28.

THEIS'M AND EVOLUTION. 301

Occasionalism.

The Evolution, however, of Augustine and
Aquinas, I must here remark, excludes the Occasion-
alism of Geulincx and Malebranche as much as it
does the specific creation of the older philosophers.
In the opinion of the Cartesians, just mentioned,
there are no second causes ; God is the sole Cause in
the universe. The operations of nature, far from
being the result of second causes, as the Angelic
Doctor teaches, are due " exclusively to the action
of God, who takes occasion of the due presence of
what we should call .secondary causes, with the sub-
jects of operation, to produce. Himself, all natural
effects ;" Who, for instance, " takes an act of the
will as the occasion of producing a corresponding
movement of the body, and a state of the body as
the occasion of producing a corresponding mental
state." According to the doctrine of occasional
causes, ** body and mind are like two clocks which act
together, because at each instant they are adjusted
by God." Not only is God the cause of the con-
comitance of bodily and mental facts; He is the
cause of their existence, their sequence and their
coexistence as well. The efficient causality is elim-
inated entirely from the scheme of creation and de-
velopment, and God acts directly and immediately,
not indirectly and mediately, in all the phenomena,
and in all the countless and inconceivable minutiae
of the universe.' The refutation of this opinion

* A view similar lo, if not identical with Occasionalism, is
held by Mr. John Fiske. The doctrine of secondary causes, as
above explained, he calls " the lower, or Augustinian Theism,"

302 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

has been anticipated in the presentation of the
views of St. Thomas and St. Augustine, and their
consideration, therefore, need make no further claim
on our attention.

Anthropomorphism.

But not only does the theistic Evolution of St.
Augustine and the Angelic Doctor exclude special
creations and Occasionalism, it dispels as completely
all anthropomorphic views of the Deity, and is at
the same time thoroughly opposed to the doctrine
of constant Divine interference in the operations of
nature.

St. Augustine shows how distasteful Anthropo-
morphism is to him when, among other things, he
declares : " To suppose that God formed man from
the dust with bodily hands is very childish. . . . God
neither formed man with bodily hands nor did He
breathe upon him with throat and lips."

We know, indeed, that God created all things
from nothing, but we cannot imagine, nay, we
cannot conceive, how He created. We know that
the universe came into existence in virtue of a

as contradistinguished from what he designates "the higher, or
Athanasian Theism," which, he will have it, knows nothing of
secondary causes in a world where every event flows directly
from the eternal First Cause, in a world where God is ever
immanent and eternally creative. If Mr. Fiske will take the
trouble to study more carefully' the teachings of Sts. Athanasius
and Augustine, anent the Divine administration of the world, he
will find that, however much these two great Doctors may
have differed in the expression of their views, they were, never-
theless, at one as to the doctrine of derivative creation, or crea-
tion through the agency of secondary causes. For Fiske's
opinion on this topic, see his "Idea of God," chap, vii, and Cos-
mic Theism, in part III of" Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy."

THEISM AND EVOLUTION. 303

simple Divine fiat, but no human intellect is
able to conceive how matter and spirit were educed
from nothingness into actuality. The very feeble-
ness and limitations of human language and hu-
man thought compel us, when speaking of God
and His operations, to employ terms that often
but faintly adumbrate the magnificent realities of
which we can never form an adequate conception.
We speak of God as Creator, as giving ear to the
prayers of His creatures, as being holy, just, power-
ful, omniscient, omnipresent, but we do not thereby
think of Him as some sort of magnified man, as
skeptics are often wont to assert. When we speak
of the attributes and perfections of the Deity, we
must needs use the same terms as when we speak
of corresponding attributes and perfections in man.
This, however, does not necessarily imply an anthro-
pomorphic conception of God, and still less does
it, as is so often assumed, imply the alternative of a
blank and hopeless skepticism.

" God," as a scholarly writer truthfully observes,
" contains in Himself all human perfections, but not
in the same manner as they exist in man. In man
they are limited, dependent, conditioned, imperfect,
finite nature. In God they are unlimited, independ-
ent, absolute, perfect, infinite nature. In man
they can be separated one from the other ; in God
they are all one and the same, and we can distinguish
the Divine attributes after our human fashion, only
because their perfect and absolute unity contains
virtually in itself an infinite multiplicity. In man
they are essentially human ; in God they are all

304 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Divine. In man they belong to the lower and
created order; in God, to a higher and uncreated
order. In man any moral perfection may be present
or absent without the essential nature of man being
thereby affected ; in God, the absence of any perfec-
tion would thereby rob Him ipso facto of His Deity.
Whatever the human attribute can perform, the
Divine attribute can do in a far more perfect way,
and the most exalted exhibition of human perfection
is but a faint shadow of the Divine perfection that
gave it birth. The most unbounded charity, mercy,
gentleness, compassion, in man, is feeble indeed, and
miserable, compared with the charity, mercy, gentle-
ness, compassion of God. The Divine perfection is
the ideal of human perfection, its model, its pattern,
its origin, its efficient Cause, the source from which it
came, the end for which it was created." '

Divine Interference.

Theistic Evolution, in the sense in which it is
advocated by St. Augustine and St. Thomas, ex-
cludes also Divine interference, or constant unneces-
sary interventions on the part of the Deity, as effectu-
ally as it does a low and narrow Anthropomorphism.
Both these illustrious Doctors declare explicitly,
that " in the institution of nature we do not look for
miracles, but for the laws of nature." '

* The Month, Sept., 1882, p. 20.

*Cf. "Gen. ad Lit.," lib. II, cap. i, of St. Augustine and
"Sum." I, Lxvii, 4 ad 3'" of St. Thomas. The Angelic Doctor's
words are: "In prima autem institutione naturse non qujeritur
miraculum, sed quid natura rerum habeat." Suarez expresses

THEISM AND EVOLUTION. 305

Only the crudest conception of derivative creation
would demand that the theist should necessarily, if
consistent, have recourse to continued creative fiats
to explain the multifold phenomena connected with
inorganic or organic Evolution. For, as already ex-
plained, derivation or secondary creation is not, prop-
erly speaking, a supernatural act. It is merely the
indirect action of Deity by and through natural
causes. The action of God in the order of nature is
concurrent and overruling, indeed, but is not
miraculous in the sense in which the word "miracu-
lous" is ordinarily understood. He operates by and
through the laws which He instituted in the be-
ginning, and which are still maintained by His Provi-
dence. Neither the doctrine of the Angel of the
Schools nor that of the Bishop of Hippo, requires the
perpetual manifestation of miraculous powers, inter-
ventions or catastrophes. They do not necessitate
the interference with, or the dispensation from, the
laws of nature, but admit and defend their existence
and their continuous and regular and natural action.
Only a misunderstanding of terms, only a gross mis-
apprehension of the meaning of the word "creation,"
only, in fine, the " unconscious Anthropomorphisms"
of the Agnostic and the Monist, would lead one to
find anything irreconcilable between the legitimate
inductions of science and the certain and explicit
declarations of Dogma.

himself to the same effect when he tells us, in his tractate, "De
Angelis," lib. I, no. 8, that we must not have recourse to the
First Cause when the effects observed can be explained by the
operations of secondary causes. " Non est ad Primam Causam
recurrendam cum possunt effectus ad causas secundas reduci."

E, — 20

306 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Science and Creation.

From what has already been learned, it is mani-
fest that physical science is utterly incompetent to
pronounce on primaiy or absolute creation. This,
being by the very nature of the case, above and be-
yond observation and experiment, it is, for the same
reason, necessarily above and beyond the sphere
of science or Evolution. The Rev. Baden Powell
clearly expresses this idea in his " Philosophy of Cre-
ation," when he affirms that " science demonstrates
incessant past changes, and dimly points to yet earlier
links in a more vast series of development of material
existence ; but the idea of a beginning, or of creation,
in the sense of the original operation of the Divine
volition to constitute nature and matter, is beyond
the province of physical philosophy." '

Again, belief in derivative creation is secure from
attack, on the part of natural science, for the simple
reason that it does not repose on physical phenom-
ena at all, but on psychical reasons, or on our pri-
mary intuitions. Modern scientists are continually
confounding primary with secondary creation, and
speaking of the latter as if it were absolute creation,
or as if it implied special supernatural action. This
confusion of terms is at the bottom of many of the
utterances of Darwin and Huxley, and is the cause
of numerous erroneous views which they ascribe
to their opponents. Thus, Darwin asks those who
are not prepared to assent to his evolutionary no-
tions, if "they really believe that at innumerable

^ Essay III, sec. iv.

THEISM AND E VOL UTION. 307

periods in the earth's history, certain elemental atoms
have been commanded suddenly to flash into living
tissues?" ' And Huxley ridicules the notion that ** a
rhinoceros tichorhinus suddenly started from the
ground like Milton's lion, 'pawing to get free its
hinder parts,' " '^ and facetiously speaks of the im-
probability of " the sudden concurrence of half-a-ton
of inorganic molecules into a live rhinoceros."

A grave objection, quotha ! As if a belief in
creation necessarily connoted the grotesque assump-
tions which he attributes to those who are not of his
mind. Huxley and Darwin set up poor, impotent
dummies, and forthwith proceed to knock them
down, and then imagine they have proven the
views of their adversaries to be untenable, if not
absurd. A reference to what has already been said
respecting absolute and derivative creation, and a
recollection that creation by and through second-
ary causes is not a supernatural, but a natural act,
will show how much ignorance of the elench there
is in the difficulty suggested by the two naturalists
just named.

Darwin's Objection.

Once more, Darwin speaks of a man building a
house of certain stones found at the base of a preci-
pice, and selecting those which, from their shape,
happened to be most suitable. And in referring
to this matter he writes : "The shape of the frag-
ments of stone at the base of our precipice may be

' '* The Origin of Species," vol. II, p. 297.
2 « Life of Darwin," vol. I, p. 548.

808 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

called accidental, but this is not strictly correct, for
the shape of each depends on a long sequence of
events, all obeying natural laws, on the nature of the
rock, on the lines of stratification or cleavage, on the
form of the mountain, which depends upon its up-
heaval and subsequent denudation, and lastly on the
storm and earthquake which threw down the frag-
ments. But in regard to the use to which the frag-
ments may be put, their shape may strictly be said
to be accidental. And here we are led to face a
great difficulty, in alluding to which I am aware that
I am traveling beyond my proper province.

"An omniscient Creator must have foreseen every
consequence which results from the laws imposed by
Him ; but can it be reasonably maintained that the
Creator intentionally ordered, if we use the words in
any ordinary sense, that . certain fragments of rock
should assume certain shapes so that the builder
might erect his edifice?'"

The difficulty here raised is one of frequent oc-
currence in the writings of modern scientists. It re-
poses entirely on the crude and erroneous notions
which they entertain respecting the nature and attri-
butes of the Deity, and has its origin in that low and
restricted Anthropomorphism, against which they are
wont to inveigh so strongly, but into which they are
continually lapsing, notwithstanding all their assever-
ations and protestations to the contrary. The objec-
tion, although urged in the name of natural and
physical science, is in reality metaphysical in char-
acter and should be so treated. Those who urge

^"Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. II, p. 432.

1

THEISM AND E VOL UTION. 309

the objection seem to think, that in the boundless
profusion and multitudinous forms of inorganic and
organic nature, in the myriad worlds and systems
of worlds which people the illimitable realms of
space, there is more than God can provide for or
superintend. They forget that He, by His very
nature, is omniscient and omnipotent and omnipres-
ent; that for Him there is neither past nor future,
but that all is present and bare before His eyes ;
that far from- being conditioned or limited in His
actions, He is absolutely independent and free from
all limitations ; that He is infinite in all His perfec-
tions and can attend to a thousand million systems
of worlds, and to each according to its proper needs,
as well as to a single crystal or a solitary flower ;
and that He can do this during countless aeons of
time as easily as He can for a single moment. We
have here, in a different guise, the old difficulty of
time and space in their relations to God and His
Divine operations. It is only necessary to form a
proper, if not an adequate conception, of God and
His attributes, to refer to the first principles of
psychology, in order to realize how puerile is the
objection, and what crass ignorance it betrays of
the fundamental elements of metaphysics and the-
ology on the part of the objector.

Limitations of Specialists.

In Darwm's case, one is not surprised that he
should, in good faith, urge the objection included in
the quotation just made from him, because he in-
forms us himself that he was mentally disqualified

310 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

for the discussion of abstract or metaphysical ques-
tions. " My power," he writes in his autobiography,
"to follow a long and purely abstract train of
thought, is very limited ; and therefore I could never
have succeeded with metaphysics or mathematics."
But aside from his incompetence as a metaphysician,
the very doctrine he championed so lustily seemed
to render him nebulous and skeptical even about
primary intuitions. Having occasion to give an
opinion on the " Creed of Science," he wrote : " The
horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions
of man's mind, which has been developed from the
mind of the lower animals, are of any value, or at all
trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions
of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in
such a mind ?" '

One is not surprised, I repeat, to find metaphys-
ical and theological errors in Darwin's works, for, in
addition to his acknowledged incapacity in abstract
subjects, his mind was so preoccupied with biology
in its bearings on Evolution, that he was practically
indifferent to, if not oblivious of, everything outside
his immediate sphere of research. He is, indeed, a
striking illustration of the truth of Cardinal New-
man's observations when he declares, that "Any one
study, of whatever kind, exclusively pursued, dead-
ens in the mind the interest, nay, the perception, of
any other. Thus, Cicero says, Plato and Demos-
thenes, Aristotle and Isocrates, might have respect-
ively excelled in each other's province, but that each
was absorbed in his own. Specimens of this pecul-

* " Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," vol. I, p. 285.

THEISM AND EVOLUTION. 311

iarity occur every day. You can hardly persuade
some men to talk about anything but their own pur-
suits ; they refer the whole world to their own cen-
ter, and measure all matters by their own rule, like
the fisherman in the drama, whose eulogy on his
deceased lord was, 'he was so fond of fish.' " '

But the observations of the learned cardinal are
not more applicable to Darwin than to a host of
contemporary scientists, who fancy there is an irrec-
oncilable conflict between science on the one hand,
and religion on the other. They fail to see that the
conflict, so far as it exists, is due either to bias or
ignorance, or to the fact that the very nature of
their studies has imposed limitations on them, which
utterly unfit them for pronouncing an opinion on
the subjects which they are often in such haste to
discuss.

In one of his thoughtful essays,* the Rev. James
Martineau alludes to the injury which is done to
sound philosophy by the undue cultivation of any
one branch of knowledge. " Nothing is more com-
mon," he avers, " than to see maxims, which are
unexceptionable as the assumptions of particular

'"Lectures on University Subjects," p. 322. Nearh* forty
years ago, in a lecture before the Royal Institution of Great
Britain, the noted English writer, H. T. Buckle, adverting to this
topic, declared that " an exclusive employment of the inductive
philosophy was contracting the minds of physical inquirers, and
gradually shutting out speculations respecting causes and en-
tities ; limiting the student to questions of distribution, and for-
bidding him questions of origin ; making everything hang oa
two sets of laws, namely, those of coexistence and of sequence;
and declaring beforehand how far future knowledge can lead
us." See vol. I, of " Miscellaneous and Posthumous Works."

'^"A Plea for Philosophical Studies."

312 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

sciences, coerced into the service of a universal philos-
ophy, and so turned into instruments of mischief and
distortion. That ' we can know but phenomena ; ' that
' causation is simply constant priority ; ' that ' men are
governed invariably by their interests ; ' are examples
of rules allowable as dominant hypotheses in physics
or political economy, but exercising a desolating tyr-
anny when thrust onto the throne of universal em-
pire. He who seizes upon these and similar maxims
and carries them in triumph on his banner, may
boast of his escape from the uncertainties of meta-
physics, but is himself, all the while, the unconscious
victim of their very vulgarest deception."

Evolution and Catholic Teaching.

From the foregoing pages, then, it is clear that
far from being opposed to faith, theistic Evolution is,
on the contrary, supported both by the declarations
of Genesis and by the most venerable philosophical
and theological authorities of the Church. I have
mentioned specially St. Augustine and St. Thomas,
because of their exalted position as saints and Doc-
tors, but it were an easy matter to adduce the testi-
mony of others scarcely less renowned for their
philosophical acumen and for their proved and un-
questioned orthodoxy ; but this is unnecessary.' Of
course no one would think of maintaining that any
of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church taught
Evolution in the sense in which it is now under-

let., in this connection, chap, xii, of the "Genesis of
Species;" and chap, xiv, of "Lessons from Nature," by St.
George Mivart, where the subject. Theology and Evolution, is
very cleverly treated.

THEISM AND EVOLUTION. 313

stood. They did not do this for the simple reason
that the subject had not even been broached in its
present form, and because its formulation as a theory,
under its present aspect, was impossible before men
of science had in their possession the accumulated
results of the observation and research of these lat-
ter times. But they did all that was necessary fully
to justify my present contention ; they laid down
principles which are perfectly compatible with the-
istic Evolution. They asserted, in the most posi-
tive and explicit manner, the doctrine of derivative
creation as against the theory of a perpetual direct
creation of organisms, and turned the weight of
their great authority in favor of the doctrine, that
God administers the material universe by natural
laws, and not by constant miraculous interventions.
As far as the present argument is concerned, this
distinct enunciation of principles makes for my
thesis quite as much as would the promulgation of
a more detailed theory of Evolution.

The Scholastic Doctrine of Species.

It may, however, be objected, that the authorities
so far quoted favor development only in a vague
or general way ; that the Fathers and Scholastics
distinctly maintained certain views which are abso-
lutely incompatible with Evolution as now under-
stood. It is said, for instance, that the scholastic
doctrine of species, to which all the Schoolmen are
irrevocably committed, completely negatives the
view that their principles are compatible with

314 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

organic development. We are told that one of the
cardinal doctrines of the School is the immutability
of species ; that species are but realizations of the
archetypes, the " grand ideas," which have existed
from all eternity in the mind of the Creator ; that
to affirm the immutability of species would be tan-
tamount to asserting a change in the Divine proto-
types, or to predicating a mutation in the Divine
Essence itself.

In answer to this objection I shall confine myself
to the teachings of the Angelic Doctor alone, as I
am perfectly willing to rest my case for Evolution
on his certain teachings respecting the nature of
species.

It is necessary to premise here, that in the induc-
tive sciences, St. Thomas, like his illustrious master,
St. Augustine, teaches that disputed points are not
to be settled by a priori reasoning, but rather by
observation and experiment. • No one, therefore,
who is even slightly acquainted with the mind of
the Angelic Doctor, and who duly appreciates his
penetrating and comprehensive genius, would for a
moment credit him with binding his disciples and
successors to metaphysical formulae, in matters
of experimental science, and thus obliging them to
reject the results of experiment and observation
when they might happen to contravene the dicta or
assumptions of metaphysics. Such an imputation
would not be borne out by his teaching and would
be as unjust as it would be erroneous.

To remove ambiguity and clear away difficulties,
it may be observed that the word " species " may be

THEISM AND B VOL UTION. 31 5

envisaged under three different aspects, to wit : the
metaphysical, the logical, and the physiological or
real. As to the metaphysical and logical aspects,
both the Angelic Doctor and the School gener-
ally, are one in attributing to species an absolute
fixity.'

With metaphysical and logical species, however,
we are not at present concerned. I am quite willing
to leave these to the metaphysician to treat them
as he lists. The question now at issue regards only
physiological species. Is the species of which the
biologist speaks variable, or does it belong to the
category of immutable metaphysical species ? This
is a question of science and not of metaphysics. If
it can be proven by the sciences of observation and
experiment, that species are permanent and in-
variable, then the real or physiological species of
the naturalist, in so far as they are immutable, at
once enter into the category of the metaphysical
species of the School. If, on the contrary, science
can demonstrate that species are variable, then
the fancied identity of physiological and meta-
physical species immediately disappears. The de-
termination, however, whether living types, plant
or animal, are variable or permanent ; whether
physiological species shall be classed in the same
category as immutable metaphysical species, is, I

' In his " Summa," St. Thomas thus defines logical species :
" Considerandum est quod illud secundum quod sortitur aliquid
speciem oportet esse fixum et stans et quasi indivisibile. . . .
Et ideo omnis forma quje substantialiter participatur in subjecto,
caret intensione et remissione." " Summa," pars I, qusest. 52,
art. I.

316 EVOLU TION A ND D OGMA .

repeat, a matter not of a priori reasoning, but
wholly and solely one of observation and experi-
ment.

In his " Summa," the Angelic Doctor admits
without hesitation the possibility of a new species,
for he tells us that : " New species, if they make their
appearance, preexisted in certain active virtues, as
animals are produced from carrion under the influ-
ence communicated in the beginning to the stars
and the elements." '

More than this, he distinctly admits the muta-
bility of species. To the objection that species
must be immutable because they correspond with
archetypes in the Divine intelligence, that they
must be immutable because their forms are essen-
tially immutable, he replies, that " immutability is
proper to God only," and that " forms are subject
to the variations of the reality." *

Again, it is erroneously supposed that St. Thomas
always attaches to the terms genus and species, the
same meaning as is given them by modern natural-
ists. This is a grave misapprehension. It will suf-
fice to adduce a single instance in disproof of this
notion. For example, the Angelic Doctor places
man and animal in the same genus. But if, in the
mind of St. Thomas, the word genus were in this

' " Species etiam novae, si quae apparent, praeextiterunt in
quibusdam activis virtutibus ; sicut et animalia ex putrefactione
generata producuntur ex virtutibus stellarum et elementorum,
quas a principio acceperunt; etiamsi novse species talium ani-
malium producuntur." " Summa," pars I, quaest. 73, art. i ad 3.

'" Subjiciuntur tamen variation! in quantum subjectum
secundum eas variatur." "Summa," pars I, quaest. 9, art. 2 et 3.

THEISM A ND EVOLU TION. 31 7

instance to be understood in its modern sense, it
would, as Pere Leroy puts it, be tantamount to ad-
mitting the " principle of materialism."' Obviously,
therefore, the term genus is to be understood in a
much more comprehensive sense. For a similar
reason, species, the immediate subdivision of genus,
must likewise have a much wider signification than
it has in a strict technical sense. If we desire to
have a measure of the relative amplitude of species
as compared with genus, in the passage just quoted,
in which genus is made to embrace man and animal,
we must, as Pere Leroy pertinently remarks, make
species correspond to what naturalists now denomi-
nate a kingdom. Thus understood, species, in the
instance referred to, would be immutable, but not
otherwise.

It is a mistake, then, to suppose that the mean-
ing of the term species, in its physiological sense,
was fixed by the Angelic Doctor. Neither did it
receive the signification afterwards ascribed to it
from any of the other Schoolmen or mediaeval the-
ologians. Nor does such a meaning find any war-
rant in the teachings of the Fathers or in Scripture.
Whence, then, the origin of the word in the sense
so long attributed to it by special creationists ? This
is a question deserving of consideration, for an an-
swer to it, if it does not remove wholly many diffi-
culties, will at least clear the field for intelligent
discussion.

' For an interesting discussion of Thomastic teaching re-
specting the nature of species, see chap, iii of Pere Leroy's
" L'fivolution Restreinte aux Especes Organiques."

318 E VOL U TION A ND DOGMA .

Milton and Ray.

Incredible as it may seem, it was a poet who fas-
tened on science the signification which the word
"species" has so long borne. Prior to Milton's time
the meaning of the term, as employed by naturalists,
was vague and changeable in the extreme. Not so,
however, after the appearance of " Paradise Lost."
At once the account of creation, as given in this im-
mortal poem, began to be regarded as "a sort of
inspired gloss on the early chapters of Genesis," and
the botanist Ray, a younger contemporary of Milton,
had, accordingly, no difficulty in giving to the word
"species" a meaning which became as definite in
natural history, as it had long before been in logic
and metaphysics. The work of Milton and Ray was
complete. What naturalists from the time of Aris-
totle had been unable to do, was effected in less than
a generation by a poet and a botanist. And so uni-
versally was their meaning of the word accepted,
that it persisted in natural history usage, and almost
without any objections being raised against it, for
full two hundred years. It was adopted by Linnaeus
and given wide-spread currency in the numerous
works of the illustrious Swede. It was accepted by
the great Cuvierand his school, and thus a definition
of a single word, the meaning of which hinged on a
well-known episode in a celebrated poem, served for
two centuries to give permanency to a doctrine which,
notwithstanding the progress Evolution has made,
still has its supporters in all parts of the world.
Species were assumed to be fixed and invariable,

THEISM AND EVOLUTION. 319

because the definition of the term, not the facts
of nature, demanded it. Logical and metaphysical
species were confounded with physiological, or real
species. For this reason, as is apparent, the founda-
tion of the rival theory of Evolution, special crea-
tion, rests on an assumption ; an assumption which,
in turn, is based on a misconception of terms, on
what, in the last resort, is a verbal fallacy pure
and simple. Indeed, the history of the word " spe-
cies " is but another of the countless illustrations of
the sage observation of Coleridge, that " errors in
nomenclature are apt to avenge themselves by gen-
erating errors of idea; " errors which, in turn, gener-
ate other errors and retard progress in a way that
cannot be estimated.

The scholastic teaching respecting species does
not, then, as is so often erroneously imagined, com-
mit us to the doctrine of the immutability of species.
Far from it. The question of the mutability or per-
manence of physiological species, the question of
organic Evolution, therefore, is, as just stated, one to
be settled by empirical science, by observation and
experiment, and not by metaphysics.

CHAPTER V.

THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF LIFE.
Spontaneous Generation.

OUR next inquiry is concerning the teachings of
the Fathers and the Schoolmen in respect of
the origin and nature of life, and what views one
may, consistently with revealed truth and Catholic
Dogma, entertain regarding this all-important topic.
These are questions, as is well known, in which evo-
lutionists of all classes, monistic, agnostic, and
theistic, are specially interested, and questions, con-
sequently, which cannot be passed over in silence.

The lower forms of life, as we learned in the
beginning of this work, were supposed by Greek and
mediaeval philosophers to have originated sponta-
neously from the earth, or from putrefying organic
matter. From the time of Aristotle to that of Redi,
the doctrine of spontaneous generation was accepted
without question, and it is scarcely yet a generation
since the brilliant experiments of Pasteur drove abi-
ogenesis from its last stronghold.

For over two thousand years the most extrava-
gant notions were prevalent regarding certain of the
smaller animals. Virgil, in his famous episode of
Aristaeus, tells us of the memorable discovery of the
old Arcadian for the production of bees from the
tainted gore of slain bullocks. But this is but an echo

(330)

ORIGIN AND NA TURE OF LIFE 321

of what was universally believed and taught. Not
only was it thought that putrefying flesh gave rise
to insects, and other minute animals, but it was the
current opinion that different kinds of carrion gen-
erated diverse forms of life. Thus, as bees were
produced from decomposing beef, so beetles were gen-
erated from horseflesh, grass-hoppers from mules,
scorpions from crabs, and toads from ducks. Diodo-
rus Siculus speaks of multitudes of animals devel-
oped from the sun-warmed slime of the Nile valley.
Plutarch assures us that the soil of Egypt spontane-
ously generates rats, and Pliny is ready to confirm the
statement by an example of a rat, half metamorphosed,
found in the Thebaid, of which the anterior half was
that of a fully developed rodent, while the posterior
half was entirely of stone ! The Fathers and the
Schoolmen, as we have seen, made no hesitation in
accepting the doctrine of spontaneous generation.
But while ready to admit abiogenesis as a fact, they
gave it a different interpretation from what it had re-
ceived from the philosophers and naturalists of Greece
and Rome. According to Epicurus : " The earth is
the mother of all living things, and from this simple
origin not even man is excepted." Brute matter, said
the Epicureans — as Haeckel and his school now pro-
claim— generates of its own power both vegetable and
animal life ; that is, non-living gives rise to living mat-
ter. But Christian philosophy, contrariwise, teaches
that it is impossible for inorganic to produce organic
matter motu propria, or by any natural inherent powers
it may possess. "The waters, " declares St. Basil,
in speaking of the work of creation, " were gifted

322 VOLUTION AND DOGMA.

with productive power, but this power was com-
municated to them by God." " From slime and
muddy places, frogs, flies and gnats came into being,"
he was willing to admit, "but this was in virtue of a
certain germinative force conferred on matter by the
Author of nature." "Certain very small animals
may not have been created on the fifth and sixth
days," opines St. Augustine, " but may have orig-
inated later from putrefying matter," but still, even
in this case, God it is who is their Creator.

Spontaneous generation, therefore, was never a
stumbling block either to the Fathers or Scholastics,
because the Creative act was always acknowledged,
and because God was ever recognized as the Author,
at least through second agents, of the divers forms of
life which were supposed to originate from inorganized
matter. Whether He created all things absolutely
and directly, or mediately and indirectly, it mattered
not, so long as it was understood that nothing could
exist without His will and cooperation. Whether,
then, the germ of life was specially created for each
individual creature, or whether matter was endowed
with the power of evolving what we call life, by the
proper collocation of the atoms and molecules of
which matter is constituted, was, from their point of
view, immaterial, so far as dogma was concerned.
The doctrine of spontaneous generation might be an
error, scientifically, but, even if so, there was nothing
in it contrary to the truths of revelation. It was
always and fully recognized that God was the sole
and absolute Creator of matter, and that He, by the
action of powers conferred on matter, by certain

ORIGIN AND NA TURE OF LIFE. 323

seminal forces, as the Scholastics taught, disposed
matter for the assumption of all the multitudinous
forms into which it subsequently developed.

The Nature of Life.

Respecting the real nature, not the origin, of
life, there have, indeed, been many and diverse opin-
ions. Even now it is almost as much of an enigma
as it was in the days of Aristotle, and we are at pres-
ent, apparently, no better qualified to give a true
definition of life than was the great Stagirite, twenty-
five centuries ago. Living beings can, indeed, be
distinguished from non-living beings by their struc-
ture, mode of genesis, and development, but this
does not help us toward a clear and precise defini-
tion of Hfe.

According to the philosophers of antiquity there
was a certain independent entity, or vital principle,
which, uniting with the body, gives life, and, separat-
ing from it, causes death. Plato and Aristotle, as is
well known, admitted the existence of three souls, or
animating spirits, the vegetative for plants, the vege-
tative and sensitive for animals ; and for man, an in-
telligent and reasoning spirit in addition to those
possessed by plants and animals.

Paracelsus and Van Helmont spoke of the prin-
ciple of life under the name of archceus, and at-
tempted to explain vital functions by chemical
agencies. Others, still, " made the chyle effervesce in
the heart, under the influence of salt and sulphur,
which took fire together and produced the vital
flame!"

324 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Bichat defines life as " the sum total of the func-
tions which resist death;" Herbert Spencer makes
it " the continuous adjustment of internal relations
to external relations," while Oliver Wendell Holmes
tells us, that " Life is the state of an organized being
in which it maintains, or is capable of maintaining,
its structural integrity, by the constant interchange
of elements with the surrounding media."'

Such definitions, however, are almost as vague
and unsatisfactory as the notions implied in the
" spirits " of Aristotle and Plato, and in the archseus
of Van Helmont and Paracelsus. They afford us no
clearer conception of what life really is in itself, of
what it is that constitutes the essential difference
between living and non-living matter, than we may
derive from the idea of Hippocrates, who regarded
" unintelligent nature as the mysterious agent in the
vital processes."

But whatever views we may entertain respecting
the actual nature of life ; whether we regard it as a
force entirely different in kind from the purely phys-
ical forces, or look upon it as a special coordination
and integration of physical forces, acting in some
mysterious way on inanimate matter, and in such
wise as to cause it to exhibit what we call the phe-
nomena of life, the fact still remains, that at some

* " La vie," writes a professor of physiology of the Faculty of
Medicine, in Paris, " est une fonction chimique et la force dega-
gde par les ^tres vivants est une force d'origine chimique." In
contradistinction to this statement, Cardinal Zigliara declares :
" Vita repeti non potest a materia," Again, life has been defined
as " Une force qui tend a perfectionner et a reproduire, suivant
une forme determinee, I'fitre qu'elle anime par une impulsion
spontanee."

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF LIFE. 325

period in the past history of our planet, the first
germ of organic life made its appearance, and that,
too, independent of any antecedent terrestrial germ.

The Germ of Life.

Whence this primordial germ, this first electric
spark, which effected the combination of inorganic
elements and transmuted non-living into living mat-
ter ? Is it an " intellectual necessity " that we should,
with Tyndall, " cross the boundary of the experi-
mental evidence and discover in matter the promise
and potency of all terrestrial life?"' Must we be-
lieve with Lucretius that nature "does all things
spontaneously of herself, without the meddling of
the gods ;" and are we forced to regard matter and
life as indissolubly joined, as entities which cannot
be divorced from one another even in imagination ?
These are questions which are constantly recurring,
and while in nowise sharing the materialistic views
of Tyndall and Lucretius, we are, nevertheless, forced
to admit that the problems involved are as difficult
to solve as those concerning the nature of life itself.
In 1 87 1, Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), in
an address at Edinburgh, discussed a theory which
had been broached by a German speculator. Prof.
Richter of Dresden, and involved the careering
through space of " seed-bearing meteoric stones," and
the possibility of " one such falling on the earth," and
causing it, " by what we blindly call natural causes,"
to become "covered with vegetation." "The hy-

Fragments of Science," p. 524.

326 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

pothesis," the distinguished physicist tells us, " may
seem wild and visionary ; all I maintain is, it is not
unscientific."

But even if it were proved that the first germ of
life had been brought by some seed-bearing meteor-
ite from the depths of space, or from some far
distant world, it would, as is obvious, afford no ex-
planation either of the real nature or of the ultimate
origin of life. It would be but removing the diflfi-
culty farther away ; not giving it a solution.

Still another question confronts us. Was there
but one primordial germ, the origin and parent of
all the multitudinous forms of life which now varie-
gate and beautify the earth, or were there many
germs independently implanted in the prepared soil
of this globe of ours ? And if many, did they make
their appearance simultaneously, or at different and
widely separated periods and localities ?

Darwin inclines to the belief that " all animals
and plants are descended from some one prototype."
From this prototype, or primordial germ, as from a
common root, is developed " the great tree of organic
life," a tree which is cdnceived as having " two main
trunks, one representing the vegetable and one the
animal world," while each trunk is pictured as " di-
viding into a few main branches," the branches sub-
dividing into a number of branchlets, and these, in
turn, into " smaller groups of twigs." Prof. Weis-
mann, on the other hand, is of the opinion that not
one, but numerous organisms first arose " spontane-
ously, simultaneously, and independently one of
the other."

ORIGIN AND NA TURE OF LIFE. 327

Such considerations as the foregoing, and the
diverse and contradictory opinions to which they
have given rise, compel one, will-he nill-he, to recog-
nize the fact that science, I mean experimental
science, can tell us nothing more about the origin
of life than it can regarding the origin of matter.
These are questions which, by their very nature, are
outside the sphere of inductive research, and their
answers, so far as observation and experiment are
concerned, must ever remain in inscrutable and in-
soluble mystery.

Abiogenesis.

So far as science can pronounce on the matter,
spontaneous generation, as we have already learned,
is, in the language of Pasteur, but a chimera. Even
those whose theories imply, if they do not demand,
the spontaneous origination of living from non-living
matter, are forced to admit that there is, as yet, no
warranty whatever for believing that abiogenesis
obtains now, or ever has obtained, at any time in the
past history of our globe.

" I should like," writes Darwin, " to see arche-
biosis " — Bastian's term for spontaneous generation —
" proved true, for it would be a discovery of trans-
cendent importance." * So much, indeed, does the
theory of Evolution, as commonly held, imply the
existence, at some time or other, of spontaneous
generation, that Fiske avers: "However the ques-
tion may eventually be decided, as to the possibility
of archebiosis occurring at the present day amid the

>" Life and Letters," vol. II, p. 437.

328 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

artificial circumstances of the laboratory, it cannot
be denied that archebiosis, or the origination of liv-
ing matter in accordance with natural laws, must
have occurred at some epoch in the past." '

With Huxley, as with Fiske, a belief in spon-
taneous generation is a necessary corollary to the
theory of Evolution. " The fact is," he affirms, " that
at the present moment there is not a shadow of
trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis does
take place, or has taken place, within the period dur-
ing which the existence of life on the globe is
recorded. But it need hardly be pointed out, that
the fact does not in the slightest degree interfere
with any conclusion that may be arrived at, deduc-
tively from other considerations, that, at some time
or other, abiogenesis must have taken place." " Else-
where he declares: " If it were given me to look be-
yond the abyss of geologically recorded time, to the
still more remote period when the earth was passing
through physical and chemical conditions, which it
can no more see again than a man can recall his
infancy, I should expect to be a witness of the Evo-
lution of protoplasm from non-living matter. I
should expect to see it appear under forms of great
simplicity, endowed, like existing fungi, with the
power of determining the formation of new pro-
toplasm from such matter as ammonium carbonates,
oxalates and tartrates, alkaline and earthy phos-
phates and water, without the aid of light. That is

* " Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy," vol. I, p. 430.
* See his article on Biolog\', " Encyclopaedia Britannica,"
vol. III.

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF LIFE 329

the expectation to which analogical reasoning leads
me, but," he adds, " I beg you once more to recol-
lect that I have no right to call my opinion any-
thing but an act of philosophical faith." *

Haeckel, as we have seen, is far more positive in
his assertions respecting spontaneous generation.
His theory of Monism absolutely demands it as a
sine qua non, and he is the first to announce that
abiogenesis — he calls it autogeny — is a necessary and
integral part of the hypothesis of universal Evolu-
tion, *' a necessary event in the process of the develop-
ment of the earth." *' He who does not assume a
spontaneous generation of monera ... to ex-
plain the first origin of life upon our earth, has no
other resource but to believe in a supernatural
miracle ; and this is the questionable standpoint still
taken by many so-called exact naturalists, who thus
renounce their own reason." '

But suppose that some time or other it should
be proved, that spontaneous generation not only has
taken place, but that it actually occurs, hie et nunc ?
The fact that we have as yet no evidence that it
ever has taken place, or that it does not occur now,
does not prove that it is impossible. We may not
be prepared to affirm, with Huxley and Fiske, that
it must have taken place at some period in past
history, but may we not admit the possibility of
the occurrence? We certainly do not agree with
Haeckel that we renounce our reason if we believe
in a special Divine intervention for the production

'"Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews," pp. 366 et seq.
« " The Evolution of Man," vol. I, p. 32.

880 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

of life. Nor do we admit that spontaneous genera-
tion was "a necessary event in the process of the
development of the earth," because we contend that
so far as observation and experiment go, they cao
tell us nothing more about the nature and origin of
life than they tell us about the origin of matter.
And yet, notwithstanding the last words of Van
Beneden and Pasteur, regarding the origination of
entozoa and microbes from antecedent life, it is quite
conceivable that with the progress of research and
the development of more delicate and powerful in-
struments of observation, it may one day be demon-
strated that spontaneous generation not only can
occur, but actually does occur daily in millions of
cases, in forms of life as far below microbes in size
and structure as these are below the entozoa.
Without hesitation, therefore, we can subscribe to
the declaration of Huxley when he states: "With
organic chemistry, molecular physics and physiology
yet in their infancy, and every day making prodi-
gious strides, I think it would be the height of pre-
sumption for any man to say that the conditions
under which matter assumes the properties we call
'vital,' may not, some day, be artificially brought
together." '

Artificial Production of Life.

Should, then, such a discovery be made, as is
possible and conceivable — I do not say probable —
should some fortunate investigator some day detect,

' Lay Sermons," p. 366.

ORIGIN AND NA TURE OF LIFE. 331

in the great laboratory of nature, the transition of
inorganic into organic and animated matter, or
should he, by some happy chance, be able to trans-
mute non-living into living matter, would there be
in such a discovery aught that would contravene
revealed truth, or militate against any of the received
dogmas of the Church?

To this question we can at once, and without
hesitation, return an emphatic negative. The reply
has, indeed, been indicated in the preceding pages,
when discussing the views of the Fathers and the
Schoolmen respecting spontaneous generation. Not
only were they all fully persuaded of the fact of abio-
genesis, in the case of certain of the lower forms of
life, but they also laid down principles which are
quite compatible with the origination from brute
matter not only of the lower, but also of the higher
animals. Far from being opposed to the Evolution
of living from non-living matter, they, in many in-
stances, favored it as the more probable hypothesis.
But their views as to the eflficient causes of such
Evolution differed toto coelo from those entertained
by modern monists and agnostics. The latter attrib-
ute to brute matter, which, by its very nature, is
passive and inert, the power of passing unaided
from a lower to a higher plane. They completely
ignore the true formal and eflficient causes of devel-
opment, and base their theories exclusively upon a
cause which is purely material. Not so the Fathers
and Doctors of the Church. They tell us that : " The
primordial elements alone were created in the strict
sense of the term, and that the rest of nature was

332 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

gradually developed out of these, according to a
fixed order of natural operation, under the supreme
guidance of Divine administration." They teach
that if spontaneous generation be, indeed, a reality,
the matter which undergoes change, " having been
proximately disposed, by the action of heat and
of other causes, of itself evolves into act by
Divine intervention, rather than that the causal
action of an inanimate body should be eflficacious
towards the generation of life."

It is not, then, in the case of spontaneous gener-
ation, the principle of Evolution, but the misappli-
cation of this principle, which has led to the grave
philosophical errors into which so many modern
evolutionists have fallen. None of the agnostic or
monistic theories account for life. " They begin
with organism, but organism connotes life. Whence
then, this life? Take the first instance — and the
first instance there must have been — of an inani-
mate chemical compound showing signs of life ; say
phenomena of cleavage and of subsequent gastraean
inversion. How is it that this particular inanimate
chemical compound has taken such a start ? If mat-
ter evolved itself spontaneously into life, without aid
of formal or efficient Cause, why have not the met-
amorphic rocks through all these aeons of time
shaken off the incubus of their primitive passivity,
and wakened up into protoplasm, and thus secured
to themselves the privilege of self-motion, internal
growth, reproduction ? Again, is it possible to imag-
ine that brute matter, inert and purely passive, could
by its own unaided exertion pass straight from the

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF LIFE. 333

laboratory into the kingdom of life? And if one
mass could do it, why not all ? Why do those ven-
erable metamorphic rocks remain at the root of the
genealogical tree, unchanged ? Perhaps this may
prove another instance of the survival of the fittest.
Here, then, is the flaw. These recent theorists ac-
cept life as a fact ; and they start with it. They are
superstitiously contented to begin and end with the
mystery, because they are either afraid or unwilling
to acknowledge the operation of a formal and effi-
cient Cause in the Evolution of material substances." '

As to the artificial production of living from non-
living matter, of which sundry enthusiastic chemists
have so fondly dreamed, it can be positively asserted
that if ever effected it will be along lines quite dif-
ferent from those which certain over-sanguine spec-
ulators have indicated.

The great feat achieved by Wohler, in 1828, in
making urea — an organic compound, previously sup-
posed to be the result of vital forces alone — from
inorganic matter, was but the prelude of those bril-
liant triumphs of synthetic chemistry which since
have so frequently astonished the world. During
the past few decades, especially, organic compounds
of the most marvelous complexity have been manu-
factured in the laboratory, until now there are not
wanting chemists who affect to hope, that they will
one day be able to rival nature herself in the num-
ber and complexity of her products. Their powers
of analysis, we are willing to concede, are practically
unlimited. They can tell us not only the composi-

' Harper's " Metaphysics of the School," vol. II, p. 747.

334 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

tion of the divers compounds of the mineral world,

but they are also able to give us the formulae of the

most complex constituents of vegetable and animal

tissue. And as time rolls on, the chemist's mastery

over matter and the forces of nature grows apace,

and often at a rate that is atonishing to the chemist

himself. He now plays with atoms and molecules

as a juggler manipulates spheres of brass, and so

great is his knowledge of affinities and equivalences,

so complete his command over the hidden forces of

allotropism and isomerism, that he can, with the

utmost ease, accomplish what a few years ago would

have been regarded as thaumaturgy of the highest

order.

Protoplasm.

The compound which has received the greatest
share of attention, from those who have been look-
ing forward to the ultimate production of animate
matter, is protoplasm. This is the substance to
which Huxley has given so much notoriety under
the designation of " The Physical Basis of Life."

Chemically, protoplasm is composed of carbon,
oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. At first it was re-
garded as a kind of albumen, called protein, and
was viewed as a single compound of homogeneous
structure. It was spoken of as " a kind of matter
which is common to all living beings," plants as
well as animals ; " a single physical basis of life un-
derlying all the diversities of vital existence." '* It
is," says Huxley, " the potter's clay," out of which all
the Protean forms of animal and plant hfe are fash-
ioned.

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF LIFE. 335

Now, however, all this is changed. Protoplasm,
it has been discovered, is not a single chemical com-
pound with a definite and constant molecular struc-
ture, as was formerly taught. It is something vastly
different. Microscopy and micro-chemistry have
demonstrated that it is composed of a dozen or more
substances, all of the greatest complexity. Far from
being a single, homogeneous, transparent, structure-
less jelly, as described some years ago, and as still
conceived by many who glibly talk about it, proto-
plasm, on the contrary, is a most highly organized
structure, composed of complex liquid matter, gran-
ules, fibres, tubules, nuclein, and exhibiting in the
living organism the most marvelous properties and
the most wonderful activity. Indeed, protoplasm
is a word that has almost vanished from the nomencla-
ture of the cytologist. And in its place we have a
score or more of new terms, to designate the constit-
uents of what was but a few years ago regarded, even
by the ablest exponents of science, as a single chem-
ical compound of uniform composition. Thus, in
lieu of protoplasm, we now have nuclein, pyrenin,
and nucleoplasm ; paranuclein, amphipyrenin, and
karyoplasm, not to mention other com.pounds equally
remarkable and complicated.

Such being the case, there is obviously no more
hope of the chemist eventually being able to manu-
facture protoplasm, than there is of his being able to
produce a polyp or a sea-urchin. He may build up
from their simple elements complex compounds like
urea, formic acid and indigo, because these have a
definite molecular composition, but he can no more

336 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

make even a microscopic speck of protoplasm than
he can fashion a rose or a butterfly.

Another consequence follows from the recent dis-
coveries regarding protoplasm, and that is, the im-
possibility of originating life. If protoplasm is the
simplest form of matter in which life exists, and if it
is impossible to manufacture even the smallest par-
ticle of inanimate protoplasm, much less living pro-
toplasm, it is a fortiori impossible to produce an
entity exhibiting the phenomena characteristic of a
living being.

For a similar reason, all likelihood of discovering
evidence in favor of spontaneous generation has van-
ished. One may not, indeed, assert that it is entirely
impossible. So far, it is true, protoplasm is the sim-
plest substance which exhibits the phenomena of life,
and we know of no kind of protoplasm which is sim-
pler than that above mentioned. This, however, does
not imply that there are not simpler forms of living
matter. It is possible that there are living beings so
simple that their composition may be represented
exactly by a chemical formula ; that they have a
fixed, definite, molecular arrangement, like some of
our complex organic compounds. It is possible that
ultimately the chemist may discover the proximate
constituents of such a substance, and be able to in-
dicate how it is produced by nature, or how it may
be manufactured in an inanimate condition in the
laboratory. All this is possible, all conceivable. The
past triumphs of organic chemistry, as well as our
increasing knowledge of the lower forms of life, per-
mit such an assumption. Yet it is only an assump-

ORIGIN AND NA TURE OF LIFE. 337

tion. But so far as protoplasm is concerned, so far
as there is question of the simplest unicellular moner
which the microscopist has yet observed, we can un-
hesitatingly say that spontaneous generation is im-
possible. We may conceive how simple chemical
forces can produce a chemical compound of even the
greatest complexity. But we cannot picture to our-
selves how such forces, unaided and alone, can pro-
duce an intricate organism, such as is even the lowest
representative of animate nature. It were as easy to
imagine a watch evolving itself spontaneously from
the raw material which composes it ; to picture a
man-of-war arising spontaneously from the piles of
wood and stores of iron and brass in a shipyard.

If, then, spontaneous generation is not a chimera,
it is something which has far humbler beginnings
than has ordinarily been supposed. If it ever took
place at all, it must have occurred in some homoge-
neous chemical compound which was the product of
known chemical forces. And if this be true, the
time which elapsed from the formation of such a liv-
ing compound, until its development into the highly
organized protoplasm which we now know, must
have embraced as many long aeons as intervened
between the advent of protoplasm and the first ap-
pearance of the higher orders of animal and plant
life.

The mechanical theory of life, it is thus seen, is
far from being borne out by the known facts of
science. It assumed the homogeneity of protoplasm ;
and in this it was in error. It assumes the origin of
life by the action on the elements of forces which

338 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

are resident in matter, and teaches that living differs
from brute matter only in the relative complexity of
molecular structure, and of the higher integration of
forces which is the natural result of. complexity of
structure. When such assumption denies, as it usu-
ally does deny, the existence of any force outside of
matter ; when it makes matter, as such, the sole cause
of the countless evolutions which have occurred in
the past development of the universe ; when it at-
tempts, as does Virchow, to resolve the production
of the divers forms of life from inanimate matter
into a question of mere mechanics ; when, finally, it
not only ignores, but positively denies, the ever pres-
ent, unceasing action of the Divine administration ;
then we can as unhesitatingly pronounce it false, as
it is demonstrably so in predicating homogeneity of
protoplasm. Under such circumstances it is as dififi-
cult for the theist, without assuming the interven-
tion of a miracle, to conceive of the formation of a
single chemical compound from its constituent ele-
ments, not to speak of the spontaneous origination
of living matter, as it was to Darwin to picture to
his mind the production of an elephant by the sud-
den flashing of certain elemental atoms into living
tissues. Given matter, however, and forces compe-
tent to transform matter — such forces, as well as the
matter which they affect, being always under the
guidance of the Divine administration — and there is
nothing in the theory of the origination of living
from not-living matter, that is contrary either to faith
or philosophy. On the contrary, such a view is, as we
have seen, quite in harmony with both the one and the

ORIGIN AND NA TURE OF LIFE. 339

Other. Under such conditions the spontaneous gen-
eration, either in the laboratory of nature or in that
of the chemist, presents no greater difficulties than
does the conversion of a bar of steel into a magnet.
In both cases it is God who is the author of the
change, yet God acting not directly, but through the
instrumentality of natural agencies ; through the
"seminal reasons" and the laws of nature which He
conferred on matter in the beginning.

A

CHAPTER VI.

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN.
The Missing Link.

NOTHER question in connection with Evolution
which has attracted even greater attention than
spontaneous generation, is that respecting the animal
origin of man. If it be true that living has evolved
from not-living matter ; if it be admitted that the
higher are genetically related to the lower forms of
life, then, we are told, the only logical inference is
that man is descended from some form of animal.
With the majority of contemporary non-Catholic
evolutionists, the conviction of the truth of man's
animal origin is so strong, that it is accepted as a fact
which no longer admits of doubt. According to
their view, all that remains is to trace man's relation-
ship with his dumb predecessor, to discover the
"missing link" which connects him with the beasts
of the field, and the controversy is closed forever.

Here again, as in the case of spontaneous gener-
ation, we must carefully discriminate between fact
and theory ; between positive evidence for man's
simian genealogy, and the various assumptions which
so many evolutionists are ever too ready to ask us to
accept.

I can do no better than reproduce here the tes-
timony of one who will not be accused of bias
(340)

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN. 841

towards Theism ; who, far from being opposed to the
theory of man's descent from the ape, most strongly
favors it, but who insists on having evidence of such
connection before giving his assent. I refer to the
celebrated anatomist and anthropologist. Dr. Ru-
dolph Virchow, than whom no one is more compe-
tent to give an opinion on this much-vexed question.
In an address delivered before the twentieth gen-
eral meeting of the German Anthropological Associ-
ation, at Vienna, August, 1889, he gave a review of the
progress of anthropology during the preceding two
decades. In the course of his discourse he asserted,
what he has more recently afifirmed at Moscow and
elsewhere, that there is as yet not a scintilla of evi-
dence for the ape-origin of man, and that even the
hope of discovering the missing link is something
that does not find any warranty in the known facts
of anthropology.

"At the time of our coming together twenty years
ago," he says, " Darwinism had just made its first
triumphal march through the world. My friend,
Carl Vogt, with his usual vigor entered the contest,
and through his personal advocacy secured for this
theory a great adherence. At that time it was hoped
that the theory of descent would conquer, not in the
form promulgated by Darwin, but in that advanced
by his followers ; for we have to deal now not with
Darwin but with Darwinians. No one doubted
that the proof would be forthcoming, demonstrating
that man descended from the monkey and that this
descent from a monkey, or at least from some kind
of an animal, would soon be established. This was

342 B VOL UTION A ND DOGMA.

a challenge which was made and successfully de-
fended in the first battle. Everybody knew all about
it and was interested in it. Some spoke for it ;
others against it. It was considered the greatest
question of anthropology.

" Let me remind you, however, at this point, that
natural science, so long as it remains such, works
only with real, existing objects. A hypothesis may
be discussed, but its significance can only be estab-
lished by producing actual proofs in its favor, either
by experiments or direct observations. This, Dar-
winism has not succeeded in doing. In vain have its
adherents sought for connecting links which should
connect man with the monkey. Not a single one
has been found. The so-called pro-anthropos, which
is supposed to represent this connecting link, has
not as yet appeared. No real scientist claims to have
seen him. Hence the pro-ant hropos is not at present
an object of discussion for an anthropologist. Some
may be able to see him in their dreams, but when
awake they will not be able to say they have met
him. Even the hope of a future discovery of this
pro-anthropos is highly improbable ; for we are not
living in a dream, or in an ideal world, but in a real
one."'

' See Smithsonian Report for i88g, pp. 563, et seq. In his
address before the International Archaeological Congress at
Moscow, in 1892, Prof. Virchow made the following declaration :

" C'est en vain qu'on cherche le chainon, the missing link,
qui aurait uni I'homme au singe ou a quelque autre espece ani-
male.

"II existe une Hmite trancheequi separe I'homme de I'ani-
mal et qu'on n'a pu jusqu' icieffacer; c'est Vhir^dite qui trans-
met aux enfants les facultes des parents. Nous n'avons jamais

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN 348

But although there is no tangible evidence of the
existence of the missing link, connecting man with
the monkey or with lower forms of life, some people
have, nevertheless, to use Virchow's ironical words,
" seen him in their dreams." They have seen him in
the gorilla and in the orang-outang, in the lemur and
in the kangaroo. They have observed him in the
Neanderthal man, and in the men of Naulette, Denise,
of Canstadt and of Eguisheim. De Mortillet has
scrutinized him in the imaginary being that fashioned
the flint-flakes of Thenay, Puy-Courny and Portugal.
And so sure is he that he has discovered our im-
mediate ancestor, that he has dubbed him with the
name, anthropopithems, the man-ape, or the ape-
man.' Darwin has described him as a hairy pithecoid
animal, arboreal in habits and a denizen of " some
warm forest-clad land." According to Cope, man is

vu qu'un singe mette au nionde un homme, ou que rhomme pro-
duise vm singe. Tons les hommes a I'aspect simiesque ne sont
que de produits pathologiques.

" A premiere vue, il est tres facile de supposer qu'un crane
dolicocephale se transforme en un crane brachycephale, et
cependant personne n'a encore observe la transformation d'une
race dolicocephale en une race brachycephale, et vice versa, ou
celle d'une race negre en une race aryenne.

" Ainsi, dans la question de I'homme, nous sommes repousses
sur toute la ligne. Toutes les recherches entreprises dans le
but de trouver la continuite dans le developpement progressif, ont
ete sans resultat; il n'existe pas de fro-anthropos: il n'existe pas
d'homme-singe ; le chainon intermediaire demeure un fantome."'
Revue Scientijique, Nov. 5, 1892.

' In striking contrast with the fanciful theories of De Mortil-
let, are the clearly expressed views of De Quatrefages, one of
the most eminent of modern anthropologists. Referring to the
subject under consideration he asserts " Dolichocephalic or
brachycephalic, large or small, orthognathous or prognathous,
Qiiaternary man is always man in the full acceptance of the
word." "The Human Species," p. 294.

844 E VOL UTION A ND D OGMA .

but "a pentadactylic, plantigrade bunadont," and is
genetically connected with the \emuroid, p/ienacodus
and the anaptomorphus homunculus, both of which
flourished in the early Tertiary Period. Haeckel
goes further back and discerns in the skull-less, brain-
less and memberless amphioxus, an animal which
we should regard with special veneration "as being
of our own flesh and blood," and as being the only
one of all extant animals which " can enable us to
form an approximate conception of our earliest
vertebrate ancestors."

All these imaginings, however, are, as Virchow
truly observes, but dreams, hypotheses more or less
extravagant, which have secured for their origina-
tors a certain amount of temporary notoriety, but
which have no foundation whatsoever in any fact or
legitimate induction of science.*

But if the fact of the animal origin of man has
not been established, if there is no likelihood that it
will be established, at least in the immediate future,
even according to the testimony of those who are
most desirous of seeing the pithecoid ancestry of
man demonstrated, what is to be said of the opinions
of those who, nevertheless, maintain the animal origin
of man, if not as a fact, at least as a tenable opin-
ion ? Is such an opinion compatible with Dogma,
and can a consistent Catholic assent to any of the

' In his admirable study, "Apes and Man," St. George Miv-
art, a pronounced evolutionist, gives, in a few words, the verdict
of comparative anatomy respecting the simian origin of man.
He says, p. 172 : " It is manifest that man, the apes and half-
apes, cannot be arranged in a single ascending series of which
man is the term and culmination."

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN. 345

theories now in vogue which claim that man is genet-
ically related to the inferior animals? This is a
question which is often put, and one which, far from
being treated with derision, as is so often the case,
should receive a serious and a deliberate answer.

We have seen that a belief in spontaneous gen-
eration, and in the development of the higher forms
of animal and plant life from the lower forms, is
quite compatible with both revelation and faith ; but
can this likewise be said of the development of man
from a monkey or from any other inferior animal ?

The Human Soul.

As to the soul of man we can at once emphatic-
ally declare, that it is in nowise evolved from the
souls of animals, but is, on the contrary, and in the
case of each individual, directly and immediately
created by God Himself. I do not say that this is a
dogma of faith, because the question has never been
formally defined by the Church. It is, however.
Catholic doctrine, and has been taught almost uni-
versally from the time of the apostles.

I say " almost universally," because other opin<
ions regarding the origin of the soul have been held
and defended even by some of the most eminent of
the Church's Doctors and Fathers. Origen, for in-
stance, misled by a conception of Plato, imagined
that God, in the beginning, created a large number
of spirits, all equally endowed with natural and
supernatural gifts. Many of these spirits having
sinned, God, to punish them, created the corporeal
world and imprisoned them in various kinds of

846 EVOLU TION A ND DOGMA.

bodies, according to the gravity of their transgres-
sions. Those whose offences were slight were united
with the heavenly bodies ; those who transgressed
most gravely were condemned to a union with cold
and obscure bodies ; whilst those whose sin was of
medium gravity were compelled to seek an abode in
human bodies. It is this third class of spirits that
are known as human souls. This error found favor
with the Manicheans and other heretics who taught
the transmigration of souls, and is at bottom the
same as the doctrine of modern spiritualists who
teach the soul's reincarnation.

Another error regarding the origin of the soul,
which has had numerous defenders, is that commonly
known as Traducianism. There are, however, two
kinds of Traducianism, which must be distinguished
one from the other. These are corporeal Traducian-
ism and spiritual Traducianism.

Corporeal Traducianism, St. Augustine tells us,
was taught by Tertullian.' According to his view,
the human soul is but a subtile, material substance,
and the soul of the son, like the body, proceeds
directly from the father by ordinary generation.
Such teaching manifestly reduces the souls of men
to the same level as the souls of brutes, and is tanta-
mount to a denial of their spirituality and immortal-
ity. This error was adopted by the Apollinarists
and Luciferians, and is essentially the same as that

' Cf. " De Anima," cap. xix, where he asserts "hominis
anima, veUit surculus quidam ex matrice Adam in propaginem
deducta, et genetalibus feminje foveis commendata cum omni sua
paratura, pullulabit tarn intellectu quam et sensu."

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN. Ml

which is held by materialists generally regarding the
origin of the human soul.

Spiritual Traducianism, or Generationism, like
corporeal Traducianism, teaches that the soul of the
son proceeds from the soul of the father, not indeed
through the agency of any corporeal action, but
through a special superior and spiritual kind of pro-
creation.'

This form of Traducianism was favorably consid-
ered by such a light of the Church as St. Augustine,
and even in his " Retractationes" he hesitates be-
tween this opinion and that which declares, that God
creates directly and immediately each and every in-
dividual soul. In his " De Libero Arbitrio," in his
" De Anima et ejus Origine," and in a letter to St.
Jerome, he speaks of no fewer than four theories
regarding the soul, and declares himself unable to
say which one should be accepted. '

Among the more prominent modern traducian-
ists may be mentioned Leibnitz, Rosmini, and the
Austrian priest, Froschammer. Their theories, it is
true, varied considerably in detail, but fundamentally
they were to all intents and purposes identical."

' '* Incorporeum semen animae, sua quadam occulta et in-
visibili via seorsum ex patrecurrat in matrem,"as St. Augustine
writes to Optatus, chap. iv.

^In his " De Libero Arbitrio" the saint writes: " Harum
autem quatuor de anima sententiarum, utrumne de propagine
veniant, an in singulis quibusque nascentibus novae fiant, an in
corpora nascentium jam alicubi existentes vel mittantur divini-
tus, vel sua sponte labantur, nuUam temere affirmare oportebit."
Lib. Ill, cap. XXI.

* A brief note will give the gist of the teachings of these three
philosophers. In his " Essais de Theodic^e," part. I, num.91,
the German philosopher thus expresses his belief, "Je croirais

348 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

This is, not, however, the place to discuss in de-
tail the divers theories above referred to respect-
ing the origin of the human soul, nor to refute the
errors which these theories contain. It will suffice
for our present purpose to state, that corporeal Tra-
ducianism, as well as the opinion of Origen, have been
condemned as contrary to faith. As to spiritual
Traducianism, as favored by Rosmini, Klee and
Ubaghs, it will be sufficient to say that while it is
not heresy, no one can now defend it without justly
being regarded as temerarious.

I have said that Creationism has never been form-
ally defined as a dogma of faith, but it can most
probably be regarded as implicitly defined, and pos-
sessing all the conditions necessary to its being con-
sidered as one of those truths which constitute a
part of revealed doctrine, and a portion, therefore,
of the original deposit of the Christian faith. Dur-
ing the time of St. Augustine, owing to the Pelagian

que les ames qui seront un jour atnes humaines, ont ^t^ dans
les semences et dans les ancetres jusqu'a Adam, at ont exists
par consequent, depuis le commencement des choses, toujours
dans une maniere de corps organist." In his "Anthropo-
logia," lib. IV, cap. v, Rosmini writes : " Unde in generatione
individui speciei humanie concurrunt dure causae simul operantes,
homo generatione et Deus manifestatione suae lucis ; homo ponit
animal, Deus creat animam inteliigentem in eodem instanti
quo animal humanum ponitur, creat animam eam illuminando
splendore vultus sui, ipsi participando aliquid sui, ens ideale, quod
est lumen creaturarum intelligentium." Froschammer, in his
" Defensio Generationis Anime," attributes to parents the
power of creating the souls of their children, for says he : " Gen-
eratione parentum homo secundum corpus et animam oritur vi
potestatis creandi secundariae, quae naturae humanie immanens
et in prima rerum origine a Deo coUata est. . , . Itaque
generatio est actus creationis naturae humanie, est creatio ex
nihilo, per potentiam secundariam a Deo humanitati colla-
tanj."

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN. 349

heresy and the discussions which arose concerning
the transmission of original sin, the dogmatic tradi-
tion respecting the origin of the soul was not so
strongly affirmed as it was subsequently, and hence
the vacillations of the great Bishop of Hippo, and
others, between Creationism and Traducianism.'
Since the time, however, of St. Thomas Aquinas
and St. Bonaventure, the doctrine of Creationism has
been regarded as practically beyond controversy,
among all well-accredited theologians, and we can
now look upon Melchior Cano as accurately express-
ing the mind of the Church, when he declares that it
*' without doubt pertains to faith, that the soul ex-
ists not through generation, but by creation." "

Creation of Man's Body.

So far, then, as the soul of man is concerned, it
is manifest from the foregoing paragraphs that
according to Catholic teaching, each individual soul
is created directly and immediately by Almighty
God. Man, however, is not a pure spirit, but a
creature composed of a rational soul and a corrupti-
ble body. The question now arises: Was the body
of the first man, the progenitor of our race, created
directly and immediately by God, or was it created
indirectly and through the operation of secondary

' " Tempore Aug^stini nondutn erat per Ecclesiam declara-
tiim, quod anima non esset ex traduce," writes tlie Angelic
Doctor.

" " Nunc autem, cum post ea tempora theologorum fideli-
umque omnium firmatum sit, animam non per generationem,
sed per creationem existere, sine dubio ad fidem ilia qu^stio per-
tinet." "De Loc. Theol.," lib. XII, cap. xiv.

350 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

causes? When the Bible tells us that "the Lord
God formed man from the slime of the earth," are
we to interpret these words in a rigorously literal
sense, and to believe that the Creator actually fash-
ioned Adam from the slime of the earth, as a potter
would fashion an object from clay, or as an artist
would produce the model of a statue from wax or
plaster? Or, may we put a different interpretation
on the text and regard man, quoad corpus, as indi-
rectly created, as the last and highest term of a long
series of evolutions which extend back to the first
advent of life upon earth. In other words, is man,
as to his body, the direct and special work of the
Creator's hands, or is he the descendant of some
animal, some anthropoid ape or some "missing
link," of which naturalists as yet have discovered no
trace ?

This is one of the burning questions of science ;
one which has given to Darwinism most of its noto-
riety and importance, and one which is inseparably
linked with every theory of organic Evolution by
whomsoever advocated. We have seen that, as
Catholics, we are at liberty to accept the theory of
Evolution as to all the multifarious forms of animal
and plant life, that it is, indeed, a probable, if not
the most probable, theory, and that far from derogat-
ing from the wisdom and omnipotence of God, it
affords us, on the contrary, a nobler conception of
the Deity than does the traditional view of special
creation. May we now extend the Evolution the-
ory so as to embrace the body of man, and allow
that it is no exception to the law which, we may

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN. 351

admit, has obtained in the Evolution of all other
forms of terrestrial life ? Or, is there anything in
Scripture and in the dogmatic teaching of the
Church, that will preclude such a view of the animal
part of our first ancestor?

We have already learned that, as a matter of
fact, no positive evidence has been adduced in sup-
port of the simian origin of man, and that there is
little, if any, reason to believe that such evidence will
be forthcoming. Since the publication of Darwin's
"Origin of Species," naturalists have been exploring
every portion of the globe for some trace of the
missing link between man and the highest known
mammal, a link which they said must exist some-
where, if the hypothesis of Evolution of man be
true. Explorations have been conducted in the
dark forests of equatorial Africa, in the dense jungles
of southern Asia, in the slightly-frequented islands
of every sea, in the caves and lake-dwellings of
Europe, in the mounds and cliff-dwellings of Amer-
ica, in the gravel beds and stalactitic deposits of the
Tertiary and Quaternary Periods, in the tombs and
burial places of prehistoric man ; but all to no pur-
pose. Men have, indeed, fancied that they had dis-
covered the missing link in the dryopithecus, in
pygmies of Central Africa, in the Andaman Island-
ers, in the Ainos of Japan, in the anthropopithecus
erectus, recently discovered by Dubois in the Pleis-
tocene strata of Java, but if we may judge by those
who are most competent to pronounce an opinion
in the premises, the long-looked for link connect-
ing man with the ape is as far away now, and its

352 E VOL UTION AND DOGMA.

existence as little probable, as it was thirty years
ago, if indeed it is not less probable.

But granting that the search for the link connect-
ing man with the ape has so far been futile; admit-
ting, with Virchow, that " the future discovery of this
pro-anthropos is highly improbable ;" may we not,
nevertheless, believe, as a matter of theory, that
there has been such a link, and that, corporeally, man
is genetically descended from some unknown species
of ape or monkey ? Analogy and scientific consist-
ency, we are told, require us to admit that man's
bodily frame has been subject to the same law of
Evolution, if an Evolution there has been, as has
obtained for the inferior animals. There is nothing
in biological science that would necessarily exempt
man's corporeal structure from the action of this law.
Is there, then, anything in Dogma or sound meta-
physics, which would make it impossible for us, salva
fide, to hold a view which has found such favor
with the great majority of contemporary evolution-
ists?

Mivart's Theory.

It was the distinguished biologist and philoso-
pher, St. George Mivart, who first gave a categorical
answer to these questions in his interesting little
work, " The Genesis of Species," published nearly a
quarter of a century ago. He contended that it is
not " absolutely necessary to suppose that any action
different in kind took place in the production of
man's body, from that which took place in the pro-
duction of the bodies of other animals, and of the

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN. 353

whole material universe." ' To judge from his sub-
sequent writings, time has but confirmed him in this
view and afforded him opportunities of developing
and corroborating his argument.

When Mivart's book first appeared it was se-
verely criticised by the Catholic press, both of the
Old and the New World, and its author was in
many instances denounced as a downright heretic.
Indeed, he was almost as roundly and as generally
berated, by a certain class of theologians, as was
Charles Darwin after the publication of his " Origin
of Species." In England, France and Germany the
denunciation of the daring biologist was particularly
vehement, and strenuous efforts were made to have
his work put on the Index. It was almost the uni-
versal opinion among theologians, that the proposi-
tion defended was heretical, and it was considered
only a matter of a short time until it would be
formally condemned. The book was forwarded to
Rome, but, contrary to the expectations of all who
were eagerly watching the course events would take,
the book was not condemned. Neither was its
author called upon to retract or modify the proposi-
tion which had been such an occasion of scandal.
Far from censuring the learned scientist, the pope,
Pius IX, made him a doctor of philosophy, and the
doctor's hat was conferred on him by no less a per-
sonage than Cardinal Manning himself.'

* Page 2S2.

* " My ' Genesis of Species,' " writes Mivart, " was published
in 1870, and therein I did not hesitate to promulgate the idea
that Adam's body might have arisen from a non-human animal,

E.— 93

354 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Since 1871, when Mivart's book was given to the
world, a great change of sentiment has been effected
among those who were at first so opposed to his opin-
ions, and who imagined they discerned lurking in them
not only rank heresy but also bald and unmitigated
Materialism. Men have had time to examine dis-
passionately the suspected propositions, and to com-
pare them with both the formal definitions of the
Church and the teachings of the Fathers. The result
of unimpassioned investigation and mature reflection
has been, not indeed a vindication of the truth of the
position of the English scientist, but a feeling that
his theory may be tolerated, and that because it deals
rather with a question of science than with one of
theology. It has been shown that his propositions
do not positively contravene any of the formal defi-
nitions of the Church, and that both St. Augustine
and the Angelic Doctor, to mention no others, have
laid down principles, which may be regarded as recon-
cilable with the thesis defended with so much in-
genuity by the brilliant author of " The Genesis of
Species."

Angelic Doctor on Creation of Adam.

The Angelic Doctor, in accord with the tradi-
tional teaching of the Fathers, holds that the body of
the first man was immediately and directly formed
by God Himself, but he admits the possibility of

the rational soul being subsequently infused. Great was the
outcry against such a view, but I forwarded my little book to the
Supreme Pontiff, and thereupon Pius IX benignantly granted
me a doctor's hat, which the late Cardinal Archbishop of West-
minster bestowed on me at a public function." The Nineteenth
Century, Feb., 1893, p. 327.

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN. 355

angelic intervention in its formation and preparation
for the reception of its informing principle, the
rational soul.' According to this view God created
absolutely, ex nihilo, the human soul, but delegated
to His creatures, the angels, the formation, or at
least the formation in part, aliquod viinisteriiwi, of
man's body. It is manifest, however, that if God
could have formed the body of Adam through the
agency of angels. He could have communicated the
same power to other agencies, if He had so willed.
Instead, for instance, of delegating angels to form
the body of the common father of mankind, He
could, we may believe, have given to matter the
power of evolving itself, under the action of the
Divine administration, into all the forms of life
which we now behold, including the body of man.
The product of such an Evolution would not be a
rational animal, as man is, but an irrational one ; the
highest and noblest representative of the brute crea-
tion, but, nevertheless, only a brute.

Such an irfational animal, the result of long years
of development, and the product of the play, during
untold aeons, of evolutionary forces on lower forms
of life, such a substratum it was, according to Miv-
art's theory, into which the Creator breathed the
breath of life and man forthwith " became a living
soul." According to this theory, then, God created

^"Quia igitur corpus humanum numquam formatum fuerat,
cujus virtu te per viam generationis aliud simile in specie formare-
tur,necesse fuit, quodprimum corpus hominis immediate formare-
tur a Deo. . . . Potuit tamen fieri ut aliquod ministerium in
formatione corporis primi hominis angeli exhiberent, sicut exhi-
bebunt in ultima resurrectione, pulveres coUigendo." "Sum.
Theol.," pars i™*, quxst. 91, art. 2.

356 E VOL UTION A ND D OGMA .

the soul of man directly, and his body indirectly or
by the operation of secondary causes. In both
cases, however, He is really and truly the Creator,
and there is nothing in the theory which is in any
wise derogatory to His power or wisdom. We
simply admit for the body of man what we have
seen may readily be admitted for the rest of the ani-
mate world — creation through the agency of second-
ary causes, instead of direct and immediate creation
without the concurrence of any of God's creatures.

This view of the derivative origin of Adam's
body, is also quite in harmony with other principles
laid down both by the great Bishop of Hippo and
the Angel of the Schools. For they both taught,
that in the beginning God created, in the absolute
and primary sense of creation, only corporeal ele-
ments and spiritual substances. Plants, animals and
even man, did not exist as we know them — in natura
propria ; but only potentially, receiving their full de-
velopment afterwards — per volumina sceculorum.
They existed only in what the saint calls seminal
reasons — in rationibus seminalibus ;^ and the produc-
tion of the manifold forms of life, man included,
which now adorn our planet, was the work of Evolu-
tion, viz., secondary causes acting under the con-

^ " Et ideo concedo." says St. Thomas ..." quod ra-
tiones seminales dicuntur virtutes activae completje in natura
cum propriis passivis, ut calor et frigus, et forma ignis, et virtus
solis, et hujusmodi ; et dicuntur seminales non propter esse im-
perfectum quod habeant, sicut virtus formativa in semine, sed
quia rerum individuis primo creatis, hujusmodi virtutes collatae
sunt per opera sex dierum, ut ex eis quasi ex quibusdam semini-
bus producerentur et multiplicarentur res naturales." " Sentent.,"
lib. II, dist. i8, qusest. i"", art. 2.

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN. 357

tinued and uninterrupted guidance of the Divine
administration.'

Again, this view of the origin of man's body may
be regarded as conformable with the teachings of the
Angelic Doctor from another standpoint. As all
who are familiar with the scholastic philosophy are
aware, St. Thomas, in common with the School
generally, teaches that there is a true development
in animated nature, a veritable ascent of life from
lower to higher forms. There is, he tells us, a suc-
cession of vital principles in the organic world, supe-
rior principles superseding those which are inferior.
In the development of man, as in that of the lower
animals, there is an ascending succession of substan-
tial forms, by means of which that which is destined
to become a human body, acquires a proper struc-
ture and receives the necessary disposition for be-
coming the receptacle of a rational soul. First the
embryo is animated by the vegetable soul ; subse-
quently it is informed by a more perfect soul, which
is both nutritive and sensitive. This is what is
known as the animal soul. In man this is succeeded
by the rational soul — ab extrinseco immissa, says the
Angelic Doctor — a soul specially created and infused
into the human body by God Himself."

^ " Augustinus enim vult," writes the Angelic Doctor, " in ipso
creationis principio.quasdam res per species suas distinctasfuisse
in natura propria, ut elementa, corpora coelestia et substantias
spirituales; alia vero in rationibus seminalibus tantum, ut ani-
malia, plantas et homines, quje omnia postmodum in naturis
propriis producta sunt." "Sentent," lib. II, dist. 12*, quaest.
i""^, art. II,

*The following passage is sufficient to exhibit the Angelic
Doctor's teaching in this matter ; " Quanto igitur aliqua forma

358 • EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

From what precedes, it is evinced that the
Evolution of the body of man, according to
Mivart's view, and the subsequent infusion into
this body, by God, of a rational soul, is not neces-
sarily antagonistic to the teachings of St. Thomas.
The theory may, indeed, encounter certain grave
difficulties in the domains of metaphysics and
Biblical exegesis, but I do not think it can abso-
lutely be asserted that such diflficulties are insup-
erable.'

At all events, whatever one may be disposed
to think of the theory, it is well always to bear
in mind that it has never been condemned by
the Church, although it has been publicly dis-
cussed and defended for full five-and-twenty years.
If it were as dangerous as some have imagined,
and, still more, if it were heretical, as others have
thought, it is most probable that the " Genesis of
Species " would have been put on the Index long
ago.

est nobilior et magis distans a forma elementi, tanto oportet esse
pluras formas intermedias, quibus gradatim ad formam ultitnam
veniatur et, per consequens, plures generationes medias; et ideo
in generatione animalis et hominis, in quibus est forma perfect-
issima, sunt plurimae formie et generationes intermediae, et per
consequens corruptiones, quia generatio unius est corruptio alte-
rius. Anima igitur vegetabilis, quae primo inest, cum embryo
vivit vita plant£e, corrumpitur, et succedit anima perfectior, quae
est nutritiva et sensitiva simul, et tunc embryo vivit vita ani-
malis ; haec autem corrupta, succedit anima rationalis ab extrin-
seco immissa, licet precedentes fuerint virtute seminis." " Con-
tra Gentiles," Lib. II, cap. lxxxix.

^ For a consideration of some of the difficulties alluded to,
consult PadreMir's"LaCreacion,"cap. XL, Dierck's"L'Homme-
Singe," pp. 91 et seq., and Cardinal Gonzales' " La Biblia y la
Ciencia," torn. I, cap. xi, art. iii, iv and v.

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN. 359

Views of Cardinal Gonzales.

The late Cardinal Gonzales, that profound Thom-
ist and man of science, whose untimely death
the Catholic world will mourn for a long time to
come, who has treated so luminously the question of
Evolution from the point of view of Scripture,
patristic theology and scholastic philosophy, has
suggested a modification of Mivart's theory, which,
he thinks, would make it more acceptable to theolo-
gians than it is as it now stands. If, he says, with-
out however committing himself to the opinion
expressed — if instead of affirming, as the English
biologist does, that the body of Adam was nothing
more than a fully-developed ape, into which God in-
fused a rational soul, we admit that the body of the
first man was partly the product of Evolution from
some lower animal form, and partly the direct work
of God Himself, we may thereby, he opines, elimi-
nate many of the objections urged against the theory
as formulated by its author. According to this modi-
fied view, the body of man was developed from the
inferior forms of life only until a certain point, but
in this condition it was not prepared to be endowed
by an intelligent soul. This imperfect body, how-
ever, this unfinished product of evolutionary forces,
is taken in hand by the Almighty, who perfects what
was begun, gives it the .finishing touches, as it were,
and renders it a fit habitation, which it was not pre-
viously, for a soul which was to be made to His own
image and likeness, a soul which was to be dowered

360 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

with the noble attributes of reason, liberty and im-
mortality.

Speaking for myself, I must confess that such a
modification appears unnecessary, and, in the light
of the teachings of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, it
seems that one may as readily accept the theory as
proposed by Mivart, as the restricted form of it
which the distinguished cardinal suggests. If we
are to admit the action of Evolution at all, in the
production of Adam's body, it appears more consist-
ent to admit that it was competent to complete the
work which it began, than to be forced to acknowledge
that it was obliged to leave off its task when only
partially completed. For, whether we assert that
the body of the first man was entirely, or only par-
tially, the result of evolutionary action, it was, in
both cases, according to the principles we have
adopted, the work, and ultimately the sole work, of
Almighty God. According to Mivart's view, the
body of Adam was formed by God solely through
the agency of secondary causes ; according to Gon-
zales it was formed by God partly through the con-
currence of secondary causes, and partly by His
direct and immediate action. If we are to ad-
mit that Evolution had anything whatever to do
with man's corporeal frame, it seems more logical to
admit that it finished the work which it began,
always, of course, under the guidance of the Divine
administration, than to suppose that God gave to
His secondary agents a work which they might com-
mence, indeed, but which, by reason of limitations
imposed on them, they were unable to complete.

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN. 361

One cannot help thinking, when one seriously
reflects on the matter, that the learned Cardinal —
and what is said of him may be predicated of crea-
tionists generally — unconsciously favors the very
notion he wishes to oppose. He wishes, above all
things, to safeguard the creative act and bring out
in bold relief the Divine attributes of wisdom and
omnipotence, but he unwittinglj', it would seem,
makes greater demands than his case requires. In-
deed, it strikes me that those who hold the special
creation theory as to the body of the father of our
race, and the same may be said of believers in the
special creation of the forms of life below man,
constitute themselves defenders of the very theory
which the great St. Athanasius, full fifteen centuries
ago, felt called upon to criticise adversely. Argu-
ing against the anthropomorphic views which the
heathen entertained of the Almighty, he contended
that the God of the Christians is a Creator, not a
carpenter — KTf'o-TijT oo rexvizTj':. In accord with the il-
lustrious Alexandrian Doctor's view, it has been
truthfully observed that : " The Great Architect
theory in theology is the analogue of the emboite-
ment theory in science. Both were invented when
mechanism dominated thought, and we have out-
grown both."

In commenting on Mivart's theory, the erudite
Cardinal Archbishop of Seville manifests his charac-
teristic liberality and breadth of view, strikingly re-
sembling in this respect his immortal master, the
Angel of the School. "As the question stands at
present," he says, " we have no right to reprobate or

362 E VOL UTION AND DOGMA .

reject, as contrary to Christian faith, or as contrary
to revealed truth, the hypothesis of Mivart ; the
hypothesis, namely, which admits the possibility
that the body of the first man, the organism which
received the rational soul created by God and in-
fused into Adam, was a body which received an
organization suitable for the reception of the human
soul, not directly and immediately from the hand of
God, but in virtue of the action of other antecedent
animated beings, more or less perfect and similar to
man in bodily structure." ' Elsewhere he declares:
" I should not permit myself to censure the opinion
of the English theologian so long as it is respected,
or at least tolerated, by the Church, the sole judge
competent to fix and qualify theologico-dogmatic
propositions, and decide regarding their compatibil-
ity or incompatibility with Holy Scripture." "

• " La Biblia y la Ciencia," torn, i, pp. 549-550.

^ " No sere yo quien se permita calificar con nota alguna
desfavorable la opinion del teologo Ingles, mientras que sea respet-
ada, 6 tolerada al menos, por la Iglesia, unico juez competente
para fijar y calificar las aserciones teologico-dogmaticas, y para
decidir acerca de su compatibilidad e incompatibilidad con la
Sagrada Escritura." Op. cit., torn, i, pp. 542-543. Cf., also, the
interesting brochure of Fr. Dierck's, S. J., entitled " L'Homme-
Singe et Les Precurseurs d'Adam en face de la Science et de la
Theologie." The accomplished Jesuit discusses the question at
issue in a most temperate and scholarly manner, and does
ample justice to the claims of science as well as to those of
Dogma.

Mgr. d'Hulst, the distinguished rector of the Catholic Uni-
versity of Paris, is of opinion "que I'orthodoxie rigoureuse n'im-
pose d'autre limite aux hypotheses transformistes, que le dogme
de la creation immediate de chaque ame humaine par Dieu ;
hors de la, s'ily a des temerites dans ces hypotheses, c'est par
des arguments scientifiques qu'il faut les combattre." Compte
Rendu du Congres Scientifique International des Catholiques,
tenu a Parts, 1891, Section d'Anthropologie, p. 213. In a care-
fully prepared paper, read before the International Catholic

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN. 36.T

Opinions of Other Writers.

Not to mention a number of other Catholic
writers who might be named, Mivart's theory has an
able defender in the learned French Dominican,
P^re Leroy. His thesis in its simplest form may be
expressed as follows : It is probable that God, in
creating Adam, did not make use directly of the slime
of the earth, but that, by the sole infusion of a
rational soul, he transformed into man an anthro-
pomorphic animal which had been brought by Evo-
lution, under the guidance of Divine Providence, to
a point approximating humanity as nearly as possible.
The argument of the author is well sustained, and
his work, entitled " L'Evolution Restreinte des Es-
peces Organiques," besides having the imprimatur
of the provincial and censor librorum of his order,
has the cordial indorsement of such distinguished
authorities as the eminent Catholic geologist, Prof.
A. de Lapparent, and the well-known theologian,
P^re Monsabr^. The latter, in a letter to P^re
Leroy, printed in the beginning of the volume,

Scientific Congress at Brussels, in 1894, Canon Duilhe de Saint-
Projet, the noted French apologist, in referring to the theory of
the animal origin of man, remarked, with enlightened breadth of
view, " Ici, comme pour toutes les opinions libres ou tolerees au
point de vue de I'orthodoxie, I'figlise est le seul juge." See
Compte Rendu, Section d'Anthropologie, p. 10.

As illustrative of the attitude of the anthropological section
of the same congress, the following resolution, adopted by
acclamation, is significant : " La section d'anthropologie du
troisieme Congres Scientifique des Catholiques de Bruxelles,
loue et encourage les etudes de ceux qui, sous le supreme magis-
tere de I'Eglise enseignante, s'adonnenta rechercher le role que
revolution pent avoir eu dans le concert des causes secondes
qui ont amene le monde physique a I'^tat actuel." Compte
Rendu, p. 298.

364 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

writes : " One may not be of your opinion, because
there is question of but an opinion only, but I do not
see in what anyone can find fault with your ortho-
doxy. Science progresses and its discoveries permit
us to see better every day the grandiose unity of
creation. Whatever be its progress, it will never
efface from the first pages of the Bible these two
truths: all creation is the work of God ; and there are
in this creation acts of such transcendence that they
can be attributed only to the immediate and effect-
ive intervention of an Infinite Power."

From the foregoing it is evident, that whatever
may be the final proved verdict of science in respect
of man's body, it cannot be at variance with Cath-
olic Dogma. Granting that future researches in
paleontology, anthropology and biology, shall dem-
onstrate beyond doubt that man is genetically
related to the inferior animals, and we have seen
how far scientists are from such a demonstration,
there will not be, even in such an improbable event,
the slightest ground for imagining that then, at last,
the conclusions of science are hopelessly at variance
with the declarations of the sacred text, or the
authorized teachings of the Church of Christ. All
that would logically follow from the demonstration
of the animal origin of man, would be a modification
of the traditional view regarding the origin of the
body of our first ancestor. We should be obliged
to revise the interpretation that has usually been
given to the words of Scripture which refer to the
formation of Adam's body, and read these words in
the sense which Evolution demands, a sense which,

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN. 365

as we have seen, may be attributed to the words of
the inspired record, without either distorting the
meaning of terms or in any way doing violence to
the text. '

* As illustrations of the extravagant notions, which even
eminent men have entertained respecting the origin of our first
ancestors, the following paragraphs are pertinent.

Many of the medijeval rabbins, following the teachings of
the cosmogonies of India, Persia, Chaldea, Phoenicia, and the
account of primitive man as given by Plato in his " Symposium,"
were believers in the androgynous character of the common
father of humanity. The philosopher, Maimonides, expressly
declares : "Adam et Eva creati sunt sicut unus, et tergis vel
dorso conjunct!. Postea vero a Deo divisi sunt, qui dimidiam
partem accepit, et fuit Eva, et adducta est ad ipsum."

The eminent French naturalist, Isidore Geoffroy Saint-
Hilaire, was not unfavorable to this view. "On a cherch^," he
writes, "a expliquer I'hermaphrodisme dans I'espece humaine,
par la reunion de deux sexes chez notre premier pere ; reunion
formellement enonce dans ce verset de la Genese, cap. i, ver. 27.
' Et creavit Deus ad imaginem suam, ad imaginem Dei creavit
ilium, masculum et feminam creavit eos.' On pourrait sans
doute trouver dans ce verset, ^ plusieurs ^gards remarquable, un
embleme de I'etat primitivement indecis, ou, si I'on veut, herma-
phroditique, de I'appareil sexuel, comme on a trouv^ dans
V^uvre des six jours ce\u\Au developpement progressifdela vie
vegetale et animale, et de I'apparition tardive de I'homme a la
surface du globe." " Histoire G^ndrale et Particuliere des Ano-
malies de rOrganization chez I'Homme," vol. II, p. 53.

Among modern scholars who have inclined to the primitive
androgynous condition of Adam, and the subsequent formation
of Eve by separation or division, is the distinguished orientalist,
Francois Lenormant. In his "Origines de I'Histoire d'apres la
Bible," pp. 54 and 55, he expresses himself as follows : " D'apr&s
notre version vulgate, d' accord en ceci avec la version grecque
des Septante, nous avons 1' habitude d' admettre que, selon la
Bible, la premiere femme fut formee d' une cote arrachee au fianc
d 'Adam. Cependant, on doit s^rieusement douter de I'exacti-
tude de cette interpretation. Le mot employe ici, signifie
dans tous les autres passages bibliques ou on le rencontre,
'cote' et non cote. La traduction philologiquement la plus
probable du texte de la Genese est done celle que nous avons
adoptee plus haul. 'Yaveh Elohim lit tomber un profond
sonimeil sur I'homme, et celui-ci s'endormit ; il prit un de ses
cotes et il en ferma la place avec la chair. Et Yaveh Elohim
forma le cote qu'il avail pris a I'homme en femme. Et I'homme

366 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Interpretation Not Revelation.

In the consideration of questions like the present,
we must never, be it remembered, lose sight of the
fact that interpretation is not revelation ; neither is
revelation interpretation. Superficial readers are but
too frequently misled into believing, that the decla-
rations of the Bible must necessarily bear the mean-
ing which commentators have fancied they should
have, when, as a matter of fact, the real sense is often
entirely different, if not, indeed, quite the contrary.
The opinions of men may change, and are, of a truth,
perpetually changing, but the declarations of the
Holy Spirit are ever infallible and immutable. We
can never too carefully discriminate between the
truth of God's revelation to His creatures, and the
truth of our apprehension of His revelation. In
the beginning we may have but occasional glimpses
and faint adumbrations of the truth, and it often
happens that we come into possession of the whole
truth, in all its significance and beauty and gran-
deur, only after the lapse of long ages of persistent
effort and tireless investigation. Hence the anthro-
pomorphic and anthropocentric views entertained by
the early interpreters of Scripture respecting divers
questions pertaining to the Deity, and the creatures
which are the work of His omnipotence. Time and
reflection and research show that such views are ill-
founded, and substitute in their place a nobler con-
ception of the Creator, and one that is, at the same

dit: Cette fois celle-ci est I'os de mes os et la chair de ma
chair; celle-ci sera appelee isschah (femnie), parce qu'elle a etd
prise du isch (I'homme).'"

THE SIMIAN ORIGIN OF MAN. 367

time, more in accordance with the teachings of na-
ture and the spirit of Divine revelation.

It is possible, although highly improbable, that
the evolutionary theory of the origin of Adam's cor-
poreal frame is one of such cases. And it is possible,
too, that our successors in the enjoyment of light
that is not vouchsafed to ourselves, may be willing
to admit as a scientific doctrine, what we, at present,
are not justified in considering as more than a fanci-
ful and unwarranted hypothesis. Nevertheless, be
this as it may, we must not forget what has already
been adverted to when discussing the derivative ori-
gin of animals and plants, viz., that Evolution is
not a theory of creation or cause, but one of order
and method ; a modus creandi which the Deity was
pleased to adopt. Of the origin of matter, of life,
of spirit, science, as such, can give us no information.
As to the origin of matter. Evolution, as a doc-
trine, is confessedly mute. " Of the origin of life it
does not profess to have the slightest knowledge ; of
the character of the in-dwelling force, which out of
the one original cell develops the marvelous diversity
of architecture in the individual beings, of the
variations which gave a start to the process of nat-
ural selection in the differentiation of species, it can
tell us nothing; of the marvelous adaptation of the
external conditions of the inorganic world to the
growth and differentiation of organic life, it gives no
account ; the unity of all this infinite variety of de-
velopment in one great order, having a continual
progress towards a higher perfection, it sees clearly,
but it cannot find a cause. No wonder that, as we

368 E VOL UTtON AND DOGMA.

have seen, those who study it most deeply and philo-
sophically are driven to go behind it in the search
after a true cause. . . . For clearly the develop-
ment under fixed laws and gradual process of the
organic world, no more prevents the original creative
and directive Idea from being the true Cause of all,
than the passing of the individual being through all
stages of embryonic existence from the simple cell,
makes it less the creature of the Supreme Hand.
That the archetypal idea of the Creative Mind may
fulfill itself equally, whether it act directly or
through intermediate gradations, we can see clearly
not only by abstract theory but by experience of our
own ' creations.' " '

'" Some Lights of Science on the Faith," bj Alfred Barrj,
D.D., D.C.L., pp. Ill and 112.

CHAPTER VII.

TELEOLOGY, OLD AND NEW.
The Doctrine of Final Causes.

FROM what precedes it is evident, that the most
that Evolution can do is to substitute deriva-
tive for special creation, a substitution which, as
we have learned, can be admitted without any dero-
gation whatever to either faith or Dogma. But
there is yet another objection against Evolution,
which, by some minds, is regarded as more serious
than any of the difficulties, heretofore considered,
of either philosophy or theology. This objection,
briefly stated, is that Evolution destroys entirely
the argument from design in nature, and abolishes
teleology, or the doctrine of final causes. In the
case of Darwin, for instance, as we learn from his
" Life and Letters," he had no difficulty in accept-
ing derivative in lieu of special creation, but when
it came to reconciling natural selection and Evolu-
tion with teleology, as taught by Paley, he felt that
his chief argument for believing in God had been
wrested from him entirely.

So persuaded, indeed, have many naturalists and
philosophers been, if we are to believe their own
words, that Darwinism and Evolution have given
the deathblow to teleology, that they forthwith

E.-a4 (369)

370 E VOL U TION A ND DOGMA .

dismiss all arguments based on design and final
causes as utterly worthless. And, of those who are
not in sympathy with Christianity, we find not a few
who are unable to conceal their exultation over what
they regard as the inglorious and complete discom-
fiture of the theologians. Thus Haeckel, in his
"History of Creation," writes: "I maintain with
regard to the much-talked-of * purpose in nature,*
that it really has no existence but for those persons
who observe phenomena in animals and plants in
the most superficial manner." ' Biichner boasts that
" modern investigation and natural philosophy have
shaken themselves tolerably free from these empty
and superficial conceptions of design, and leave such
childish views to those who are incapable of liberat-
ing themselves from such anthropomorphic ideas,
which unfortunately still obtain in school and church
to the detriment of truth and science." *

It were easy to multiply similar quotations, but
the two just given are quite sufficient for our present
purpose. Judging from their public utterances, as
well as from their well-known private opinions, there
is no mistaking the animus of these soi-disant expo-
nents of modern thought. If we are to take them
at their own words, they seem to be as eager, if not
more eager, for the extirpation of Dogma and all
forms of religious belief, as they are for the advance-
ment of what they denominate " science."

' Vol. I, p. 19, Eng. trans. In his " Generelle Morpholo-
gic," vol. I, p. 160, he asserts: " Wir erblicken darin (in the
Darwinian theory) den definitiven Tod aller teleologischen und
vitalistischen Beurtheilung der Organismen."

* "Force and Matter," p. 21S.

TELEOLOGT, OLD AND NEW. 371

A Newer Teleologfy.

It would be a grave mistake, however, to think
that Hasckel and Biichner truthfully reflect the opin-
ions of scientists generally, or that the large body of
naturalists are at one with them in proclaiming that
the argument from design in nature is no longer ten-
able, or that Evolution and teleology are wholly in-
compatible. So far, indeed, is this from being the
case, that the most philosophical of contemporary
naturalists, those who are most competent to inter-
pret the facts and phenomena of nature and to draw
legitimate conclusions from the facts observed, are
almost unanimous in declaring that the teleological
argument, not only is not weakened, much less de-
stroyed, but that it is, on the contrary, illustrated
and corroborated in the most remarkable and unex-
pected manner. And strange as it may appear, the
very one who, according to Haeckel, Biichner, Vogt,
G. H. Lewes and others whose anti-theological ani-
mus is so marked as to require no comment, was
supposed to have banished forever from science and
theology, not only design and purpose but all final
causes whatsoever, is the very one who, above all
others, has put teleology on a firmer and a nobler
basis than it ever occupied before. We have no
longer, it is true, the argument as it was presented
by Paley, and developed by Chalmers and the au-
thors of the Bridgewater Treatises, but we have in its
stead one that is grander, more comprehensive, more
effective and more conclusive.

872 EVOLUTION A ND D O GMA .

Professor Asa Gray, admittedly one of the ablest
botanists of the century, and to the day of his death
a strenuous and consistent advocate of the theory of
Evolution, thus expresses himself when speaking of
the work of Charles Darwin : " Let us recognize
Darwin's great service to natural science in bringing
back to it teleology ; so that instead of morphology
versus teleology, we shall have morphology wedded
to teleology." ' In another place he speaks of " the
great gain to science from his [Darwin's] having
brought back teleology to natural history. In Dar-
winism, usefulness and purpose come to the front
again as working principles of the first order ; upon
them, indeed, the whole system rests.'" "In this
system," he continues, " the forms and species in all
their variety are not mere ends in themselves, but the
whole a series of means and ends, in the contempla-
tion of which we may obtain higher and more com-
prehensive, and perhaps worthier, as well as more
consistent views, of design in nature, than heretofore."
In it we have " a theory that accords with, if it does
not explain, the principal facts, and a teleology that
is free from the common objections," for, " the most
puzzling things of all to the old school teleologists
are \he principia of the Darwinian. "'

Evolution and Teleology.

In the " Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,"*
edited by his son, we read : " One of the greatest

1 " Darwiniana," p. 288.

* Ibid., p. 357.
» Ibid., p. 378.

* Vol. II, p. 430.

TELEOLOGr, OLD AND NEW. 373

services rendered by my father to the study of nat-
ural history is the revival of teleology. The evolu-
tionist studies the purpose or meaning of organs
with the zeal of the older teleology, but with far
wider and more coherent purpose. He has the in-
vigorating knowledge that he is gaining, not isolated
conceptions of the economy of the present, but a
coherent view of both past and present. And even
where he fails to discover the use of any part, he
may, by a knowledge of its structure, unravel the
history of the past vicissitudes in the life of the
species. In this way a vigor and unity is given to
the study of the forms of organized beings, which
before it lacked." '

' According to the Duke of Argyll : " The theory of develop-
ment is not only consistent with teleological explanations, but
it is founded on teleology and on nothing else. It sees in every-
thing the results of a system which is ever acting for the best,
always producing something more perfect or more beautiful than
before, and incessantly eliminating whatever is less faulty or less
perfectly adapted to every new condition. Prof. Tyndall him-
self cannot describe this system without using the most in-
tensely anthropopsychic language. ' The continued effort of
animated nature,' he says in his Belfast address, ' is to improve
its conditions and raise itself to a loftier level.'" " The Unity
of Nature," p. 171.

Mr. Alfred Wallace, who shares with Darwin the honor of
having introduced to the world the theory of natural selection,
asks, when speaking of the bearing of Evolution on the doctrine
of design : " Why should we suppose the machine, too compli-
cated to have been designed by the Creator, so complete that it
would necessarily work out harmonious results .-' The theory
of ' continual interference' is a limitation of the Creator's power.
It assumes that He could not work by pure law in the organic
as he has done in the inorganic world." " Natural Selection,"
p. 280.

Similar language is employed by the late Prof Richard
Owen, one of the greatest comparative anatomists of the age.
He was a firm believer not only in the " ordained becoming"
of new species, but was also a zealous and consistent teleolo-
gist.

374 E VOL U TION A ND DOGMA .

Prof. Huxley, who loves to pose as an agnostic,
but who is endowed with a critical acumen that is pos-
sessed by neither Biichner nor Haeckel, affirms that :
" The most remarkable service to the philosophy of
biology rendered by Mr. Darwin, is the reconciliation
of teleology and morphology, and the explanation
of the facts of both, which his views offer. The tel-
eology which supposes that the eye, such as we see
it in man or one of the higher vertebrates, was
made with the precise structure it exhibits, for the
purpose of enabling the animal which possesses it to
see, has undoubtedly received its death-blow. Never-
theless, it is necessary to remember that there is a
wider teleology which is not touched by the doctrine
of Evolution, but is actually based upon the funda-
mental principle of Evolution." '

To the foregoing testimonies, and others of like
import which could easily be adduced in any number
desired, I will add the matured opinion of the dis-
tinguished naturalist and keen metaphysician, whose
name has already figured so frequently in these
pages, St. George Mivart. A biologist of marked
eminence, an evolutionist of pronounced convictions,
a theologian of recognized ability, no one is better
qualified to express a judgment regarding the bear-
ings of the Evolution theory on the argument from
design and the doctrine of final causes. " A careful
study," he tells us, "of the inter-relation and inter-
dependencies which exist between the various orders
of creatures inhabiting this planet, shows us a yet
more noteworthy teleology — the existence of whole

' " Darwiniana," p. no.

TELEOLOGY, OLD AND NEW. 375

orders of such creatures being directed to the service
of other orders, in various degrees of subordination
and augmentation, respectively. This study reveals
to us, as a fact, the enchainment of all the- various
orders of creatures in a hierarchy of activities, in
harmony with what we might expect to find in a
world, the outcome of a First Cause possessed of in-
telligence and will, since it exhibits, at the same
time, both ' continuity ' and * purpose.' It shows
us, indeed, that a successively increasing fulfillment
of ' purpose ' runs through the irrational creation
up to man. And thus the study of final causes re-
veals to us how great is our dignity, and, conse-
quently, our responsibility." '

Design and Purpose in Nature.

The quotations just made from some of the most
eminent and most philosophical of modern natural-
ists, and they are in perfect accord with the senti-
ments of the great majority of contemporary evolu-
tionists, prove that true votaries of science, far from
denying design and purpose in nature, affirm, on the
contrary, their existence, and profess themselves un-
able to account for the facts and phenomena of the
visible universe without postulating a First Cause,
the Creator and Ordainer of all the beauty and har-
mony we so much admire, both in organic and in inor-
ganic nature. From these quotations, too, we see how
erroneously the teachings of true science are inter-
preted by a blatant and anti-religious minority, and

* " On Truth," pp. 483-484 ; cf., also, his " Lessons from Na-
ture," pp. 358 et seq., and " Genesis of Species," pp. 273 et seq.

876 ^ VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

what a grievous injustice is done to the real repre-
sentatives of science, by those whose chief object
seems to be to foment discord between science and
religion, and to intensify an odium theologicum on one
hand, and provoke an odium scientificum. on the
other, which are both as silly as they are unwarranted.
In spite of all that may be said to the contrary, the
unbiased and reverent student must see in nature
the evidence of a Power which is originative, direct-
ive, immanent ; a Power which is intelligent, wise,
supreme. And, notwithstanding the asseverations
of the noisy and supercilious few, who are notorious
rather for their fanciful theories than prominent for
genuine contributions to science, no serious investi-
gator can fail to discern, in the world of beauty and
usefulness with which we are surrounded, the most
conclusive evidence that what we denominate the
laws of nature must have existed in idea before they
existed in fact ; must have existed in the mind of a
supreme, creative Intelligence, as the realities which
we now observe and coordinate.* Evolution, there-
fore, far from weakening the argument from design,
strengthens and ennobles it ; and far from banishing
teleology from science and theology, illustrates and
corroborates it in the most admirable manner. And
despite all attempts to connect teleology with Pan-

^ Paley, in referring to those who speak of law as if it were
a cause, very pertinently remarks : " It is a perversion of lan-
guage to assign any law as the efficient, operative cause of any-
thing. A law presupposes an agent, for it is only the mode
according to which the agent proceeds ; it implies a power, for
it is the order according to which that power acts. Without
this agent, without this power, which are both distinct from it-
self, the law does nothing, is nothing." " Natural Theology,"
p. 12.

TELEOLOGY, OLD AND NEW. 377

theism or Materialism, or to make Evolution sub-
serve the cause of Atheism or Agnosticism, the result
has been that we have now a higher, a subtler, a
more comprehensive teleology than the world has
ever before known. We have a teleology which is
indissolubly linked with the teachings of revealed
truth ; a teleology which, while receiving light from
Evolution, illumines, in turn, this grand generaliza-
tion, and shows us that Evolution, when properly
understood, is a noble witness to a God who, unlike
the God of the older Deism, that " simply sets the
machine of the universe in motion, and leaves it to
work by itself," is, on the contrary. One who, in the
language of Holy Scripture, is not only " above all,
but through all, and in all."

CHAPTER VIII.

RETROSPECT, REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION.
Evolution Not a New Theory.

WE may now, before concluding this protracted
study, take a brief survey of the ground
over which we have traveled and make a few reflec-
tions which are naturally suggested by the discus-
sions which precede.

First of all, then, the evolutionary idea is not, as
we have learned, the late development it is some-
times imagined to be. On the contrary, it is an
idea that had its origin in the speculations of the
earliest philosophers, and an idea which has been
slowly developed by the studies and observations of
twenty-five centuries of earnest seekers after truth.

In reading over the history of Greek philosophy,
we are often surprised to see how the sages of old
Hellas anticipated many of the views which are
nowadays so frequently considered as the result of
nineteenth century research. With limited means
for penetrating the arcana of Nature, they frequently
accomplished what we should deem impossible
without the aid of microscope and telescope. They
are often reproached with being simple, a priori
reasoners, fanciful speculators and fortunate guessers
at the truth ; but they were far more than this. They
did not, it is true, have at hand the wonderful in-
(378)

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 379

struments of precision which we now possess, but
they had a keenness of perception and a faculty for
getting at the heart of things, which probably have
never been equaled and certainly never surpassed.
At times, indeed, their intuition amounted almost to
divination, and instead of being simple votaries of
science, the philosophers of those days were rather
its prophets.

Teachings of Greek Philosophers.

No one can read of the achievements of Aristotle,
or recall his marvelous anticipations of modern dis-
coveries, without feeling that it was he who sup-
plied the germs of what subsequently became such
large and beautiful growths. As one of the greatest,
if not the greatest, of the world's intellects, he ac-
complished not only actually, but proleptically, far
more than is usually attributed to him, especially in
all that concerns the now famous theory of Evolu-
tion. He had, it is true, received aid and suggestions
from his predecessors, the lonians, Eleatics and
Pythagoreans ; he had found a stimulus in the specu-
lations of Heraclitus, Empedocles, Democritus and
Anaxagoras ; but his own researches and his remark-
able powers of generalization, enabled him to elimi-
nate what was erroneous in their views, and develop
what was true, in such a way that his success in this
respect has ever remained a matter of wonder.

I have already alluded to the teachings of the
old Ionian schools regarding the origin of the inor-
ganic and organic w^orlds, and exhibited a few of
the many striking analogies which exist between

380 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

the teachings of Greek philosophy and modern sci-
ence respecting the theory of Evolution. Accord-
ing to Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes, the
world and all it contains were generated from simple
primordial matter. From the simple proceeds the
complex, from the indeterminate, ro ar.zipov, arise all
the manifold differentiated forms of the cosmos.
Living originates from non-living matter, because all
life had its origin in pristine mud. Heraclitus antic-
ipates Darwin's notion of " the struggle for exist-
ence," in his view of conflict, Tz6Xe/io?, as the originator
of all things, and also in his conception of the en-
deavor made by individuals to insure their existence
against the processes of destruction with which they
are surrounded. Empedocles, like our modern sci-
entists, taught not only that all terrestrial things arise
from certain primitive elements, but also, like Dar-
win, recognized a development in animal and vege-
table forms. He likewise attempted to explain the
origin of the various organic beings, species, genera,
etc., by the existence of certain adaptations which
tend to perpetuate themselves.

Teleological Ideas of Anaxagoras and Aristotle.

The first one of the Greek philosophers to take a
teleological view of nature, to perceive in the won-
derful adaptations everywhere manifested an evi-
dence of intelligent design, was Anaxagoras. His
predecessors and contemporaries were, for the most
part, believers in the doctrine that all things were
originated by chance, or the fortuitous concourse of

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 381

atoms, and were, consequently, adherents of what is
now known as the monistic or mechanical theory of
the universe. This can be predicated especially of
Democritus, the founder of Atomism and the fore-
runner of Materialism.

But it was reserved for " the wisest of wise
Greeks, the Stagirite," to develop the teleological
ideas of Anaxagoras, and to show that the succes-
sion of the myriad forms of terrestrial life was due,
not to simple fortuity but to the continued, or at
least to the preordaining action, of an intelligent,
efficient Cause or Prime Mover. Whether Aristo-
tle believed that God is immanent in nature, and
continually working through the agency of natural
causes, or conceived Him as preordaining from the
beginning all the harmony we now observe, is open
to question, but it is quite clear that he was a firm
believer in Evolution in its modern sense, as opposed
to the theory of special creations. His theistic views
are, indeed, in marked contrast with the agnostic and
materialistic teachings of the lonians, and of the
earlier and later materialistic schools, especially of
those represented by Empedocles, Democritus, Epi-
curus and Lucretius.

In the Stagirite's doctrines, too, we find the
germs of those views on creation which were devel-
oped later on with such wonderful fullness, and in
such marvelous perfection, by those great Doctors
of the Church, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine and
Thomas Aquinas. According to Aristotle it was
necessary, that is, in compliance with natural law,
that germs, and not animals, should have been first

382 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

produced ; and that from these germs all forms of
life, from polyps to man, should be evolved by the
operation of natural causes. How like St. Augus-
tine's teaching, that God in the beginning created all
things potentially, in seminc, potentialiter, and that
these were afterwards developed through the action
of secondary causes, causales rationes, during the
course of untold ages — per volumina scsculorum/

Influence of Aristotle.

Having now before our minds the achievements
of Aristotle in the domain of science, and understand-
ing what were his contributions to the evolutionary
view of nature, it is not difficult for us to account
for the paramount influence which he wielded in
the world of thought for full twenty centuries ; why
he was so long regarded as the guide of naturalists
and philosophers, as the " magister " of Fathers and
Schoolmen, and why his views impregnated the
teachings, not only of thinkers like Descartes, Bacon,
Leibnitz, Kant and Schelling, but also tinctured the
speculations of such naturalists as De Maillet, Oken,
Robinet, Buffon, Linnaeus and Erasmus Darwin.

Nor is this all. Although less than in the writ-
ings of the authors just named, we can trace the in-
fluence of the old Greek master in still more recent
works ; in those of Goethe and Lamarck, Treviranus
and GeofTroy Saint-Hilaire, Cuvier and Bory de St.
Vincent. These, with even later investigators, Von
Baer, Serres, Spencer, Richard Owen, Naudin,
Wallace, Charles Darwin and St. George Mivart,
have but developed the germs and elaborated the

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 383

ideas which the immortal Stagirite left as a legacy to
the world more than two thousand years ago.

No ; it is a mistake to suppose that the theory of
Evolution, whether cosmic or organic, is something
new and the product solely of modern research. It
is something old, as old as speculative thought, and
stripped of all explanations and subsidiary adjuncts,
it is now essentially what it was in the days of Aris-
totle, St. Augustine, and the Angel of the Schools.
Modern research has developed and illustrated the
theory, has given it a more definite shape and
rendered it more probable, if indeed it has not
demonstrated its truth, but the central idea remains
practically the same as it was when " the master of
those that know — il maestro di color che sanno" as
Dante calls Aristotle — indited his works on " Physics"
and the " History of Animals," and when the great
Bishop of Hippo penned his wondrous treatises on
*' Genesis " and " The Trinity." Indeed, we can say of
Evolution what Lord Bacon said of natural science
in the beginning of the seventeenth century : " If,"
says he, " the natural history extant, though ap-
parently of great bulk and variety, were to be care-
fully weeded of its fables, antiquities, quotations,
frivolous disputes, philosophy, ornaments, it would
shrink to a slender bulk." Similarly might we affirm,
and with equal truth, if Evolution were to be sepa-
rated from all the theories and fantastical specula-
tions which in the minds of many are an essential
part of it, very little, at least as to its principles,
would remain, which was unknown to Aristotle,
Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

884 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Darwinism Not Evolution.

Darwinism, as has already been remarked, is not
Evolution ; neither is Lamarckism nor Neo-Lamarck-
ism. The theories which go by these names, as well
as sundry others, are but tentative explanations of
the methods by which Evolution has acted, and of the
processes which have obtained in the growth and
development of the organic world. They may be
true or false, although all of them undoubtedly
contain at least an element of truth, but whether
true or false, the great central conception of Evolu-
tion remains unaffected. Whether natural selection
has been the chief agent in the Evolution of plants
and animals, as Darwin and Wallace contend, or
whether the influence of activity and environment
has been a more potent factor, as Lamarck and Cope
maintain, is as yet uncertain. But be this as it^
may, it matters not. It is still far from certain that
we have discovered the leading factor or factors of
Evolution. All theories so far advanced, to account
for the phenomena of change and development, are
at best but guesses and provisional hypotheses ; and
no serious man of science claims that they are any-
thing more. They have unquestionably contributed
much towards the advancement of the science of
biology, and have enabled naturalists to group to-
gether facts which were formerly considered as
disparate and irreconcilable. They have suggested
explanations of phenomena that were shrouded in
mystery, and enabled us to perceive in nature a
unity of plan and purpose, which, without such

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 385

theories, would either be obscured or entirely elude
our view.

Much, undoubtedly, remains yet to be done, but
no one who is familiar with the history of science
in the past half century, can deny that marvels
have been accomplished during this time, and that a
flood of light has been thrown on some of the most
puzzling problems of natural science. Whatever
value, then, we may attach to the theories of Lamarck
and Saint-Hilaire, of Darwin and Wallace and Mivart,
no one can deny that they are entitled to a lasting
debt of gratitude for their brilliant researches, and
for their untiring zeal and signal success in collect-
ing and coordinating facts in a way that has never
before been accomplished. Whether their theories
be all that has been claimed for them or not, they
have certainly popularized an idea which prior to
their promulgation interested but a few, and given to
the study of science an impetus which it had never
before experienced. They have given to the evolu-
tionary idea a relief, and endowed it with a fascina-
tion, which have captivated the world. They have
inspired among the masses a love of nature which did
not previously exist, and have stimulated investiga-
tion and spurred on progress in a manner to win the
admiration and extort the plaudits of the most in-
different and phlegmatic. As to the authors of these
theories they have ushered in a new era, and are the
kings and prophets of the most active and most
prolific period of research that the world has yet
witnessed. Others will come after them who will
correct their errors and improve on their theories,

386 E VOL UTION A ND D OGMA .

but the triumphs of these pioneers of the renaissance
of science will endure with undiminished lustre as
long as there shall remain an annalist to record the
achievements of human progress.

Evolution in the Future.

What shall ultimately be the fate of the argu-
ments now so confidently advanced in favor of Evo-
lution by its friends, and against it by its enemies,
only the future can decide. The grounds of defense
and attack will, no doubt, witness many and impor-
tant changes. Future research and discovery will
reveal the weakness of arguments that are now con-
sidered unassailable, and expose the fallacies of
others which, as at present viewed, are thoroughly
logical. But new reasons in favor of Evolution will
be forthcoming in proportion as the older ones shall
be modified or shown to be untenable. And, as the
evolutionary idea shall be more studied and devel-
oped, the objections which are now urged against it
will, I doubt not, disappear or lose much of their
cogency. New theories will be promulgated, new
explanations of present difficulties will be suggested,
and a clearer knowledge will be vouchsafed of what
are the real, if not the chief factors, of the vast evolu-
tionary processes which are at the bottom of all forms
of organic development. As in physics so also in bi-
ology; continued investigation of facts and phenom-
ena is sure to issue in a clearer and truer view of
nature, and of the agencies which have been in-
strumental in bringing animated nature from its

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 387

primordial to its present condition. And every new
discovery, every new fact brought to light and correl-
ated with facts already known, will mean a step
forward ; will betoken progress, knowledge and en-
lightenment.

As the old emission theory of light, originated
by Descartes and Newton, was followed by the un-
dulatory theory formulated by Huygens, Young and
Fresnel ; and as the latter has been succeeded by the
electro-magnetic theory of Maxwell and Hertz, so
likewise will the various theories which are now of-
fered in explanation of the facts of Evolution, be re-
placed by others which shall be a closer approxima-
tion to the truth, or which shall eventually exhibit
the truth in all its beauty and grandeur. The hy-
potheses of Darwin, Wallace, Spencer, Mivart and
VVeismann will, no doubt, give way in greater or less
degree to other theories which, while being more in
conformity with the facts observed, shall afford a
truer view of nature and supply a more accurate
knowledge of those of her operations that are now
so mysterious and so ill-understood. The work to
be accomplished will, of course, be slow and require
time. For, unlike the theory of light, Evolution deals
not merely with one form of energy, or forms of
energy which are reducible to one. It is not con-
fined to the discussion of only a narrow and limited
range of phenomena, but is, on the contrary, a
theory which is universal in its application, embrac-
ing all forms of energy and dealing with all kinds of
matter, from simple elementary atoms to that high-
est and most complex of organisms, man.

388 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

That the task will be accomplished sooner or later ;
that we shall ultimately have a satisfactory explana-
tion of evolutionary processes; and that the theory
of Evolution will at length be established on a firm
and logical basis, no reasonable man can doubt.
Numerous and great difficulties have been removed
during the past few decades, and one need not be a
seer to foretell, that even more effective work will be
accomplished during the same period of time in the
years to come. The world has proceeded too far to
admit of retrogression. Advance is the order of the
hour, and final triumph is inevitable.

Evolution Not Antagonistic to Religion.

Yet more. In proportion as Evolution shall be
placed on a solider foundation, and the objections
which are now urged against it shall disappear, so
also will it be evinced, that far from being an enemy
of religion, it is, on the contrary, its strongest and
most natural ally. Even those who have no sym-
pathy with the traditional forms of belief, who are,
in principle* if not personally, opposed to the Church
and her dogmas, perceive that there is no necessary
antagonism between Evolution and faith, between
the conclusions of science and the declarations of
revelation. Indeed, so avowed an opponent of
Church and Dogma as Huxley informs us that: "The
doctrine of Evolution does not even come into con-
tact with Theism, considered as a philosophical doc-
trine. That with which it does collide, and with
which it is absolutely inconsistent, is the conception
of creation which theological speculators have based

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 389

upon the history narrated in the opening book of
Genesis." '

In other words, Evolution is not opposed to revela-
tion, but to certain interpretations of what some have
imagined to be revealed truths. It is not opposed
to the dogmas of the Church, but to the opinions of
certain individual exponents of Dogma, who would
have us believe that their views of the Inspired Rec-
ord are the veritable expressions of Divine truth.'

To say that Evolution is agnostic or atheistic in
tendency, if not in fact, is to betray a lamentable
ignorance of what it actually teaches, and to display
a singular incapacity for comprehending the relation
of a scientific induction to a philosophical — or, more
truthfully, an anti-philosophical — system. The sim-
ple assertion of Haeckel and his school, that Evolu-
tion implies the monistic or mechanical theory of
the universe, proves nothing, for assertion is not
proof. Rather should it be affirmed that Evolution,
in so far as it is true, makes for religion and Dogma ;
because it must needs be that a true theory of the
origin and development of things must, when prop-
erly understood and applied, both strengthen and
illustrate the teachings of faith. *' When from the

^ " Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," vol. I, p. 556.

"^ Lamarck, with keen philosophic insight, thus expresses
himself in his " Philosophie Zoologique," tom. I, p. 56 : " Sans
doute rien n'existe que par la volont^ du sublime Auteur de toutes
choses, mais pouvons-nous lui assigner des regies dans 1 'execu-
tion de sa volonte et fixer la mode qu'il a suivi a cet egard ?
Assurement, quelle qu'ait ete sa volenti, I'immensite de sa
puissance est toujours la mfime, et de quelque mani&re quese soit
executee cette volont^ supreme, rien n'en peut diminuer la
grandeur."

390 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

dawn of life," says Prof. Fiske, who is an ardent
evolutionist, "we see all things working together
towards the Evolution of the highest spiritual attri-
butes or man, we know, however the words may
stumble in which we try to say it, that God is
in the deepest sense a moral being." ' Elsewhere
the same writer truly observes : " The doctrine of
Evolution destroys the conception of the world as a
machine. It makes God our constant refuge and
support, and nature His true revelation." And again
he declares : " Thmigh science must destroy myth-
ology, it can never destroy religion ; and to the
astronomer of the future, as well as to the Psalmist
of old, the heavens will declare the glory of God."'
Evolution does, indeed, to employ the words of
Carlyle, destroy the conception of " an absentee God,
sitting idle, ever since the first Sabbath, at the out-
side of His universe and seeing it go." ^ But it com-
pels us to recognize that " this fair universe, were it
in the meanest province thereof, is, in very deed, the
star-domed city of God ; that through every star,
through every grass-blade, and most, through every
living soul, the glory of a present God still beams." *

Objections Against New Theories.

It is true, indeed, as we have already learned,
that Evolution has been decried, even by men of

»"The Idea of God," p. 167.

2" Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy," vol. II, p. 416.

'"Sartor Resartus," book II, chap. vn.

*Ibid., book III, chap. viii.

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 391

marked ability, as leading to Atheism or Materialism.
But similar charges have also been made against
other theories and generalizations which are now
universally acknowledged as true.

Anaxagoras, it will be remembered, was con-
demned as a heretic for asserting that the sun, the
great god Helios, was but a mass of molten matter.
Spectroscopy has vindicated him, and shown that
his accusers were in error. Aristarchus was accused
of impiety for having taught that the earth revolves
round the sun, and for having anticipated a theory
independently discovered and developed eighteen
centuries later by Copernicus. The Samian astrono-
mer was charged with having "disturbed the repose
of Vesta," and the worshippers of the offended god-
dess accordingly suppressed or destroyed his sacrile-
gious works.

Newton's great laws of universal gravitation,
when first promulgated, were looked upon with sus-
picion, and, in some instances, denounced as atheis-
tic. Even so great a mathematician and philosopher
as Leibnitz, did not hesitate to condemn Newton's
grand discovery, "not only as physically false, but
as injurious to the interests of religion."

All are familiar with the absurd objections urged
against the heliocentric theory as advocated by Ga-
lileo. Lord Bacon rejected it with contempt, and
even the distinguished astronomer, Tycho Brahe,
notwithstanding all the evidence offered in favor of
the Copernican system, invented one of his own
which was but a modification of Ptolemy's and no
less complex and cumbersome.

392 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA,

Galileo and the Copemican Theory.

It is often said, even by those who should be
better informed, that the greatest obstacle in the
way of the general acceptance of the Copernican
theory was the Church, and that the cause of all of
Galileo's woes was the ignorant officials of the In-
quisition. The fact is, however, that it was not
churchmen, as such, who were opposed to the views
which Galileo so ardently and so successfully cham-
pioned. It was rather the old peripatetic system
of philosophy, which, after dominating the world of
thought for two thousand years, saw itself finally
face to face with what, it was felt on all sides, was
destined to prove the most formidable adversary it
had yet encountered. For the. Ptolemaic system
was so closely bound up with the philosophy of Aris-
totle, and this in turn was so intimately connected
with theology, especially since the time of St.
Thomas Aquinas, that any attack on the geocentric
system was at once regarded as an onslaught on
both philosophy and theology. So great, indeed,
was the authority of the *' Master," as Aristotle was
called, and so long had his dicta been accepted with-
out question, that in the minds of many it was
almost as impious to assail his opinions as it was to
attack the dogmas of faith.

One of the fundamental teachings of the Stagir-
ite was, for instance, that concerning the incorrupti-
bility and immutability of the heavens. Galileo's
telescopic discoveries showed that this opinion was

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 893

not based on fact. He proved that "the heavens
can change and lay aside their former aspects, and
assume others entirely new ; " and in doing this, he
gave a death blow to one of the leading tenets on
which peripatetics generally had so long set such
store. Learned professors at Pisa, Padua and Bo-
logna, tried to silence the illustrious Florentine by
the profuse use of syllogisms and to disprove the
truth of his observations by a/rwr/ reasonings. He
was declared by others to be the victim of strange
optical illusions, and, accordingly, it was asserted
that the spots on the sun, and the satellites of Jupi-
ter and the variable stars had no existence outside
of the observer's diseased imagination. Aristotel-
ians indignantly denied the existence of sun-spots,
because, said they : " It is impossible that the eye
of the universe could suffer from ophthalmia." For
an equally trivial reason they rejected Kepler's
great discovery of the accelerated and retarded mo-
tions of the planets in different parts of their orbits.
" It is undignified," they declared, ** for heavenly
bodies to hurry and slacken their pace in accordance
with the law of the German astronomer." Aris-
totelianism, it was almost universally agreed, was
to be safeguarded at all hazards, and Galileo, Kep-
ler and other innovators, who thus ruthlessly tram-
pled under foot the philosophy of the master — " Si
calpesta tutta la filosofia d" Aristotele'' — were to be
vanquished at whatever cost, for if they were al-
lowed to continue their sacrilegious work, they
would eventually undermine, not only philosophy
?^n4 theology, but also sacred Scripture as well.

394 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

A quotation from one Sizzi, a learned astronom-
ical authority of the time, will serve to exhibit the
puerile character of some of the reasons adduced in
favor of the old system and against the new. Ga-
lileo having, by the aid of his telescope, discovered
the satellites of Jupiter, Sizzi argued against the
existence of such bodies as follows : " There are
seven windows given to animals in the domicile of
the head, through which the air is admitted to the
tabernacle of the body, viz., two nostrils, two eyes,
two ears and one mouth. So, in the heavens, as in
a macrocosm, or great world, there are two favora-
ble stars, Jupiter and Venus; two unpropitious. Mars
and Saturn ; two luminaries, the sun and moon, and
Mercury alone undecided and indifferent. From
these and many other phenomena of nature, which
it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the
number of planets is necessarily seven. Moreover,
the satellites are invisible to the naked eye, and
therefore, can exercise no influence over the earth,
and would, of course, be useless; and therefore do
not exist."

Such things appear to us childish and absurd in
the extreme ; but after all they are but a fair sample
of the reasons which were offered by many of the
astronomers and philosophers of the time, against
the innovations and scientific heresies of Copernicus
and Galileo. When one calls to mind what extrava-
gant errors have been defended in the name of Aris-
totelian philosophy, and what untold mischief a priori
reasoning has effected in the domain of experimental
science ; when we understand the temper of mind of

REFLECTIONS AND CON-CLUSTON. 395

those who taught and speculated three centuries
ago, we need not be surprised at the many strange
things they said and did. We see in their opinions
and conduct but a reflex of what is always observed
in the progress of knowledge and in the dissipation
of ignorance. The much-talked-of warfare between
science and religion is something that does not exist.
The warfare is between truth and error, between sci-
ence and theory. In Galileo's case, as we have seen,
it was Copernicanism versus Aristotelianism ; a priori
reasoning against observation and experiment ; the
syllogism against the telescope.

Conservatism in Science.

And more than this. The same objections that
were brought against Galileo and heliocentrism, were
urged against Laplace and the nebular hypothesis ;
against Joule, Mayer, Faraday, Liebig, Carpenter
and Helmholtz, on account of their demonstrations
of the grand doctrine of the conservation and corre-
lation of the various physical forces. The truth is,
men are loath to give up a pet theory, especially
when they are once committed to it, and when the
shadow of a great name gives to it an air of certainty,
if not of infallibility. As a result of this tenacious-
ness of opinion, and of a conservatism which was far
more marked formerly than it is at present, truth
advances slowly and science is obliged to contest
every step forward. For this reason the enemy of
science has not been religion, as is so often declared,
but science itself, or what for the time was accepted

896 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

as science. In like manner those who impeded the
advance of science were not the representatives of
the Church, as such, but the advocates of some
theory or the adherents of some school or system of
thought. For generally, if not always, those who
are accused of opposing the advancement of science,
and who may actually be in error in matters scien-
tific, are as zealously laboring, so far as their lights
go, in the interests of science, as those who have
the truth on their side. The enemies of GaHleo,
for instance, imagined that they were doing the
greatest possible service to science in battling as
they did for Peripateticism and Ptolemaism. But if
they had had before them the same evidences of the
truth which we at present possess, they would have
made no hesitation in acknowledging their mistakes,
or rather, they would never have fallen into the
errors for which they are now condemned.

Conflict of Opinions Beneficial.

In the long run, however, the conflict of opinions
in questions of science, far from having a pernicious,
has a beneficial influence on the advancement of
knowledge. It stimulates investigation and discov-
ery, and serves to place the truth in such a light as
no longer to admit of contradiction.

The long-fought battle on the subject of sponta-
neous generation is a case in point. Pasteur and
Van Beneden have proven by their epoch-making
researches, that so far as experiment can give any in-
information on the subject, abiogenesis is a chimera.

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 397

But while we cheerfully accord to these great savants
all the encomiums to which they are entitled, we
should not withhold from their great antagonists,
Pouchet and Bastian, the meed of praise which their
researches have earned for them. The latter were
mistaken in their views, it is true ; they were van-
quished in the controversy which they carried on so
ably ; but, by the very force and originality of their
objections, they contributed materially, though in-
deed indirectly, towards putting the truth in a bolder
relief than it would otherwise have received. Had
not Pasteur met with the contradictions he did, had
he not been obliged to confute objections of all kinds,
objections presented in the name of chemistry, ob-
jections urged in the name of biology, objections
advanced in the name of metaphysics, he would
undoubtedly have discontinued his investigations
much sooner than he did, and would have rested
satisfied with his earlier and simpler proofs of the
untenableness of spontaneous generation.

All glory, therefore, to Galileo and Pasteur for
their brilliant achievements! But while sounding
the praises of the victors, let us not forget the
honors due to those who battled long and gallantly
only to suffer defeat in the end. By the very per-
sistence and stubbornness of their contest, they en-
hanced not only the splendor of the results obtained
by their conquerors, but they also labored effectu-
ally, albeit indirectly, for the attainment of the same
object which was had in view by their antagonists —
the truth, the advancement of science, and the plac-
ing of it on a surer and firmer foundation.

898 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Evolution and Creationism.

Will it not be the same in the still greater and
longer contest between creationism, in the sense of
special creationism, and evolutionism? From what
precedes it appears almost certain that our reply
must be in the affirmative. And when the smoke of
battle shall have cleared away ; when all animosity
shall have been extinguished, and men shall have a
concern only for the truth, and not for certain indi-
vidual opinions ; when they shall be more disposed
to conserve the interests of genuine science than
those of mere hypothesis ; then will it be evident to
the world that both victors and vanquished were
making for the same objective point, all according to
their lights, and that the very earnestness and perse-
verance with which those in the wrong led a forlorn
hope, but contributed in the end towards making the
truth more conspicuous and towards rendering the
stronghold of science more impregnable. Then, too,
it will be manifest, that although truth was on the
side championed by Aristotle, Sts. Athanasius, Greg-
ory of Nyssa, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, by
Buffon, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Lamarck, Spencer,
Darwin, Huxley, Mivart and their compeers, never-
theless the opponents of the evolutionary idea, the
Fathers and Schoolmen who favored the doctrine of
special creation, the Linnseuses, the Cuviers and the
Agassizs, who resolutely and consistently combated
Evolution to the last, were all along but helping on
and corroborating what they were intent on weaken-
ing and destroying. In this case, as in so many

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 399

Others, history but repeats itself and demonstrates
again, that opposition may be a source of strength,
and contradiction the most effective means of secur-
ing certitude and light. For we must bear in mind
that it is not mistaken theory that retards the prog-
ress of science, but rather erroneous observations.
All working scientists are aware, often to their cost,
that it is inaccurate or mistaken observations which
lead men astray, while erroneous theories have often
a most stimulating effect. They suggest and pro-
voke new and more exact observations, and thus lead
up to true theories and ultimately to a true knowl-
edge of nature.

Errors in the Infancy of Science.

It is indeed a difficult matter for those who live
in the closing years of the nineteenth century, duly
to appreciate the mental attitude of those who lived
and taught a thousand or two thousand years ago.
It is difficult even for us to account for the extrava-
gant views held by distinguished scientists of com-
paratively recent times, by such men, for example,
as Kepler, Stahl, Kircher, Buckland and others of
their contemporaries. We smile at the fantastic no-
tions which they entertained respecting some of the
most ordinary phenomena of astronomy, chemistry,
biology and geology. But we forget that we are liv-
ing in the full effulgence of inductive science, and
that we have the benefit of the labors of thousands
and tens of thousands of investigators in every de-
partment of thought. We forget that Kepler and

400 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Kircher and their collaborators lived in the infancy
of science ; that they had to blaze the way for their
successors, and that, notwithstanding their best ef-
forts to arrive at the truth, error was inevitable.
Ignorant of countless facts now known to every
schoolboy, and unacquainted with the theories and
laws which are now the common possession of all
who read and think, it was but natural that they
should have had recourse to explanations and hy-
potheses which we should at present regard as fanci-
ful and absurd.

Thus, Kepler taught that the heavenly bodies
were guided in their orbits by angels. Water, it was
universally believed, would not rise in a pump above
a certain height because nature abhors a vacuum.
Fossils, it was thought, were but outlines of future
creations which the great Artificer had cast aside, or
objects placed in the tilted and contorted strata of
the earth "to bring to naught human curiosity."

The statements regarding animals found in the
" Physiologus " and in the " Bestiaries," allegorical
works much esteemed during the Middle Ages, were
accepted as veritable facts, and believed as firmly as
were the ludicrous stories of Pliny, the naturalist. For
a thousand years and more, even those who professed
to teach natural history saw in the fables regarding
the dragon and the unicorn, the phoenix and the
basilisk, the hippogriff and the centaur, nothing to
stagger their faith and nothing that was inconsistent
with the science of the times. They believed with-
out question that the phoenix rose from its ashes,
that the pelican nourished its young with its blood,

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 401

that the salamander could quench fire, that the
basilisk killed serpents by its breath and men by
its glance, and many similar things equally prepos-
terous. '

The frame of mind, even of the most intelligent
men, was such, that the extraordinary tales of Marco
Polo and Sir John Mandeville were credited as
readily as the most ordinary facts of history or
biography. It was indeed difficult to exaggerate the
powers or marvels of animated nature to such an ex-
tent that they would be pronounced unworthy of
credence. But the world has moved since the times
of Polo and Mandeville. Science has made wondrous
strides forward since the days of Kepler and Kircher.
Men are now more familiar with the laws and proc-
esses of the organic world, and have learned to rec-
ognize the value and necessity of careful observation
on the part of the votaries of science.

And in proportion as our knowledge has widened,
and become more precise, so likewise have our con-
ceptions of nature and of the Deity's methods of
work been modified and exalted. We no longer
look upon God as an architect, a carpenter, an arti-
ficer ; one who must plan and labor in a human
fashion, as He was contemplated in the infancy of

^ In the " Physiologus" we read the following about the ant-
lion, or myrmekoleon : " His father hath the shape of a lion, his
mother that of an ant; the father liveth upon flesh and the
mother upon herbs. And these bring forth the ant-lion, a com-
pound of both and in part like to either, for his forepart is that
of a lion and his hind part like that of an ant. Being thus com-
posed he is neither able to eat flesh like his father, nor herbs like
his mother, therefore he perishes from inanition." See "En-
cyclopiedia Britannica," art., Physiologus.

402 E VOL U TION A ND DOGAfA .

our race, when the knowledge of the universe was
much more circumscribed than it is at present. We
now regard Him as a Creator in the highest and
truest sense of the term ; as one who " protects and
governs by His Providence all things which He
hath made," and who " reacheth from end to end
mightily and ordereth all things sweetly." '

Science Not Omnipotent.

But although science has made marvelous ad-
vances during recent times, especially during the
present century, and although Evolution has con-
tributed in a wonderful manner towards, unifying
what was before a heterogeneous mass of almost un-
intelligible facts, science is not omnipotent, nor is
Evolution competent to furnish a key to all the
mysteries of nature. To judge from the declarations
of some of the best known representatives of modern
thought, science was to replace religion and the
Church, and to do far more for the welfare and eleva-
tion of humanity than the Gospel and its ministers are
capable of effecting. Renan declares, that it is " sci-
ence which will ever furnish man with the sole means
of bettering his condition." Again he assures us, that
" to organize humanity scientifically is the last word
of modern science, its daring but legitimate aim."*

^"Wisdom," viii, i, and " Council of the Vatican," chap. i.

' " La science restera toujours la satisfaction du plus haut
desir de notre nature, la curiosite; elle fournira toujours a
riiomme le seul moyen qu'il ait pour ameliorer son sort."

"Organiser scientifiquement I'humanite, tel est done le
dernier mot de la science moderne, telle est son audacieuse,
mais legitime pretension." " L'Avenir de la Science," p. 37.

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 403

Science, we were told but a few decades ago, would
suppress the supernatural, remove mysteries and
explain miracles. It would tell us all about the
origin of things ; the world, life, sensation, rational
thought. It would inform us about the origin of
society, language, morality, religion. It would throw
light not only on the origin of man's body and soul,
but also on his ultimate destiny. It would, in a word,
frame for us a complete cosmology, a complete code
of ethics, and introduce a new religion, which would
be as superior to Christianity as science is superior
to superstition. It promised that we should one
day be able to " express consciousness in foot-
pounds ;" that we should be able to trace the con-
nection between "the sentiment of love and the
play of molecules ;" that we should be in a position
to discern " human genius and moral aspiration in a
ring of cosmical vapor." Thanks to science and to
its grand generalization. Evolution, old systems of
thought were to be wiped out of existence, and we
were to be ushered into an era of general enlighten-
ment and universal progress.

But has science, as represented by Renan, Haeckel
and others of their way of thinking, made good its
promises? Has it been able to dispense with a per-
sonal God, and to relegate the supernatural to the
limbo "where entities and quiddities, the ghosts of un-
known bodies lie"? Has it, in the words of Virchow,
succeeded in referring the origin of life to " a
special system of mechanics," or in proving Renan's
view that "the harmony of nature is but a resultant,"
and that " the existence of things is but an affair of

404 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

equilibrium"?* Has the religion which makes a
God of humanity regarded in the abstract, or which
evolves a Deity from the universe considered as a
whole, rendered men better or happier? These are
questions which press for an answer, but which,
fortunately, can be answered as readily as they are
asked.

The response to all these questions, collectively
and severally, is a peremptory negative. It is the
response which true philosophers and true men of
science the world over have given all along. For it
would be a mistake to imagine that the utterances
of Renan, Haeckel, and their followers, have the in-
dorsement of the worthier representatives of science,
or that true science has ever made the pretensions
claimed for it by some of its self-constituted expo-
nents and protagonists. There are soi-disant scien-
tists and true scientists, as well as there is a sham
science and a science deserving the name.

Bankruptcy of Science.

It was in speaking of such soi-disant scientists and
their unfulfilled promises, of such sham science and
its boastful pretensions, that a brilliant member of
the French Academy, M. Brunetiere, did not hesi-
tate to declare recently that " science had become
bankrupt." Science has promised to tell us whence
we come, what we are, whither we are going ; but it

' " Ceux qui s'obstinent a reconnaitre les traces d'une intelli-
gence creatrice dans le developpement de I'univers, sont encore
dans les liens des vieilles illusions, car I'harmonie de la nature
n'est qu'une resultant, et I'existence des choses une affaire
d'equilibre." Renan, " L'Avenir de la Science."

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 405

has signally and totally failed to give an answer to
any of these questions.

Hellenists had engaged themselves to exhibit the
whole of Christianity in the philosophy of Greece
and Rome, and to pick out for us in the "Thoughts"
of Marcus Aurelius, and the "Manual" of Epictetus,
all the " scattered members " of the Sermon on the
Mount. But they did not succeed in this, and still
less did they succeed in explaining why the Sermon
on the Mount has conquered the world, and why the
"Manual," and the "Thoughts" of Epictetus and
Marcus Aurelius have always remained completely
sterile.

Hebraists undertook to dissipate the "irrational "
and "the marvelous," in the Bible; to exhibit it as a
book like the " Iliad " or the " Mahabahrata," but the
sum total of their researches has issued in the very
opposite of what they anticipated, and their labors
have had the effect of reintegrating what they had
hoped to destroy.

Orientalists, in their turn, promised to deduce
Christianity from Buddhism, and to prove that the
teachings of Christ were drawn wholly, or in great
part, from the doctrines of Buddha. Like the Hel-
lenists and Hebraists, however, these orientalists failed
completely to establish their thesis, and, far from
throwing light on the subjects which they set out to
clear up, they but plunged them into greater obscur-
ity and introduced new hypotheses instead of reach-
ing positive and incontestable conclusions.

All along the line, the science of which we
are speaking — the phyiscal, natural, historical, and

406 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

philological sciences — has shown itself incapable of
giving an answer to the very questions which most
interest us. And still more has it forfeited the claim,
which it has made during the past hundred years, to
frame laws for the government of mankind in lieu of
those given by Christ and His Church. The conse-
quence is that all thoughtful men are beginning to
realize the fact, if they did not realize it before, that
questions of free-will and moral responsibility are not
to be settled by physiology, nor are rules of conduct
to be sought for in Evolution. Hence, if we are to
live anything more than an animal life, we must have
something higher than science is able to afford ; we
must be guided by the teachings of the Founder of
Christianity, by the saving influence of that Church
which, for well-nigh two thousand years, has shown
herself the sole power capable of lifting man from a
lower to a higher moral and spiritual plane.

The net result, therefore, of a hundred years of
aggressive warfare against the Church and religion,
the outcome of all the flattering but misleading
promises of science in the matters which we have
been considering, have been the very opposite of
those intended. M. Brunetiere resumes the result
in two words — and no well-informed person will, I
think, be disposed to contradict his conclusions —
these are : " Science has lost its prestige, and religion
has recovered a portion of hers." *

'"La Science a perdu son prestige; et la Religion a recon-
quis une partie du sien." See his interesting article, "Apres une
Visite au Vatican," in the Revue des Deux Mondes, for Jan. i ,

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 407

M. Bruneti^re's study is pretty much in the same
strain as Lord Salisbury's much-discussed address
at Oxford, before the British Association for the Ad-
vancement of Science. And has not Huxley, one of
the most applauded representatives of science, and
one of the staunchest defenders of Evolution, been
forced to admit, in his celebrated Romanes Lecture,
that science and Evolution have limitations which
he would have been loath to acknowledge but a few
years before he made the confession that so startled
many of his scientific friends? The conclusion of
this studied effort of the noted evolutionist is, briefly
stated, that the cosmic process, or Evolution, is ut-
terly incompatible with ethical progress, or rather,
the two are ever and essentially antagonistic'

And Herbert Spencer, too, the great philosopher
of Evolution, who sees the working of Evolution in
everything ; in the development of society, language,
government, of worlds and systems of worlds, was
obliged not long since to admit, not without reluc-
tance we may be sure, that Evolution is not operat-
ing so rapidly as he expected it would, and is not
fulfilling all the fond hopes he entertained regard-
ing it as a factor of human progress. " My faith in
free institutions," says he, " originally strong, though
always formed with the belief that the maintenance
and success of them is a question of popular charac-

*" Social progress," he tells us, "means a checking of the
cosmic process at every step and the substitution for it of another,
which may be called the ethical process; the end of which is not
the survival of who may happen to be the fittest, in respect of
the whole of the conditions which obtain, but of those who are
ethically the best."

408 E VOL UTIQN A ND D O GMA .

ter, has, in these later years, been greatly decreased
by the conviction that the fit character is not pos-
sessed by any people, nor is likely to be possessed
for ages to come." '

Conquests of Science.

It would be a grave mistake, however, to imagine
that, because science has become bankrupt in some
things, she has lost her prestige entirely. Nothing
could be farther from the truth. No one who is ac-
quainted with the brilliant conquests of science dur-
ing the present century, could entertain such an opin-
ion for a moment. What M. Brunetiere means, and
what all those who indorse his statements mean, is
that she has failed by attempting what was beyond
her competence ; by essaying to solve problems and
effect reforms that lie entirely within the domain of
religion and philosophy. She has erred by con-
founding empiricism with metaphysics, and become
insolvent only by assuming liabilities that were man-
ifestly outside of her sphere of action. But so long
as she was content with her own methods, and con-
fined her investigations to her own province, she
made good all her promises, if she did not accom-
plish even more. A glance at the annals of science
during the past few decades, to go back no further,
should satisfy the most skeptical on this point.
She has given to the arts of life an impetus they
never felt before. The forces of steam and electric-
ity have received a development and been given ap-
plications that have been the marvel of the world.

* See McClure's Magazine^ for March, 1894.

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 409

Nor has theoretical science in anywise failed to keep
pace with the practical. Chemistry, biology, astron-
omy, physics, geology, aside from their practical
applications, have wonderfully extended our views of
the universe and given us far nobler conceptions
both of nature and nature's God.

And, paradoxical as it may appear, not the least
noble of these conceptions comes to us from that
very theory which, only a few years ago, was sup-
posed to have banished forever the Creator from the
world of reality ; a theory which was at once the
scandal of the pious and the incubus of the ortho-
dox. Evolution, it was asserted, had disproved the
declarations of Scripture, and shown the inutility of
a religion based on Dogma. It had dethroned the
Almighty, had demonstrated that the universe is
eternal, and that the order and beauty which we
everywhere behold is the result of a fortuitous con-
course of atoms. There is, therefore, we were told,
neither design nor purpose in nature, and the doc-
trine of final causes, on which theologians were wont
to lay so much stress, is completely and forever dis-
credited.

More mature reflection, however, shows that all
these assertions are as rash as they are unwarranted.
Never in the history of science have thoughtful
students of nature felt more deeply the necessity of
recognizing a personal Creator, a spiritual, intelli-
gent First Cause, than at present. Never have men
seen more clearly the necessity of religion, as the
sole agency which is capable of elevating and saving
human society from the countless dangers with

410 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

which it is now beset. Never has the Divine char-
acter of the Book of books, been so gloriously man-
ifested as it is now, after the many and furious
onslaughts made on it in the name of science and
the Higher Criticism. For, strange to say, the very
investigations and discoveries which it was fondly
imagined would completely nullify all its claims to
being a Divine revelation, far from destroying such
claims have but strengthened them and rendered
them more logical and consistent.

Evidences of Design and Purpose.

And as to the evidence of design and purpose in
nature, it was never more strikingly conclusive. But
believing in final causes does not imply, let it be
borne in mind, that we can always discover what is
the precise purpose which is to be subserved by any
given creature or organ. God has not taken us into
His counsels, and we can at best catch but glimpses
of His Divine plans and purposes.'

There are, undoubtedly, many ends and purposes
to be answered in all created things, and those of
which we can attain any knowledge may be the least

' Descartes, in reference to this matter, truthfully observes :
"Nous ne devons pas tant presumer de nous-m^mes, que de
croire que Dieu nous ait voulu faire part de ses conseils." Lord
Bacon speaks still more forcibly of the fallacy and folly of
those who fancy they can read nature, or interpret the Divine
plans and purposes in nature. " Neque enim credibile est quan-
tum agmen idolorum philosophise immiserit naturalium opera-
tionum ad similitudinem actionum humanarum reductio. Hoc
ipsum, inquam, quod putetur talia natura facere, qualia homo
facit. Neque multo meliora sunt ista quam hseresis anthropo-
morphitarum . . . aut sententia Epicuri huic ipsi in pagan-
ismo respondens, qui diis humanam figuram tribuebat." " De
Aug. Scien. ; " V : iv.

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 411

important. As Mivart puts it : " Out of many, say a
thousand million, reasons for the institution of the
laws of the physical universe, some few are to a cer-
tain extent conceivable by us; and amongst these
the benefits, material and moral, accruing from them
to men — and to each individual man in every circum-
stance of his life — play a certain, perhaps a very
subordinate, part." ' The existence of an intelligent
First Cause necessarily supposes that all forms of
organization must be purposeful, once such forms
exist, just as a world full of design manifestly pro-
claims the existence of a Designer.

Again, there are some who seem to think, if they
can but find out how a law of nature operates, or
what may be one of the many millions of purposes
which an individual structure may serve, they have
thereby eliminated the action of Providence, or shown
it to be non-existent. They conclude that because,
forsooth, they understand how a thing is done, that
God did not do it. " No matter how wonderful, how
beautiful, how intimately complex and delicate has
been the machinery which has worked, perhaps for
centuries, perhaps for millions of ages, to bring about
some beneficent results, if they can but catch a
glimpse of the wheels, its Divine character disap-
pears."

In marked contrast with the opinions of sciolists
and professed monists, respecting design and purpose
in nature, is the view entertained by one of the ablest
living masters of science. Lord Kelvin. " I feel pro-
foundly convinced," he declares, " that the argument

' " The Genesis of Species," p. 259.

412 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

of design has been greatly too much lost sight of
in recent zoological speculations. Overpoweringly
strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie
around us, and if ever perplexities, whether metaphys-
ical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time,
they come back upon us with irresistible force, show-
ing to us, through nature, the influence of a freewill,
and teaching us that all living things depend on one
everlasting Creator and Ruler."

No, the argument from design has not been in-
validated ; it has been modified. It has not been
weakened ; it has been strengthened and expanded.
Teleology to-day is not, indeed, the same as it was in
Paley's time, nor as it was when the authors of the
Bridgewater Treatises lived and labored. It is now
a more comprehensive, a more beautiful, and a more
stimulating science. To Paley, awatch found on the
heath by a passing traveler, was evidence of design
and of a designer. To the evolutionist, the evidence
of design is not merely a watch, but a watch which is
capable of producing other and better watches. To
Paley, God was an Artificer who fashioned things di-
rectly from the materials at hand ; to the evolutionist,
as to St. Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St.
Augustine, God is a Creator who makes things make
themselves. To Paley, as to the older school of natural
theologians, God was the direct cause of all that exists ;
to the evolutionist he is the Cause of causes — Causa
causarum, of the world and all it contains. Accord-
ing to the older view, God created everything directly
and in the condition in which it now exists ; accord-
ing to Evolution, creation, or development rather,

RBFLB C T/OJ^S A ND C ONCL US I ON. 413

has been a slow and gradual process, demanding un-
told aeons for converting chaos into a cosmos, and
for giving to the visible universe all the beauty and
harmony which it now exhibits. It seems, indeed,
more consonant with our ideas of God, to Whom a
thousand years are as one day and one day as a
thousand years, to conceive Him as creating all
things in the beginning, and in ordering and admin-
istering them afterwards through the agency of sec-
ondary causes, rather than to represent Him as
perpetually taking up a work which He had left
unfinished, and bringing it to a state of perfection
only by a long series of interferences and special
creations. Understood in this, its true sense. Evo-
lution teaches, as Temple phrases it, that the execu-
tion of God's " purpose belongs more to the original
act of creation, less to acts of government. There is
more Divine foresight, there is less Divine interpo-
sition ; and whatever has been taken from the latter
has been added to the former." '

Rudimentary Organs.

For a long time naturalists were sorely puzzled
as to how to account for the existence of nascent
and rudimentary organs, which are manifestly of no
use to their possessors. On the theory of special
creations, the only explanation that could be offered
for their existence was, that the Creator added them
for the sake of symmetry, or because they were a
part of His plan. Evolution, however, which con-
templates not only the history of the individual but

'"The Relations Between Religion and Science," p. 123.

414 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA. \

i

also the history of the species, yea, even the history |

of the class and of the kingdom to which the indi-
vidual belongs, gives quite a different answer. If
ontogeny, the history of the individual, affords no
clue to the raison d'Hre of these nascent and rudi-
mentary organs, we interrogate phylogeny, the his-
tory of the species or the class. ** Organs, which on
the old theory of special creation were useless and
meaningless, are now seen to have their explanation
in the past or in the future, according as they are
rudimentary or nascent. There is nothing useless,
nothing meaningless in nature, nothing due to ca-
price or chance, nothing irrational or without a cause,
nothing outside the reign of law. This belief in the
universality of law and order is the scientific ana-
logue of the Christian's belief in Providence." *

Evolution, Scripture, and Theology.

Evolution accentuates design, without which, as
Von Hartmann observes, all were " only a dark chaos
of obstinate and capricious forces." It gives a truer
and more majestic account of causation, because it
brings home to us the truth, that the facts of nature
are the acts of God, and emphasizes the teaching of
our faith, that the laws of nature are the expressions
of "a supreme will and purpose belonging to an
Eternal Mind."

Evolution has been denounced as anti-Scriptural,
and yet, the most remarkable feature about the Gene-
siac account of creation, is the ease with which it
lends itself to the theory of Evolution, that is, of

* " Science and the Faith," by Aubrey L. Moore, p. 197.

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 415

creation by the operation of secondary causes. We
may not, indeed, be prepared to assert with Naudin,
that " the cosmogony of the Bible from the begin-
ning to the end is but an Evolution theory, and that
Moses is the ancestor of Lamarck, Darwin and all
modern evolutionists," but we can certainly affirm,
as Canon Hamard points out, that the Sacred Text
favors Transformism when understood in a theistic
sense — " le texte sacrd favoriseh certains egardsla these
transformiste entendue dans un sens spiritualiste} "

Surprising as it may seem, two of the most
pronounced advocates of the Evolution theory, are
the very ones who are most impressed with the re-
markable harmony between the Genesiac account of
creation and the teachings of Evolution. Thus,
Romanes admits that " the order in which the flora ~^ /
and fauna are said by the Mosaic account to have C
appeareH^jpon the earth, corresponds with that which n
the theory of Evolution requires and the evidence of
geology proves." ' Haeckel, however, is even more
explicit in his explanations. " Two great funda-
mental ideas," he says, " common also to the non-
miraculous, meet us in the Mosaic hypothesis of
creation, with surprising clearness and simplicity ;

^ See " Dictionnaire Apologetique de la Foi Catholique,"
par M. I'Abbe J. B. Jaugey, col. 3093. Further on the distin-
guished canon expresses himself as follows: — "Nous conclu-
rons seulment, de quelques considerations que nous venons d '^b-
aucher, que la Bible laisse une egale liberte aux transformistes et
aux partisans des creations successives. Ainsi regrettons-nous
de la voir mise en cause a ce sujet. Toutes les fois qu'elle n'est
point absolument explicite — et il nous semble que c'est le cas —
on s'expose, en invoquant son autorite, a la compromettre et a
cotnpromettreavec elle la cause religieuse dont elleest lesoutien."

"Cf. Nature, Aug., 1881.

416 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

the idea of separation or differentiation, and the
idea of progressive development or perfecting. Al-
though Moses looks upon the results of the great
laws of organic development, which we shall later
point out as the necessary conclusions of the doc-
trine of descent, as the direct action of a constructing
Creator, yet in this theory there lies hidden the rul-
ing idea of a progressive development and differ-
entiation of the originally simple matter. We can,
therefore, bestow our just and sincere admiration of
the Jewish law-giver's grand insight into nature, and
his simple and natural hypothesis of creation.'"

Evolution has been condemned as anti-Patristic
and anti-Scholastic, although Saints Gregory of
Nyssa, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, are most
explicit in their assertion of principles that are in
perfect accord with all the legitimate demands of
theistic Evolution. It suffices to recall the admir-
able passage of the Bishop of Hippo, in his " De
Genesi ad Litteram," in which he proleptically an-
nounced all the fundamental principles of modern
Evolution. He recognized Evolution not only in
individuals, but he also discerned its workings in the
sum of all things. God did not create the world, as
it now exists, actually, actualiter, but potentially and
causally, potentialiter et causaliter. Plants and ani-
mals were created virtually, vi potentiaque causali,
before they received their subsequent development,
priusquam per temporum moras exorirentur^

' " History of Creation," vol. I, p. 38.

' Vid. sup., part II, chap, iv, for St. Augustine's views on
Evolution.

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 417
Evolution and Special Creation.

In reference to the popular objections against
Evolution that it reposes on no positive demonstra-
tion ; that none of the arguments advanced in its be-
half are conclusive ; that all of them, whether taken
severally or collectively are vitiated by some flaw,
and that, consequently, they are not of such a char-
acter as to command the assent of reasonable men,
it may be observed that all of them can be urged
with equal, and even with greater force against the
rival of the Evolution theory, to wit, the theory
of special creation.' Contrary to what its support-
ers would be disposed to admit, it has no founda-
tion but assumption, and can claim no more sub-
stantial basis than certain postulates which are
entirely gratuitous, or certain views regarding the
Genesiac account of creation, the truth of which
views may as readily and with as much reason
be denied as it can be affirmed. For as the
learned Abb^ Guillemet declared before a sympa-
thetic audience, composed of distinguished eccle-
siastics and scholarly laymen, at the International
Catholic Scientific Congress at Brussels, the theory
of special creation, or fixism as he prefers to call
it, explains nothing whatever in science. Not only
this, "it closes the door to all explanations of na-
ture, and notably so in the domain of paleontology,

'According to the theory of special creation as formerly
held, everything in the inorganic, as well as in the organic
world, was created by God directly and essentially as it now
appears. But as at present understood, special creation means
rather that the Deity created immediately all the species and
higher groups, of animals and plants, as they now exist.

E.-»7

418 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

comparative anatomy, embryology and teratology.
It affords no clue to the significance of rudimentary
organs, and tends inevitably to force science into a
veritable cul-de-sac."*

Again, it may be observed that the objections
referred to are based not only on a misapprehen-
sion of the significance of the theory of Evolution,
as well as of that of the theory of special creation,
but also on a misconception of the character of the
arguments which are urged in favor of both theo-
ries. The misapprehension arises from the fact,
that Evolution is regarded as being at best but a
flimsy hypothesis, while special creation is repre-
sented as a positive dogma, which admits neither
of doubt nor of controversy. The truth is, how-
ever, that both Evolution and special creation
are theories, and no one who is exact in the use
of language can truthfully assert that either of
them is anything more. Evolution, I know, is
oftentimes called a proved doctrine ; but no evolu-
tionist who has any regard for accuracy of termi-
nology would pretend that the theory has passed all
the requirements of a rigid demonstration, because
he knows better than anyone else, that anything
approaching a mathematical demonstration of Evo-
lution is an impossibility. The most that the evo-
lutionist can hope for, or that he has hitherto
attained, or is likely to attain, at least for a long
time to come, is a certain degree of probability;
but such a degree of probability as shall give his

' See Compte Rendu du Troisieme Congres Scientifique
des Catholiques, Section d'Anthropologie, p. 20.

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 419

theory sufficient weight to command the assent of
anyone who is competent to estimate the value
of the evidence offered in its support. The degree
of probability which already attaches to the theory
of Evolution is very great, as all who have taken
the trouble to investigate its claims must admit;
and every new discovery in the realms of animate
nature but contributes towards placing the theory
on a firmer and more impregnable basis. '";::,: =

Such being the case the question now is: Which
of the two theories is the more probable, Evolution
or special creation? Both of them, it must be ad-
mitted, rest upon a certain number of postulates;
both of them have much to be said in their fav-
or, as both of them may be assailed with numer-
ous and serious objections. For our present purposie
it will here suffice to repeat the answer of the Abb6
Guillemet, who tells us that Evolution, as against
special creation, has this in its favor, that it ex-
plains and coordinates the facts and phenomena
of nature in a most beautiful and simple manner;
whereas the theory of special creation not only
explains nothing and is incapable of explaining
anything, but, by its very nature, tends to impede
research, to bar progress, or, as he phrases it, "it
forces science into a blind alley — met la science
dans une impasse"

Genesiac Days, Flood, Fossils and Antiquity
of Man.

As matters now stand, the case of special cre-
ation versus Evolution is analogous to several

420 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Other questions which have supplied materials for
long and acrimonious controversy. Thus, until the
last century it was the almost universally accepted
belief that the days of Genesis were real solar days
of twenty-four hours each. It was likewise the
general opinion that the Noachian Deluge was uni-
versal, not only as to the earth's surface but also
as to the destruction "of all flesh, wherein is the
breath of life, under heaven." And until a few
decades ago it was the current belief, that the ad-
vent of our race on earth did not date back much
farther than four thousand years B. c, and that
the only reliable evidence we had for the solution
of the problem involved, was to be found in certain
statements of the Sacred Text. So, too, from the
time of Aristotle until that of Palissy, the potter,
we might say even until the time of Cuvier, it was
believed that fossils were but " sports of nature," "re-
sults of seminal air acting upon rocks," or "rejected
models" of the Creator's work.

Now it would probably be difficult, if not im-
possible, to give an absolute proof of the unsound-
ness of these views, and that for the simple reason that
anything like a mathematical demonstration is, by
the very nature of the case, out of question. Rigor-
ously speaking, the theories involved in the above
beliefs, with the exception, perhaps, of that
regarding the antiquity of man, are susceptible
neither of proof nor of disproof. The most we
can have, at least for the present, is a greater or
less degree of probability, for it is manifest that the
Almighty, had He so willed, could have created the

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 421

world as it now is in six ordinary days. He could
have created it just as it exists at present in a
single instant, for He is above and independent
of time. The teachings, however, of geology and
paleontology are diametrically opposed to the sup-
position that He did fashion this globe of ours, as
we now see it, in six ordinary days, while it is found
that there is nothing in Scripture which precludes
the view that the days of Genesis were indefinite
periods of time. God could have caused the flood
to cover the entire earth to the height of the highest
mountain, and He could thus have destroyed every
living thing except what was preserved in the ark ;
but did He? Ethnology, linguistics, prehistoric
archaeology, and even Scripture, supply us with
practically conclusive reasons for believing that He
did not. It is within the range of possibility, that
the four thousand and four years allowed by Usher
for the interval which elapsed between the creation
of Adam and the birth of Christ, are ample to meet
the demands of the case, but it is in the highest
degree improbable. If the evidence of history,
archaeology, and cognate branches of science have
any value at all, it is almost demonstrably certain
that the time granted by Usher and his followers
is entirely inadequate to meet the many difficulties
which modern science has raised against the accept-
ance of such a limited period since man's advent on
earth. And so, too, regarding fossils. God could,
undoubtedly, have created them just as they are
found in the earth's crust, but there is no reason
for believing that He did so, while there are many

422 EVOLU TION A ND D O C MA .

and grave reasons for thinking that He did not.
In the first place all prima facie evidence is against
it. It is contrary to the known analogy of the Cre-
ator's methods of work in other instances ; contrary
to what is a rational conception of the Divine econ-
omy in the plan of creation. It is contrary also to
our ideas of God's wisdom and goodness ; for to
suppose that fossils are not the remains of forms
of life now extinct, to suppose that they were cre-
ated as we now find them, would be to suppose
that the Creator would have done something which
was specially designed to mislead and deceive us.
Against such a view we can assert what Suarez
affirms in another connection, that God would
not have designedly led us into error — Incredibile
est, Deum . . . illis verbis ad populum fuisse
locutum quibus deciperetur. We see fossils now
forming, and from what we know of the uniformity
of nature's operations we conclude that in the past,
and during the lapse of long geologic eras, fossils
have been produced through the agency of natural
causes as they are produced at present, and that,
consequently, they were not created directly and
immediately during any of the Genesiac days, days
of twenty-four hours each, as was so long and so
universally believed even by the wisest theolo-
gians and philosophers.

What has been said of the traditional views
rfcspecting the six days of creation, the Noachian
Deluge, the antiquity of the human race and the
nature and age of the fossil remains entombed in the
earth's crust, may, in a great measure, be iterated

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 423

regarding the long-accepted view of special crea-
tion. It is possible, for there is nothing in it
intrinsically absurd ; but in the light afforded by
the researches and discoveries of these latter
days, it is the conviction of the great majority of
those who have studied the question with the
greatest care, and who are the most competent
to interpret the facts involved, that as between
the two rival theories, special creation and Evo-
lution, the preponderance of probability is over-
whelming in favor of Evolution of some kind,
but of just what kind only the future can deter-
mine.

Evolution, then, I repeat it, is contrary neither to
reason nor to Scripture. And the same may be said of
the divers theories of Evolution which, during these
latter times, have had such a vogue. Whether,
therefore, we accept the theory of extraordinary
births, the saltatory Evolution of Saint-Hilaire and
St. George Mivart ; or Darwin's theory of natural
selection, which takes account of only infinitesimal
increments; or Weismann's theory of heredity, which
traces specific changes to the germ-plasm, we are
forced to admit that the ultimate efficient Cause of
all the changes produced, be they slow or sudden,
small or great, is the Creator Himself, acting through
the agency of second causes, through the forces and
virtues which He, Himself, communicated to mat-
ter in the beginning. Such being the case, it is
obvious that Evolution does not exclude creation,
and that creation is not incompatible with Evolu-
tion.

424 E VOL UTION A ND DOGMA .

Strictly speaking, Evolution, whether it progress
by saltation or by minute and fortuitous increments,
as we are wont to regard them, is, in the last resort,
a kind of special creation, and, reason as we may,
we can view it in no other light. The same may be
said of spontaneous generation, or the Evolution of
organic from inorganic matter. For secondary or
derivative creation implies Evolution of some kind,
as Evolution, whether rapid or operating through
untold aeons, demands, in the last analysis, the action
of intelligence and will, and presupposes what is
termed creation in a restricted sense, that is, forma-
tion from preexisting material. Our primary intu-
itions, especially our ideas of causation, preclude us
from taking any other view in the premises. As
reason and revelation teach, it was God who created
the materials and forces which made Evolution pos-
sible. "It was Mind," as Anaxagoras saw, "that
set all things in order " — izd^^ra duxoff/irjffs v6as ; that
from chaos educed a cosmos and gave to the earth
all that infinitude of variety and beauty and har-
mony which we so much admire.

But not only is Evolution a theory which is in
perfect accordance with science and Scripture, with
Patristic and Scholastic theology ; it is likewise a the-
ory which promises soon to be the generally accepted
view ; the view which will specially commend itself
not only to Christian philosophy, but also to Chris-
tian apologetics as well. We have seen some indi-
cations of this in the already quoted opinions of such
eminent Catholic authorities as Monsabr^, D'Hulst,
Leroy, De Lapparent and St. George Mivart.

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 425

Eminent Catholics on Evolution.

Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire, Cuvier's great rival, and a
man of profound religious sentiments, looked upon
the succession of species, as disclosed by Evolution,
as " one of the most glorious manifestations of crea-
tive power, and a fresh motive for admiration and
love." The noted Belgian geologist, D'Omalius
d'Halloy, as distinguished for his loyalty to the
Church as for his eminence in science, declares : ** It
appears to me much more probable and more con-
formable to the eminent wisdom of the Creator, to
admit that, just as He has given to living beings the
faculty of reproducing themselves, so, likewise, has
He endowed them with the power of modifying
themselves according to circumstances, a phenome-
non of which nature affords us examples even at
present." '

* " Sur Le Transform ism e," Bulletin de 1' Academic Royale
de Belgique, 1873, tire a part, p. 5.

The illustrious paleontologist, M. Albert Gaudry, a member
of the French Institute and a devoted son of the Church, in
speaking of the plan of creation, "ou I'Etre Infini a mis I'em-
preinte de son unite," expresses himself as follows: "Les pale-
ontologistes ne sont pas d'accord sur la maniere dont ce plan a
dte realise ; plusieurs, considerant les nombreuses lacunes qui ex-
istent encore dans la serie des 6tres, croient a I'independance des
especes, et admettent que I'Auteurdu monde a fait apparaitre
tour a tour les plantes et les animaux des temps geologtques de
maniere a simuler la filiation qui est dans sa pensee ; d'autres
savants, frapp^s, au contraire, de la rapid ite avec laquelle les
lacunes diminuent, supposent que la filiation a ete realise mate-
riellement, et que Dieu a produit les etres des diverses ^poques
en les tirant de ceux qui les avaient precedes. Cette derniere
hvpothese est celle que je priferc; mat's qu'on Vadofte, ou qu'on ne
I'adofte pas, ce qui me parait bien certain c' est qu^il y a eu tin
plan. Un jour viendra sans doute ou les paleontologistes pour-
rontsaisir le plan qui a preside au d^veloppement de la vie. Ce
sera la un beau jour pour eux, car, s'il y a tant de magnifi-
cence dans les details de la nature, il ne doit pas y en avoir

426 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Commenting on this question, the learned Belgian
Jesuit, Father Bellinck, asks : " What matters it if
there have been creations prior to that which Moses
describes : what matters it whether the periods re-
quired for the genesis of the universe were days or
epochs ; whether the apparition of man on the earth
was at an earlier or later date ; whether animals have
preserved their primitive forms, or whether they have
undergone gradual transformations; whether even
the body of man has experienced modifications, and,
finally, what matters it whether, in virtue of the
Creative Will, inorganic matter be able or not to
produce plants and animals spontaneously?

"All these questions are given over to the disputes
of men, and it is for science to distinguish truth from
error."*

These are pertinent questions. W^hat matters it,
indeed, from the standpoint of Catholic Dogma, if
they are all answered in the affirmative? If science
should eventually demonstrate that spontaneous gen-
eration is probable, or has actually occurred, or is
occurring in our own day, what matters it ? The
Fathers and Schoolmen found no difficulty in be-
lieving in abiogenesis, and most of them, if not all
of them, believed in it so far as it concerned the
lower forms of life. More than this. As we learned
in the beginning of our work, spontaneous generation
was almost universally accepted until about a cen-

moins dans leur agencement generale." " Les Enchainements
du Monde Animal dans les Temps Geologiques," introduc-
tion, p. 3.

* Vid. " Revue des Etudes Historiques et Litteiaires,'" 1864.

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 427

tury ago. Materialists then bethought themselves
that abiogenesis might be urged as an argument in
favor of Materialism. Theologians, in their eager-
ness to answer the objection, denied the fact instead
of denying the inference. Later on, men of science
discovered that so far as evidence goes abiogenesis
is not a fact, and, still later, it dawned upon a few
theologians that whether a fact or not, it is quite
immaterial so far as theology is concerned. Whether
non-living matter may ever give rise to living mat-
ter, science is unable to state with absolute certainty,
but should it ultimately be shown that spontaneous
generation is a fact, we should simply say with the
Fathers and Doctors of the Church : The Creator
gave to inorganic matter the power, under suitable
conditions, of evolving itself into organic matter, and
thus science and Dogma would be in harmony.*

' The illustrious Gladstone referring to this subject in his
admirable introduction to the " People's Bible History," writes
as follows : "Suppose for a moment that it were found, or could
be granted in the augmentation of science that the first and lowest
forms of life had been evolved from lifeless matter as their im-
mediate antecedent. What statement of Holy Scripture would
be shaken by the discovery ? What would it prove to us, ex-
cept that there had been given to certain inanimate substances
the power, when they were brought into certain combinations,
of reappearing in some of the low forms which live, but live
without any of the worthier prerogatives of life ? No conclu-
sion would follow for reasonable men, except the perfectly
rational conclusion that the Almighty had seen fit to endow
with certain powers in particular circumstances, and to with-
hold from them in other circumstances, the material elements
which He had created, and of which it was surely for Him to
determine the conditions of existence and productive power,
and the sphere and manner of their operation."

In his " Psychology," Rosmini has a couple of chapters on
spontaneous generation and the animation of the elements of
matter, which the reader will find curious and interesting. Re-
ferring to spontaneous generation as an argument in favor of

428 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Faith Has Nothing to Apprehend from Evolution. A\\

Suppose, then, that a demonstrative proof of the
theory of Evolution should eventually be given, a
proof such as would satisfy the most exacting and
the most skeptical, it is evident, from what has al-
ready been stated, that Catholic Dogma would re-
main absolutely intact and unchanged. Individual
theorists would be obliged to accommodate their
views to the facts of nature, but the doctrines of
the Church would not be affected in the slightest.
The hypothesis of St. Augustine and St. Thomas '
Aquinas would then become a thesis, and all reason-
able and consistent men would yield ready, uncon-
ditional and unequivocal assent.

And suppose, further, that in the course of time
science shall demonstrate — a most highly improbable
event — the animal origin of man as to his body.
There need, even then, be no anxiety so far as the

Materialism, he says : " If the fact of spontaneous generation
does really occur in nature, it does not follow, as Cabanis main-
tained, that pure matter of itself passes into life. On the con-
trary, we must say that the matter itself was animate, and that
the principle of life which was in it, operating in its matter,
produced organism. In this way this great fact would be the
most manifest proof of an immaterial principle." Again : " Spon-
taneous generations would never prove that matter was dead ;
on the contrary, they would prove that it was alive." Further
on he declares that " if there should suddenly leap forth from
the ground a full-grown mastodon, or a rhinoceros, all that
would legitimately follow from the fact would be, that there was
a vital principle in the ground, and that this was the secret or-
ganizer of these huge bodies." Book IV, chap. xiv.

As for Pantheism, he asserts in Book IV, chap, xv : " It is
altogether indifferent whether we admit that the animate sub-
stances in the universe are more or fewer, some or all, so long
as we admit that they are created, and, therefore, altogether
distinct from the Creator, Pantheisai is excluded."

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 429

truths of faith are concerned. Proving that the body
of the common ancestor of humanity is descended
from some higher form of ape, or from some extinct
anthropopithecus, would not necessarily contravene
either the declarations of Genesis, or the principles
regarding derivative creation which found acceptance
with the greatest of the Church's Fathers and Doc-
tors.

Mr. Gladstone, in the work just quoted from,
expresses the same idea with characteristic force and
lucidity. " If," he says, "while Genesis asserts a sepa-
rate creation of man, science should eventually prove
that man sprang, by a countless multitude of indefi-
nitely small variations, from a lower, and even from
the lowest ancestry, the statement of the great
chapter would still remain undisturbed. For every
one of those variations, however minute, is abso-
lutely separate, in the points wherein it varies, from
what followed and also from what preceded it; is
in fact and in effect a distinct or separate creation.
And the fact that the variation is so small that,
taken singly, our use may not be to reckon it, is
nothing whatever to the purpose. For it is the finite-
ness of our faculties which shuts us off by a barrier
downward, beyond a certain limit, from the small,
as it shuts us off by a barrier upward from the
great; whereas for Him whose faculties are infinite,
the small and the great are, like the light and the
darkness, 'both alike,' and if man came up by in-
numerable stages from a low origin to the im-
age of God, it is God only who can say, as He
has said in other cases, which of those stages may

430 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

be worthy to be noted with the distinctive name
of creation, and at what point of the ascent man
could first be justly said to exhibit the image of
God."

But the derivation of man from the ape, we are
told, degrades man. Not at all. It would be truer
to say that such derivation ennobles the ape. Sen-
timent aside, it is quite unimportant to the Chris-
tian "whether he is to trace back his pedigree
directly or indirectly to the dust." St. Francis of
Assisi, as we learn from his life, " called the birds
his brothers." Whether he was correct, either theo-
logically or zoologically, he was plainly free from
that fear of being mistaken for an ape which haunts
so many in these modern times. Perfectly sure
that he, himself, was a spiritual being, he thought
it at least possible that birds might be spiritual
beings, likewise incarnate like himself in mortal
flesh; and saw no degradation to the dignity of
human nature in claiming kindred lovingly with
creatures so beautiful, so wonderful, who, as he fan-
cied, "praised God in the forest, even as angels did
in heaven." '

' Kingsley, " Prose Idylls," pp. 24 et seq. Ruskin in refer-
ring to the matter in his "Aratra Pentelici," expresses himself
with characteristic force and originality. " Whether," he says,
"your Creator shaped you with fingers or tools, as a sculptor
would a lump of clay, or gradually raised you to manhood
through a series of inferior forms, is only of moment to you in
this respect, that, in the one case, you cannot expect your
children to be nobler creatures than yourselves ; in the other,
every act and thought of your present life may be hastening the
advent of a race which will look back to you, their fathers — and
you ought, at least, to have retained the dignity of desiring that
it may be so — with incredulous disdain."

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 431

Misapprehensions Regarding Evolution.

Many, it may here be observed, look on the the-
ory of Evolution with suspicion, because they fail
to understand its true significance. They seem to
think that it is an attempt to account for the origin
of things when, in reality, it deals only with their
historical development. It deals not with creation,
with the origin of things, but with the modus creandi,
or, rather, with the modus formandi, after the uni-
verse was called into existence by Divine Omnipo-
tence. Evolution, then, postulates creation as an
intellectual necessity, for if there had not been a
creation there would have been nothing to evolve,
and Evolution would, therefore, have been an im-
possibility.

And for the same reason, Evolution postulates
and must postulate, a Creator, the sovereign Lord
of all things, the Cause of causes, the terminus a
quo as well as the terminus ad quem of all that exists
or can exist. But Evolution postulates still more.
In order that Evolution might be at all possible it
was necessary that there should have been not only
an antecedent creation ex nihilo, but also that there
should have been an antecedent involution, or a crea-
tion in potentia. To suppose that simple brute
matter could, by its own motion or by any power
inherent in matter as such, have been the sole effi-
cient cause of the Evolution of organic from inor-
ganic matter, of the higher from the lower forms of
life, of the rational from the irrational creature, is

432 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

to suppose that a thing can give what it does not
possess, that the greater is contained in the less, the
superior in the inferior, the whole in a part.

No mere mechanical theory, therefore, however
ingenious, is competent to explain the simplest fact
of development. Not only is such a theory unable to
account for the origin of a speck of protoplasm, or
the germination of a seed, but it is equally incom-
petent to assign a reason for the formation of the
smallest crystal or the simplest chemical compound.
Hence, to be philosophically valid, Evolution must
postulate a Creator not only for the material which
is evolved, but it must also postulate a Creator, Causa
causarum, for the power or agency which makes any
development possible. God, then, not only created
matter in the beginning, but He gave it the power
of evolving into all forms it has since assumed or
ever shall assume.

But this is not all. In order to have an intelli-
gible theory of Evolution, a theory that can meet
the exacting demands of a sound philosophy as well
as of a true theology, still another postulate is neces-
sary. We must hold not only that there was an actual
creation of matter in the beginning, that there was
a potential creation which rendered matter capable
of Evolution, in accordance with the laws impressed
by God on matter, but we must also believe that
creative action and influence still persist, that they
always have persisted from the dawn of creation,
that they, and they alone, have been eflficient in all
the countless stages of evolutionary progress from
atoms to monads, from monads to man.

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 433

This ever-present action of the Deity, this im-
manence of His in the work of His hands, this
continuing in existence and developing of the crea-
tures He has made, is what St. Thomas calls the " Di-
vine administration," and what is ordinarily known
as Providence. It connotes the active and constant
cooperation of the Creator with the creature, and
implies that if the multitudinous forms of terres-
trial life have been evolved from the potentiality of
matter, they have been so evolved because matter
was in the first instance proximately disposed for
Evolution by God Himself, and has ever remained
so disposed. To say that God created the universe
in the beginning, and that He gave matter the
power of developing into all the myriad forms it
subsequently exhibited, but that after doing this
He had no further care for what He had brought
into existence, would be equivalent to indorsing
the Deism of Hume, or to affirming the old pagan
notion according to which God, after creating the
world, withdrew from it and left it to itself.

Well, then, can we say of Evolution what Dr.
Martineau says of science, that it "discloses the
method of the world, not its cause ; religion, its cause
and not its method." ' Evolution is the grand and
stately march of creative energy, the sublime mani-
festation of what Claude Bernard calls "the first,
creative, legislative and directing Cause."' In it we
have constantly before our eyes the daily miracles.

^ See Essay on Science, Nescience, Faith.

^ " En resumd, il y a dans un ph^nom^ne vital, comme dans
tout autre phenom^ne naturel, deux ordres de causes : d'abord

E.— a8

434 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

quotidiana Dei niiracula, of which St. Augustine
speaks, and through it we are vouchsafed a glimpse,
as it were, of the operation of Providence in the gov-
ernment of the world.

Evolution, therefore, is neither a " philosophy of
mud," nor " a gospel of dirt," as it has been denom-
inated. So far, indeed, is this from being the case
that, when properly understood, it is found to be a
strong and useful ally of Catholic Dogma. For if Evo-
lution be true, the existence of God and an original
creation follow as necessary inferences. *'A true de-
velopment," as has truthfully been asserted, " implies
a terminus a quo as well as a terminus ad quern. If,
then, Evolution is true, an absolute beginning, how-
ever unthinkable, is probable ;" — I should say cer-
tain— " the eternity of matter is inconsistent with
scientific Evolution." '

'* Nature," Pascal somewhere says, " confounds
the Pyrrhonist, and reason, the dogmatist." Evolu-
tion, we can declare with equal truth, confounds the
agnostic, and science, the atheist. For, as an Eng-
lish positivist has observed : " You cannot make the
slightest concession to metaphysics without ending in
a theology," a statement which is tantamount to the

une cause premiere, creatrice, legislative et directrice de la vie,
et inaccessible a nos connaissances ; ensuite une cause prochaine,
ou executive, du phenomene vital, qui est toujours de nature
physico-chimique et tombe dans le domaine de I'experimenta-
tion. La cause premiere de la vie donne devolution ou la crea-
tion de la machine organisee; mais la machine, une fois creee,
fonctionne en vertu des proprietes de ses elements constituants
et sous Tinfluence des conditions physico-chimiques qui agissent
sur eux." " La Science Experimentale," p. 53.

* Vid. Moore's " Science and the Faith," p. 229.

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 435

admission that " If once you allow yourself to think
of the origin and end of things, you will have to
believe in a God." And the God you will have to
believe in is not an abstract God, an unknowable ^r",
a mere metaphysical deity, " defecated to a pure
transparency," but a personal God, a merciful and
loving Father.

As to man, Evolution, far from depriving him
of his high estate, confirms him in it, and that, too,
by the strongest and noblest of titles. It recog-
nizes that although descended from humble lineage,
he is " the beauty of the world, and the paragon
of animals;" that although from dust — tracing his
lineage back to its first beginnings — he is of
the "quintessence of dust." It teaches, and in
the most eloquent language, that he is the highest
term of a long and majestic development, and re-
places him " in his old position of headship in
the universe, even as in the days of Dante and
Aquinas."

Evolution an Ennobling Conception.

And as Evolution ennobles our conceptions of
God and of man, so also does it permit us to detect
new beauties, and discover new lessons, in a world
that, according to the agnostic and monistic views, is
so dark and hopeless. To the one who says there is
no God, " the immeasurable universe," in the lan-
guage of Jean Paul, "has become but a cold mass
of iron, which hides an eternity without form and
void."

436 EVOLU riON A ND D OGMA .

To the theistic evolutionist, however, all is in-
stinct with invitations to a higher life and a hap-
pier existence in the future ; all is vocal with hymns
of praise and benediction. Everything is a part of
a grand unity betokening an omnipotent Creator. All
is foresight, purpose, wisdom. We have the entire
history of the world and of all systems of worlds,
" gathered, as it were, into one original, creative act,
from which the infinite variety of the universe has
come, and more is coming yet." ' And God's hand
is seen in the least as in the greatest. His power
and goodness are disclosed in the beauteous crystal-
line form of the snow-flake, in the delicate texture,
fragrance and color of the rose, in the marvelous
pencilings of the butterfly's wing, in the gladsome
and melodious notes of the lark and the thrush, in
the tiniest morning dew-drop with all its gorgeous
prismatic hues and wondrous hidden mysteries.
All are pregnant with truths of the highest order,
and calculated to inspire courage, and to strengthen
our hope in faith's promise of a blissful immor-
tality.

The Divine it is which holds all things together :
Ttepie^st TO f^etuv ttjv oXtjv yuatv,* So taught the old
Greek philosophy as reported by the most gifted of
her votaries. And this teaching of the sages of days
long past, is extended and illuminated by the far-
reaching generalization of Evolution, in a manner

W id. Bishop Temple's " The Relations Between Religion
and Science," p. ii6.

"^ Tlapadedorac de vn6 tuv apxo.i-(^v nai nafnzaJMiuv kv fiiOov ax'ifici'i-
KaTaXE?ueifi/uEva rois varepov, b~i nepitxEL to ^elov ttiv b'/.ijv (piacv. Aris-
totle, " Metaphysics," XI, viii.

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION. 437

that is daily becoming more evident and remarkable.
But what Greek philosophy faintly discerned, and
what Evolution distinctly enunciates, is rendered
gloriously manifest by the declaration of revealed
truth, and by the doctrines of Him who is the Light
of the World.

Science and Evolution tell us of the transcend-
ence and immanence of the First Cause, of the Cause
of causes, the Author of all the order and beauty
in the world, but it is revelation which furnishes us
with the strongest evidence of the relations between
the natural and supernatural orders, and brings out
in the boldest relief the absolute dependence of the
creature on its Maker. It is faith which teaches us
how God "binds all together into Himself;" how
He quickens and sustains "each thing separately,
and all as collected in one."

I can, indeed, no better express the ideas which
Evolution so beautifully shadows forth, nor can I
more happily conclude this long discussion than by
appropriating the words used long ago by that noble
champion of the faith, St. Athanasius. "As the
musician," says the great Alexandrine Doctor, in his
" Oratio Contra Gentiles," " having tuned his lyre, and
harmonized together the high with the low notes,
and the middle notes with the extremes, makes the
resulting music one ; so the Wisdom of God, grasp-
ing the universe like a lyre, blending the things of
air with those of earth, and the things of heaven
with those of air, binding together the whole and
the parts, and ordering all by His counsel and His
will, makes the world itself and its appointed order

i38 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

one in fair and harmonious perfection ; yet He,
Himself, moving all things, remains unmoved with
the Father." '

' Otov yap rl tls 2.vpav p.ov(!iK6s apfwaafisvos koi to, ^apea toIs o^lai,
KOI TO. /liaa toIs OKpois, rrj rex^V owayayuv ev to (7T//iaiv6iuevov fdAos
airoT£?Miri. ovtus Kai ij tov Qeov 2o^/'o, to o7mv us 7vpav iTrtx*^, koi to
£V af-pi TOIS ettI yf/s ox<vayayuv, koi to. h ovpavu toIs If atpi, koc tu oTm.
Tols KUTO. fiepos m>vd—Tuv, Koi ntpiayuv tu eavrov voi/fiaTi koi ■^e/.tjfw.Tt,
eva TOV Kdafiov Koi /iiav t/ji' tovtov tu^iv anoTE^xi, Ka/.us koi ^pfwafievus,
aiiTos fiev atav?/Tus fisvuv irapa tu HaTpi. Sec. XLII.

Authors and Works

CITED IN

'EVOLUTION AND DOGMA."

Abubacer, Arabian scientist, "The Nature-Man."
Agassiz, Prof. Louis, " Essay on Classification;"

"Lake Superior;" "Methods of Study in

Natural History."
Allen, Grant, Canadian litterateur and scientist.
Anaxagoras, Greek philosopher.
AnAXIMANDER, Greek mathematician.
Anaximenes, Greek historian.
Argyll, Duke of (8th), " The Unity of Nature."
Aristotle, "Physics;" "History of Animals;"

" Metaphysics."
Athanasius, St., "Oratio Contra Gentiles."
Augustine, St., "De Trinitate;" "De Genesi ad

Litteram ; " " De Libero Arbitrio ; " " De

Anima et ejus Origine ; " " Retractationes."
AuRELius, Marcus, " Meditations."
AVEMPACE, Arabian philosopher.
AviCENNA, Arabian physician.

Babington, Chas. C, British botanist.
Bacon, Francis, Lord, " Novum Organum."

(439)

440 EVOLU TION A ND DOGMA .

Baer, Karl E. von, Russian naturalist.

Baird, Spencer F., American naturalist.

Balfour, Arthur J., " Foundations of Belief."

Barrande, Joachim, " Syst^me Silurien de la
Boheme ; " " Defense des Colonies."

Barry, Alfred, " Some Lights of Science on the
Faith."

Bastian, Henry C, English scientist.

Bateson, William, British naturalist.

Bellinck, Father, S. J., art. in " fitudes Histor-
iques et Litt^raires."

Beneden, p. J. VAN, "Animal Parasites and Mess-
mates."

Bentham, Jeremy, English philosopher.

Berkeley, Bishop George, British philosopher.

Bernard, Claude, " La Science Expdrimentale."

Berzelius, Baron Johan J., Swedish chemist.

Blainville, H. M. de, French naturalist.

Blanchard, Emile, " La Vie des £tres Animus."

Bonnet, Charles, Swiss naturalist.

Broca, Paul, French surgeon.

Brunetiere, Ferdinand, art. in Revue des Deux
Mondes.

Bruno, Giordano, Italian philosopher.

Bryant, Wm. Cullen.

Buchner, F. Karl, "Force and Matter;" " Man in

the Past, Present and Future."
Buckle, H. T., " Miscellaneous and Posthumous

Works."
BuFFON, Comte Georges de, "Th^orie de la

Terre."
Burmeister, Hermann, German naturalist.
Butler, Bishop Joseph, British prelate.

AUTHORS AND WORKS. 441

Cabanis, Pierre J., French physicist.
Calmet, Dom a., French Benedictine.
Camper, Pieter, Dutch anatomist.
Candolle, Alphonse de, Swiss botanist.
Cano, Melchior, " Locorum Theolog. Libri."
Carlyle, Thomas, " Sartor Resartus."
Carruthers, William, Scotch naturalist.
Carus, Paul, "The Religion of Science."
Chambers, Robt., Scotch litterateur, " Vestiges of

Creation."
Chrysostom, St. John.
Clarke, Father, S. J., arts, in The Month.
Clement, St., of Alexandria, " Stromata."
Comte, Auguste, French philosopher.
Cope, Edward D., American biologist, " Origin of

the Fittest."
CORLUY, Rev. J., S. J., " Specilegium Dogmatico-

Biblicum."
CuviER, Baron GEORGES, " Regne Animal ;" " Le9ons

sur I'Anatomie Compar^e ; " " Ossements Fos-

siles ; " " Revolutions de la Surface du Globe."
CUVIER, Frederic, French naturalist.

r\ARWiN, Charles, "The Origin of Species;" "Ani-
mals and Plants Under Domestication."

Darwin, Erasmus, "Temple of Nature;" "Zoon-
omia;" "Botanic Garden."

Davidson, Prof., English scientist.

Dawson, Sir J. W., " Story of the Earth and Man."

Democritus of Abdera, Greek philosopher.

Descartes, Ren£.

Diercks, Father, S. J., Flemish naturalist,
" L'Homme-Singe."

442 E VOL UTION A ND D OGMA .

Diogenes of Appolonia, Greek philosopher.
DuiLHE, DE St. Projet, French apologist.

Ehrenberg, Chr. G., German naturalist.
Empedocles, Greek philosopher,
Epictetus, Stoic philosopher, " Manual."

Fabricius, Hieronymus, Italian anatomist.
Falloppio, G., of Padua, Italian anatomist.
Faye, H. a., French astronomer.
FiCHTE, J. G., German metaphysician.
FiSKE, Prof. John, "Outlines of Cosmic Philoso-
phy; " " The Idea of God."
Flourens, M. J. P., French physiologist.
FONTENELLE, B. DE, French philosopher.
Fracostorio, Italian physician.

Galen, Greek physician.

Gaudry, Albert, " Les Animaux Fossiles de Pik-
ermi ;" " Les Enchainements du Monde Ani-
mal dans les Temps G^ologiques."

Gladstone, W. E., Introduction to " People's Bible
History."

Goethe, J. W. von.

Gonzales, Cardinal, " La Biblia y la Ciencia."
Gore, Canon Charles.
Gray, Prof. Asa, " Darwiniana."
Gregory of Nyssa, St.

GuiLLEMET, Abbe, '' Pour la Th^orie des Ancetres
Communs; " various "Comptes Rendus."

Guttler, Prof., " Lorenz Oken und sein Verhaltniss
zur modernen Entwickelungslehre."

A UTHORS AND WORKS. 443

U^CKEL, Ernst, •' The Evolution of Man ; " "Con-
fessions of a Man of Science ; " " Universal
Morphology."

Halloy, D'Omalius d', "Sur le Transform-
isme."

Hamard, Canon, French savant and apologist.
Hamilton, Sir W., " The Philosophy of the Uncon-
ditioned."

Harper, Father T. N., S. J., " Metaphysics of the
School."

Harrison, Frederick, British essayist.

Hartmann, Carl R. von, German philosopher.

Harvey, Dr. William.

Hegel, Georg, German philosopher.

Heraclitus, Greek philosopher.

Herder, Johan G. von, German critic.

Herschel, Sir William, British astronomer.

Hewit, V. Rev. A. F., "The Christian Agnostic
and the Christian Gnostic."

HOBBES, Thomas, English philosopher.

HOLBACH, Baron Paul d*, French philosopher.

Holy Bible.

Homer, " Iliad."

Hooker, Sir Joseph, English botanist.

HOWORTH, Sir Henry H., "The Mammoth and
the Flood."

HUGGINS, William, English astronomer.

Hugo, Victor, " Les Contemplations."

HuLST, Mgr. Maurice d'.

Hume, David, Scotch philosopher.

Huxley, Prof. T. H., "Lectures on Evolution;"
" Science and Hebrew Tradition ; " " Classifi-
cation ; " " Life and Letters of Ch. Darwin ; "

444 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

"Science and Christian Tradition;" "Col-
lected Essays ; " art. " Biology " in Encyclo-
paedia Britannica.

JAGER, Prof., German critic.

Jaugey, Abbe J. B., " Dictionnaire Apologetique
de la Foi Catholique."

JUSSIEU, Antoine L. de, " Genera Plantarum."

Kant, Immanuel, " Kritik der reinen Vernunft."

Kelvin, Lord (Sir William Thomson), Scotch
physicist, Address at Edinburgh.

KiNGSLEY, Charles, " Prose Idylls."

KiRWAN, M. DE, " Le Transformisme et la Discus-
sion Libre."

KOLLIKER, Rudolf A., Swiss histologist.

Lacepede, Comte B. DE, French naturalist.

Lactantius, " De Ira Dei."

Lamarck, J. B. de, " Histoire Naturelle ; " " Phil-
osophic Zoologique."

Land, Prof. J. P. N., art. " Physiologus " in Ency-
clopaedia Britannica.

Lanessan, French naturalist.

Lankester, Ray, English zoologist.

Laplace, Marquis Pierre de, French astronomer.

Lavoisier, A. L., French chemist.

Layard, Sir Austen, " Nineveh and Babylon."

Le Conte, Prof. J., " Evolution and Its Relations
to Religious Thought."

Leeuwenhoek, Antonius von, Dutch micro-
scopist.

Leibnitz, Baron Gottfried von, German philoso-
pher.

AUTHORS AND WORKS. 445

Lenormant, Franqois, "Origines de I'Histoire

d'apres la Bible."
Leo XIII, Pope, Encyclicals " yEterni Patris; " and

" Providentissimus Deus."
Leroy, P^re, " L'Evolution Restreinte aux Esp^ces

Organiques."
Leucippus, Greek philosopher.
Leuckart, Karl, German zoologist.
Lewes, George Henry, English litterateur.
LlEBiG, Baron JUSTUS VON, German chemist.
Lilly, W. S., English Litterateur, " The Great

Enigma."
LlNN^US, Carolus, "Amaenitates Academicae,"

" Philosophia Botanica; " " Systema Naturae."
LOGKE, John, English philosopher.
LocKYER, Joseph, British astronomer.
Longfellow, Henry W.

Lucas, Rev. Geo. J., "Agnosticism and Religion."
Lucretius, " De Rerum Natura."
Lyell, Sir Charles, " Principles of Geology ; "

" Manual of Geology."

|V\cCosh, Dr. James, " Religious Aspect of Evo-
lution."

Maimonides, rabbinical philosopher.

MaisonNEUVE, Dr., "Creation et fivolution."

Malpighi, Marcello, Italian anatomist.

Mansel, Dean, " The Limits of Religious Thought."

Marsh, Prof. O. C., American paleontologist.

Marshall, Arthur. M., " Lectures on the Darwin-
ian Theory."

Martineau, Rev. JAS., D.D., "A Plea for Philo-
sophical Studies; "" Science, Nescience and
Faith."

446 E VOL U TION A ND D OGMA .

Maupertuis, Pierre de, French philosopher.

Mill, J. Stuart, British philosopher.

Milne-Edwards, H., French naturalist.

Milton, John, " Paradise Lost."

Mir, Padre, S. J.

MlVART, St. George, " Genesis of Species ; " " On

Truth ; " " Lessons from Nature."
Moleschott, Jacob, Dutch physiologist.
Monsabre, Pere P. J., O. S. D., French theologian.
Moore, Aubrey L., " Science and Faith."
MuLLER, F. Max, German English philologist.
Muller, Fritz, German ethnologist.
MuLLER, Johann, German physicist.

MADAILLAC, Marquis DE, " Le Problemi
Vie ; " " Progres de I'Anthropologie,"

;me de la

etc., in

Comptes Rendus.

Nageli, Prof. Karl von, German botanist.
Naudin, Charles, French botanist.
Newman, Cardinal Henry, " Lectures on Univer-
sity Subjects."
Nott, Josiah C, American ethnologist.

Oken, Lorenz, German naturalist.
Olivi, of Cremona.

Omar "the Learned," Arabian scholar.
Origen.

Osborn, H., "From the Greeks to Darwin."
Ovid, " Metamorphoses."

Owen, Prof. Richard, "Anatomy of Vertebrates ;"
" Chimpanzees and Orangs."

Paley, " Natural Theology."
Palissy, Bernard.

AUTHORS AND WORKS. 447

Pascal, Blaise, " Pens^es."

Pasteur, Louis, French bacteriologist.

Plato.

Pliny, the elder.

POUCHET, Henri C, French naturalist.

POUSSIN, C. DE la ValljSe, " Pal^ontologie et Dar-

winisme."
Powell, Baden, English apologist and scientist.

Pythagoras.

QUATREFAGES, J. L. DE, " Darwin et ses Pr^curseurs
Fran^ais ; " " The Human Species," xvl Jour-
nal des Savants.

Ray, John, " Historia Plantarum."

Reaumur, Rene de, F'rench physicist.

Redi, Francesco, " Esperienze intorno alia Gen-
erazione degl* Insetti."

Renan, Ernest, " L'Avenir de la Science."

Robin, Dr. Charles P., French anatomist.

Robinet, J. F., French physician.

Romanes, Prof. George, " Darwin and After Dar-
win ; " " Scientific Evidence of Organic Evo-
lution ; " " Thoughts on Religion."

ROSMINI, Prof., " Psychology."

RUSKIN, John, "Aratra Pentelici."

RUTIMEYER, Louis, Swiss naturalist.

CAINT-HILAIRE, E. Geoffroy, " Histoire G^n^rale
et Particuli^re des Anomalies de I'Organiza-
tion chez I'Hommes."

SaycE, A. H., " The Higher Criticism ;" " The Ver-
dict of the Monuments ;" " People's Bible
History."

448 E VOL U TION A ND DOGMA.

SCHELLING, Friedrich VON, German philosopher.

SCHMANKEWITSCH, Russian naturalist.

Schopenhauer.

SCHOUW, J. F., Danish naturalist.

SCHULTZE, Max, German biologist.

Schwann, Theodor, German physiologist.

Schweinfurth, Georg a., German botanist.

SCOTUS, Erigena, " De Divisione Naturae."

Secchi, Padre Angelo, Italian astronomer.

Seneca, " De Beneficiis ;" " NaturalesQuaestiones."

Shakespeare.

SlEBOLD, K. VON, German zoologist.

Spalding, Rt. Rev. J. L., "Agnosticism."

Spencer, Herbert,

" First Principles ; " " Principles of Biology."
Spinoza.
Steno, Nicolaus, Danish anatomist.

Temple, Frederick, " Bampton Lectures."

Tertullian.

Theophrastus.

Thomas, St., of Aquin, "Summa;" "Opusculi."

Ueberweg, Friedrich, " History of Philosophy."

Varro.

Vatican Council, " Dogmatic Constitution of the

Catholic Church."
Vesalius, a., Belgian anatomist.
Vinci, Leonardo da, Italian artist and scholar.
Virchow, Prof. Rudolf, Address before Interna-

tional Archaeological Congress, at Moscow.

AUTHORS AND WORKS. 449

Wagner, Moritz, German naturalist.

Wallace, Alfred R., " Darwinism ; " " Natural

Selection."
Whewell, William, " History of the Inductive

Sciences."
Wolf, Chr. von, German philosopher.
Wood, Prof., " Giants and Dwarfs."
Woodward, Henry, British geologist.

Zahm, J. A., " Bible, Science and Faith."
Zahn, Adolph, German Biblicist.
Zeller, Edward, " Philosophy of the Greeks."
ZiGLlARA, Cardinal.
E.-19

GENERAL INDEX.

Abiogenesis, believed in by Anaxsigoras,
26; as a theory of theancients, 33; import
of its discussion, 41 ; early prevalence
of the theory, 42 ; Roman philosophers
believed in, 43 ; Fathers and Schoolmen
accept, 44 ; Father Kircher's curious re-
cipe in, 45; disproof of by Redi's ex-
periments, 46 ; theory loses standing,
48 ; fruits of the controversy on, 50 ;
notions of affecting science, 320 ; some
ancient ideas on, 321 ; Darwin's wish in
regard to, 327 ; as a corollary to Evo-
lution, 328 ; Hseckel positively believes
in, 329 ; discovery of still possible, 330 ;
if true not against Dogma, 331 ; scholas-
tic and other views of, 332 ; proof un-
likely to offer, 336 ; review of the long
battle in, 396 ; Rosmini's speculations
on, 427.

Abubacer, curious philosophical romance
by, 29.

Accad, science questions studied in, 13.

Administration, Divine, views of St.
Thomas on, 395.

Africa, pygmies of as the " missing link,"
3SJ- ^

Agassiz, Prof. Louis, critique on Darwin s
theory by, 65 ; as an adversary of Evolu-
tion, 74 ; on the origin of species, ^9 ;
views on classification by, 90 : definition
of species by, 96 ; on creation and
species, loi ; argument from coral reefs,
152; denunciation of Darwinism by,
207.

Agates, argument from the figures in, 33.

Agnosticism, as an outcome of Evolution,
329 ; scope and nature of, 254 ; term de-
vised by Huxley, 255 ; late develop-
ments of, 256 ; views of Romanes on,
260 ; discussed by Duke of Argyll, 362 ;
cannot be a via media, 264; Max
Mailer's views on, 268; the Christian
form of, 273.

Agricola, strange theory on fossils by, 32.

Albertus Mi^nus, the Evolution idea dis-
cussed by, 29.

Allen, Grant, survey of transitional types
by, 131.

Amoebae, theory of the, 2^7.

Amphioxus, curious life history of, 117;
Hzckel's exalted notion of, 344.

Analogous, compared with homologous,

no,
Analogy, Hseckel's quibbling with, 249.
Anarchists, Evolution kindly received by,

209.
Anatomy, period of development of, 56 ;

Kant's brilliant suggestion on, 57.
Anaxagoras, theory of life germs by, 26 ;

teleological views of nature by, 380.
Anaximander, views on origin of life by, 25.
Anaximenes, on the Cause of all things, 26.
Ancients, their part in the Evolution idea,

23 ; abiogenesis a common belief with,

43. Set also Antiquity.
Anthropomorphism, excluded from Chris-
tian Evolution, 302.
Anthropopithecus, views of Darwin on the,

. 3«- . . ,.

Antiquity, species seen in the monuments

of, 147 ; scientific errors and follies of,

400.

Ant- Lion, remarkable pedigree of, 401.

Apes, Hxckel's genealogy of the, 347 ;
question of man's descent from, 340:
Mivart on their human relationship,
344 ; possible human kinship with, 430.

Apis, its identity with living species, 146.

Archaeologry, objections to Evolution from,
143 ; value of Asiatic research in, 179.

Archxopteryx, as a transitional type, 131 ;
its discovery predicted, 137.

Archaeus, Paracelsus and the theory of,
324.

Archebiosis, as a term for abiogenesis, 327.

Arctic Region, Darwin on species of, 160.

Argyll, Duke of, saltatory Evolution fa-
vored by, 198 ; views on Agnosticism,
363 ; on the accord of teleology and
Evolution, 373.

Aristotle, conceptions of Evolution by, 37 ;
comparison of Empedocles with, 28 : as
a yoke on early science, 34 ; abiogene-
sis one of his teachings, 42 ; describes
continuity of species, 144 ; doctrine of
the four elements by, 386 ; on classifi-
cation of species, 323 ; scientific achieve-
ments of, 379 ; his influence on scholas-
ticism, 382.

Artemia, valuable experiments with, 192.

Assassination, Evolution held responsible
for, 3IO.

(450

452

EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Assurbanipal, tablets from Nineveh library
of, 13.

Assyria, cosmology as a study in, 13.

Assyriology, proofs of paleontology helpwd
by, 179.

Astronomy, questions of antiquity in, 14 ;
new discoveries suggested in, 25 ; ad-
vanced by Secchi and others, 53 ; some
pioneer ideas on, 391.

Atavism, facts of known to Aristotle, 27.

Athanasius, St., view of the Creator by,
361 ; on the order of creation, 437.

Atheism, an outgrowth of science specula-
tions, 15 ; Evolution receives welcome
fix>m, 209 ; agnosticism only a disguise
for, 264.

Atomic Theory, its revival in monism,
236.

Atoms, chemically and philosophically
viewed, 236 ; the chemist's jugglery
with, 334.

Augustine, St., Kant revises teachings of,
57 ; on potential creation, 71 ; on the
natural forces, 220 ; the theistic Evolu-
tion of, 280 ; strictures on anthropo-
morphism, 302 ; on the generation of
life, 322 ; on the soul's origin, 347.

Authorities, the author's gratitude to,
xxiii ; list of books and, 439.

Avempace, Arabian ideas on Evolution, 28.

Babylonia, study of cosmology in, 13 ;
species as shown in monuments of, 148.

Bacon, Francis, a believer in organic Evo-
lution, 56 ; satire on natural history by,
383 ; on relations of science to the Deity,
410.

Bacteria, Pasteur's valuable studies in,
50 ; evidence from further research in,
52 : difficulty in noting species of, 100.
See also Infusoria.

Baer, Karl E. von, wonders found in em-
bryology by, 115.

Baird, Spencer F., on species in American
birds, 104.

Balfour, Arthur, J., on science and faith,
XXI ; work on foundations of belief by,
278.

Barrande, Joachim, as an anti-evolution-
ist, 74 ; studies in Silurian strata by,

154-
Barry, Dr. Alfred, views on creation by,

368.
Basil, St., views on generation by, 321.
Basilisk, as creature of science-fable, 400.
Bastian, H. C, opposition to Pasteur's

views by, 52 ; term used for abiogenesis

by, 3»7-
Bateson, Prof., theory of discontinuous

variations by, 198.
Bathybius, Huxley and Haeckel on, 346.
Bees, a native variety crowded out, 164 ;

Virgil on the generation of, 320.
Bellinck, Father, on faith and Evolution,

426.

Beneden, P. J. van, as student of the ani-
malculae, 49 ; standmg against Evolu-
tion, 74.

Berzelius, conclusions on infusoria by, 49.

Bible, The Holy, fanciful interpretations
of> 35 '• quoted to sustain abiogenesis,
47 ; Darwinism scored by friends of,
207 ; Dr. McCosh on Evolution and,
212 ; is not opposed by true Evolution,
388 ; its cosmogony agrees with Evolu-
tion. See also Genesis.

Bichat, M. F. X., definition of life by,
324-

Biology, powerful help to Evolution by,
54; the question of species in, 315. See
also Life.

Birds, differences and blendings of species
in, 104.

Births, the theory of extraordinary, 197.

Blanchard, Emile, challenge to evolution-
ists by, 141.

Bohemia, valuable geological facts from,
154-

Botany, outcome of recent progress in, 51 ;
difficulties regarding species in, ^7.

Brazil, evidence from the cave-birds of,
126.

Brongniart, Adolphe, T., geological inves-
tigations by, 38.

Brunetiere, Ferdinand, on the " bank-
ruptcy of science," 404 ; verdict on sci-
ence and religion, 407.

Bruno, Giordano, Hseckel as an imitator
of, 236.

Biichner, Ludwig, the doctrine of mate-'
rialism by, 217 ; some atheistic notions
of, 221 ; on design in nature, 370.

Buckle, H. T. , on eflfects of exclusive stud-
ies, 311.

BuflTon, Georges L., wrong views on ani-
malcules by, 48 ; notions on environ-
ment held by, 194.

Burnouf, E. H., value of oriental research
by, 179.

Cabanis, Pierre J., views on thought by,
238.

Cairo, plant specimens of at, 150.

Calmet, Dom, discussion of Noah's ark
by, 60.

CandoUe, A, de, position on the species
problem, 79 ; a definition of species by,
95 ; study of the oak by, loj.

Caro, Prof, on attitude of Evolution to
faith, 210 ; views on materialism, 216 ;
r6sum6 of Haeckelism by, 238.

Carruthers, William, as an anti-evolution-
ist, 74 ; lessons from Egyptian botany
by, 149-

Catholicity, its attitude to atheism and
materialism, 223 ; question of the miss-
ing link in, 344 ; Evolution among noted
adherents of, 425. See also Church,
Dogma, Religion.

GENERAL INDEX.

453

Catholic Congresses, scientific discussions
of, 362.

Causa Causarum, St. Augustine's state-
ment of, 282.

Cereals, as raised in prehistoric times,
151-

Chaldea, cosmology as a study in, 13 ;
species identified by monuments, 148.

Chambers, Robert, a famous science trea-
tise by, 63.

Champollion, value of researches by, 179.

Chemistry, its phenomena sustain Evolu-
tion, 53

Church, The, its teachings on creation and
Providence, 296 ; Evolution and the
doctrines of, 312 ; never inimical to
true science, 396. See also Dogma,
Religion, etc

Cicero, on the transitory value of opinion,

XV.

Civil War, American, the myriad writings

on, 20.
Clarke, Father, S. J., analysis of term

agnostic by, 256.
Classification, various systems of, 84 ;

Aristotle's ideas on, 85 ; elements of

study in, 89; is it real or a myth, 90 ;

ancient and mediaeval views on, 91 ; a

leading evidence for Evolution, 105 ;

the tree-like system of, 107 ; blunders

in, 108.
Clement of Alexandria, St. , cause of error

stated by, 204.
Climate, relations to permanence of

species, 158.
Cockroach, victory of Asiatic species, 164.
Coleridge, Samuel T., on errors in nomen-
clature, 319.
Compsognathus, an intermediate fossil

type, 132.
Comte, an erroneous prediction by, 53 ;

the philosophic creed of, 276.
Concordistic theory, Cuvier as lather of,

93-
Contents, table of, 7.
Cope, Edward D., as adherent of the

Evolution idea, 68 ; researches in fossils

by, 174 ; as champion of neo-Lam-

arckism.
Coral, Agassiz on the reefs of, 153.
Corluy, Rev. J . , on eflFects of Darwinism,

213-
Corruption, as understood by scholastics,

385.
Cosmology, antiquity of speculations in,

■3- . , . .

Creation, questions of antiquity concern-
ing, 14 ; fanciful views on, 35 ; the Mil-
tonic view of, 76 ; Agassiz on the plan
of, loi ; the more noble conception of,
laa ; derivative as against special, 133;
misunderstandings of the term, 215;
definition in Catholic theology, 220 ;
various meanings of, aai ; relation of
agnosticism to, 255; St. Augustine on

the order of, 281 ; the Genesiac narra-
tive of, 290 : God as the first cause in,
297 ; summing up of views. 302 ; science
fails to explain, 306 ; various Catholic
teachers on, 360.

Creationism, choice between Evolution
and, 75 ; the soul's relation to theory of,
348 ; its attitude toward Evolution, 398.

Creatures, as endowed with causaitty,
297.

Crustacea, curious experiments on species
with, 192.

Cuttle-fish, development of the eye in,

I20.

Cuvier, Baron Georges, as founder of pa-
leontology, 37 ; effect of his discoveries,
38 ; discussion with Saint-Hilaire, 39 ;
system of classification by, 85 ; Agassis'
estimate of, 86 ; great scientific work of,
87 ; views on species by, 92 ; on evi-
dence from Egyptian mummies, 146 ;
on animal figures of antiquity, 147.

Cuvier, Frederick, views on hybrids by,
182.

Darwin, Charles, Evolution not founded
by, 23 ; antiquity of pet theory of, a6 :
forestalled by BufTon, 60; publishes
"The Origin of Species," 66 ; his chief
disciples, 68 ; difficulty of noting species
by, 98 ; on rudimentary organs, 113 ; on
distribution of species, 123 ; on succes-
sion of types, 126 ; on predictions in Evo-
lution, 137; on species of Arctic regions,
160 : on paucity of transitional forms,
162, 163 ; on gradation of fossil
deposits 165 ; on fossil bird forms,
172 ; views on geological research by,
181 ; on the problem of hybrids, 190;
natural selection defended by, 194 ; ad-
mits a weak point, 195 ; the theory and
critics of, 207 ; Asa Gray makes defense
of, 311 : nature as personified by, 226;
out-Heroded by Hseckel, 231 ; estimate
of Herbert Spencer by, 357; his con-
fused ideas on creation, 306 ; unfitness
for abstract studies, 309 ; theory of pri-
mordial germ by, 336 ; in conflict with
teleology, 369 ; Prof. Gray's tribute to
his work, 372.

Darwin, Erasmus, services to the Evolu-
tion idea, 384.

Darwinism, as distinguished from Evolu-
tion, 206 ; various opinions on, 207 ; a
great problem evaded by, 343 ; man's
origin viewed by, 350 ; not to be held as
Evolution, 384.

Davidson, Prof., as an anti-evolutionist,
74 : researches in British fossils by,
156.

Dawson, Sir J. W., as an anti-evolution-
ist, 74 ; pronounces Evolution atheistic,
309.

Deity, Haeckel's concept of, 236 : rela-
tions of time and space to, 370 ; as the

454

EVOLU TION A ND D O GMA .

primary cause, 297 ; attributes of, 304 ;
errors of scientists on, 308 ; science pro-
motes just views of, 401 ; a necessary
postulate of Evolution, 432.

De Lapparent, Prof. A , attitude on crea-
tionism, 363.

Deluge, Noah's, supposed relation to fos-
sils, 35 ; controversy on duration and
extent of, 430.

Denudation, fossil deposits affected by,
170.

Descartes, Ren^, tendencies toward Evo-
lution, 56 ; on relations of science to
God, 410.

Deslonchamps, dictum on species by, 98.

Diercks, S. J., Father, discussion of crea-
tionism, 362.

Diogenes of Appolonia, theory of animal
life by, 26.

Discussions, counsel of Leo XIII. regard-
ing, xxii ; by the ancients on creation,
15 ; those of antiquity still fresh, 16 ;
between Cuvier and Saint-Hilaire, 39.

Divine Administration, meaning of the
term, 295.

Doctors, Evolution and teachings of the,
3'2.

Dog, long identity of the species, 147 ; the
numerous varieties of, 186.

Dogma, science can never contradict, xv ;
how affected by Evolution, 206 ; not an-
tagonized by this science, 300 ; abiogen-
esis not opposed to, 331 ; standing as to
the missing link, 344 ; zeal of certain
scientists against, 370 ; not contradicted
by Evolution, 388, 426.

Dragons, a myth of ancient science,
400.

Dredging, contributions to science from,
52.

Dryopithecus, as the supposed missing
link, 351.

Dualism, contrast of materialism with,
215.

Dufr^noy, Pierre A., on the mating of
species, 182.

Earth's age, review of controversy on,
420.

Egypt, testimony from monuments of, 144;
the ancient vegetation of, 149.

Egyptology, paleontology sustained by,
179.

Elements, Simple, argument from rela-
tionship of, 53 ; scholastic and scientific
views on, 286.

Emanation, an unsound theory, 76.

Emanationism, outgrowth of science spec-
ulations, 15.

Embryology, facts of noted by antiquity,
28 ; Evolution theory sustained by, 54 ; a
leading evidence for Evolution, 105 : its
argument set forth, 115 ; status in Evo-
lution, 250.

Empedocles, as father of Evolution, 26 ;

a guess at Evolution by, 28 : as prectir-
sor of Darwin, 380.

Environment, Buffon a teacher of, 60:
noted adherents of theory, 72 ; perma-
nence of species affected by, 158 ; as a
factor of Evolution, 193 ; curious changes
from, 195.

Epicurus, on the generation of life, 321.

Epigenesis, as foreshadowed by Aristotle,
27.

Evolution, can Christians accept theory,
xiv ; the odium cast upon, xviii ; its dis-
cussion opportune, xxv; a resource of
baffled science, 16 ; wide-spread use of
term, 17; Spencer's definition of, 18;
discussion and vast literature of, 20;
bitterness aroused by, 21 ; used by foes
of religion, 22 ; not begun by Darwin,
23 ; discerned among the Greeks, 25 ;
Aristotle's conception of, 27 ; among
mediaeval schoolmen, 29; Saint-Hilaire's
championship of, 40 : relation of abio-
genesis to, 41 ; sustained by advancing
science, 51 ; astronomy and chemistry
sustain, 53 ; biology a supreme aid. 54 ;
its later champions, 55 ; Goethe as a
herald of, 61 ; Robert Chambers' argu-
ment for, 63 ; Darwin's first book on,
65 ; the high-water mark of, 67 ; two
ways of regarding, 69; the pervading
idea of, 72 ; its noted antagonists, 73 ;
no middle course in, 75 ; Darwin's
changes on, 82 : atheistic disciples of,
83 ; bearings of classification on, 91 ;
solves the mystery of species, 102 ;
leading evidences for, 105 ; the whale
in support of, iii ; explains rudimen-
tary organs, 114; solves embryological
problems, 122 ; the demonstrative evi-
dence of, 127 ; proof from gradation of
fossils, 133 ; summing up of proofs, 134 ;
special creation and, 135 ; prediction of
discoveries in, 136 ; objections made
against, 140; challenge from opponents
of, 141 ; what history offers against, 140;
nature of misapprehended, 157 ; La-
marck to objectors against, 158 ; sterility
of hybrids against, 182 ; standing of
species in, 191 ; the array of factors in,
193 ; some difficult theories of, 196;
role of extraordinary births in, 197 ;
friends of saltatory theorj', 198; as a
fact beyond dispute, 203 ; distinction of
Darwinism from, 206 ; adverse criti-
cisms of, 208 ; atheism gives welcome
to, 210 ; sundry judgments on, 213 ;
ignorance of terms in, 214 ; relation of
agnosticism to, 254 ; the agnostic form
unsound, 278 ; analogy of tree growth
to, 283 ; as revealed in creation, 293:
the Catholic idea of, 300 ; occasional-
ism excluded from, 301; anthropomorph-
ism dispelled by, 302 ; no Divine inter-
ference in, 304 : Dogma in relation to,
312 : unaffected by notions on species,

GENERAL INDEX.

455

31 8; man's creation viewed by, 350;
how far Catholics may accept, 351 ;
Gonzales on the Scripture and, 359 ; a
point of harmony with Dogma, 364 :
story of creation viewed by. 367 ; as
affected by teleology, 369 ; Asa Gray's
summary of, 372 ; corroborated by tele-
ology* 371 ; teleology ennobled by, 376;
witnesses to the God of Scripture, 377 ;
r^sum6 of the history of, 378 ; its future
standing, 386 : not inimical to religion,
388: attitude ot creationism toward, 398 ;
insufficiency for moral man, 402 ; Scrip
ture and theology reconcilable with,
414; Doctors of the Church on, 416 : a
theory not a doctrine, 417 ; viewed from
many standpoints, 423 ; eminent Cath-
olic adherents, 425 ; faith need fear
nothing from, 428 : the Creator a nec-
essary postulate of, 432 ; an ennobling
conception, 435 ; is a witness for the
Deity, 437.

Evolutionists, several schools and classes
of, 206 ; variety of theories among, 229.

Eye, cases of evolutionarj- development,
119

Falloppio, amusing theory of fossils by.

Father of Evolution, two Greek claimants
as, 28.

Fathers of the Church, helped to build
Evolution theory, 23 : common belief
in abiogenesis, 44 ; Evolution and the
teachings of, 312.

Fish-Men, Anaximander's curious theory
of, 26.

Fislce, Prof. John, converted by classifica-
tion, 109 ; views on intermediary fossils,
174 ; theories resemble occasionalism,
301 ; on the origin of life, 327 ; on crea-
tion and Evolution, 390.

Florida, study of coral reefs in, 153.

Flourens, M.J., definition of species by,
95 ; views on Darwin and his work, 208.

Flowers, curious merging of species in,
188.

Fontenelle, eulogy of Bernard Palissy by,

34*

Fossils, early notions regarding, 31 ; Agric-
ola and other ancients on, 32 ; Bernard
Palissy's views on, 34 : the Deluge sup-
posed to explain, 35 : fabled giants in
relation to, 36 ; true significance appre-
hended, 37 ; world's age measured by,
38; Huidey on the evidence of, 128 ;
generalized types among, 131 ; evidence
on vegetable species in, 152 ; process of
deposit, 165 ; Darwin on gradations of,
167; Romanes on fewness of, 170; low
percentage of forms in, 171 ; types miss-
ing from, 172 ; intercalary forms in, 174 ;
reviewing the arguments from, 420.

Fracostorio, teachings on fossils by, 32.

France, vast historic literature of, 19.

Francis of Assisi, St , friendship for the

birds, 430.
French Academy, scientific controversy

in, 39; Cuvier's classification announced

to, 86.
Froschammer, on the origin of the soul,

347-
Fruits, identity of ancient with modern,
149.

Galen, species described by, 144.

Galileo, world's reception of discoveries
by, 392.

Gastrula, place in the scale of life, 347.

Gaudry, Albert, studies in paleontology,
132 ; views on elastic types, 159; stud-
ies in fossil forms, 174 ; theory on miss-
ing types by, 175 ; as a Catholic evolu-
tionist, 425.

Generation, the scholastic view of, 285.

Generationism, as a doctrine on the soul's
origin, 347.

Generelli, right views on creation by, 35.

Genesis, account of man's creation in, 350 ;
scientists on creation narrative, 365 ;
lends itself to Evolution, 414 ; contro-
versy on six days of, 419.

Genus, true relation of the term, 317.

Geography, physical. Evolution sustained
hy, 51 ', relation of to organic life, 123.

Geology, first regular investigations in,
39 ; Evolution theory aided by, 51 ;
Agassiz' argument from, 80 ; relation of
concordistic theory to, 93 ; distribution of
species as witnessed by, 125 ; testimony
as to permanence of species from, 154 ;
comparative limit of researches in, 173 ;
imperfection of record in, 176 ; Darwin
on the value of research in, i8i.

Germ theory, 326.

Giants, supposed relation of fossils to, 36.

Gladstone, W. E., on relations of science
to Bible, 43 7, 429.

Gnostics, views on creation by, 217.

Goethe, Johann W., vast number of bookf
written on, ig ; anecdote regarding, 39 ;
scientific rank of, 62.

Gonzales, Cardinal, on process of creation,
358.

Gore, Canon, on Romanes, 261.

Grand Eury, as an anti-evolutionist, 74.

Gray, Asa, views on defining species, 96 ;
on species in British flora, 98 ; on
triumph of teleology, 378 : on Evolu-
tion and theism, 211.

Greece, science in, 14. 379-

Gregory of Nyssa, St., believer in one
primordial element, 54 : prophet of
nebular hypothesis, 71 ; theistic Evo-
lution of, 280.

Guillemet, Abb*', on theory of fixism,
417, 419 : on common ancestral types,

'35- „

Giittler, Dr. C, views on Darwin by,
213.

456

EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Haeckel, as spokesman of atheistic Evo-
lution, 83 ; on variability of species,
99 ; on perigenesis, 199 ; the five prop-
ositions of, 235 ; on soul and mind,
237 ; on abiogenesis, 329 ; on purpose in
nature, 370 ; the monism of, 230 : on
origin of life, 246 ; cynicism of, 251 ; a
type, 252 ; on missing link, 344, tribute
to Mosaic cosmogony, 415.

Halloy, D'Omalius d', as Catholic and
evolutionist, 425.

Hamard, Canon, on the Bible and trans-
formism, 415.

Hamilton, Sir William, as precursor of
Huxley, 256.

Harper, Father, explains the term genera-
tion, 285 ; on order of creation, 293 ;
value of his work on scholasticism, 295.

Harvey, William, teaching foreshadowed
by Aristotle, 27.

Hawkweed, the numerous species of, 98.

Hebraists, literary fiasco of, 405.

Heliopolis, a scientific priesthood at, 14.

Hellenists, absurd pretensions of, 405.

Helmont, J. B. van, amusing notions on
abiogenesis, 45 ; a theory of life, 323.

Heraclitus, as precursor of Darwin, 379.

Herbert, Rev. W., on proofs from horti-
culture, 63

Herculaneum, testimony from the ruins,
149.

Heredity, phenomena known to Aristotle,
27 ; principle discussed by BufTon, 60 ;
as a factor of Evolution, 195.

Herschel, Sir W,, theories forestalled by
Kant, 57.

Hewit, Rev. A. F., anthority on Christian
Agnosticism, 276.

Hieroglyphics, previous science disclosed
by, 179.

Hildebrand, J. M., on floral species, 189.

Hindus, early science studies of, 14.

Hippocrates, on the vital processes, 324.

History, objections to Evolution from, 143.

Hobbes, Thomas, urges the principle of
struggle, 71.

Holbach, P. H. d', Haeckel conforms
with, 237.

Holmes, Oliver W., definition of life by,

324-

Homology, examples of in nature, no,
114.

Horse, proofs of Evolution from the, 127.

Houdin, Robert, the secret of legerde-
main, 245.

Hugo, Victor, agreement of Hseckel with,
238.

Huxley, Thomas H., review of Darwin's
theory by, 66 ; on paleontology, 128 ;
considers defects of classification, 133 ;
on predictions in horse species, 137 ; on
species variations, 161 ; on saltatory
theory, 198 ; Evolution harmless to faith,
213; nature personified by, 226; coin-
age of term agnostic, 255 ; the Diety as

conceived by, 277 ; confused ideas on
creation, 307 ; on originating life artifi-
cially, 330 ; Evolution and teleology in
harmony, 374 ; admits inadequacy of
science, 407.

Hybrids, teachings from sterility of, 182.

Hylozoism, outgrowth of science specula-
tions, 15.

Infusoria, believers in spontaneous origin
of, 48 ; scientists begin special study of,

49

Inscriptions great students and interpre-
ters of, 179

Introduction the author's, xni-xxx.

lonians, science and teachings of, 14, 380 ;
materialism of the, 216.

Jager, notions on "soul stuff" by, 199.
Jussieu, A. L. de, definition of species by,
96.

Kant, Immanuel, many Evolution princi-
ples of, 57 ; a brilliant generalization by,
58 ; on the use of reason, 256.

Kelvin, Lord iSir W. Thomson), on the
origin of life, 325 ; on design in nature,
441.

Kepler, Johann. true basis of laws by, 25 ;
reception of discoveries by, 393.

Kircher, Father A., curious recipe in ab-
iogenesis, 45.

KoUiker, Rudolf A , an adherent of salta-
tory Evolution, 198.

Lamarck, J. B. de, scientific achievements
of, 61 ; blunders in classification, 108 ;
reply to anti-evolutionists, 158 ; Evolu-
tion factors held by, 193 ; reverent ideas
of the Creator, 389.

Lanessan, estimate of Buffon's work by,
60.

Languages, pedigree of the Romance,
107 ; relations of certain groups, 108.

Law, Paley on true nature of, 376.

Layard, Sir Austin, evidence from Baby-
lonian researches of, 148 ; value of
Assyrian discoveries by, 179.

Le Conte, Joseph, views on Evolution,
214.

Leeuwenhoek, A. von, as student of in-
fusoria, 49.

Legends, suggested by fossil remains, 36.

Leibnitz, G. W. von. Evolution ideas held
by, 56 ; on origin of the soul, 347.

Lenormant, Charles, on the creation of
man, 365.

Leo XIII, on scientific discussion, xvii;
author's stand on teachings of, xxi.

Leroy, P^re M. D., work on Evolution by,
212; his theory of creation. 363; on
species and genus, 317.

Leuckart, Karl G., as authority on in-
fusoria, 49.

GENERAL INDEX.

457

Leverrier, U. J., suggesting discovery of

Neptune, 25.

Lewes, G. W., on special creation, m.

Liebig, Baron, valuable studies of in-
fusoria, 49.

Life, Greek ideas on origin of, 35 ; the
antiquity of, 177; discussion of nature
and origin, 320 ; various attempts to de-
fine, 324 ; on the germ of, 325 ; Dar-
win's idea of primordial, 326 ; science
fails as to origin, 327 ; possible artificial
production of, J30 ; the most science can
say on, 333 ; Huxley's ''physical basis"
of, 334 ; a scientific origin found im-
possible, 336 ; collapse of mechanical
theory, 337 ; Evolution fails to explain,
367.

Lilly, W. S., work on agnosticism by, 278.

Linnaeus, Karl von, as a believing scientist,
xxviii ; views on special creation, 59 ;
produced a reasonable classification, 86 ;
ideas on species, 92 ; his binomial no-
menclature, 94 ; on immutability of
species, 142.

Litterateurs, careless use of term nature,
223.

Locke, John, views on continuity of
species, 71.

Logan, Sir W., on the antiquity of life,

177-

Loligo, eye curiously developed of, 119.

Lucas, Dr. G. J., work on agnosticism by,
278.

Lucretius, statement on abiogenesis from,
43 ; on dabblers in science, 253.

Lyell, Sir Charles, biology brings convic-
tion to, 54.

McCosh, Dr. James, on Evolution and
Scripture, 212.

Maimonides, on creation of man, 365.

Maisonneuve, Dr., on rudimentary or-
gans, 11$.

Mammalia, type gradations in extinct,

«30-

Man, embryonic development of, 116 ;
Haeckel's genealogy of, 245 ; Wallace on
origin of, 247 ; comparing attributes of,
305 ; question of simian origin, 340 ; Vir-
chow on descent of, 341 ; Dogma and
the animal origin of, 344 ; relation to
apes not proven, 351 ; Mivart's specula-
tions on, 352 ; modified theory of crea-
tion, 359 : extravagant notions on ori-
gin, 365 ; question of pedigree reviewed,
430 ; headship in created universe, 435.

Mandeville, Sir John, as a tale-weaving
traveler, 401.

Manicheans, views on creation by, 217 ;
ideas on creation of soul, 346.

Mansel, Dean, an Anglican teacher of
agnosticism. 258 ; a variety of atheism
by, 259.

Maoris, curious proverb of the, if ^,

Mariette, A. E., value of oriental re-
searches by, 179.

Marsh, Prof. G. P. discovery of a missing
type, 138 : intermediate fossils found
by. 174

Marshall, A. M., on organic development,
119; on the ancestral equiue forms, 128.

Marsupials, place of in Hxckel's hfe
scale, 347.

Martineau, Rev. James, judgment on
specialists, 311 on science and reli-
gion, 433.

Martins, Charles, views on Evolution, 214.

Maspero, G. C, value of oriental re-
searches by, 179.

Mastiff, as depicted in Babylonian ruins,
148.

Materialism, product ot science discus-
sions, 15; Evolution hailed by its dis*
ciples, 209 ; in contrast with dualism,
215; as voiced by Hugo and others, 238 ;
struggle of faith and science with, 427.

Materia Prima, the scholastic view of, 287.

Matter, the lonians' view of, 216 ; ideas of
the Schoolmen on, 286 ; fails at the
brink of life, 338.

Mattioli, singular theory on fossils, 33.

Memphis, science of Egyptian priests at,
14-

Mercier, Mgr., in review of Balfour's
work, 278.

Mesopotamia, exhumed records of, 13.

Metaphysics, question solvable only by,
308.

Microbes, multiplicity of species in, 99.

Microscopy, results of progress in, 52.

Middle Ages, Evolution in the Schools of,
23. 28.

Mill, J. Stuart, on God and matter, 217.

Milton, John, poetical record of species,
76 ; influence of his views, 318.

Mind, Darwin's bewilderment on, 310.

Mir, Padre, on problem of creation, 358.

Missing link, discussion of, 340; explora-
tions in quest of, 351 ; a conceivable
theory, 35a.

Mivart, St. George, as disciple of Evolu-
tion, 68; on saltatory theory, 198; on
our simian ancestry, 344 ; on genesis of
man, 352 ; is severely criticised, 353 ;
views not opposed to theology, 358 ;
modified creation theory of, 359 ; on de-
sign in nature, 374 ; on the purpose in
creation, 411.

MoUusca, development of the eye in, 1 19 ;
curious pedigree of planorbis, 129.

Moneron, HacVel's theory of the, 246.

Monism, as outcome of Evolution, 239,
330; formulated by Haeckel, 231 ; coin-
age of the term, 233 ; results of theory,
253 ; Agnosticism compared with, 354;
abiogenesis necessary to. 329

Monkeys, long identity of species, 144.

Monsabr^, Father, on creationism, 363.

Monuments, evidence on species from,i47.

458

EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Morphology, in evidence for Evolution,

105 ; the argument set forth, no; proofs

on species from, 186.
Moses, account of creation by, 293 ; as

ancestor of the evolutionists, 415;

Hsckel's tribute to, 416.
Mountains, as barriers to spread of species,

"?•
Mjiller, Max, on legitimate agnosticism,

273.

Mummies, evidence on species from, 144.

Nadaillac, Marquis de, attitude on Evolu-
tion, 75 ; views on hybrid species, 185 ;
on modern unbelief, 253.

Niigeli, Karl von, as disciple of Evolu-
tion, 68; on progression in species, 199.

Natural selection, ancient germ of theory,
26.

Nature, ancient speculations on, 15 ; Im-
manuel Kant on unity in, 58 ; miscon-
ceptions of the term, 215 ; relations to
the Deity, 227 ; its mysteries a source of
skepticism, 272 : summing the argu-
ment on design in, 375.

Nature-Man, AbubacePs curious theory
of, 29.

Naudin, Charles, a theory on species by.

Nebular hypothesis, Kant's relation to,

57-
Needham, Prof, wrong views on in-
fusoria, 48.
Neo-Lamarckism,the Evolution so termed,

195.
Newman, Cardinal, on narrowness of

specialists, 310.
Newton, Sir Isaac, foundation of great

discovery by, 25.
Nineveh, writings on cosmology at, 13.
Nomenclature, Linnaeus great work on,

94 ; protoplasm a vanished term in,

335-

Oak, study of species in the, X03 ; great
antiquity of the type, 104.

Occasionalism, excluded from Christian
Evolution, 301.

Oken, theory of primordial slime by, 26.

Olivi of Cremona, curious theory on
fossils by, 33.

Omar the Learned, an Arabian evolu-
tionist, 29.

Ontogeny, its bearings on Evolution, 115 ;
Haeckel's argument from, 249.

Opinion, the transitory value of, XV.

Organisms, geographical distribution of,
123 ; what paleontology tells about,
180 : a class without organs, 246.

Organs, lesson from the rudimentary',
113; instances of development of, 118.

Orientalists, failure to degrade the Gospel,

405-
Origen, on the creation of soul, 346.

Osborn, Prof., on the factors of Evolution,

201.
Osteology, its tribute to Evolution theorj',

54-

Ovid, abiogeneses as stated by, 43.

Owen, Prof. Richard, on succession of
types, 126; Darwin quotes researches
of, 172 ; on the integrity of species,
191 ; as adherent of saltatory Evolution,
198 ; his devotion to teleology, 373.

Paleobotany, evidence on species from,
148

Paleontology, the science founded by
Cuvier, 38 ; Evolution theory sustained
by, 51 ; as a foremostproof of Evolution,
105 ; demonstrative evidence furnished
by, 128: discoveries at Mt. Pentelicus,
132 ; the limited field of study in, 173 ;
Egyptology compared with, 179; illus-
trious workers in, 180.

Paley, Dr., Evolution affected by teach-
ings of. 369; defines true nature of law,
376 ; a herald of Evolution, 41 2.

Palissy, Bernard, correct judgment on
fossils, 34.

Paludina, succession of molluscan group
of, 130.

Pantheism, as outgrowth of science dis-
cussions, 15; definition and doctrines
of, 218.

Pantheists, views of the more famous, 2i8.

Paracelsus, on the principle of life, 323.

Pariahs, evidence from dog family called,
147.

Paris Commune, Evolution held respon-
sible for, 210.

Pascal, Blaise, on the teaching of religion,

XXIX.

Pasteur, Prof. Louis, on science confirm-
ing faith, XXIX ; valuable studies on
infusoria, 50 ; his great work and its
opponents, 52, 397.

Paul, St, allusion to unknown God, 255 ;
on knowledge of things unseen, 273.

Pentateuch, controversy on authorship of,
XVI. See also Bible, Genesis.

Pentelicus, Mount, discoveries in paleon-
tology at, 132 ; significance of fossils
found at, 175.

Perigenesis, Hseckel's theory of, 199.

Philology, an illustration taken from, 106 ;
comparison on species from, 163.

Phoenix, as myth of ancient science, 400.

Phylogeny, what is proved for Evolution
by, 115; its relation to Haeckel's sys-
tem, 249.

Physics, stellar, significance of recent
progress in, 53 : mediaeval notions on,
285.

Physiologus, curious fables ol the, 401.

Physiology, ranked among helps to Evo-
lution, 54; evidence regarding species
from, 187.

GENERAL INDEX.

459

Picard, Abb^, work related to Newton's

law, 25.
Pigeons, numerous varieties of, 185.
Pius IX, treatment of an abused scientist

by. 353-
Planets, amusing theory on number of,

394-
Planorbis, evidence from shells of, 129.
Plants, evidence derived from, 148 ; St.

Augustine on creation of, 281. See

Botany, Trees, etc.
Plato, methods compared with Aristotle's,

27 ; views on Divine ideas by, 91.
Pliny, as believer in abiogenesis, 43.
Pohle, Rev. Dr., on Darwinism and

Theism, 212.
Pompeii, evidence against transmutation

from, 144.
Positivism, analysis of the creed of, 276.
Pouchet, Henri C. adverse to Pasteur's

conclusions, 52.
Predictions, as a test of accurate science,

136.
Protoplasm, the chemical aspects of, 334 :

later studies in, 335.
Psychology, some false ideas exposed,

269.
Pterodactyl, as a generalized type, 133.

Quatrefages, J. L. de, species defined by,
95 ; on the theory of Evolution, 140 ;
on constancy of species, 182.

Rawlinson, Sir Henry C., value of re-
searches by, 179.

Ray, John, definition and views of species
by. 94. 318.

Reaumur, Renu A. de, as student of in-
fusoria, 49.

Redi, Francesco, disproves abiogenesis
experimentally, 46 ; accused of unscrip-
tural views, 47.

Religion, modem weapons for defense of,
XX ; Evolution used by enemies of, 22 ;
Darwinism in relation to, 207 ; Haeckel's
idea of a future, 239 ; relation of imma-
ture science to, 252 ; Romanes' later
views on, 261 : wrong ideas of scientists
on, 311 ; not antagonized by Evolution,
388 : all science but serves to exalt. 409.
See Ch'irch, Dogma, etc.

Renan, Ernest., absurd estimate of sci-
ence, 402.

Reversion, its phenomena known to Aris-
totle, 27.

Rhynconella, as elastic type of species,
159.

Richter.Jean P., on the folly of unbelief,

Richter, Prof., curious theory of life by,

325-
Robin, Dr. Charles, harsh estimate of

Evolution, 141.
Robinet.J. F., agreement of ffxckel with,

337-

Romanes, Prof. Geo. J., latest testimony
of, XIX : note on species by, 102 ; on
distribution of organisms, 127 ; on diffi-
culties suggested by fossils, 168 ; main-
tains physiological selection. 194 ; ag-
nostics classed and defined by, 260:
later views on religion, 261 : claims
harmony of Bible and Evolution, 415.

Rome, Evolution held by sages of, 28.

Rosmini, Antonio, on the origin of soul,
347 : views on materialism, 427.

Rudimentary organs, summary of argu-
ment on, 413.

Rupprecht, on authorship of Pentateuch,

XVII.

Ruslcin, John, on pedigree of man, 430.

Saint-Hilaire, E GeofFroy de, discussion
with Baron Cuvier, 39 ; valuable collec-
tions in Egypt, 146 ; proclaims the sal-
tatory theory, 198 ; on the creation of
man, 363 ; as Catholic and evolutionist,
425

Salisbury, Lord, attitude on science and
religion, 407.

Saltation, as theory in Evolution, 198.

Savages, races regarded as missing link,
351-

Sayce, Prof., on the credibility of Moses,
xvi.

Schiromycetes, multiplicity of species in.

Scholasticism, abiogenesis as viewed by,
321. See Schoolmen.

Schoolmen, Evolution theory helped by,
23; writers on Evolution among, 29;
belief in abiogenesis among, 44 ; agnos-
ticism of the Doctors and, 374.

Schouw, Prof, on origin of species, 79.

Schweinfurth, G A., studies in Egyptian
flora, 149.

Sciences, (aith not endangered by, xxvii ;
growth of theories and discoveries in,
24; unite on the trail of Evolution, 40;
anticipated discoveries in, 70; value of
Evolution theory to, 136 : incompetent
to explain creation, 306 : failure on
some vital points, 327 ; censure of lead-
ers in, 353 ; stages and progress of, 387 ;
treatment of pioneers in, 391 ; conserva-
tism in the, 39s ; errors in infancy of,
399; absurd claims of, 402; bankruptcy
of, 404 ; review of conquests of, 408.

Scotiis Rrigena, views on dialectics by, 91.

Sea Shells, succession of types shown in,
127

Selection, as a factor in Evolution, 193 ;
Spencer's preferred term for, 195.

Seminales Rationes, St. Thomas Aquinas'
theory of, 289.

Senses, effects of use and disuse, 195.

Serpents, mediaeval recipe for generating,

Siebold, Karl von, as student of infusoria,
49-

460

EVOLUTION AND DOGMA.

Sirens, position in life scale of, 247.

Sizzi, curious theory of planets by, 394.

Slime, theory of the primordial, 26.

Smith, George, valuable oriental studies
by, 179.

Soul, as a corollary of monism, 237 ; the-
ories on origin of, 345 ; various heretical
views on, 346 ; St. Thomas on creation
oft 356 ; Doctors and Schoolmen on
same, 357. See Spirit.

Space, mlse philosophical notions of,
371.

Spalding, Bishop J. L., as writer on ag-
nosticism, 278.

Spallanzani, Abbate, researches on the
infusoria, 49.

Specialists, mental short comings of, 309,
311.

Species, ascertained vast numbers of, 51 ;
believers in mutability of, 56 ; BuSbn
teaches mutation of, 60 ; difficulty of
noting, 63 ; views ot Naudin and
D'Halloy on, 64 ; Darwin's great work
on, 65; believers in continuity of, 71;
evolutionary ideas on, 72 , views of
great thinkers on, 76, Miltonic hy-
pothesis of, 77 ; Linnseus on, 78 ; Prof.
Agassiz on, 79, loi ; distribution of, 80 ;
attempts to give definition of, 94 ; diffi-
culties regarding, 97 ; the old doctrin-
aires of, 100 ; in the making, 102 ; cases
showing mutation of, 103 ; geographical
distribution of, 123 ; geological succes-
sion of, 135 ; Romanes on distribution,
127 ; revelations of the Tertiary on, 129;
advocates of immutability in, 142 ; evi-
dence from antiquity, 143 ; identity with
antique forms, 145 ; what Egypt's vegeta-
tion tells of, 149: evidence from fossil
flora, 152; Agassiz' strong argument
on, 153 ; evidence from Silurian strata,
154; what the trilobite proves on, 155;
conditions promoting permanence of,
158; elastic types of, 159; fewness of
transitional forms, 163; an illustration
from philology on, 163; cases of crowd-
ing out, 164 ; gradation of fossil forms of,
167 ; sterility of hybrids in, 182 ; morph-
ology as test of, 185 ; tne physiolog-
ical test of, 187 ; relation of reproduction
to, 190; Prof. Owen on integrity of, 191 ;
curious experiments in Russia, 192 ; as
a hopeless problem, 193 : heredity and
variation in, 197 ; saltatory theory re-
garding, 198; Nageli on progress in,
199 ; Haeckel's chain of, 246 ; argument
from analogy in, 249 ; scholastic doc-
trine of, 313 ; three aspects of the term,
315; term genus compared with, 317;
Milton's doctrine of, 318 ; teleology as
manifest in, 373.

Spectroscope, value of revelations by, 53

Spencer, Herbert, defines Evolution, 18;
not original with him, 23 ; antiquity of
his pet idea, 26; as "philosopher" of.

Evolution, 67 ; Creator left out of crea*
tion by, 70; on structural homologies,
114 ; his term for natural selection, 195 ;
as scientist of the " unknowable," 257 ;
led by Anglican churchman, 258 ; on
creation, 264 ; dicta on the unknowable.
267 ; notions of the Deity, 277 ; defines
life, 324 ; confesses weakness of Evolu-
tion, 407.

Spirit, as understood in Hseckelism, 234 ;
the unfathomable mystery, 272 ; Plato's
ideas on, 323 ; positive claims for, 345.
See Soul.

Sponges, Haeckel on the species of, 99 ;
curious investigations in, 232.

Stalactites, ideas from the growth of, 33.

Stammbaum, classification on principle
of, 88, 109.

Steinheim, discoveries in lake-bed at, 129.

Steno, Father Nicholas, true idea of fos-
sils, 34.

Succession of types, Darwin's advocacy
of, 126.

Sumer, sciences anciently studied in, 13.

Survival of fittest, germ of the theory an-
cient, 26 ; anticipated by Biiffon, 60.

Swallow, extension of species in United
States, 164.

Swammerdam, Prof., studies of infusoria
by, 49-

Sycamore, specimens as old as Athens,
150.

Taxonomy, regarded as a science, 88.

Teleology, the old and new sciences of,
369 ; late developments of, 371 ; tributes
of various scientists to, 373, 374 ; is en-
nobled by Evolution, 376 ; as held by
Greek sages, 380.

Temple, Bishop F., on creation and Evo-
lution, 436.

Tertullian, on origin of the soul, 346.

Thales, teachings on genesis of life, 25.

Theism, Pohle's views on, 312; as related
to Evolution, 229 ; Evolution blended
with, 379 ; Prof. Fiske's attempt to class-
ify, 301.

Theology, Haeckel's defects as student of,
243 ; Mivart's relation to, 353 ; the
"Great Architect" theory in, 361; how
affected by man's derivative creation,
364 ; true and false science in relation
to, 376 ; Evolution not in conflict with,
388.

Theophrastus, ideas on fossils by, 31.

Thomas Aquinas, St., a teacher of evolu-
tionary ideas, 39; accepts contemporary
views on abiogenesis, 44 Kant adopts
opinions of, 57 ; as teacher of potential
creation, 71 ; evolutionary views of crea-
tion, 284 ; on causality in creatures, 397 ;
the doctrine of species, 314 ; species as
defined by, 315 ; on the creation of
Adam, 354.

Time, philosophic conceptions of, 370.

GENERAL INDEX.

461

Toumefort, J. P. de, pioneer in defining
species, ^4.

Traducianism, as outgrowth of science
speculations, 15; its belief as to soul's
creation, 346 ; famous tnodern adherents

of. 347-
Trees, variability of species in, 99 ; studies

of the oalc, 103 ; organic life compared

to, 326.
Treviranus, ranked among evolutionists,

63.
Trilobites, valuable facts on species from,

155-
Tycho Brabe, relation to Kepler's laws,

25-

Tyndall, Prof. John, views on design in
nature, 373.

Unbelief, Jean Paul on the folly of, 435.
See Atheism, etc.

Universe, questions of antiquity regard-
ing the, 14.

Unknowable, The, philosophy and philoso-
pher of, 257.

Urea, Wohler's artificial production of,

333-
Urschleim, Oken's theory of anticipated,

26.
Urstoff, the supposed primitive element,

S3-

Vallisneri, as student of infusoria, 49.
Variation, as a factor of Evolution, 196 ;
Bateson's theory of discontinuous, 198.
Vatican Council, creation defined by,

221.

Vertebrates, transitional fossil forms of,

132.
Vinci, Leonardo da, discussion on fossils,

3«-

Virchow, Prof. R., makes charges against
Evolution, 210 ; his theory of life fails,
338 ; on the physical descent of man,
341 ; on origin of life, 343.

Virgil, instances of abiogenesis from, 330.

Vision, Evolution of the organ of, X19.

Vogt, Carl, of one mind with Hxckel,
238 ; a theory of life by, 341.

Wagner, Moritz, as adherent of Evolu-
tion, 68 ; theory of isolation by, 197.

Wallace, Dr. Alfred R., as co-discoverer
with Darwin, 65 ; on the origin of man,
247 ; on design in nature, 373.

Watch, simile from the construction of,
298.

Weeds, studies of ancient Egyptian, 150.

Weismann, as disciple of the Evolution
idea, 68 ; theory of heredity by, 199.

Whale, classification illustrated by the,
108 ; evidence from anatomy of, 11 1.

Whewell, Dr. William, on the fate of new
discoveries, xxvii ; on species and cre-
ation, 76.

Wiegand, on the movement of the age,
244.

Williamson, researches in vegetable fos-
sils, 156.

Wohler, F., artificial making of urea, by,

Wo^?,'f. a..

coinage of term monism by.

Woods, identity of ancient and modem,

149.
Worms, order in the scale of life, 247.

Yung, a pioneer in defining species, 94.

Zoology, a result of recent progress in, 51 ;
services of Linnseus to, 85.

OCSB LIBRARV

THE LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF C ALIFORMA

Santa Barbara

THIS BOOK IS OLE ON THE LAST DATE
STAMPED BELOW.

MAY 2 2 5 ,11

RETURMED JUN 8

lOOM 11/86 Series 9482

lL

UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY

- I! II I III I III r

A 000 658 947 7