Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/732

 EVOLUTION

654

EVOLUTION

Eusebius. But the evidence is not in favour of this simpUfication. The year of the accession of Ignatius, that is of the death of Evodius, was unknon-n to Euse- bius, for he merely places it in the "Chronicle" to- gether with the tleath of Peter and the accession of Linus at Rome (Xero 14-68), while in the "History" he mentions it at the beginning of Trajan's reign.

The fame of Ignatius has caused later wTiters, such as Athanasius and Chrysostom. to speak of him as though he were the immediate successor of the Apos- tles. Jerome (De viris ill., 16) and Socrates (H. E., VI, 8) call him the " third " bishop after St. Peter; but this is only because they illogically include Peter among his own successors. Theodoret and Pseudo- Ignatius represent Ignatius as consecrated by Peter. The difficulty which thus arose about Evodius was solved in the Apostolical Constitutions by stating that Evodius was ordained by Peter and Ignatius by Paul. The Byzantine chronographer, John Malalas (X, 252), relates that as Peter went to Rome, and passed through the great city of Antioch, it happened that Evodus (sic), the bishop and patriarch, died, and Ignatius succeeded him; he attributes to Evodius the invention of the name Christian. Salmon does not seem to be justified in supposing that Malalas ascribes any of this information to Theophilus, the second- century Bisliop of Antioch. We may be sure that Evodius is an historical personage, and really the pred- ecessor of St. Ignatius. But the dates of his ordina- tion and death are quite uncertain. No early witness makes him a martjT.

The Greeks commemorate together "Evodus" and Onesiphorus (II Tim., i, 16) as of the seventy disciples and as martjTS on 29 April, and also on 7 Sept. Evo- dius was unknown to the earlier Western martyrologies the Hieronymian, and those of Bede and Florus; but Ado introduced him into the so-called " Martyrologium Romanum parvum" (which he forged not long before 860) and into his own work, on 6 Majr. His source was P.seudo-Ignatius, whom he quotes in the "Libel- lus de fest. Apost.", prefixed to the martyrology proper. From him the notice came to Usuard and the rest, and to the present Roman Martyrology.

Ada S.S.. 6 May; Salmon in Du-t. Christ. Biog., s. v.; Har- NACK, Gesch. der Allchr. Lill., I, TSl, II, s. v. Chronol. part I, esp. il6-122; Quentin, Les Martyrologes hisloriques (190S). NicEPHORUs Calusti (II, 3), attributes writings to Evodius, of which one was called *a>?, The Light: in it was stated that three years elapsed from the Baptism of Christ until His Pas- sion, and seven years more until the stoning of Stephen. A Ser- mon is attributed to him in a Coptic papyrus published by RoRsi in Memorie delta R. Acad, delle Scienze di Torino, Series II, XLII, 1892). See Harnack. I, loc. cit.

John Ch.^pman.

Evolution. — This subject will here receive a two- fold treatment, as follows; A. The Theory Broadly Considered, and the Catholic Attitude in its Regard; B. Its History and Scientific Foundations.

A. Attitude of Cvtholics towards the Theory. — One of the most important questions for every edu- cated Catholic of to-day is: What is to be thought of the theory of evolution? Is it to be rejected as un- founded and inimical to Christianity, or is it to be ac- cepted as an established theory altogether compatible with the principles of a Christian conception of the universe? We must carefully tlLstinguish between the different meanings of the words theory of evolution in order to give a clear and correct answer to this question. We must dLstingui.sh (1) between the the- ory of evolution as a scientific hj^jothesis and as a philosophical speculation; (2) between the theory of evolution as based on theistic principles and as based on a materialistic and atheistic foundation; (8) be- tween the theory of evolution and Darwinism; (4) between the theory of evolution as applied to the veg- etable and;inim:il kiii^jdoms and as applied to man.

(1) As a scientific hypothesis, the theory of evolu- tion seeks to determine the historical succession of the

various species of plants and of animals on our earth; and, with the aid of paleontology and other sciences, such as comparative morphology, embryology, and bionomy, to show how in the course of the different geological epochs they gradually evolve from their beginnings by purely natural causes of specific devel- opment. The theory of evolution, then, as a scientific hypothesis, does not consider the present species of plants and of animals as forms directly created by God, but as the final result of an evolution from other species existing in former geological periods. Hence it is called "the theory of evolution", or "the theory of descent", since it implies the descent of the present from extinct species. This theory is opposed to the theorj' of constancy, which assumes the immutability of organic species. The scientific theory of evolution, therefore, does not concern itself with the origin of life. It merely inquires into the genetic relations of syste- matic species, genera, and families, and endeavours to arrange them accordmg to natural series of descent (genetic trees).

How far is the theory of evolution based on ob- served facts? It is understood to be still only an hypothesis. The formation of new species is directly observed in but a few cases, and only with reference to such forms as are closely related to each otlier; for instance, the systematic species of the plant-genus CEnothera, and of the beetle-genus Dinarda. It is, however, not difficult to furnish an indirect proof of great probability for the genetic relation of many sys- tematic species to each other and to fossil forms, as in the genetic development of the horse (Equida?), of am- monites, and of many insects, especially of those that dwell as "guests" with ants and termites, and have adapted themselves in many ways to their hosts. PTpon comparing the scientific proofs for the probabil- ity of the theory of evolution, we find that they grow the more numerous and weighty, the smaller the circle of forms under consideration, but become weaker and weaker, if we include a greater number of forms, such as are comprised in a class or m a sub-kingdom. There is, in fact, no evidence whatever for the common ge- netic descent of all plants and animals from a single primitive organism. Hence the greater nimiber of botanists and zoologists regard a polygenetic (poly- phyletic) evolution as much more acceptable than a monogenetic (monophyletic). At present, however, it is impossible to decide how many independent genetic series must be assumed in the animal and vege- table kingdoms. This is the gist of the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis. It is in perfect agreement with the Christian conception of the uni- verse; for Scriptiu-e does not tell us in what fonn the present species of plants and of animals were originally created by God. As early as 1877 Knabenbauer stated "that there is no objection, so far as faith is concerned, to assuming the descent of all plant and animal species from a few types" (Stimmen aus Maria Laach, XIII, p. 72).

Passing now to the theory of evolution as a philo- sophical speculation, the history of the plant and ani- mal kingdoms upon our globe is but a small part of the history of the entire earth. Similarly, the geological development of our earth constitutes but a small part of the history of the solar system and of the universe. The theory of evolution as a philosophical conception considers the entire history of the cosmos as an har- monious development, brought about by natural laws. This conception is in agreement with the Christian view of the universe. God is the Creator of heaven and earth. If God produced the universe by a single creative act of His will, then its natural development by laws implanted in it liy the Creator is to the greater glory of His Divine power and wisdom. St. Thomas says: " The potency of a cause is the greater, the more remote the effects to which it extends" (Summa c. Gent., Ill, c. Ixxvii); and Suarez: "God does not inter-