POST-DARWINIAN VIEWS 73 



that the unknown factors which cause and limit the 

 variations of organic Hfe transcend mechanical explana- 

 tion, and operate in a manner that suggests intelhgent 

 direction.^ Others reject such views as unscientific,^ 

 by which they mean that teleology cannot be de- 

 scribed in mechanical terms. That is, they forget 

 the Hmitations of the mechanical method of interpre- 

 tation, and refuse to be influenced in their views by 

 evidence of the presence in nature of superphysical 

 causation. Such an attitude is not really scientific, 

 but is the result of mistaking a section of the model 

 of nature for the whole model, and of the one-sided 

 and defective philosophy called naturalism. 



I believe that the scientific outlook is most encour- 

 aging to those who believe in the unity of all things, in 

 the reahty of the superphysical and supernatural, and 

 in the possibility of acquiring such knowledge of the 

 universe as will forever vindicate our assurance that a 

 beneficent divine ordering and purpose explains and 

 controls natural evolution. 



I hope in these lectures to show also that neither the 

 evolutionary theory in general nor any explanation of 

 evolution that can rightly be called scientific mihtates 

 against the truth of genuinely catholic doctrine, — in 

 particular against the doctrine of man's primitive state 

 and fall. But before undertaking this task it is desir- 

 able to exhibit the evidence which has been advanced 



1 For example, Nageli, Korschinsky, and R. Otto. 



2 V. L. Kellogg rejects them, op. cit., p. 278, as do all believers in 

 naturalism. 



