Page images
PDF
EPUB

tion: but, in the lowest of existing men, the capacity of the cranium is sixty-eight cubic inches; every bone is made and adjusted for the erect position; and the fore-limbs, instead of being required in locomotion, are wholly taken from the ground, and have other and higher uses."

You will be told that Professor Huxley has said that man differs less from the apes than the upper apes do from the lower apes, or than the uppermost men from the lowermost. You will be assured that there is this and that and yet another point of resemblance between the skeletons of man and of the apes. But bring the contrast to the real test. What of the brain? That is the central portion of the system: increased cephalization is the law of the progress of animal forms; and, the moment you compare man and the ape on that strategic point, the difference is half.

Thirty-four cubic inches of cranial capacity on the animal side, sixty-eight on the human, and no link between the two! Forty years given to the search! All the agony of the defence of the Darwinian hypothesis engaged in all quarters of the globe in filling up this tremendous gap, and the colossal absence yet remaining!

Professor Agassiz lies in Mount Auburn yonder; and on his breast there is a bowlder from his native Alps. Whenever I look on it, I think what a bowlder that man may have carried on his breast into his grave, because he was not able to develop the proposition which he laid down as a gantlet before Darwinism

in the last article he ever printed. You remember that in our brilliant Atlantic Monthly, face to face with the world, Professor Agassiz, a few days before he passed into that Unseen Holy where all puzzles are solved, affirmed that it can be proved that the geological record is not so imperfect but that we know what existed between the highest apes and the lowest men, and that, however broken it may be, "there is a complete sequence in many parts of it, from which the character of the succession may be determined" (Atlantic Monthly, vol. xxxiii. p. 101). He promised to prove that. He bent that colossal bow, and it dropped out of his dying hand. On the English-speaking globe, now that Lyell has gone hence, there is no man but Dana that can take up that bow, and bend it. But what does Dana say? Go to Agassiz's grave; take with you these yet moist sheets of the last number of the American Journal of Science and Arts; read over Agassiz's tomb the latest utterance of the highest and gravest authority in American geological science, and you may bring solace to a hovering, mighty spirit for an unfinished task. You will read Dana's latest words (American Journal of Science and Arts, October, 1876, p. 251): "For the development of man, gifted with high reason and will, and thus made a power above Nature, there was required, as Wallace has urged, a special act of a Being above Nature, whose supreme Will is not only the source of natural law, but the working-force of Nature herself. This I still hold." You say that Agassiz was unduly

theistic, and assumed that there is nothing in evolution. Dana is more cautious. The present state of knowledge, he says (Geology, pp. 603, 604), favors the theory that "the evolution of the system of life went forward through the derivation of species from species, according to natural methods not clearly understood, and with few occasions for supernatural intervention. The method of evolution admitted of abrupt transitions between species; but for the development of man there was required the special act of a being above Nature, whose supreme will is the source of natural law." Huxley has come; Huxley has spoken; Huxley has gone; and Dana, over Agassiz's grave, joins hands with Agassiz in the Unseen Holy, to affirm that man is the breath of God. [Applause.]

It is notorious that evolutionists concede,

37. That "molecular law is the profoundest expression of the Divine Will." This is Dana's language (Am. Jour., October, 1876, p. 250).

38. That, therefore, even if the nebular hypothesis be accepted, design in creation yet stands proved. 39. That, even if spontaneous generation under molecular law were demonstrated, the fact of design. in creation would yet stand proved.

If you will elaborately master Professor Stanley Jevons's famous work on the "Principles of Science," you probably will come to his theistic conclusions, even if you believe in the possibility of spontaneous generation under molecular law. We have had important works on the logical method and order, from

Aristotle to Kant and Hamilton; and yet, Professor Pierce of Harvard being judge, there have been few more important productions on that theme than the "Principles of Science," by Stanley Jevons, professor of logic and political economy at Owens's College Manchester. He is an evolutionist; but he is also a logician.

"I cannot," he says, "for a moment admit that the theory of evolution will alter our theological ideas. . . . The precise reason why we have a backbone, two hands with opposable thumbs, an erect stature, a complex brain, about two hundred and twenty-three bones, and many other peculiarities, is only to be found in the original act of creation. I do not, any less than Paley, believe that the eye of man manifests design. I believe that the eye was gradually developed; but the ultimate result must have been contained in the aggregate of causes; and these, so far as we can see, were subject to the arbitrary choice of the Creat[applause] (JEVONS, PROFESSOR W. STANLEY, Principles of Science, vol. ii. pp. 461, 462). Even Tyndall, It is notorious that even Tyndall concedes, odd look. 40. That if a right-hand spiral movement of the particles of the brain could be shown to occur in love, and a left-hand spiral movement in hate, we should be as far off as ever from understanding the connection of this physical motion with the spiritual manifestations (Fragments of Science, pp. 120, 121). It is conceded by Dana,

or

[ocr errors]

41. That the possession by man of free-will and conscience shows that he must have been brought

следне

winked pirkt

[ocr errors]

into existence by a being at least as perfect as himself; that is, by an agency possessing free-will and conscience.

42. That evolutionists are of two schools, the extravagant and the moderate, or the wholesale and the discriminating; and that the former do, and the latter do not, account for man by the theory of evolution. Häckel concedes,

43. That the theory of man's descent from apes is, according to the admission of the wholesale evolutionists, deductive, and not inductive, — a result of speculation, and not of observation.

44. That it probably can never be established by the inductive, that is, by the most strictly scientific method.

Do you suppose that I think that this audience can be cheated? I do not know where in America there is another weekly audience with as many brains in it; at least I do not know where in New England I should be so likely to be tripped up if I were to eye. make an incorrect statement, as here. "The process of deduction," says Häckel, " is not based upon any direct experience. Induction is a logical system of forming conclusions from the special to the general, by which we advance from many individual experiences to a general law. Deduction, on the other hand, draws conclusion from the general to the special, from a general law of nature to an individual case. Thus the theory of descent is, without doubt, a great inductive law, empirically based upon all biological experience. The theory, on the other hand,

« PreviousContinue »