EDITOR'S TABLE. 



243 



'gmox's gaMje, 



EVOLUTION AND DESIGN 



P"TPON another page of the pres- 

 vJ ent number will be found an 

 interesting article by an eminent 

 Catholic theologian, the Rev. J. A. 

 Zahm, C. S. C, under the title of 

 Evolution and Teleology. The point 

 of view which the writer takes up is 

 not one that we can share; but he 

 states his case with candor and abili- 

 ty, and we hold that views so stated 

 are entitled to expression in a peri- 

 odical which stands, and has always 

 stood, for the freest discussion of 

 all scientific and philosophical ques- 

 tions. 



It will be observed that Father 

 Zahm is prepared to make, and very 

 frankly makes, large concessions to 

 modern science. He considers that 

 the doctrine of evolution in its gen- 

 eral aspect may be considered as 

 proved. As to what Huxley has 

 called the Miltonic doctrine of crea- 

 tion, he says that "all the conclu- 

 sions of contemporary science render 

 it not only in the highest degree im- 

 probable, but also exhibit it as com- 

 pletely discredited, and as unworthy 

 of the slightest consideration as a 

 working hypothesis to guide the in- 

 vestigator in the study of Nature and 

 Nature's laws." He admits further 

 that, in the light of the Darwinian 

 theory, the reasonings which satisfied 

 our fathers on the subject of design in 

 Nature have become to a large extent 

 obsolete. The authors of the Bridge- 

 water Treatises, excellent observers 

 of Nature as they were, regarded the 

 adaptation of a given organism to its 

 environment as the result of direct 

 purposive action on the part of the 

 Creator, entirely analogous to the 

 action whereby a locksmith fits a key 

 to a lock. From the modern point 



of view adaptation is simply the ne- 

 cessary condition of existence. Giv- 

 en a geometrical rate of increase in 

 vegetable and animal forms, and the 

 sifting or selective action of the en- 

 vironment will do the rest. 



Father Zahm accepts the modern 

 point of view, but does not on that 

 account abandon the idea of design. 

 He quotes certain modern writers, 

 among whom he erroneously in- 

 cludes Huxley, as saying that the 

 teachings of Darwin have simply 

 rendered necessary a restatement of 

 the former argument. Instead of 

 regarding each form of life as mirac- 

 ulously adapted to its environment 

 in the act of creation, we are to con- 

 sider that the evolutionary process 

 was designed to develop just such 

 forms of life as we now see. A cer- 

 tain Professor Schiller is quoted as 

 maintaining that u once we adopt the 

 evolutionist standpoint, the argu- 

 ment from design is materially and 

 perceptibly strengthened," and that 

 in two ways: positively, by letting 

 us behind the scenes and showing us 

 how effects are produced ; and nega- 

 tively, by removing the necessity for 

 proclaiming everything perfect, see- 

 ing that some things, if not all, may 

 properly be considered as only in 

 course of being made perfect. Inas- 

 much as the view of creation which 

 Huxley, to avoid offense, called Mil- 

 tonic is really the view which accepts 

 in a plain sense the plain teachings of 

 the book of Genesis, and as that view 

 involves the perfection of all things 

 as they came from the hands of the 

 Creator, who pronounced them "very 

 good," it is evident that Father Zahm 

 adopts a standpoint far in advance 

 of the literalism of popular theology. 

 He recognizes that these matters be- 



