The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1916-11-11
POPULAR APoLoGETIcs.
Adapted from the German of Rev.
Peter Mikes, S. j., by Rev.
James Watcher.

XLVlll. (R) Professor Haeckel and
Father Wasmann, S. J. (Coneluded.)
Now I ask you, honored professor,
for our close attention. What judg-
ment did give in that book (p. 172-
1859 about the different meanings of
"Darwinism'? In favor of which did
/ declare myself?
u "Darwin's theory of selection as
the sole form of evolution can no
longer be considered scientific at the
present time. As the principal factor
in the evolution of species it is I'M
Serviceable, and can only be consider
ed as secondary factor. l have GER
tainly not declared myself in favor of
that Darwinism.'
y Still shorter than regarding the
Darwinistic theory of selection l can
declare myself against it's generaliza-
tion as the so-called realistic-monistic
world-view. 1t is nothing else but a
nuisance propounded in the name of
science"
| declared your 'Darwinistic world
view" founded Oh a "monistic' basis,
u philosophical nuisance, because it
reduces the origin of all law to
denial of every original law as it's real
cause; l declared it theological nui.
Sance, because it transforms the idea
of God, which apparently is kept, to
pure nothing; hence, instead of
"monism" you should give your theory
the honest name of atheism" That
is plain enough for you, hope.
81 Il had also declared your Oar
whistle world-view social nuisance,
because by extending unreservedly
the theory of selection to man you
make the animal struggle for ex-
istence the fundamental law of human
society. Hence thought it my duty
to warn with your old friend and
teacher, Rudolph Virchow, against
this form of ''Darwinism"
A. There remains now only the
fourth meaning of the world Darwin
ism, namely the theory of evolution
in general. But this meaning rests on
a tangible and unscientific confusion
of ideas; for Darwin's form of the
theory of evolution is only one of
many of the various forms of the
theory of descent. Before Darwin
we have Lamarck q 1929, the great
French naturalist, and advocate of a
theory of evolution, and after Darwin
we have many investigators like
Kolliker & 19O5), the great anatom-
list and psychologist, Elmer Ct 1881,
a zoologist of note, de Vries (still
livingl, the Dutch botanist, and others,
who have originated various theories
of evolution, which are mostly very
much opposed to Darwin's theory.
Whoever, therefore, in our days de-
clares Darwinism and the theory of
evolution to be one and the same
be it in popular writing or lectures
either does not know much of the
history of evolution or he misleads the
public on purpose to make propaganda
for "Darwinisni"
Now my honored professor, l think
1t will be plain to you for which form
of "Darwinism" | have declared my
self in the book you quote. We treat
OF the theory of evolution as such,
which is COMPOUNDED with Darwinism
only in uneducated circles. Permit me
to declare my stand on this question
in a few words A more extensive
treatise you will find in the eighth
chapter of my book (p. 175-20D.-
l distinguish between the doctrine
of evolution as a hypothesis and
theory of natural science and between
this doctrine as a philosophic world.
view, but. on a theistic believing in
Godl basis. The former / accept as
it can be proved by facts. the latter
rs far as it is unison with the laws
Of logical thinking The former is