Page images
PDF
EPUB

(4.) Derivation by pre-ordained succession of organic forms under an innate tendency or internal force. That is Owen and Mivart.

(5.) Evolution by unconscious intelligence. That is Morell, Laycock, and Murphy.

(6.) Immanent action and direction of Divine power, working by the purposive collocation and adjustment of natural forces, acting without breaks; or the theory of creative evolution. That is Asa Gray, Baden Powell, and the Duke of Argyll.

(7.) The same immanent Divine power collocating and adjusting natural forces, but with breaks of special intervention, and this notably in the case of man. That is Dana, and Darwin's great co-discoverer of evolution, Alfred Wallace. (See arts. on "Evolution," by Professor Youmans and President Seelye, in JOHNSON'S Cyclopædia and JOHNSON'S Natural History.)

What Huxley calls the Miltonic theory of creation, he did well not to call the biblical; for it is generally admitted by specialists in exegetical science, that the writings of Moses neither fix the date, nor definitely describe the mode, of creation. Professor Dana, in the closing chapter of his celebrated "Geology," exhibits the first chapter of Genesis as thoroughly harmonious with geology, and as both true and divine. Many theologians combine their distinctive positions with some theistic view of evolution, especially with that held by Professor Dana. Owenism seems at least as sure of a future as unmodified Darwinism. Dana and Häckel represent

respectively, I should say, the use and the abuse of the theory of evolution.

9. It is thus evident, from the history of recent speculation alone, that there are, or well may be, at least thirty different views as to the past history of nature; but Professor Huxley affirms, that, so far as he knows," there have been, and well can be, only three." That nature has existed from eternity, and that it arose, according to the Miltonic hypothesis, in six natural days, and that it originated by evolution, of which latter he gives a definition, these are his three theories; and they are a curiously incomplete statement of facts in the case. It does not follow, that, if the first two be overthrown, only the theory represented by his definition is left to be chosen ; but this is the implicit and explicit assumption of the New-York Lectures.

[ocr errors]

10. It is the theistic, and not the agnostic or the atheistic, school of evolution which is increasing in influence among the higher authorities of science.

Some agnostics are proud of exhibiting under almost atheistic phraseology a really theistic philosophical tendency. Spencer's negations in natural theology amount to the assertion that our knowledge of the Divine existence is like our knowledge of the back-side of the moon, we know that it is, not what it is. But I assuredly know that there is not a ripple on any sedgy shore, or in the open sea of the whole gleaming watery zone, from here to Japan, which is not influenced by that unknown side as much as by the known. So, in the far-flashing

spiritual zones of the universe of worlds, there is not a ripple which does not owe glad allegiance to that law of moral gravitation which proceeds from the whole Divine nature, known and unknown. God is knowable, but unfathomable. The agnostics call God unknowable; but that he is unfathomable is all that they prove, and often all that they mean.

11. As Professor Huxley does not notice the different schools of evolutionists, his New-York definition of the doctrine is defective through vagueness.

12. For the same reason, it is defective by a suppressed statement of hypotheses which are rivals of his own.

But

13. It is evident, from the nature of the case, that the question of chief interest to religious science is, whether the new philosophy is to be established in its atheistic, its agnostic, or its theistic form. Professor Huxley regards the order of the appearance of species as a matter to be studied with all zeal: the causes of their appearance he thinks are a matter of subordinate importance. At Buffalo he said, "All that now remains to be asked is, How development was effected? and that is a subordinate question." He thus makes the merely initial question, What? more important than the commanding and final question, Why? The clashing looms in Machinery Hall at the World's Exhibition are of supreme moment; the Corliss Engine, which drives them, is of subordinate and inferior interest. Religious science, therefore, finds Professor Huxley curiously wanting in the sense of logical proportion.

14. The New-York Lectures insist on resemblances, and not on differences, in related animal forms.

15. They exaggerate resemblances by broadly inaccurate pictorial representation. The Eocene horse of Wyoming, of the genus Orohippus, Dana says is not larger than a fox (Manual of Geology, ed. of 1875, p. 505). The bones of its leg and foot were represented in the New-York reported illustrations as quite as large as those of the horse.

16. The New-York Lectures prove the existence, not of connected links, but of links with many gaps between them. They prove the existence of steps with many and long and unexplained breaks, and should prove the existence of an inclined plane.

17. They fail to reply to the great, and as yet unanswered objections to Darwinism, the absence of discovered links between man and the highest apes, the sterility of hybrids, the mental and moral superiority of man, and the existence, in many animals,

of

organs of no use to the possessors under the laws of either natural or sexual selection.

18. In asserting that this self-contradictory, vague, and historically inexact account of evolution is a demonstration of the truth of his definition, and places evolution, thus defined, on "exactly as secure a foundation" as the Copernican theory, which is verified by all experiment, and has in its favor the unanimity of experts, Professor Huxley's conclusions include more than his premises.

The New-York Lectures disagree in their conclusions with those of higher geological authorities,

equally well or better acquainted with the American facts, and notably with the conclusions of Dana and Verrill. According to these professors of the university where the relics are preserved, the bones explain, in part, the variations of one style, but do not account for gaps between groups of animals, and least of all do they account for man (DANA, Manual of Geology, pp. 590–604).

Professor Gray calls himself, in his latest work, a "convinced theist, and religiously an accepter of the creed commonly called the Nicene" (Darwiniana, 1876, p. vi.). Is there yet any occasion for the disquietude of a free mind holding these views? If the demonstrative evidence in favor of the materialistic form of the theory of evolution is unsatisfactory as presented by Huxley in New York, what shall be said of the subtler procedures of Tyndall's Belfast Address?

Sitting on the Matterhorn on a July day in 1868, Tyndall meditates on the period when the granite was a part of the molten world; thinks then of the nebula from which the molten world originated; and asks next whether the primordial formless fog contained potentially the sadness with which he regarded the Matterhorn. (Musings on the Matterhorn, 27th July, 1868. Note at end of TYNDALL'S Address on Scientific Materialism, 19th August, 1868.) In 1874 he answers, Yes, and concludes that we must recast our definitions of matter and force, since life and thought are the flower of both.

Accordingly, Tyndall's effort is to change the defi

« PreviousContinue »