The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1916-05-20
POPULAR APoLoGETlcS.
adapted from the German of Rev.
Peter Mikes, S. j., by Rev.
James Watcher.
XIII. Darwinism.-(continued,)

XIII. Darwinism.-(Contn
81 Catholic natural scientific in.
Vestigation is, therefore, not hampered
by unreasonable barriers. 1t investi-
gates facts and weighs accordingly
the probability and improbability OF
the different theories of descent,
Professor Gutberlet puts up the
following rules about Darwinism in
his learned "Apologetik' l. (p. 1853.
1870:
/. Geological development demands
no descent.
2. Systematics (the study of scien.
tifc systems) lis not in favor OF
descent.
5. Morphology (the science of
forms) and documentary members do
not prove descent.
4. Embryology does in no way
demand genealogical descent.
5. The geographical distribution
of plants and animals does not prove
the reality of descent
6. Paleontology (the science of
ancient life and fossils) furnishes
proofs against descent
Z. The theory of descent in it's
Darwinistic form is entirely unten-
able.
Father Wasmann, S. j., an author.
1ty on such questions, says: The
Darwinistic theory of selection, as
a principal factor Of the hypothetical
development Of species, is useless, be-
cause it can explain only the elimina-
ton of the unfit, but not the origin
of the fit; only theory of evolution
which properly takes into considcra-
ton the inner causes OF evolution has
amy prospects of success We can
determine the following scientific
limits of the hypothetical development
of species: A monophyletic derived
from one parent FORM development,
according to which all living beings
developed from one parent cell, lacks
all scientific proof. The development
of all animals, on the one hand, from
one parent cell and, on the other hand,
of all plants from one parent cell, is,
from the standpoint of archaeological
facts, very improbable. On the con.
trary, the scientific proofs for a
polyphyletic derived from several
or many parent forms) development
of the animal and of the plant king
doms gain more and more i'll weight
From archaeological
standpoint we must, therefore, decide
in favor of more parent forms both for
ho nj fnr tho D1o11t kin o6nf10s
About the number of these parent
forms, about their range and condi-
ton, we are still very much in the
dark.
Just as dark, from the scientific
standpoint, are the causes of this
hypothetical development of species.
We can only say that probably many
inward and outward factors CO.
operated in diverse ways and that
the inward laws of development were
the principal factors.
The doctrine of evolution as a
natural scientific hypothesis and
: theory is perfectly reconcilable with
the Christian world-view. Between
creation and development or evolu.
ton there is no antagonism, but the
creation of the parent forms is the
natural foundation for the ensuing
development of the species of the or
ganic world. Both unite in a symet
rical world-view on Christian basis
Unacceptable and contradic
tory is the theoretical world-view oil
Monism (of Haeckel, which excludes
creation and acknowledges only
evolution. Acceptable, or the con
trary, is the theoretical evolutionary
world-view of Christian theisn
tbelief in Cod, which takes the
creative act of God as beginning
for the development of evolution oil
the organic world and then leaves il
to science to determine this hypo
thctical evolution"
Literature: Wasmann, Modern Bi
ology and the Theory of Evolution;
Dennert, at the deathbed of Darwin
ism translated by O'Hara and
Peschges). For other works see the
article Evolution" in the Catholic
Encyclopedia.