[114] (as I would call it)--if this is attacked, then indeed a fundamental [affirmation] of Christianity^a, including its whole interpretation of history, is undercut. And the way in which even those in this country who are not consciously Christian, or do not stand consciously in the Jewish-Christian tradition, even THEY would not be able, if they were consistent, to act as they do, as if it is possible to transform reality towards the better. Now this was BEHIND this fight. But the concrete form in which the fight with Darwinism^b was going on was the question whether the divine creativity^c is eliminated in the moment in which the theory of evolution prevails. Here, theology^d made the tremendous mistake of restricting the meaning of creation^e to the beginning, in terms of a special divine act in which all different forms have been produced, and after this the world goes on on the basis of this basic creation. But this is not implied in the Christian doctrine of creation at all--on the contrary: classical theology, in people like Augustine, Luther and Calvin, has strongly emphasized that the divine creation cannot be separated from His acts of preservation, that God acts creatively here and now and in every moment, and that the way in which higher forms of life are produced is a matter of scientific hypothesis and does not at all change the dimension of divine creativity^f, whether the answer is: mechanistically, or organically, or idealistically--or however you want it. Now here you again see one thing: such struggles must be deeply analyzed with respect to their theological-philosophical matrix on the one hand, and their scientific-methodological procedures on the other. In the moment in which theology^g interferes with the