95 



faith from religion to science, so scant is the 

 evidence in proof of the scientific principle. 

 For the rest, Father Wasmann's attempt to 

 establish a harmony between evolution and 

 Christian philosophy seems to us, like all 

 other attempts of the kind, an endeavor to ride 

 around the ecliptic of evolution with one horse 

 of heaven and one of earth. 



Before completely surrendering ourselves, 

 however, to an unhesitating acceptance of 

 Father Wasmann's theistic evolution or to an 

 unquestioning faith in its truth, it is just as 

 well to remember that all evolution, whether 

 theistic or atheistic, rests for proof on just two 1 



i There are to be found, of course, other alleged arguments for evolu 

 tion; but they are deserving of little attention. For instance Herbert 

 Spencer and indeed all the earlier evolutionists once set great store by 

 the "Argument from Classification," until it was showu that classifica 

 tion depends wholly on the point of view from which we wish to study 

 organic beings just as we may classify the books in a library in any 

 manner we please and that no one is obliged to accept the classification 

 made by the evolutionist. Now the argument seems to be wholly aban 

 doned. 



In the same way even at the present day we find, in some quarters, 

 a tendency to lay stress on the old morphological argument, by persons 

 who have only a superficial acquaintance with evolution or who borrow 

 their ideas of it from others. This is sometimes called the argument 

 from comparative anatomy. There is indeed one thing which similarity 

 of structure indubitably proves, but it is not the necessity of genetic re 

 lation; it is the similarity of design. We are glad to find Father Wasmanm 

 himself taking his stand firmly on this position and giving short shrift 

 to the argument from morphology. This he does not only in his lectures 

 but even more forcibly in his "Discussion" in which he meets Professor 



