, 1873-04-27

Cardinal Cajetan, and others, to show that scho-
lasticism freely admits the theory Of Evolution
to this extent. The Catholic Worldsays: "There
is nothing in the Darwinian theory, or IN the
more general theory Of Evolution countenanced
by facts bearing On the development Of life, which
Catholic may not accept, Il he chooses 80 to
do" :.
The Catholic World hesitates to 60 beyond the
limit reached By the discussions Of Darwinism IN
the Dublin Reuieto and the Continental philo-
sophico-reigious Journals. It will not concede
that the body Of man is the climax Of the pro-
gression which it freely admits may be true OF
the development Of all animals below man. This
esitation arises probably from intellect nal
prudence. The Catholic World, however,
asc1ibes it t.., to another cause, Revela-
ton. But, II Revelation prevent tho
superstition. that the highest animal form Is
q progression from an intermediate form, then
Revelation estops the theory that the inte1me-
diate ia progression from lower form. Gen.
eeis forbids the theory. Of Evolution altogether,
or it admits Evolution in it's completeness,-'
that is, from the lowest to the highest OF which
We have knowledge. ID: ~: "
God was as free to make man, in his body, q
revised and improved edition OF the apo, or the
reptile, or the fish, as He was to make nun ONE
Of the dust Of the earth or out OF inorganic mat
ter. The Bible has to be construed to suppose
Darwinism in lower animal forms; it is not clear
why it should not be- construed to admit q
sequence Of the principle Of Evolution, since it
admits the principle.
The Catholic World quotes the Dublin keoiea0,
that at would be st least rash, and probably
proxinate to heresy," to question the imme-
diate and instantaneous (or Quasi-instantaneous)
formation by God OF the bodies of Adam and Eve"
The plane Of thought between "instantaneous'
and Observation-Disclosures is generous enough
for .Darwinists and anti-Darwinists. It must
be- admitted, unless theology claims for itself
logic which it denies to all other sciences, that
the animal man is within the theory Of Evolu-
ton, or theology must maintain that the theory
Of Evolution is inconsistent with Revelation.
But what has theology to do With animal mat
ter at all?:
, To measure natural history by theology,
is confusion OF sciences. II natural
history is susceptible Of analytical treatment BY
theology, then arboriculture, and the Ptocess' OF
extracting sugar from beet-root, are to be consld-
cred onlv in relation to the theory OF the clrcua
tien Of the blood and, when Harvey discovered
that, many people doubted it, less On account OF
previously-c1isting beliefs; than because his own
demonstration Of it Was 30 defective.
Scientists need to remember that material
theories have no bearing upon the spiritual and
theo1ogians, out of tho same involuntary egolsm
OF science, are apt to forget that theology Is not
nntt1opology.
Then arises the question Of the soul IN man. n
But Dar winiem cannot answer that. It deals
with man strictly in his anatomy !;
that is all it professes... And II y it
be ever sufficiently demonstrated for all
men, including Darwin, to accept it, it Will not
then name the time, nor point to the place,
when and where God let the soul of man in. It
will never cross, with its scientific yard-st1ck,
into the Infinite, to measure God and His intel
lgence. :.
Revelation teaches that tho soul began with
tho first man: It is inddelty, not Darwinis1n'
that raises hostile hand against Revelation.