heights and depths of the most faithful, most devoted,
and most enlightened investigation of nature?

Finally, we have still another eschatological conclusion to mention and
reject; a conclusion which is drawn from this theory by the advocates of
the evolution theory. It opens the perspective into a future development of
still higher beings out of man. _In abstracto_, we can naturally make no
objection to the possibility of such a development, as soon as we once
accept the evolution theory; but we have to object to the supposition of
such a process _in infinitum_. For such a process would certainly be
interrupted by the final destruction of the globe; and in case the
mechanico-naturalistic view of the world should be right, this destruction
would be only the more cruel as would be more highly organized the beings
which should find their destruction in this inevitable catastrophe.
Moreover, as we have repeatedly seen, a development _in infinitum_ suffers
from a self-contradiction: for development involves an end, and this end
must certainly have been once reached. Now, if we have reason to assume
that this end has been reached in the development of the inhabitants of the
globe, by the creature being in the image of God and his child, and that it
is also reached in fallen man through redemption {378} and its perfection,
then the idea of development, it is true, allows and postulates a relative
development of mankind, so long as this takes place within the limits of
the now valid laws of the universe,--a development towards the perfection
of this likeness to God and filial relationship; but that idea of
development has no longer an influence that would lead to the production of
new beings which should be more than man.

With the foregoing, we believe that we have discussed all essential points
of the relation between religion and Darwinism; and we now proceed to the
last part of our investigation.

* * * * *

{379}

_B. THE DARWINIAN THEORIES AND MORALITY._

CHAPTER III.

DARWINISM AND MORAL PRINCIPLES.

Sec. 1. _Darwinistic Naturalism and Moral Principles._

If we consider the ethical consequences of a view of the world which,
proceeding from Darwinism, permits the universe, man included, to be taken
up into a mechanism of atoms--a mechanism in which everything, even the
ethical action of man, finds its sufficient explanation--we certainly
cannot perceive how such a view of the w