as an infallible source of truth, and after him the social 

 democrats and free-church members will add it to the list 

 of their "body and stomach books," which alone will afford 

 it a respectable clientele, at least in number. In no one of 

 my "deathbed articles," however, have I as yet ever main- 

 tained that Darwinism was decadent in these circles. ~ I 

 know full well, that Darwinism has filtered down into that 

 sphere and there satisfies the anti-Christian and anti-relig- 

 ious demands of thousands. 



Nothing, however, really depends on these senseless 

 blind adherents of Haeckel's unproved assertions. We are 

 now intent upon investigating how the world of eminent 

 thinkers and natural science regards the latest product of 

 Haeckel's fancy. That alone is of importance in ascertain- 

 ing the real status of Darwinism. 



As regards, in the first place, the other parts of the 

 book, it is well known that all of them were vigorously at- 

 tacked. Loofs in particular exposed Haeckel's theology, 

 according to its deserts, in the clear light of truth, and con- 

 victed Haeckel of "ignorance" and "dishonesty;" while the 

 philosopher Paulsen made short work of the "Weltraetsel" 

 from his own standpoint, ("if a book could drip with super- 

 ficiality, I should predicate that of the 19th chapter"). 

 Harnack also condemned the theological section in the 

 "ChristHche Welt," and Troeltsch, Hoenigswald, and Hohl- 

 feld took Haeckel severely tO' task on philosophic grounds. 

 The naturalists have thus far maintained silence. 



Scientific journals, and, I believe, only the more pop- 

 109 



