{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_19192/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_19192","id":"gutenberg_19192","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19192","summary":null,"tags":["Biology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Evolution (Biology)"],"text":"Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Martin Pettit and\nthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net (This file was made using scans of\npublic domain works from the University of Michigan Digital\nLibraries)\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWHAT IS DARWINISM?\n\nBY\nCHARLES HODGE,\nPRINCETON, N. J.\n\nNEW YORK:\nSCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG, AND COMPANY.\n1874.\n\n\nEntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by\nSCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG, & COMPANY,\nIn the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.\n\n\nRIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGE:\nSTEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY\nH. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                           PAGE\nIMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION                                    1\n\nDIFFERENT THEORIES AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE,\nAND SPECIALLY OF VEGETABLE AND ANIMAL ORGANISMS.\n  1. The Scriptural Theory                                    3\n  2. The Pantheistic Theory                                   7\n  3. The Epicurean Theory                                    10\n  4. The Doctrine of Herbert Spencer                         11\n  5. Hylozoic Theory                                         21\n  6. Unscriptural Forms of Theism                            22\n\nDARWIN'S THEORY                                              26\n\nNATURAL SELECTION                                            31\n\nSENSE IN WHICH DARWIN USES THE WORD NATURAL                  40\n\nTHE THREE ELEMENTS OR DARWINISM                              48\n\nTHE EXCLUSION OF DESIGN IN NATURE THE FORMATIVE IDEA\nOF DARWIN'S THEORY                                           49\n\nPROOF OF DARWIN'S DENIAL OF TELEOLOGY, FROM HIS OWN\nWRITINGS                                                     53\n\nPROOF FROM THE EXPOSITIONS OF HIS THEORY BY ITS AVOWED\nADVOCATES.\n  Mr. Russell Wallace                                        64\n  Professor Huxley                                           72\n  Dr. Buechner                                                84\n  Carl Vogt                                                  85\n  Prof. Haeckel                                              87\n  Strauss                                                   147\n\nPROOF FROM THE OBJECTIONS URGED BY THE OPPONENTS OF\nMR. DARWIN'S THEORY.\n  Duke of Argyll                                             96\n  Agassiz                                                   101\n  Professor Janet                                           105\n  M. Flourens                                               108\n  Rev. Walter Mitchell                                      111\n  Principal Dawson                                          119\n\nRELATION OF DARWINISM TO RELIGION                           125\n\nCAUSES OF THE ANTAGONISM BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION       126\n\nTHE EVOLUTION THEORY CONTRARY TO FACTS AND TO SCRIPTURE     141\n\nSIR WILLIAM THOMSON ON TELEOLOGY                            165\n\nDR. ASA GRAY                                                174\n\nDARWINISM TANTAMOUNT TO ATHEISM                             177\n\n\n\n\nWHAT IS DARWINISM?\n\n\nThis is a question which needs an answer. Great confusion and diversity\nof opinion prevail as to the real views of the man whose writings have\nagitated the whole world, scientific and religious. If a man says he is\na Darwinian, many understand him to avow himself virtually an atheist;\nwhile another understands him as saying that he adopts some harmless\nform of the doctrine of evolution. This is a great evil.\n\nIt is obviously useless to discuss any theory until we are agreed as to\nwhat that theory is. The question, therefore, What is Darwinism? must\ntake precedence of all discussion of its merits.\n\nThe great fact of experience is that the universe exists. The great\nproblem which has ever pressed upon the human mind is to account for its\nexistence. What was its origin? To what causes are the changes we\nwitness around us to be referred? As we are a part of the universe,\nthese questions concern ourselves. What are the origin, nature, and\ndestiny of man? Professor Huxley is right in saying, \"The question of\nquestions for mankind--the problem which underlies all others, and is\nmore interesting than any other--is the ascertainment of the place which\nMan occupies in nature and of his relation to the universe of things.\nWhence our race has come, what are the limits of our power over nature,\nand of nature's power over us, to what goal are we tending, are the\nproblems which present themselves anew and with undiminished interest to\nevery man born into the world.\"[1] Mr. Darwin undertakes to answer these\nquestions. He proposes a solution of the problem which thus deeply\nconcerns every living man. Darwinism is, therefore, a theory of the\nuniverse, at least so far as the living organisms on this earth are\nconcerned. This being the case, it may be well to state, in few words,\nthe other prevalent theories on this great subject, that the points of\nagreement and of difference between them and the views of Mr. Darwin may\nbe the more clearly seen.\n\n\n_The Scriptural Solution of the Problem of the Universe_.\n\nThat solution is stated in words equally simple and sublime: \"In the\nbeginning God created the heavens and the earth.\" We have here, first,\nthe idea of God. The word God has in the Bible a definite meaning. It\ndoes not stand for an abstraction, for mere force, for law or ordered\nsequence. God is a spirit, and as we are spirits, we know from\nconsciousness that God is, (1.) A Substance; (2.) That He is a person;\nand, therefore, a self-conscious, intelligent, voluntary agent. He can\nsay I; we can address Him as Thou; we can speak of Him as He or Him.\nThis idea of God pervades the Scriptures. It lies at the foundation of\nnatural religion. It is involved in our religious consciousness. It\nenters essentially into our sense of moral obligation. It is inscribed\nineffaceably, in letters more or less legible, on the heart of every\nhuman being. The man who is trying to be an atheist is trying to free\nhimself from the laws of his being. He might as well try to free himself\nfrom liability to hunger or thirst.\n\nThe God of the Bible, then, is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and\nunchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, goodness, and truth.\nAs every theory must begin with some postulate, this is the grand\npostulate with which the Bible begins. This is the first point.\n\nThe second point concerns the origin of the universe. It is not eternal\neither as to matter or form. It is not independent of God. It is not an\nevolution of his being, or his existence form. He is extramundane as\nwell as antemundane. The universe owes its existence to his will.\n\nThirdly, as to the nature of the universe; it is not a mere phenomenon.\nIt is an entity, having real objective existence, or actuality. This\nimplies that matter is a substance endowed with certain properties, in\nvirtue of which it is capable of acting and of being acted upon. These\nproperties being uniform and constant, are physical laws to which, as\ntheir proximate causes, all the phenomena of nature are to be referred.\n\nFourthly, although God is extramundane, He is nevertheless everywhere\npresent. That presence is not only a presence of essence, but also of\nknowledge and power. He upholds all things. He controls all physical\ncauses, working through them, with them, and without them, as He sees\nfit. As we, in our limited spheres, can use physical causes to\naccomplish our purposes, so God everywhere and always cooeperates with\nthem to accomplish his infinitely wise and merciful designs.\n\nFifthly, man a part of the universe, is, according to the Scriptures, as\nconcerns his body, of the earth. So far, he belongs to the animal\nkingdom. As to his soul, he is a child of God, who is declared to be the\nFather of the spirits of all men. God is a spirit, and we are spirits.\nWe are, therefore, of the same nature with God. We are God-like; so that\nin knowing ourselves we know God. No man conscious of his manhood can be\nignorant of his relationship to God as his Father.\n\nThe truth of this theory of the universe rests, in the first place, so\nfar as it has been correctly stated, on the infallible authority of the\nWord of God. In the second place, it is a satisfactory solution of the\nproblem to be solved,--(1.) It accounts for the origin of the universe.\n(2.) It accounts for all the universe contains, and gives a satisfactory\nexplanation of the marvellous contrivances which abound in living\norganisms, of the adaptations of these organisms to conditions external\nto themselves, and for those provisions for the future, which on any\nother assumption are utterly inexplicable. (3.) It is in conflict with\nno truth of reason and with no fact of experience.[2] (4.) The\nScriptural doctrine accounts for the spiritual nature of man, and meets\nall his spiritual necessities. It gives him an object of adoration,\nlove, and confidence. It reveals the Being on whom his indestructible\nsense of responsibility terminates. The truth of this doctrine,\ntherefore, rests not only on the authority of the Scriptures, but on the\nvery constitution of our nature. The Bible has little charity for those\nwho reject it. It pronounces them to be either derationalized or\ndemoralized, or both.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] _Evidences of Man's Place in Nature._ London, 1864, p. 57.\n\n[2] The two facts which are commonly urged as inconsistent with Theism,\nare the existence of misery in the world, and the occurrence of\nundeveloped or useless organs, as teeth in the jaws of the whale and\nmammae on the breast of a man. As to the former objection, sin, which is\nthe only real evil, is accounted for by the voluntary apostasy of man;\nand as to undeveloped organs they are regarded as evidences of the great\nplan of structure which can be traced in the different orders of\nanimals. These unused organs were--says Professor Joseph Le Conte, in\nhis interesting volume on Religion and Science, New York, 1874, p.\n54--regarded as blunders in nature, until it was discovered that use is\nnot the only end of design. \"By further patient study of nature,\" he\nsays, \"came the recognition of another law beside use,--a law of order\nunderlying and conditioning the law of use. Organisms are, indeed,\ncontrived for use, but according to a preordained plan of structure,\nwhich must not be violated.\" It is of little moment whether this\nexplanation be considered satisfactory or not. It would certainly be\nirrational to refuse to believe that the eye was made for the purpose of\nvision, because we cannot tell why a man has mammae. A man might as well\nrefuse to admit that there is any meaning in all the writings of Plato,\nbecause there is a sentence in them which he cannot understand.\n\n\n_The Pantheistic Theory_.\n\nThis has been one of the most widely diffused and persistent forms of\nhuman thought on this whole subject. It has been for thousands of years\nnot only the philosophy, but the religion of India, and, to a great\nextent, of China. It underlies all the forms of Greek philosophy. It\ncrept into the Church, concealed under the disguise of Scriptural\nterminology, in the form of Neo-Platonism. It was constantly reappearing\nduring the Middle Ages, sometimes in a philosophical, and sometimes a\nmystical form. It was revived by Spinoza in the seventeenth century, and\nsubsequently became dominant in the philosophy and literature of Europe.\nIt is coming up again. Some distinguished naturalists are swinging round\nfrom one pole to the opposite; from saying there is no God, to teaching\nthat everything is God. Sometimes, one and the same book in one half\nteaches materialism, in the other half idealism: the one affirming that\neverything is matter, the other that matter is nothing, but that\neverything is mind, and mind is God.\n\nThe leading principles of the Pantheistic theory are,--(1.) That there\nis an Infinite and Absolute Being. Of this Being nothing can be affirmed\nbut actuality. It is denied that it is conscious, intelligent, or\nvoluntary. (2.) It is subject to the blind necessity of self-evolution\nor development. (3.) This development being necessary is constant; from\neverlasting to everlasting. According to the Braminical doctrine,\nindeed, there are successive cycles of activity and repose, each cycle\nbeing measured by countless milliards of centuries. According to the\nmoderns, self-evolution being necessary, there can be no repose, so that\nOhne Welt kein Gott. (4.) The Finite is, therefore, the existence form\nof the Infinite; all that is in the latter for the time being is in the\nformer. All that is possible is actual. (5.) The Finite is the Infinite,\nor, to use theistic language, the World is God, in the sense that all\nthe world is and contains is the form in which God, at each successive\nmoment, exists. There is no power, save only the power manifested in\nthe world; no consciousness, intelligence, or voluntary activity, but in\nfinite things, and the aggregate of these is the power, consciousness,\nintelligence, and activity of God. What we call sin is as much a form of\nGod's activity as what we call virtue. In other words, there is no such\nthing as free agency in man, no such thing as sin or responsibility.\nWhen a man dies he sinks into the abyss of being as a drop of water is\nlost in the ocean. (6.) Man is the highest form of God's existence. God\nis incarnate in the human race. Strauss says, that what the Church\nteaches of Christ is not true of any individual man, but is true of\nmankind. Or, as Feuerbach more concisely expresses it, \"Man alone is our\nGod.\" The blasphemy of some of the German philosophers on this subject\nis simply unutterable. In India we see the practical operation of this\nsystem when it takes hold on the people. There the personification of\nthe Infinite as evil (the Goddess Kala) is the most popular object of\nworship.\n\n\n_Epicurean Theory._\n\nEpicurus assumed the existence of matter, force and motion,--Stoff und\nKraft. He held that all space was filled with molecules of matter in a\nstate of rapid motion in every direction. These molecules were subject\nto gravity and endowed with properties or forces. One combination of\nmolecules gave rise to unorganized matter, another to life, another to\nmind; and from the various combinations, guided by unintelligent\nphysical laws, all the wonderful organisms of plants and animals have\narisen. To these combinations also all the phenomena of life, instinct,\nand intelligence in the world are to be referred. This theory has been\nadopted in our day by a large class of scientific men, especially in\nGermany. The modern advocates of the theory are immeasurably superior to\nthe ancient Epicureans in their knowledge of astronomy, botany, zooelogy,\nand biology; but in their theory of the universe, and in their mode of\naccounting for all the phenomena of life and intelligence, they are\nprecisely on the same level. They have not added an idea to the system,\nwhich has ever been regarded as the opprobrium of human thought.\nBuechner, Moleschott, Vogt, hold that matter is eternal and\nindestructible; that matter and force are inseparable: the one cannot\nexist without the other. What, it is asked, is motion without something\nmoving? What is electricity without an electrified body? What is\nattraction without molecules attracting each other? What is\ncontractibility without muscular fibre, or secretion without a secreting\ngland? One combination of molecules exhibits the phenomena of life,\nanother combination exhibits the phenomena of mind. All this was taught\nby the old heathen philosopher more than two thousand years ago. That\nthis system denies the existence of God, of mind as a thinking substance\ndistinct from matter, and of the possibility of the conscious existence\nof man after death, are not inferences drawn by opponents, but\nconclusions openly avowed by its advocates.\n\n\n_Herbert Spencer's New Philosophy._\n\nMr. Darwin calls Spencer our \"great philosopher.\" His is the speculating\nmind of the new school of science. This gives to his opinions special\ninterest, although no one but himself is to be held responsible for his\npeculiar views, except so far as others see fit to avow them. Mr.\nSpencer postulates neither mind nor matter. He begins with Force. Force,\nhowever, is itself perfectly inscrutable. All we know about it is, that\nit is, that it is indestructible, and that it is persistent.\n\nAs to the origin of the universe, he says there are three possible\nsuppositions: 1st. That it is self-existent. 2d. That it is\nself-created. 3d. That it is created by an external agency.[3] All these\nhe examines and rejects. The first is equivalent to Atheism, by which\nSpencer understands the doctrine which makes Space, Matter, and Force\neternal and the causes of all phenomena. This, he says, assumes the idea\nof self-existence, which is unthinkable. The second theory he makes\nequivalent to Pantheism. \"The precipitation of vapor,\" he says, \"into\ncloud, aids us in forming a symbolic conception of a self-evolved\nuniverse;\" but, he adds, \"really to conceive self-creation, is to\nconceive potential existence passing into actual existence by some\ninherent necessity, which we cannot do.\" (p. 32). The Theistic theory,\nhe says, is equally untenable. \"Whoever agrees that the atheistic\nhypothesis is untenable because it involves the impossible idea of\nself-existence, must perforce admit that the theistic hypothesis is\nuntenable if it contains the same impossible idea.\" (p. 38). The origin\nof the universe is, therefore, a fact which cannot be explained. It must\nhave had a cause; and all we know is that its cause is unknowable and\ninscrutable.\n\nWhen we turn to nature the result is the same. Everything is\ninscrutable. All we know is that there are certain appearances, and that\nwhere there is appearance there must be something that appears. But what\nthat something is, what is the noumenon which underlies the phenomenon,\nit is impossible for us to know. In nature we find two orders of\nphenomena, or appearances; the one objective or external, the other\nsubjective in our consciousness. There are an Ego and a non-Ego, a\nsubject and object. These are not identical. \"It is,\" he says,\n\"rigorously impossible to conceive that our knowledge is a knowledge of\nappearances only, without at the same time conceiving a reality of which\nthey are appearances, for appearance without reality is unthinkable.\"\n(p. 88). So far we can go. There is a reality which is the cause of\nphenomena. Further than that, in that direction, our ignorance is\nprofound. He proves that space cannot be an entity, an attribute, or a\ncategory of thought, or a nonentity. The same is true of time, of\nmotion, of matter, of electricity, light, magnetism, etc., etc. They all\nresolve themselves into appearances produced by an unknown cause.\n\nAs the question, What is matter? is a crucial one, he dwells upon it in\nvarious parts of his writings. Newton's theory of ultimate atoms;\nLeibnitz's doctrine of monads; and the dynamic theory of Boscovich,\nwhich makes matter mere centres of force, are all dismissed as\nunthinkable. It is not very clear in what sense that word is to be\ntaken. Sometimes it seems to mean, meaningless; at others,\nself-contradictory or absurd; at others, inconceivable, _i. e._ that of\nwhich no conception or mental image can be formed; at any rate, it\nimplies what is unknowable and untenable. The result is, so far as\nmatter is concerned, that we know nothing about it. \"Our conception of\nmatter,\" he says, \"reduced to its simplest shape, is that of coexistent\npositions that offer resistance, as contrasted with our conception of\nspace in which the coexistent positions offer no resistance.\" (p. 166).\nResistance, however, is a form of force; and, therefore, on the\nfollowing page, Spencer says, \"that forces standing in certain\ncorrelations, form the whole contents of our idea of matter.\"\n\nWhen we turn from the objective to the subjective, from the external to\nthe inward world, the result is still the same. He agrees with Hume in\nsaying that the contents of our consciousness is a series of impressions\nand ideas. He dissents, however, from that philosopher, in saying that\nthat series is all we know. He admits that impressions necessarily imply\nthat there is something that is impressed. He starts the question, What\nis it that thinks? and answers, We do not know. (p. 63). He admits that\nthe reality of individual personal minds, the conviction of personal\nexistence is universal, and perhaps indestructible. Nevertheless that\nconviction cannot justify itself at the bar of reason; nay, reason is\nfound to reject it. (p. 65). Dean Mansel says, that consciousness gives\nus a knowledge of self as a substance and not merely of its varying\nstates. This, however, he says, \"is absolutely negatived by the laws of\nthought. The fundamental condition to all consciousness, emphatically\ninsisted upon by Mr. Mansel in common with Sir William Hamilton and\nothers, is the antithesis of subject and object.... What is the\ncorollary from this doctrine, as bearing on the consciousness of self?\nThe mental act in which self is known implies, like every other mental\nact, a perceiving subject and a perceived object. If, then, the object\nperceived is self, what is the subject that perceives? Or if it is the\ntrue self which thinks, what other self can it be that is thought of?\nClearly, a true cognition of self implies a state in which the knowing\nand the known are one--in which subject and object are identified; and\nthis Mr. Mansel rightly holds to be the annihilation of both. So that\nthe personality of which each is conscious, and of which the existence\nis to each a fact beyond all others the most certain, is yet a thing\nwhich cannot be known at all; knowledge of it is forbidden by the very\nnature of human thought.\" (pp. 65, 66).\n\nMr. Spencer does not seem to expect that any man will be shaken in his\nconviction by any such argument as that. When a man is conscious of\npain, he is not to be puzzled by telling him that the pain is one thing\n(the object perceived) and the self another thing (the perceiving\nsubject). He knows that the pain is a state of the self of which he is\nconscious. Consciousness is a form of knowledge; but knowledge of\nnecessity supposes an intelligent reality which knows. A philosophy\nwhich cannot be received until men cease to believe in their own\nexistence, must be in extremis.\n\nMr. Spencer's conclusion is, that the universe--nature, or the external\nworld with all its marvels and perpetual changes,--the world of\nconsciousness with its ever varying states, are impressions or\nphenomena, due to an inscrutable, persistent force.\n\nAs to the nature of this primal force or power, he quotes abundantly and\napprovingly from Sir William Hamilton and Mr. Mansel, to prove that it\nis unknowable, inconceivable, unthinkable. He, however, differs from\nthose distinguished writers in two points. While admitting that we know\nno more of the first cause than we do of a geometrical figure which is\nat once a circle and a square, yet we do know that it is actual. For\nthis conviction we are not dependent on faith. In the second place,\nHamilton and Mansel taught that we know that the Infinite cannot be a\nperson, self-conscious, intelligent, and voluntary; yet we are forced\nby our moral constitution to believe it to be an intelligent person.\nThis Mr. Spencer denies. \"Let those,\" he says, \"who can, believe that\nthere is eternal war between our intellectual faculties and our moral\nobligations. I, for one, admit of no such radical vice in the\nconstitution of things.\" (p. 108). Religion has always erred, he\nasserts, in that while it teaches that the Infinite Being cannot be\nknown, it insists on ascribing to it such and such attributes, which of\ncourse assumes that so far forth it is known. We have no right, he\ncontends, to ascribe personality to the \"Unknown Reality,\" or anything\nelse, except that it is the cause of all that we perceive or experience.\nThere may be a mode of being, as much transcending intelligence and\nwill, as these transcend mechanical motion. To show the folly of\nreferring to the Unknown the attributes of our own spirits, he makes\n\"the grotesque supposition that the tickings and other movements of a\nwatch constituted a kind of consciousness; and that a watch possessed of\nsuch a consciousness, insisted on regarding the watchmaker's actions as\ndetermined like its own by springs and escapements.\" (p. 111). The vast\nmajority of men, instead of agreeing with Mr. Spencer in this matter,\nwill doubtless heartily, each for himself, join the German philosopher\nJacobi, in saying, \"I confess to Anthropomorphism inseparable from the\nconviction that man bears the image of God; and maintain that besides\nthis Anthropomorphism, which has always been called Theism, is nothing\nbut Atheism or Fetichism.\"[4]\n\nMr. Spencer, therefore, in accounting for the origin of the universe and\nall its phenomena, physical, vital, and mental, rejects Theism, or the\ndoctrine of a personal God, who is extramundane as well as antemundane,\nthe creator and governor of all things; he rejects Pantheism, which\nmakes the finite the existence-form of the Infinite; he rejects Atheism,\nwhich he understands to be the doctrine of the eternity and\nself-existence of matter and force. He contents himself with saying we\nmust acknowledge the reality of an unknown something which is the cause\nof all things,--the noumenon of all phenomena. \"If science and religion\nare to be reconciled, the basis of the reconciliation must be this\ndeepest, widest, and most certain of all facts,--that the Power which\nthe universe manifests is utterly inscrutable.\" (p. 46). \"The ultimate\nof ultimates is Force.\" \"Matter and motion, as we know them, are\ndifferently conditioned manifestations of force.\" \"If, to use an\nalgebraic illustration, we represent Matter, Motion, and Force, by the\nsymbols _x_, _y_, _z_; then we may ascertain the values of _x_ and _y_\nin terms of _z_, but the value of _z_ can never be found; _z_ is the\nunknown quantity, which must forever remain unknown, for the obvious\nreason that there is nothing in which its value can be expressed.\" (pp.\n169, 170).\n\nWe have, then, no God but Force. Atheist is everywhere regarded as a\nterm of reproach. Every man instinctively recoils from it. Even the\nphilosophers of the time of the French Revolution repudiated the charge\nof atheism, because they believed in motion; and motion being\ninscrutable, they believed in an inscrutable something, _i. e._ in\nForce. We doubt not Mr. Spencer would indignantly reject the imputation\nof atheism; nevertheless, in the judgment of most men, the difference\nbetween Antitheist and Atheist is a mere matter of orthography.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[3] _First Principles of a New System of Philosophy._ By Herbert\nSpencer. Second edition. New York, 1869, p. 30.\n\n[4] _Von den goettlichen Dingen_, _Werke_, III. pp. 422, 425. Leipzig,\n1816.\n\n\n_Hylozoic Theory._\n\nThis theory assumes the universe to be eternal. There is nothing extra,\nor antemundane. There is but one substance, and that substance is\nmatter. Matter, however, has an active and passive principle. Life and\nrationality are among its attributes or functions. The universe,\ntherefore, is a living whole pervaded by a principle not only of life\nbut of intelligence. This hylozoic doctrine, some modern scientific men,\nas Professor Tyndall, seem inclined to adopt. They tell us that matter\nis not the dead and degraded thing it is commonly regarded. It is active\nand transcendental. What that means, we do not know. The word\ntranscendental is like a parabola, in that there is no knowing where its\nmeaning ends. To say that matter is transcendental, is saying there is\nno telling what it is up to. This habit of using words which have no\ndefinite meaning is very convenient to writers, but very much the\nreverse for readers. Some of the ancient Stoics distinguished between\nthe active and passive principles in the world, calling the one mind,\nthe other, matter. These however were as intimately united as matter and\nlife in a plant or animal.\n\n\n_Theism in Unscriptural Forms._\n\nThere are men who are constrained to admit the being of God, who depart\nfrom the Scriptural doctrine as to his relation to the world. According\nto some, God created matter and endowed it with certain properties, and\nthen left it to itself to work out, without any interference or control\non his part, all possible results. According to others, He created not\nonly matter, but life, or living germs, one or more, from which without\nany divine intervention all living organisms have been developed.\nOthers, again, refer not only matter and life, but mind also to the act\nof the Creator; but with creation his agency ceases. He has no more to\ndo with the world, than a ship-builder has with the ship he has\nconstructed, when it is launched and far off upon the ocean. According\nto all these views a creator is a mere _Deus ex machina_, an assumption\nto account for the origin of the universe.\n\nAnother general view of God's relation to the world goes to the opposite\nextreme. Instead of God doing nothing, He does everything. Second causes\nhave no efficiency. The laws of nature are said to be the uniform modes\nof divine operation. Gravitation does not flow from the nature of\nmatter, but is a mode of God's uniform efficiency. What are called\nchemical affinities are not due to anything in different kinds of\nmatter, but God always acts in one way in connection with an acid, and\nin another way in connection with an alkali. If a man places a particle\nof salt or sugar on his tongue, the sensation which he experiences is\nnot to be referred to the salt or sugar, but to God's agency. When this\ntheory is extended, as it generally is by its advocates, from the\nexternal to the internal world, the universe of matter and mind, with\nall their phenomena, is a constant effect of the omnipresent activity of\nGod. The minds of some men, as remarked above, are so constituted that\nthey can pass from the theory that God does nothing, to the doctrine\nthat He does everything, without seeing the difference. Mr. Russel\nWallace, the companion and peer of Mr. Darwin, devotes a large part of\nhis book on \"Natural Selection,\" to prove that the organs of plants and\nanimals are formed by blind physical causes. Toward the close of the\nvolume he teaches that there are no such causes. He asks the question,\nWhat is Matter? and answers, Nothing. We know, he says, nothing but\nforce; and as the only force of which we have any immediate knowledge\nis mind-force, the inference is \"that the whole universe is not merely\ndependent on, but actually _is_, the will of higher intelligences, or of\none Supreme Intelligence.\"[5] This is a transition from virtual\nmaterialism to idealistic pantheism. The effect of this admission on the\npart of Mr. Wallace on the theory of natural selection, is what an\nexplosion of its boiler would be to a steamer in mid-ocean, which should\nblow out its deck, sides, and bottom. Nothing would remain above water.\n\nThe Duke of Argyll seems at times inclined to lapse into the same\ndoctrine. \"Science,\" he says, \"in the modern doctrine of conservation of\nenergy and the convertibility of forces, is already getting a firm hold\nof the idea, that all kinds of force are but forms of manifestations of\none central force issuing from some one fountain-head of power. Sir John\nHerschel has not hesitated to say, 'that it is but reasonable to regard\nthe force of gravitation as the direct or indirect result of a\nconsciousness or will existing somewhere.' And even if we cannot\ncertainly identify force in all its forms with the direct energies of\nthe one Omnipresent and All-pervading Will, it is at least in the\nhighest degree unphilosophical to assert the contrary,--to think or to\nspeak, as if the forces of nature were either independent of, or even\nseparate from the Creator's power.\"[6] The Duke, however, in the general\ntenor of his book, does not differ from the common doctrine, except in\none point. He does not deny the efficiency of physical causes, or\nresolve them all into the efficiency of God; but he teaches that God, in\nthis world at least, never acts except through those causes. He applies\nthis doctrine even to miracles, which he regards as effects produced by\nsecond causes of which we are ignorant, that is, by some higher law of\nnature. The Scriptures, however, teach that God is not thus bound; that\nHe operates through second causes, with them, or without them, as He\nsees fit. It is a purely arbitrary assumption, that when Christ raised\nthe dead, healed the lepers, or gave sight to the blind, any second\ncause intervened between the effect and the efficiency of his will. What\nphysical law, or uniformly acting force, operated to make the axe float\nat the command of the prophet? or, in that greatest of all miracles,\nthe original creation of the world.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[5] _The Theory of Natural Selection._ By Alfred Russel Wallace. London,\n1870, p. 368.\n\n[6] _Reign of Law._ By the Duke of Argyle. Fifth edition, London, 1867,\np. 123.\n\n\n_Mr. Darwin's Theory._\n\nWe have not forgotten Mr. Darwin. It seemed desirable, in order to\nunderstand his theory, to see its relation to other theories of the\nuniverse and its phenomena, with which it is more or less connected. His\nwork on the \"Origin of Species\" does not purport to be philosophical. In\nthis aspect it is very different from the cognate works of Mr. Spencer.\nDarwin does not speculate on the origin of the universe, on the nature\nof matter, or of force. He is simply a naturalist, a careful and\nlaborious observer; skillful in his descriptions, and singularly candid\nin dealing with the difficulties in the way of his peculiar doctrine. He\nset before himself a single problem, namely, How are the fauna and flora\nof our earth to be accounted for? In the solution of this problem, he\nassumes:--\n\n1. The existence of matter, although he says little on the subject. Its\nexistence however, as a real entity, is everywhere taken for granted.\n\n2. He assumes the efficiency of physical causes, showing no disposition\nto resolve them into mind-force, or into the efficiency of the First\nCause.\n\n3. He assumes also the existence of life in the form of one or more\nprimordial germs. He does not adopt the theory of spontaneous\ngeneration. What life is he does not attempt to explain, further than to\nquote (p. 326), with approbation, the definition of Herbert Spencer, who\nsays, \"Life depends on, or consists in, the incessant action and\nreaction of various forces,\"--which conveys no very definite idea.\n\n4. To account for the existence of matter and life, Mr. Darwin admits a\nCreator. This is done explicitly and repeatedly. Nothing, however, is\nsaid of the nature of the Creator and of his relation to the world,\nfurther than is implied in the meaning of the word.\n\n5. From the primordial germ or germs (Mr. Darwin seems to have settled\ndown to the assumption of only one primordial germ), all living\norganisms, vegetable and animal, including man, on our globe, through\nall the stages of its history, have descended.\n\n6. As growth, organization, and reproduction are the functions of\nphysical life, as soon as the primordial germ began to live, it began\nto grow, to fashion organs however simple, for its nourishment and\nincrease, and for the reproduction, in some way, of living forms like\nitself. How all living things on earth, including the endless variety of\nplants, and all the diversity of animals--insects, fishes, birds, the\nichthyosaurus, the mastodon, the mammoth, and man--have descended from\nthe primordial animalcule, he thinks, may be accounted for by the\noperation of the following natural laws, viz.:--\n\nFirst, the law of Heredity, or that by which like begets like. The\noffspring are like the parent.\n\nSecond, the law of Variation, that is, while the offspring are, in all\nessential characteristics, like their immediate progenitor, they\nnevertheless vary more or less within narrow limits, from their parent\nand from each other. Some of these variations are indifferent, some\ndeteriorations, some improvements, that is, they are such as enable the\nplant or animal to exercise its functions to greater advantage.\n\nThird, the law of Over Production. All plants and animals tend to\nincrease in a geometrical ratio; and therefore tend to overrun\nenormously the means of support. If all the seeds of a plant, all the\nspawn of a fish, were to arrive at maturity, in a very short time the\nworld could not contain them. Hence of necessity arises a struggle for\nlife. Only a few of the myriads born can possibly live.\n\nFourth, here comes in the law of Natural Selection, or the Survival of\nthe Fittest. That is, if any individual of a given species of plant or\nanimal happens to have a slight deviation from the normal type,\nfavorable to its success in the struggle for life, it will survive. This\nvariation, by the law of heredity, will be transmitted to its offspring,\nand by them again to theirs. Soon these favored ones gain the\nascendency, and the less favored perish; and the modification becomes\nestablished in the species. After a time another and another of such\nfavorable variations occur, with like results. Thus very gradually,\ngreat changes of structure are introduced, and not only species, but\ngenera, families, and orders in the vegetable and animal world, are\nproduced. Mr. Darwin says he can set no limit to the changes of\nstructure, habits, instincts, and intelligence, which these simple laws\nin the course of millions or milliards of centuries may bring into\nexistence. He says, \"we cannot comprehend what the figures 60,000,000\nreally imply, and during this, or perhaps a longer roll of years, the\nland and waters have everywhere teemed with living creatures, all\nexposed to the struggle for life, and undergoing change.\" (p. 354). \"Mr.\nCroll,\" he tells us, \"estimates that about sixty millions of years have\nelapsed since the Cambrian period, but this, judging from the small\namount of organic change since the commencement of the glacial period,\nseems a very short time for the many and the great mutations of life,\nwhich have certainly occurred since the Cambrian formation; and the\nprevious one hundred and forty million years can hardly be considered as\nsufficient for the development of the varied forms of life which\ncertainly existed toward the close of the Cambrian period.\" (p. 379).\nYears in this connection have no meaning. We might as well try to give\nthe distance of the fixed stars in inches. As astronomers are obliged to\ntake the diameter of the earth's orbit as the unit of space, so\nDarwinians are obliged to take a geological cycle as their unit of\nduration.\n\n\n_Natural Selection._\n\nAs Natural Selection which works so slowly is a main element in Mr.\nDarwin's theory, it is necessary to understand distinctly what he means\nby it. On this point he leaves us no room for doubt. On p. 92, he says:\n\"This preservation of favorable variations, and the destruction of\ninjurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or, the Survival of the\nFittest.\" \"Owing to the struggle (for life) variations, however slight\nand from whatever cause proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable\nto the individuals of a species, in their infinitely complex relations\nto other organic beings and to their physical conditions of life, will\ntend to the preservation of such individuals, and will generally be\ninherited by their offspring. The offspring also will thus have a better\nchance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which\nare periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called\nthis principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved,\nby the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's\npower of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer\nof the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and sometimes is\nequally convenient.\" (p. 72). \"Slow though the progress of selection may\nbe, if feeble man can do so much by artificial selection, I can see no\nlimit to the amount of change, to the beauty and infinite complexity of\nthe co-adaptations between all organic beings, one with another, and\nwith their physical conditions of life, which may be effected in the\nlong course of time by nature's power of selection, or the survival of\nthe fittest.\" (p. 125). \"It may be objected that if organic beings thus\ntend to rise in the scale, how is it that throughout the world a\nmultitude of the lowest forms still exist; and how is it that in each\ngreat class some forms are far more highly developed than others?... On\nour theory the continuous existence of lowly forms offers no difficulty;\nfor natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, does not\nnecessarily include progressive development, it only takes advantage of\nsuch variations as arise and are beneficial to each creature under its\ncomplex relations of life.... Geology tells us that some of the lowest\nforms, the infusoria and rhizopods, have remained for an enormous period\nin nearly their present state.\" (p. 145). \"The fact of little or no\nmodification having been effected since the glacial period would be of\nsome avail against those who believe in an innate and necessary law of\ndevelopment, but is powerless against the doctrine of natural selection,\nor the survival of the fittest, which implies only that variations or\nindividual differences of a favorable nature occasionally arise in a few\nspecies and are then preserved.\" (p. 149)\n\nThis process of improvement under the law of natural selection includes\nnot only changes in the organic structure of animals, but also in their\ninstincts and intelligence. On entering on this part of his subject, Mr.\nDarwin says, \"I would premise that I have nothing to do with the origin\nof the primary mental powers, any more than I have with that of life\nitself. We are concerned only with the diversities of instinct and of\nother mental qualities within the same class.\" (p. 255) He shows that\neven in a state of nature the instincts of animals of the same species\ndo in some degree vary, and that they are transmitted by inheritance. A\nmastiff has imparted courage to a greyhound, and a greyhound has\ntransmitted to a shepherd-dog a disposition to hunt hares. Among\nsporting dogs, the young of the pointer or retriever have been known to\npoint or to retrieve without instruction. \"If,\" he says, \"it can be\nshown that instincts do vary ever so little, then I can see no\ndifficulty in natural selection preserving and continually accumulating\nvariations of instinct to any extent that was profitable. It is thus, as\nI believe, that all the most complex and wonderful instincts have\narisen.\" (p. 257) He was rather unguarded in saying that he saw no\ndifficulty in accounting for the most wonderful instincts of animals. He\nadmits that he has found very great difficulty. He selects three cases\nwhich he found it specially hard to deal with: that of the cuckoo, that\nof the cell-building bee, and of the slave-making ant. He devotes much\nspace and labor in endeavoring to show how the instinct of the bee, for\nexample, in the construction of its cell, _might_ have been gradually\nacquired. It is clear, however, that he was not able fully to satisfy\neven his own mind; for he admits that \"it will be thought that I have an\nover-weening confidence in the principle of natural selection, when I do\nnot admit that such wonderful and well established facts do not\nannihilate the theory.\" (p. 290) This remark was made with special\nreference to the instincts of the ant, which he finds very hard to\naccount for. He adds, \"No doubt many instincts of very difficult\nexplanation could be opposed to the theory of natural selection: cases\nin which we cannot see how an instinct could possibly have originated;\ncases in which no intermediate gradations are known to exist; cases of\ninstinct of such trifling importance that they could hardly have been\nacted upon by natural selection; cases of instincts almost identically\nthe same in animals so remote in the scale of nature, that we cannot\naccount for their similarity by inheritance from a common progenitor,\nand consequently cannot believe that they were independently acquired\nthrough natural selection. I will not here enter on those cases, but\nwill confine myself to one special difficulty which at first appeared to\nme insuperable, and actually fatal to the whole theory. I allude to\nneuters, or sterile females in insect communities; for these neuters\noften differ widely in instinct and structure from both the males and\nthe fertile females, and yet, from being sterile, they cannot propagate\ntheir kind.\" (p. 289) He is candid enough to say, in conclusion, \"I do\nnot pretend that the facts given in this chapter (on instinct)\nstrengthen in any great degree my theory; but none of the cases of\ndifficulty, to the best of my judgment, annihilate it.\" (p. 297) When it\nis remembered that his theory is, that slight variations occurring in an\nindividual advantageous to it (not to its associates), in the struggle\nfor life, is perpetuated by inheritance, it is no wonder that the case\nof sterile ants gave him so much trouble. Accidental sterility is not\nfavorable to the individual, and its being made permanent by\ninheritance, is out of the question, for the sterile have no\ndescendants. Yet these sterile females are not degenerations, they are\nin general larger and more robust than their associates.\n\nWe have thus seen that, according to Mr. Darwin, all the infinite\nvariety of structure in plants and animals is due to the law of natural\nselection. \"On the principle of natural selection with divergence of\ncharacter,\" he says, \"it does not seem incredible that, from some such\nlow and intermediate form, both animals and plants have been developed,\nand if we admit this, we must likewise admit that all the organized\nbeings which have ever lived on this earth may be descended from some\none primordial form.\" (p. 573) We have seen also that he does not\nconfine his theory to organic structure, but applies it to all the\ninstincts and all the forms of intelligence manifested by irrational\ncreatures. Nor does he stop there; he includes man within the sweep of\nthe same law. \"In the distant future I see open fields for far more\nimportant researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that\nof the _necessary_ acquirement of each mental power and capacity by\ngradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.\"\n(p. 577)\n\nThe \"distant future\" was near at hand. In his introduction to his work\non the \"Descent of Man,\" he says, he had determined not to publish on\nthat subject, \"as I thought that I should thus only add to the\nprejudices against my views. It seemed to me sufficient to indicate, in\nthe first edition of my 'Origin of Species,' that by this work 'light\nwould be thrown on the origin of man and his history;' and this implies\nthat man must be included with other organic beings in any general\nconclusion respecting his manner of appearance on this earth. Now the\ncase wears a wholly different aspect. When a naturalist like Carl Vogt\n(we shall see in what follows what kind of a witness he is) ventures to\nsay in his address as President of the National Institution of Geneva\n(1869), 'Personne, en Europe au moins, n'ose plus soutenir la creation\nindependante et de toutes pieces, des especes,'--it is manifest that at\nleast a large number of naturalists must admit that species are the\nmodified descendants of other species; and this especially holds good of\nthe younger and rising naturalists.... Of the older and honored chiefs\nin natural science, many unfortunately are still opposed to evolution in\nevery form.\" Carl Vogt would not write thus. To him no man is honored\nwho does agree with him, and any man who believes in God he execrates.\n\nIn 1871, Mr. Darwin ventured on the publication of his \"Descent of Man.\"\nIn that work, he endeavors to show that the proximate progenitor of man\nis the ape. He says \"there is less difference of structure between the\ntwo, than between the higher and lower forms of apes themselves.\" Not\nonly so, but he attempts to show that the mental faculties of man are\nderived by slight variations, long continued, from the measure of\nintellect possessed by lower animals. He even says, that there is less\ndifference in intelligence between man and the higher mammals, than\nthere is between the intelligence of the ant and that of the coccus,\ninsects of the same class.[7]\n\nIn like manner he teaches that man's moral nature has been evolved by\nslow degrees from the social instincts common to many animals. (pp. 68,\n94) The moral element, thus derived, he admits might lead to very\ndifferent lines of conduct. \"If men,\" he says, \"were reared under the\nsame conditions as hives-bees, there can hardly be a doubt, that our\nunmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to\nkill all their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile\ndaughters; and no one would think of interfering. (vol. i. p. 70)\n\n\"Lower animals, especially the dog, manifest love, reverence, fidelity,\nand obedience; and it is from these elements that the religious\nsentiment in man has been slowly evolved by a process of natural\nselection.\" (vol. i. p. 65)\n\nThe grand conclusion is, \"man (body, soul, and spirit) is descended from\na hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably\narboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World.\" (vol. ii.\np. 372) Mr. Darwin adds: \"He who denounces these views (as irreligious)\nis bound to explain why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of\nman as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the\nlaws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of\nthe individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction.\" (vol. ii. p.\n378)\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[7] _Descent of Man_, etc. By Charles Darwin, M. A., F. R. S., etc. New\nYork, 1871, vol. i. p. 179.\n\n\n_The Sense in which Mr. Darwin uses the Word \"Natural.\"_\n\nWe have not yet reached the heart of Mr. Darwin's theory. The main idea\nof his system lies in the word \"natural.\" He uses that word in two\nsenses: first, as antithetical to the word artificial. Men can produce\nvery marked varieties as to structure and habits of animals. This is\nexemplified in the production of the different breeds of horses, cattle,\nsheep, and dogs; and specially, as Mr. Darwin seems to think, in the\ncase of pigeons. Of these, he says, \"The diversity of breeds is\nsomething astonishing.\" Some have long, and some very short bills; some\nhave large feet, some small; some long necks, others long wings and\ntails, while others have singularly short tails; some have thirty, and\neven forty, tail-feathers, instead of the normal number of twelve or\nfourteen. They differ as much in instinct as they do in form. Some are\ncarriers, some pouters, some tumblers, some trumpeters; and yet all are\ndescendants of the Rock Pigeon which is still extant. If, then, he\nargues, man, in a comparatively short time, has by artificial selection\nproduced all these varieties, what might be accomplished on the\nboundless scale of nature, during the measureless ages of the geologic\nperiods.\n\nSecondly, he uses the word natural as antithetical to supernatural.\nNatural selection is a selection made by natural laws, working without\nintention and design. It is, therefore, opposed not only to artificial\nselection, which is made by the wisdom and skill of man to accomplish a\ngiven purpose, but also to supernatural selection, which means either a\nselection originally intended by a power higher than nature; or which is\ncarried out by such power. In using the expression Natural Selection,\nMr. Darwin intends to exclude design, or final causes. All the changes\nin structure, instinct, or intelligence, in the plants or animals,\nincluding man, descended from the primordial germ, or animalcule, have\nbeen brought about by unintelligent physical causes. On this point he\nleaves us in no doubt. He defines nature to be \"the aggregate action and\nproduct of natural laws; and laws are the sequence of events as\nascertained by us.\" It had been objected that he often uses teleological\nlanguage, speaking of purpose, intention, contrivance, adaptation, etc.\nIn answer to this objection, he says: \"It has been said, that I speak of\nnatural selection as a power or deity; but who objects to an author\nspeaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the\nplanet?\" He admits that in the literal sense of the words, natural\nselection is a false term; but \"who ever objected to chemists, speaking\nof the elective affinities of various elements?--and yet an acid cannot\nstrictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference\ncombines.\" (p. 93) We have here an affirmation and a negation. It is\naffirmed that natural selection is the operation of natural laws,\nanalogous to the action of gravitation and of chemical affinities. It is\ndenied that it is a process originally designed, or guided by\nintelligence, such as the activity which foresees an end and consciously\nselects and controls the means of its accomplishment. Artificial\nselection, then, is an intelligent process; natural selection is not.\n\nThere are in the animal and vegetable worlds innumerable instances of at\nleast apparent contrivance, which have excited the admiration of men in\nall ages. There are three ways of accounting for them. The first is the\nScriptural doctrine, namely, that God is a Spirit, a personal,\nself-conscious, intelligent agent; that He is infinite, eternal, and\nunchangeable in his being and perfections; that He is ever present; that\nthis presence is a presence of knowledge and power. In the external\nworld there is always and everywhere indisputable evidence of the\nactivity of two kinds of force: the one physical, the other mental. The\nphysical belongs to matter, and is due to the properties with which it\nhas been endowed; the other is the everywhere present and ever acting\nmind of God. To the latter are to be referred all the manifestations of\ndesign in nature, and the ordering of events in Providence. This\ndoctrine does not ignore the efficiency of second causes; it simply\nasserts that God over-rules and controls them. Thus the Psalmist says,\n\"I am fearfully and wonderfully made.... My substance was not hid from\nthee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought (or embroidered)\nin the lower parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance yet\nbeing imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in\ncontinuance were fashioned, when as yet there were none of them.\" \"He\nwho fashioned the eye, shall not He see? He that formed the ear shall\nnot He hear?\" \"God makes the grass to grow, and herbs for the children\nof men.\" He sends rain, frost, and snow. He controls the winds and the\nwaves. He determines the casting of the lot, the flight of an arrow, and\nthe falling of a sparrow. This universal and constant control of God is\nnot only one of the most patent and pervading doctrines of the Bible,\nbut it is one of the fundamental principles of even natural religion.\n\nThe second method of accounting for contrivances in nature admits that\nthey were foreseen and purposed by God, and that He endowed matter with\nforces which He foresaw and intended should produce such results. But\nhere his agency stops. He never interferes to guide the operation of\nphysical causes. He does nothing to control the course of nature, or the\nevents of history. On this theory it may be said, (1.) That it is\nutterly inconsistent with the Scriptures. (2.) It does not meet the\nreligious and moral necessities of our nature. It renders prayer\nirrational and inoperative. It makes it vain for a man in any emergency\nto look to God for help. (3.) It is inconsistent with obvious facts. We\nsee around us innumerable evidences of the constant activity of mind.\nThis evidence of mind and of its operations, according to Lord Brougham\nand Dr. Whewell, is far more clear than that of the existence of matter\nand of its forces. If one or the other is to be denied, it is the latter\nrather than the former. Paley indeed says, that if the construction of a\nwatch be an undeniable evidence of design it would be a still more\nwonderful manifestation of skill, if a watch could be made to produce\nother watches; and, it may be added, not only other watches, but all\nkinds of time-pieces in endless variety. So it has been asked, if man\ncan make a telescope, why cannot God make a telescope which produces\nothers like itself? This is simply asking, whether matter can be made to\ndo the work of mind? The idea involves a contradiction. For a telescope\nto make a telescope, supposes it to select copper and zinc in due\nproportions and fuse them into brass; to fashion that brass into\ninter-entering tubes; to collect and combine the requisite materials for\nthe different kinds of glass needed; to melt them, grind, fashion, and\npolish them; adjust their densities and focal distances, etc., etc. A\nman who can believe that brass can do all this, might as well believe in\nGod. The most credulous men in the world are unbelievers. The great\nNapoleon could not believe in Providence; but he believed in his star,\nand in lucky and unlucky days.\n\nThis banishing God from the world is simply intolerable, and, blessed be\nhis name, impossible. An absent God who does nothing is, to us, no God.\nChrist brings God constantly near to us. He said to his disciples,\n\"Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap; which have neither\nstore-house nor barn; and God feedeth them; how much better are ye than\nthe fowls. And which of you by taking thought can add to his stature one\ncubit? Consider the lilies how they grow; they toil not, neither do they\nspin; and yet I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not\narrayed like one of these. If then God so clothe the grass, which is\nto-day in the field, and to-morrow is cast into the oven; how much more\nwill He clothe you, O ye of little faith.\" \"And seek ye not what ye\nshall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. For\nall these things do the nations of the world seek after; and your Father\nknoweth that ye have need of these things.\" It may be said that Christ\ndid not teach science. True, but He taught truth; and science, so\ncalled, when it comes in conflict with truth, is what man is when he\ncomes in conflict with God.\n\nThe advocates of these extreme opinions protest against being considered\nirreligious. Herbert Spencer says, that his doctrine of an inscrutable,\nunintelligent, unknown force, as the cause of all things, is a much more\nreligious doctrine than that of a personal, intelligent, and voluntary\nBeing of infinite power and goodness. Matthew Arnold holds that an\nunconscious \"power which makes for right,\" is a higher idea of God than\nthe Jehovah of the Bible. Christ says, God is a Spirit. Holbach thought\nthat he made a great advance on that definition, when he said, God is\nmotion.\n\nThe third method of accounting for the contrivances manifested in the\norgans of plants and animals, is that which refers them to the blind\noperation of natural causes. They are not due to the continued\ncooeperation and control of the divine mind, nor to the original purpose\nof God in the constitution of the universe. This is the doctrine of the\nMaterialists, and to this doctrine, we are sorry to say, Mr. Darwin,\nalthough himself a theist, has given in his adhesion. It is on this\naccount the Materialists almost deify him.\n\nFrom what has been said, it appears that Darwinism includes three\ndistinct elements. First, evolution; or the assumption that all organic\nforms, vegetable and animal, have been evolved or developed from one, or\na few, primordial living germs; second, that this evolution has been\neffected by natural selection, or the survival of the fittest; and\nthird, and by far the most important and only distinctive element of his\ntheory, that this natural selection is without design, being conducted\nby unintelligent physical causes. Neither the first nor the second of\nthese elements constitute Darwinism; nor do the two combined. As to the\nfirst, namely, evolution, Mr. Darwin himself, in the historical sketch\nprefixed to the fifth edition of his \"Origin of Species,\" says, that\nLamarck, in 1811 and more fully in 1815, \"taught that all species,\nincluding man, are descended from other species.\" He refers to some six\nor eight other scientists, as teaching the same doctrine. This idea of\nEvolution was prominently presented and elaborated in the \"Vestiges of\nCreation,\" first published in 1844. Ulrici, Professor in the University\nof Halle, Germany, in his work \"Gott und die Natur,\" says that the\ndoctrine of evolution took no hold on the minds of scientific men, but\nwas positively rejected by the most eminent physiologists, among whom he\nmentions J. Mueller, K. Wagner, Bischoff, Hoffmann, and others.[8] The\nRev. George Henslow, Lecturer on Botany at St. Bartholomew's Hospital,\nLondon, himself a pronounced evolutionist, says the theories of Lamarck\nand of the \"Vestiges of Creation\" have given place to that of Mr.\nDarwin; \"and there are not wanting many symptoms of decay in the\nacceptance even of his. Not only has he considerably modified his views\nin later editions of the 'Origin of Species,' distinctly expressing the\nopinion that he attributed too great influence to natural selection, but\neven men of science, Owen, Huxley,--and at least in its application to\nman, Wallace himself,--are either opposed to it in great measure, or\nelse give it but a qualified assent. Thus, it has been the fate of all\ntheories of the development of living things to lapse into oblivion.\n_Evolution_ itself, however, will stand the same.\"[9] We find in the\n\"Transactions of the Victoria Institute,\" a still more decided\nrepudiation of Darwinism on the part of Mr. Henslow. He there says: \"I\ndo not believe in Darwin's theory; and have endeavored to refute it by\nshowing its utter impossibility.\"[10] He defines Evolution by saying,\n\"It supposes all animals and plants that exist now, or have ever\nexisted, to have been produced through laws of generation from\npreexisting animals and plants respectively; that affinity amongst\norganic beings implies, or is due to community of descent; and that the\ndegree of affinity between organisms is in proportion to their nearness\nof generation, or, at least, to the persistence of common characters,\nthey being the products of originally the same parentage.\"[11] A man,\ntherefore, may be an evolutionist, without being a Darwinian. It should\nbe mentioned that Mr. Henslow expressly excludes man, both as to body\nand soul, from the law of evolution.\n\nNor is the theory of natural selection the vital principle of Mr.\nDarwin's theory, unless the word natural be taken in a sense\nantithetical to supernatural. In the historical sketch just referred to,\nMr. Darwin not only says that he had been anticipated in teaching the\ndoctrine of Evolution by Lamarck and the author of the \"Vestiges of\nCreation;\" but that the theory of natural selection, as the means of\naccounting for evolution, was not original with him. He tells us that as\nearly as 1813, Dr. W. C. Wells \"distinctly recognizes the principle of\nnatural selection;\" and that Mr. Patrick Matthew, in 1831, \"gives\nprecisely the same view of the origin of species as that propounded by\nMr. Wallace and myself.\" Ideas are like seed: they are often cast forth,\nand not finding a congenial soil produce no fruit. To Mr. Darwin is\nundoubtedly due the elaboration and thoroughly scientific defence of the\ntheory of natural selection, and to him is to be referred the deep and\nwidespread interest which it has excited.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[8] _Gott und die Natur_. Von D. Hermann Ulrici. Zweite Auflage.\nLeipzig, 1866, p. 394.\n\n[9] _The Theory of Evolution of Living Things and the Application of the\nPrinciples of Evolution to Religion_. By Rev. George Henslow, M. A., F.\nL. S., F. G. S. London, 1873, pp. 27, 28.\n\n[10] _Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, or\nPhilosophical Society of Great Britain_. Vol. iv. London, 1870, p. 278.\n\n[11] _Evolution and Religion_, p. 29.\n\n\n_Darwinism excludes Teleology._\n\nIt is however neither evolution nor natural selection, which give\nDarwinism its peculiar character and importance. It is that Darwin\nrejects all teleology, or the doctrine of final causes. He denies design\nin any of the organisms in the vegetable or animal world. He teaches\nthat the eye was formed without any purpose of producing an organ of\nvision.\n\nAlthough evidence on this point has already been adduced, yet as it is\noften overlooked, at least in this country, so that many men speak\nfavorably of Mr. Darwin's theory, who are no more Darwinians than they\nare Mussulmans; and as it is this feature of his system which brings it\ninto conflict not only with Christianity, but with the fundamental\nprinciples of natural religion, it should be clearly established. The\nsources of proof on this point are,--1st. Mr. Darwin's own writings. 2d.\nThe expositions of his theory given by its advocates. 3d. The character\nof the objections urged by its opponents.\n\nThe point to be proved is that it is the distinctive doctrine of Mr.\nDarwin, that species owe their origin, not to the original intention of\nthe divine mind; not to special acts of creation calling new forms into\nexistence at certain epochs; not to the constant and everywhere\noperative efficiency of God, guiding physical causes in the production\nof intended effects; but to the gradual accumulation of unintended\nvariations of structure and instinct, securing some advantage to their\nsubjects.\n\n\n_Darwin's own Testimony._\n\nThat such is Mr. Darwin's doctrine we prove from his own writings. And\nthe first proof from that source is found in express declarations. When\nan idea pervades a book and constitutes its character, detached passages\nconstitute a very small part of the evidence of its being inculcated. In\nthe present case, however, such passages are sufficient to satisfy even\nthose who have not had occasion to read Mr. Darwin's books. In referring\nto the similarity of structure in animals of the same class, he says,\n\"Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity\nof pattern in members of the same class, by utility or the doctrine of\nfinal causes.\"[12]\n\nOn the last page of his work, he says: \"It is interesting to\ncontemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with\nbirds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and\nwith worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these\nelaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and\ndependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced\nby laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being\ngrowth with reproduction; variability from the indirect and direct\naction of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a ratio of\nincrease so high as to lead to a struggle for life, and as a consequence\nto natural selection, entailing divergence of character and extinction\nof less improved forms. Thus from the war of nature, from famine and\ndeath, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, the\nproduction of the higher animals directly follows. There is a grandeur\nin this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally\nbreathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that whilst\nthis planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity,\nfrom so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most\nwonderful have been, and are being evolved.\" (p. 579)\n\nIn another of his works, he asks, \"Did He (God) ordain that crop and\ntail-feathers of the pigeon should vary, in order that the fancier might\nmake his grotesque pouter and fan-tail breeds? Did He cause the frame\nand mental qualities of the dog to vary, in order that a breed might be\nformed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull,\nfor man's brutal sport? But if we give up the principle in one case; if\nwe do not admit that the variations of the primeval dog were\nintentionally guided in order, for instance, that the greyhound, that\nperfect image of symmetry and vigor, might be formed; no shadow of\nreason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature\nand the results of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork\nthrough natural selection of the most perfectly adapted animals in the\nworld, man included, were intentionally and specially guided. However\nmuch we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray, in his\nbelief 'that variations have been led along certain beneficial lines, as\na stream is led along useful lines of irrigation.'\"[13]\n\nVariations, which by their gradual accumulation give rise to new\nspecies, genera, families, and orders, are themselves, step by step,\naccidental. Mr. Darwin sometimes says they happen by chance; sometimes\nhe says they happen of necessity; at others he says, \"We are profoundly\nignorant of their causes.\" These are only different ways of saying that\nthey are not intentional. When a man lets anything fall from his hands,\nand says it was accidental, he does not mean that it was causeless, he\nonly means that it was not intentional. And that is precisely what\nDarwin means when he says that species arise out of accidental\nvariations. His whole book is an argument against teleology. The whole\nquestion is, How are we to account for the innumerable varieties, kinds,\nand genera of plants and animals, including man? Were they intended? or,\nDid they arise from the gradual accumulations of unintentional\nvariations? His answer to these questions is plain. On page 245, he\nsays: \"Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that\nthe more complex organs and instincts have been perfected not by means\nsuperior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by innumerable\nslight variations, each good for the individual possessor.\nNevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination[14]\ninsuperably great, cannot be considered real, if we admit the following\npropositions, namely, that all parts of the organizations and instincts\noffer, at least, individual differences; that there is a struggle for\nexistence, which leads to the preservation of profitable deviations of\nstructure or instinct; and, lastly, that gradations in the state of\nperfection of each organ may have existed, each good of its kind.\" He\nsays, over and over, that if beauty or any variation of structure can be\nshown to be intended, it would \"annihilate his theory.\" His doctrine is\nthat such unintended variations, which happen to be useful in the\nstruggle for life, are preserved, on the principle of the survival of\nthe fittest. He urges the usual objections to teleology derived from\nundeveloped or useless organs, as web-feet in the upland goose and\nfrigate-bird, which never swim.\n\nWhat, however, perhaps more than anything, makes clear his rejection of\ndesign is the manner in which he deals with the complicated organs of\nplants and animals. Why don't he say, they are the product of the divine\nintelligence? If God made them, it makes no difference, so far as the\nquestion of design is concerned, how He made them: whether at once or by\na process of evolution. But instead of referring them to the purpose of\nGod, he laboriously endeavors to prove that they may be accounted for\nwithout any design or purpose whatever.\n\n\"To suppose,\" he says, \"that the eye with all its inimitable\ncontrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for\nadmitting different degrees of light, and for the correction of\nspherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural\nselection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.\" (p.\n222) Nevertheless he attempts to explain the process. \"It is scarcely\npossible,\" he says, \"to avoid comparing the eye with the telescope. We\nknow that this instrument has been perfected by the long continued\nefforts of the highest of human intellects; and we naturally infer that\nthe eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not\nthis inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the\nCreator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must\ncompare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to\ntake a thick layer of transparent tissue, with spaces filled with fluid,\nand with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part\nof this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to\nseparate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at\ndifferent distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer\nslowly changing in form. Further, we must suppose that there is a power\nrepresented by natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, always\nintently watching each slight alteration in the transparent layers, and\ncarefully preserving each, which, under varied circumstances, tends to\nproduce a distinct image. We must suppose each new state of the\ninstrument to be multiplied by the million; each to be preserved until a\nbetter is produced, and the old ones to be all destroyed. In living\nbodies, variations will cause the slight alterations, generation will\nmultiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out\nwith unerring skill each improvement.\"[15] (p. 226) \"Let this process,\"\nhe says, \"go on for millions of years,\" and we shall at last have a\nperfect eye.\n\nIt would be absurd to say anything disrespectful of such a man as Mr.\nDarwin, and scarcely less absurd to indulge in any mere extravagance of\nlanguage; yet we are expressing our own experience, when we say that we\nregard Mr. Darwin's books the best refutation of Mr. Darwin's theory. He\nconstantly shuts us up to the alternative of believing that the eye is a\nwork of design or the product of the unintended action of blind physical\ncauses. To any ordinarily constituted mind, it is absolutely impossible\nto believe that it is not a work of design. Darwin himself, it is\nevident, dear as his theory is, can hardly believe it. \"It is\nindispensable,\" he says, \"to arrive at a just conclusion as to the\nformation of the eye, that the reason should conquer the imagination;\nbut I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any\ndegree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to\nso startling an extent.\" (p. 225)\n\nIt will be observed that every step in his account of the formation of\nthe eye is an arbitrary assumption. We must first assume a thick layer\nof tissue; then that the tissue is transparent; then that it has\ncavities filled with fluid; that beneath the tissue is a nerve sensitive\nto light; then that the fluid is constantly varying in density and\nthickness; that its surfaces are constantly changing their contour; that\nits different portions are ever shifting their relative distances; that\nevery favorable change is seized upon and rendered permanent,--thus\nafter millions of years we may get an eye as perfect as that of an\neagle. In like manner we may suppose a man to sit down to account for\nthe origin and contents of the Bible, assuming as his \"working\nhypothesis,\" that it is not the product of mind either human or divine,\nbut that it was made by a type-setting machine worked by steam, and\npicking out type hap-hazard. In this way in a thousand years one\nsentence might be produced, in another thousand a second, and in ten\nthousand more, the two might get together in the right position. Thus in\nthe course of \"millions of years\" the Bible might have been produced,\nwith all its historical details, all its elevated truths, all its\ndevout and sublime poetry, and above all with the delineation of the\ncharacter of Christ, the [Greek: idea ton ideon], the ideal of majesty\nand loveliness, before which the whole world, believing and unbelieving,\nperforce bows down in reverence. And when reason has sufficiently\nsubdued the imagination to admit all this, then by the same theory we\nmay account for all the books in all languages in all the libraries in\nthe world. Thus we should have Darwinism applied in the sphere of\nliterature. This is the theory which we are told is to sweep away\nChristianity and the Church!\n\nMr. Darwin gives the same unsatisfactory account of the marvellous\n\"contrivances\" in the vegetable world. In one species of Orchids, the\nlabellum or lower lip is hollowed into a great bucket continually filled\nwith water, secreted from two horns which stand above it; when the\nbucket is sufficiently filled, the water flows out through a pipe or\nspout on one side. The bees, which crowd into the flower for sake of the\nnectar, jostle each other, so that some fall into the water; and their\nwings becoming wet they are unable to fly, and are obliged to crawl\nthrough the spout. In doing this they come in contact with the pollen,\nwhich, adhering to their backs, is carried off to other flowers. This\ncomplicated contrivance by which the female plants are fertilized has,\naccording to the theory, been brought about by the slow process of\nnatural selection or survival of the fittest.\n\nStill more wonderful is the arrangement in another species of Orchids.\nWhen the bee begins to gnaw the labellum, he unavoidably touches a\ntapering projection, which, when touched, transmits a vibration which\nruptures a membrane, which sets free a spring by which a mass of pollen\nis shot, with unerring aim, over the back of the bee, who then departs\non his errand of fertilization.\n\nA very large class of plants are fertilized by means of insects. These\nflowers are beautiful, not for the sake of beauty,--for that Mr. Darwin\nsays would annihilate his theory,--but those which happen to be\nbeautiful attract insects, and thus become fertilized and perpetuated,\nwhile the plainer ones are neglected and perish. So with regard to\nbirds. The females are generally plain, because those of bright colors\nare so exposed during the period of incubation that they are destroyed\nby their enemies. In like manner male birds are usually adorned with\nbrilliant plumage. This is accounted for on the ground that they are\nmore attractive, and thus they propagate their race, while the plainer\nones have few or no descendants. Thus all design is studiously and\nlaboriously excluded from every department of nature.\n\nThe preceding pages contain only a small part of the evidence furnished\nby Mr. Darwin's own writings, that his doctrine involves the denial of\nall final causes. The whole drift of his books is to prove that all the\norgans of plants and animals, all their instincts and mental endowments,\nmay be accounted for by the blind operation of natural causes, without\nany intention, purpose, or cooeperation of God. This is what Professor\nHuxley and others call \"the creative idea,\" to which the widespread\ninfluence of his writings is to be referred.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[12] _Origin of Species_, p. 517.\n\n[13] _The Variations of Animals and Plants under Domestication._ By\nCharles Darwin, F. R. S., etc. New York, 1868, vol. ii. pp. 515, 516.\n\n[14] What can the word \"imagination\" mean in this sentence, if it does\nnot mean \"Common Sense?\"\n\n[15] Mr. Darwin's habit of personifying nature has given, as his friend\nMr. Wallace says, his readers a good deal of trouble. He defines nature\nto be the aggregate of physical forces; and in the single passage\nquoted, he speaks of Natural Selection \"as intently watching\" \"picking\nout with unerring skill,\" and \"carefully preserving.\" It is true, he\ntells us this is all to be understood metaphorically.\n\n\n_Testimony of the Advocates of the Theory._\n\nIt is time to turn to the exposition of Darwinism by its avowed\nadvocates, in proof of the assertion that it excludes all teleology.\n\nThe first of these witnesses is Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace, himself a\ndistinguished naturalist. Mr. Darwin informs his readers that as early\nas 1844, he had collected his material and worked out his theory, but\nhad not published it to the world, although it had been communicated to\nsome of his friends. In 1858 he received a memoir from Mr. Wallace, who\nwas then studying the natural history of the Malay Archipelago. From\nthat memoir he learnt that Mr. Wallace had \"arrived at almost exactly\nthe same conclusions as I (he himself) have on the origin of species.\"\nThis led to the publishing his book on that subject contemporaneously\nwith Mr. Wallace's memoir. There has been no jealousy or rivalry between\nthese gentlemen. Mr. Wallace gracefully acknowledges the priority of Mr.\nDarwin's claim, and attributes to him the credit of having elaborated\nand sustained it in a way to secure for it universal attention. These\nfacts are mentioned in order to show the competency of Mr. Wallace as a\nwitness as to the true character of Darwinism.\n\nMr. Wallace, in \"The Theory of Natural Selection,\" devotes a chapter to\nthe consideration of the objections urged by the Duke of Argyll, in his\nwork on the \"Reign of Law,\" against that theory. Those objections are\nprincipally two: first, that design necessarily implies an intelligent\ndesigner; and second, that beauty not being an advantage to its\npossessor in the struggle for life, cannot be accounted for on the\nprinciple of the survival of the fittest. The Duke, he says, maintains\nthat contrivance and beauty indicate \"the constant supervision and\ninterference of the Creator, and cannot possibly be explained by the\nunassisted action of any combination of laws. Now, Mr. Darwin's work,\"\nhe adds, \"has for its main object to show that all the phenomena of\nliving things--all their wonderful organs and complicated structures,\ntheir infinite variety of form, size, and color, their intricate and\ninvolved relations to each other--may have been produced by the action\nof a few general laws of the simplest kind, laws which are in most cases\nmere statements of admitted facts.\" (p. 265) Those laws are those with\nwhich we are familiar: Heredity, Variations, Over Production, Struggle\nfor Life, Survival of the Fittest. \"It is probable,\" he says, \"that\nthese primary facts or laws are but results of the very nature of life,\nand of the essential properties of organized and unorganized matter. Mr.\nHerbert Spencer, in his 'First Principles' and in his 'Biology,' has, I\nthink, made us able to understand how this may be; but at present we\nmay accept these simple laws, without going further back, and the\nquestion then is, Whether the variety, the harmony, the contrivance, and\nthe beauty we perceive, can have been produced by the action of these\nlaws alone, or whether we are required to believe in the incessant\ninterference and direct action of the mind and will of the Creator.\" (p.\n267)[16] Mr. Wallace says, that the Duke of Argyll maintains that God\n\"has personally applied general laws to produce effects which those laws\nare not in themselves capable of producing; that the universe alone with\nall its laws intact, would be a sort of chaos, without variety, without\nharmony, without design, without beauty; that there is not (and\ntherefore we may presume that there could not be) any self-developing\npower in the universe. I believe, on the contrary, that the universe is\nso constituted as to be self-regulating; that as long it contains life,\nthe forms under which that life is manifested have an inherent power of\nadjustment to each other and to their surroundings; and that this\nadjustment necessarily leads to the greatest amount of variety and\nbeauty and enjoyment, because it does depend on general laws, and not on\na continual supervision and rearrangement of details.\" (p. 268) \"The\nstrange springs and traps and pitfalls found in the flowers of Orchids,\ncannot,\" he says, \"be necessary _per se_, since exactly the same end is\ngained in ten thousand other flowers which do not possess them. Is it\nnot then an extraordinary idea, to imagine the Creator of the universe\ncontriving the various complicated parts of these flowers, as a mechanic\nmight contrive an ingenious toy or a difficult puzzle? Is it not a more\nworthy conception, that they are the results of those general laws which\nwere so cooerdinated at the first introduction of life upon the earth as\nto result necessarily in the utmost possible development of varied\nforms.\" (p. 270) \"I for one,\" he says, \"cannot believe that the world\nwould come to chaos if left to law alone.... If any modification of\nstructure could be the result of law, why not all? If some\nself-adaptations should arise, why not others? If any varieties of\ncolor, why not all the varieties we see? No attempt is made to explain\nthis except by reference to the fact that 'purpose' and 'contrivance'\nare everywhere visible, and by an illogical deduction they could only\nhave arisen by the direct action of some mind, because the direct action\nof our minds produce similar 'contrivances;' but it is forgotten that\nadaptation, however produced, must have the appearance of design.\" (p.\n280)[17] After referring to the fact that florists and breeders can\nproduce varieties in plants and animals, so that, \"whether they wanted a\nbull-dog to torture another animal, a greyhound to catch a hare, or a\nbloodhound to hunt down their oppressed fellow-creatures, the required\nvariations have always appeared,\" he adds: \"To be consistent, our\nopponents must maintain that every one of the variations that have\nrendered possible the changes produced by man, have been determined at\nthe right time and place by the Creator. Every race produced by the\nflorist or breeder, the dog or the pigeon fancier, the rat-catcher, the\nsporting man, or the slave-hunter, must have been provided for by\nvarieties occurring when wanted; and as these variations were never\nwithheld, it would prove that the sanction of an all-wise and all\npowerful Being has been given to that which the highest human minds\nconsider to be trivial, mean, or debasing.\" (p. 290)[18]\n\nThe Nebular Hypothesis, as propounded by La Place, proposed to account\nfor the origin of the universe, by a process of evolution under the\ncontrol of mere physical forces. That hypothesis has, so far as\nevolution is concerned, been adopted by men who sincerely believe in God\nand in the Bible. But they hold not only that God created matter and\nendowed it with its properties, but that He designed the universe, and\nso controlled the operation of physical laws that they accomplished his\npurpose. So there are Christian men who believe in the evolution of one\nkind of plants and animals out of earlier and simpler forms; but they\nbelieve that everything was designed by God, and that it is due to his\npurpose and power that all the forms of vegetable and animal life are\nwhat they are. But this is not the question. What Darwin and the\nadvocates of his theory deny, is all design. The organs, even the most\ncomplicated and wonderful, were not intended. They are said to be due to\nthe undirected and unintended operation of physical laws. This is Mr.\nWallace's argument. He endeavors to show that it is unworthy of God that\nHe should be supposed to have contrived the mechanism of the orchids, as\na mechanist contrives a curious puzzle.\n\nWe recently heard Prof. Joseph Henry, in a brief address, say\nsubstantially: \"If I take brass, glass, and other materials, and fuse\nthem, the product is a slag. This is what physical laws do. If I take\nthose same materials, and form them into a telescope, that is what mind\ndoes.\" This is the whole question in a nutshell. That design implies an\nintelligent designer, is a self evident truth. Every man believes it;\nand no man can practically disbelieve it. Even those naturalists who\ntheoretically deny it, if they find in a cave so simple a thing as a\nflint arrow-head, are as sure that it was made by a man as they are of\ntheir own existence. And yet they want us to believe that an eagle's eye\nis the product of blind natural causes. No combination of physical\nforces ever made a ship or a locomotive. It may, indeed, be said that\nthey are dead matter, whereas plants and animals live. But what is life\nbut one form of the organizing efficiency of God?\n\nMr. Wallace does not go as far as Mr. Darwin. He recoils from regarding\nman either as to body or soul as the product of mere natural causes. He\ninsists that \"a superior intelligence is necessary to account for man.\"\n(p. 359) This of course implies that the agency of no such higher\nintelligence is admitted in the production of plants or of animals lower\nthan man.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[16] The question is not, as Mr. Wallace says, \"How has the Creator\nworked?\" but it is, as he himself states, whether the essential\nproperties of matter have alone worked out all the wonders of creation;\nor, whether they are to be referred to the mind and will of God. It is\nworthy of remark how Messrs. Darwin and Wallace refer to Mr. Spencer as\ntheir philosopher. We have seen what Spencer's philosophy is.\n\n[17] It is, therefore, clear that design is what Mr. Darwin and Mr.\nWallace repudiate.\n\n[18] That God permits men in the use of the laws of nature to distil\nalcohol and brew poisons, does not prove that He approves of drunkenness\nor murder.\n\n\n_Professor Huxley._\n\nThe second witness as to the character of Mr. Darwin's theory is\nProfessor Huxley. We have some hesitation in including the name of this\ndistinguished naturalist among the advocates of Darwinism.[19] On the\none hand, in his Essay on the Origin of Species, printed in the\n\"Westminster Review,\" in 1860, and reprinted in his \"Lay Sermons,\"\netc., in 1870, he says: \"There is no fault to be found with Mr. Darwin's\nmethod, but it is another thing whether he has fulfilled all the\nconditions imposed by that method. Is it satisfactorily proved that\nspecies may[20] be originated by selection? that none of the phenomena\nexhibited by species are inconsistent with the origin of species in this\nway? If these questions can be answered in the affirmative, Mr. Darwin's\nview steps out of the rank of hypotheses into that of theories; but so\nlong as the evidence at present adduced falls short of enforcing that\naffirmative, so long, to our minds, the new doctrine must be content to\nremain among the former,--an extremely valuable, and in the highest\ndegree probable, doctrine; indeed, the only extant hypothesis which is\nworth anything in a scientific point of view; but still a hypothesis,\nand not yet a theory of species. After much consideration,\" he adds,\n\"and assuredly with no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear\nconviction that, as the evidence now stands, it is not absolutely proven\nthat a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by species\nin Nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or\nnatural.\"[21]\n\nAgain, in his work on \"Man's Place in Nature,\" he expresses himself much\nto the same effect: \"A true physical cause is admitted to be such only\non one condition, that it shall account for all the phenomena which come\nwithin the range of its operation. If it is inconsistent with any one\nphenomenon it must be rejected; if it fails to explain any one\nphenomenon it is so far to be suspected, though it may have a perfect\nright to provisional acceptance.... Our acceptance, therefore, of the\nDarwinian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link in the\nchain of evidence is wanting; and so long as all the animals and plants\ncertainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock are\nfertile, and their progeny are fertile one with another, that link will\nbe wanting. For so long selective breeding will not be proved to be\ncompetent to all that is required if it produce natural species.\"[22] In\nimmediate connection with the above passage, there is another which\nthrows a clear light on Professor Huxley's cosmical views. \"The whole\nanalogy of natural operations furnish so complete and crushing an\nargument against the intervention of any but what are called secondary\ncauses, in the production of all the phenomena of the universe; that, in\nview of the intimate relations of man and the rest of the living world,\nand between the forces exerted by the latter and all other forces, I can\nsee no reason for doubting that all are cooerdinate terms of nature's\ngreat progression, from formless to formed, from the inorganic to the\norganic, from blind force to conscious intellect and will.\"[23]\n\nOught not this to settle the matter? Are we to give up the Bible and all\nour hopes for the sake of an hypothesis that all living things,\nincluding man, on the face of the earth, are descended from a primordial\nanimalcule, by natural selection, when such a man as Huxley, who (as\nVoltaire said of the prophet Habbakuk) is _capable de tout_, says that\nit has not been proved that any one species has thus originated?\n\nBut on the other hand, while he honestly admits that Darwin's doctrine\nis a mere hypothesis and not a theory, he has nevertheless written at\nleast three essays or reviews in its exposition and vindication. He is\nfreely referred to on the continent of Europe, at least, as an ardent\nadvocate of the doctrine; and he quotes without protest such\ndesignations of himself. At any rate, as he assures his readers that he\nhas no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, as he has devoted much time and\nattention to the subject, and as he is one of the most prominent\nnaturalists of the age, there can be no question as to his competency as\na witness as to what Darwinism is.\n\nHis testimony that Mr. Darwin's doctrine excludes all teleology, or\nfinal causes, is explicit. In his review of the \"Criticisms on the\nOrigin of Species,\" he says, \"that when he first read Mr. Darwin's book,\nthat which struck him most forcibly was the conviction that teleology,\nas commonly understood, had received its death-blow at Mr. Darwin's\nhands. For the teleological argument runs thus: An organ is precisely\nfitted to perform a function or purpose; therefore, it was specially\nconstructed to perform that function. In Paley's famous illustration,\nthe adaptation of all the parts of a watch to the function or purpose of\nshowing the time, is held to be evidence that the watch was specially\ncontrived to that end; on the ground that the only cause we know of\ncompetent to produce such an effect as a watch which shall keep time, is\na contriving intelligence adapting the means directly to that end.\"[24]\nThis, Mr. Huxley tells us, is precisely what Darwin denies with\nreference to the organs of plants and animals. The eye was not formed\nfor the purpose of seeing, or the ear for hearing. It so happened that a\nnerve became sensitive to light; then in course of time, it happened\nthat a transparent tissue came over it; and thus in \"millions of years\"\nan eye, as we have seen above, happened to be formed. No such organ was\never intended or designed by God or man. \"An apparatus,\" says Professor\nHuxley, \"thoroughly adapted to a particular purpose, might be the result\nof a method of trial and error worked by unintelligent agents, as well\nas by the application of means appropriate to the end by an intelligent\nagent.\" \"For the notion that every organism has been created as it is\nand launched straight at a purpose, Mr. Darwin substitutes the\nconception of something, which may fairly be termed a method of trial\nand error. Organisms vary incessantly; of these variations the few meet\nwith surrounding conditions which suit them, and thrive; the many are\nunsuited, and become extinguished.\" \"For the teleologist an organism\nexists, because it was made for the conditions in which it is found; for\nthe Darwinian an organism exists, because, out of many of its kind, it\nis the only one which has been able to persist in the conditions in\nwhich it is found.\" \"If we apprehend,\" Huxley further says, \"the spirit\nof the 'Origin of Species' rightly, then, nothing can be more entirely\nand absolutely opposed to teleology, as it is commonly understood, than\nthe Darwinian theory.\" (p. 303)\n\nIt has already been stated that Mr. Wallace does not apply the doctrine\nof evolution to man; neither does Mr. Mivart, a distinguished\nnaturalist, who is a member of the Latin Church. The manner in which\nProfessor Huxley speaks of these gentlemen shows how thoroughly, in his\njudgment, Mr. Darwin banishes God from his works: \"Mr. Wallace and Mr.\nMivart are as stout evolutionists as Mr. Darwin himself; but Mr. Wallace\ndenies that man can have been evolved from a lower animal by that\nprocess of natural selection, which he, with Mr. Darwin, holds to be\nsufficient for the evolution of all animals below man; while Mr. Mivart,\nadmitting that natural selection has been one of the conditions of the\nanimals below man, maintains that natural selection must, even in their\ncase, have been supplemented by some other cause,--of the nature of\nwhich, unfortunately, he does not give us any idea. Thus Mr. Mivart is\nless of a Darwinian than Mr. Wallace, for he has faith in the power of\nnatural selection. But he is more of an evolutionist than Mr. Wallace,\nbecause Mr. Wallace thinks it necessary to call in an intelligent agent,\na sort of supernatural Sir John Sebright, to produce even the animal\nframe of man; while Mr. Mivart requires no Divine assistance till he\ncomes to man's soul.\"[25]\n\nIn the \"Academy\" for October, 1869, there is a review by Professor\nHuxley of Dr. Haeckel's \"Natuerlische Schoepfungsgeschichte,\" in which he\nsays: \"Professor Haeckel enlarges on the service which the 'Origin of\nSpecies' has done in favoring what he terms 'the causal or mechanical'\nview of living nature as opposed to the 'teleological or vitalistic'\nview. And no doubt it is quite true the doctrine of evolution is the\nmost formidable of all the commoner and coarser forms of teleology.\nPerhaps the most remarkable service to the philosophy of Biology\nrendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of Teleology and\nMorphology, and the explanation of the facts of both which his view\noffers.\n\n\"The teleology which supposes that the eye, such as we see it in man or\nin the higher vertebrata, was made with the precise structure which it\nexhibits, to make the animal which possesses it to see, has undoubtedly\nreceived its death-blow. But it is necessary to remember that there is a\nhigher teleology, which is not touched by the doctrine of evolution, but\nis actually based on the fundamental proposition of evolution. That\nproposition is, that the whole world, living and not living, is the\nresult of the mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of forces\npossessed by the molecules of which the primitive nebulosity of the\nuniverse was composed. If this be true, it is no less certain that the\nexisting world lay potentially in the cosmic vapor; and that a\nsufficient intelligence could, from a knowledge of the properties of\nthat vapor, have predicted, say, the state of fauna of Great Britain in\n1869, with as much certainty as one can say what will happen to the\nvapor of the breath on a cold winter's day.\" This is the doctrine of the\nself-evolution of the universe. We know not what may lie behind this in\nMr. Huxley's mind; but we are very sure that there is not an idea in the\nabove paragraph which Epicurus of old, and Buechner, Vogt, Haeckel, and\nother \"Materialisten von Profession,\" would not cheerfully adopt. His\ndistinction between a higher and lower teleology is of no account in\nthis discussion. What is the teleology to which, he says, Mr. Darwin has\ngiven the death-blow, the extracts given above clearly show. The eye,\nHuxley says, was not made for the purpose of seeing, or the ear for the\npurpose of hearing. \"According to teleology,\" he says, \"each organism is\nlike a rifle bullet fired straight at a mark; according to Darwin,\norganisms are like grapeshot, of which one hits something and the rest\nfall wide.\"[26]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[19] Mr. Huxley, if we may judge from what he says of himself, is\nsomewhat liable to be misunderstood. He says he was fourteen years\nlaboring to resist the charge of Positivism made against the class of\nscientific men to which he belongs. He also tells us in his letter to\nProfessor Tyndall, prefixed to his volume of _Lay Sermons and\nAddresses_, that the \"Essay on the Physical Basis of Life,\" included in\nthat volume, was intended as a protest, from the philosophical side,\nagainst what is commonly called Materialism. It turned out, however,\nthat the public regarded it as an argument in favor of Materialism. This\nwe think was a very natural, if not an unavoidable mistake, on the part\nof the public. For in that Essay, he says that Protoplasm, or the\nphysical basis of life, \"is a kind of matter common to all living\nbeings, that the powers or faculties of all kinds of living matter,\ndiverse as they may be in degree, are substantially of the same kind.\"\nProtoplasm as far as examined contains the four elements,--carbon,\nhydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. These are lifeless bodies, \"but when\nbrought together under certain conditions, they give rise to the still\nmore complex body Protoplasm; and this protoplasm exhibits the phenomena\nof life.\" There is no more reason, he teaches, for assuming the\nexistence of a mysterious something called vitality to account for vital\nphenomena, than there is for the assumption of something called Aquasity\nto account for the phenomena of water. Life is said to be \"the product\nof a certain disposition of material molecules.\" The matter of life is\n\"composed of ordinary matter, differing from it only in the manner in\nwhich its atoms are aggregated. I take it,\" he says, \"to be demonstrable\nthat it is utterly impossible to prove that anything whatever may not be\nthe effect of a material and necessary cause, and that human logic is\nequally incompetent to prove that any act is really spontaneous. A\nreally spontaneous act is one, which, by the assumption, has no cause;\nand the attempt to prove such a negative as this, is on the face of the\nmatter absurd. And while it is thus a philosophical impossibility to\ndemonstrate that any given phenomenon is not the effect of a material\ncause, any one who is acquainted with the history of science will admit\nthat its progress has, in all ages, meant, and now more than ever means,\nthe extension of what we call matter and causation, and the concomitant\ngradual banishment from all regions of human thought of what we call\nspirit and spontaneity.\"\n\n[20] It cannot escape the attention of any one that Mr. Darwin, Mr.\nWallace, Professor Huxley, and all the other advocates or defenders of\nDarwinism, do not pretend to prove anything more than that species _may_\nbe originated by selection, not that there is no other satisfactory\naccount of their origin. Mr. Darwin admits that referring them to the\nintention and efficiency of God, accounts for everything, but, he says,\nthat is not science.\n\n[21] _Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews_. By Thomas Henry Huxley, LL.\nD., F. R. S. London, 1870, p. 323.\n\n[22] _Evidence of Man's Place in Nature_. London, 1864, p. 107.\n\n[23] Since writing the above paragraph our eye fell on the following\nnote on the 89th page of the Duke of Argyle's _Reign of Law_, which it\ngives us pleasure to quote. It seems that a writer in the _Spectator_\nhad charged Professor Huxley with Atheism. In the number of that paper\nfor February 10, 1866, the Professor replies: \"I do not know that I care\nvery much about popular odium, so there is no great merit in saying that\nif I really saw fit to deny the existence of a God I should certainly do\nso, for the sake of my own intellectual freedom, and be the honest\natheist you are pleased to say I am. As it happens, however, I cannot\ntake this position with honesty, inasmuch as it is, and always has been,\na favorite tenet, that Atheism is as absurd, logically speaking, as\nPolytheism.\" In the same paper he says, \"The denying the possibility of\nmiracles seems to me quite as unjustifiable as speculative Atheism.\" How\nthis can be reconciled with the passages quoted above, we are unable to\nsee.\n\n[24] _Lay Sermons_, etc., p. 330.\n\n[25] _Contemporary Review_, vol. xviii. 1871, p. 444. In this same\narticle Mr. Huxley says: \"Elijah's great question, Will ye serve God or\nBaal? Choose ye, is uttered audibly enough in the ears of every one of\nus as we come to manhood. Let every man who tries to answer it seriously\nask himself whether he can be satisfied with the Baal of authority, and\nwith all the good things his worshippers are promised in this world and\nthe next. If he can, let him, if he be so inclined, amuse himself with\nsuch scientific implements as authority tells him are safe and will not\ncut his fingers; but let him not imagine that he is, or can be, both a\ntrue son of the Church and a loyal soldier of science.\" \"And, on the\nother hand, if the blind acceptance of authority appear to him in its\ntrue colors, as mere private judgment _in excelsis_, and if he have\ncourage to stand alone face to face with the abyss of the Eternal and\nUnknowable, let him be content, once for all, not only to renounce the\ngood things promised by 'Infallibility,' but even to bear the bad things\nwhich it prophesies; content to follow reason and fact in singleness and\nhonesty of purpose, wherever they may lead, in the sure faith that a\nhell of honest men will to him be more endurable than a paradise full of\nangelic shams.\" There can be no doubt that the Apostle Paul believed in\nthe infallibility of the Scriptures. Imagine Professor Huxley calling\nSt. Paul to his face, a sham! What are all the Huxleys who have ever\nlived or ever can live, to that one Paul in power for good over human\nthought, character, and destiny!\n\nProfessor Huxley goes on in the next paragraph to say: \"Mr. Mivart\nasserts that 'without belief in a personal God there is no religion\nworthy of the name.' This is a matter of opinion. But it may be\nasserted, with less reason to fear contradiction, that the worship of a\npersonal God, who, on Mr. Mivart's hypothesis, must have used words\nstudiously calculated to deceive his creatures and worshippers, is 'no\nreligion worthy of the name.' 'Incredibile est, Deum illis verbis ad\npopulum fuisse locutum quibis deciperetur,' is a verdict in which for\nonce Jesuit casuistry concurs with the healthy moral sense of all\nmankind.\" (p. 458). Mr. Huxley calls believers in the Scriptures, and\n(apparently) believers in a personal God, bigots, old ladies of both\nsexes, bibliolators, fools, etc., etc.\n\n[26] _Lay Sermons_, etc. p. 331.\n\n\n_Buechner._\n\nDr. Louis Buechner, president of the medical association of\nHessen-Darmstadt, etc., etc., is not only a man of science but a popular\nwriter. Perhaps no book of its class, in our day, has been so widely\ncirculated as his volume on \"Kraft und Stoff,\" Matter and Force. It has\nbeen translated into all the languages of Europe. He holds that matter\nand force are inseparable; there cannot be the one without the other;\nboth are eternal and imperishable; neither can be either increased or\ndiminished; life originated spontaneously by the combination of\nmolecules of matter under favorable conditions; all the phenomena of the\nuniverse, inorganic and organic, whether physical, vital, or mental, are\ndue to matter and its forces. Consequently there is no God, no creation,\nno mind distinct from matter, no conscious existence of man after death.\nAll this is asserted in the most explicit terms. Dr. Buechner has\npublished a work on Darwinism in two volumes. Darwin's theory, he says,\n\"is the most thoroughly naturalistic that can be imagined, and far more\natheistic than that of his decried predecessor Lamarck, who admitted at\nleast a general law of progress and development; whereas, according to\nDarwin, the whole development is due to the gradual summation of\ninnumerable minute and accidental operations.\"[27]\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[27] _Sechs Vorlesungen ueber die Darwinische Theorie_. Von Ludwig\nBuechner. Zweite Auflage, Leipzig, 1848, vol. i. p. 125.\n\n\n_Carl Vogt._\n\nIn his preface to his work on the \"Descent of Man,\" Mr. Darwin quotes\nthis author as a high authority. We see him elsewhere referred to as one\nof the first physiologists of Germany. Vogt devotes the concluding\nlecture of the second volume of his work on Man, to the consideration\nof Darwinism. He expresses his opinion of it, after high commendation,\nin the following terms. He says that it cannot be doubted that Darwin's\n\"theory turns the Creator--and his occasional intervention in the\nrevolutions of the earth and in the production of species--without any\nhesitation out of doors, inasmuch as it does not leave the smallest room\nfor the agency of such a Being. The first living germ being granted, out\nof it the creation develops itself progressively by natural selection,\nthrough all the geological periods of our planets, by the simple law of\ndescent--no new species arises by creation and none perishes by divine\nannihilation--the natural course of things, the process of evolution of\nall organisms and of the earth itself, is of itself sufficient for the\nproduction of all we see. Thus Man is not a special creation, produced\nin a different way, and distinct from other animals, endowed with an\nindividual soul and animated by the breath of God; on the contrary, Man\nis only the highest product of the progressive evolution of animal life\nspringing from the group of apes next below him.\"[28]\n\nAfter this no one can be surprised to hear him say, that \"the pulpits of\nthe orthodox, the confessionals of the priests, the platforms of the\ninterior missions, the presidential chairs of the consistories, resound\nwith protestations against the assaults made by Materialism and\nDarwinism against the very foundations of society.\" (p. 286) This he\ncalls \"Das Wehgeschrei der Moralisten\" (the Wail of the Moralists). The\ndesignation Moralists is a felicitous one, as applied to the opponents\nof Vogt and his associates. It distinguishes them as men who have not\nlost their moral sense; who refuse to limit their faith to what can be\nproved by the five senses; who bow to the authority of the law written\nby the finger of God, on the hearts of men, which neither sophistry nor\nwickedness can effectually erase. All Vogt thinks it necessary to reply\nto these Moralists is, \"Lasst sie bellen, bis sie ausgebellt haben\" (Let\nthem bark till they are tired). \"Ende.\"\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[28] _Vorlesungen ueber den Menschen, seine Stellung in der Schoepfung\nund in der Geschichte der Erde_. Von Carl Vogt. Giessen, 1863, vol. ii.\np. 260.\n\n\n_Haeckel._\n\nDr. Ernst Haeckel, Professor in the University of Jena, is said to stand\nat the head of the living naturalists of Germany. His work on \"Natural\nHistory of Creation\" contains a course of lectures delivered to the\nprofessors, students, and citizens of Jena. It is, therefore, somewhat\npopular in its character. The ability of the writer is manifest on every\npage. The distinctness of his perceptions, precision of language,\nperspicuity of style, and the strength of his convictions, give the\nimpression of a man fully master of his subject, who has thought himself\nthrough, and is perfectly satisfied with the conclusions at which he has\narrived. At the same time it is the impression of a man who is developed\nonly on one side; who never looks within; who takes no cognizance of the\nwonders revealed in consciousness; to whom the intuitions of reason and\nof the conscience, the sense of dependence on a will higher than our\nown--the sense of obligation and responsibility are of no account,--in\nshort a man to whom the image of God enstamped on the soul of man is\ninvisible. This being the case, he that is least in the kingdom of\nheaven is greater than he.\n\nHaeckel admits that the title of his book, \"Natural Creation,\" _i. e._\ncreation by natural laws, is a contradiction. He distinguishes,\nhowever, between the creation of substance and the creation of form. Of\nthe former he says science knows nothing. To the scientist matter is\neternal. If any one chooses to assume that it was created by an\nextramundane power, Haeckel says he will not object. But that is a\nmatter of faith; and \"where faith begins, science ends.\" The very\nreverse of this is true. Science must begin with faith. It cannot take a\nsingle step without it. How does Haeckel know that his senses do not\ndeceive him? How does he know that he can trust to the operations of his\nintellect? How does he know that things are as they appear? How does he\nknow that the universe is not a great phantasmagoria, as so many men\nhave regarded it, and man the mere sport of chimeras? He must believe in\nthe laws of belief impressed on his nature. Knowledge implies a mind\nthat knows, and confidence in the act of knowing implies belief in the\nlaws of mind. \"An inductive science of nature,\" says President Porter,\n\"presupposes a science of induction, and a science of induction\npresupposes a science of man.\"[29] Haeckel, however, says faith is the\nmere product of the poetic imagination; science, of the understanding;\nif its conclusions come into conflict with the creations of the\nimagination, the latter, of course, must give way.[30]\n\nHe says, there have ever been two conflicting theories of the universe:\nthe one, monistic; the other, dualistic. The one admits of only one\nsubstance, matter; the other of two, matter and mind. He prefers to call\nthe former monism rather than materialism, because the latter term often\nincludes the idea of moral materialism, _i. e._ the doctrine that\nsensual pleasure is the end of life; a doctrine, he says, much more\nfrequently held by princely church-men than by men of science. He\nmaintains, however, that \"all knowable nature is one; that the same\neternal, immutable (ehernen, brazen) laws are active in the life of\nanimals and plants, in the formation of crystals, and the power of\nsteam; in the whole sphere of biology, zooelogy, and botany. We have,\ntherefore, the right to hold fast the monistic and mechanical view,\nwhether men choose to brand the system as Materialism or not. In this\nsense, all natural science, with the law of causation at its head, is\nthoroughly materialistic.\" (p. 32)\n\nThe monistic theory he calls \"mechanical or causal,\" as distinguished\nfrom the dualistic theory, which he calls \"teleological or vitalistic.\"\nAccording to the latter, \"the vegetable and animal kingdoms are\nconsidered as the products of a creative agency, working with a definite\ndesign. In looking on an organism, the conviction seems unavoidable that\nso skilfully constructed a machine, such a complicated working\napparatus, as an organism is, could be produced only by an agency\nanalogous to, although far more perfect than the agency of man.\" \"This,\"\nhe says, \"supposes the Creator to be an organism analogous to man,\nalthough infinitely more perfect; who contemplates his formative powers,\nlays the plan of the machine, and then, by the use of appropriate means,\nproduces an effect answering to the preconceived plan.... However highly\nthe Creator may be exalted, this view involves the ascription to Him of\nhuman attributes, in virtue of which he can form a plan, and construct\norganisms to correspond with it. That is the view to which Darwin's\ndoctrine is directly opposed, and of which Agassiz is, among\nnaturalists, the most important advocate. The famous work of Agassiz,\n'Essay on Classification,' which is in direct opposition to Darwin's,\nand appeared about the same time, has carried out logically to the\nutmost the absurd anthropomorphic doctrine of a Creator.\" (p. 17)\n\nThe monistic theory is called \"mechanical and causal,\" because it\nsupposes that all the phenomena of the universe, organic and inorganic,\nvegetable and animal, vital and mental, are due to mechanical or\nnecessarily operating causes (causae efficientes); just as the dualistic\ntheory is called \"teleological or vitalistic,\" because it refers natural\norganisms to causes working for the accomplishment of a given end (causae\nfinales). (p. 67)\n\nThe grand difficulty in the way of the mechanical or monistic theory was\nthe occurrence of innumerable organisms, apparently at least, indicative\nof design. To get over this difficulty, Haeckel says, some who could not\nbelieve in a creative and controlling mind adopted the idea of a\nmetaphysical ghost called vitality. The grand service rendered by Darwin\nto science is, that his theory enables us to account for the\nappearances of design in nature without assuming final causes, or, a\nmind working for a foreseen and intended end. \"All that had appeared\nbefore Darwin,\" he says, \"failed to secure success, and to meet with\ngeneral acceptance of the doctrine of the mechanical production of\nvegetable and animal organisms. This was accomplished by Darwin's\ntheory.\" (p. 20)\n\nThe precise difficulty which Mr. Darwin's doctrine has, according to\nHaeckel, enabled men of science to surmount, is thus clearly stated on\np. 633. It is, \"that organs for a definite end should be produced by\nundesigning or mechanical causes.\" This difficulty is overcome by the\ndoctrine of evolution. \"Through the theory of descent, we are for the\nfirst time able to establish the monistic doctrine of the unity of\nnature, that a mechanic-causal explanation of the most complicated\norganisms, _e. g._ the formation and constitution of the organs of\nsense, have no more difficulty for the common understanding, than the\nmechanical explanation of any physical process, as, for example,\nearthquakes, the direction of the winds, or the currents of the sea. We\nthus arrive at the conviction of the last importance, that all natural\nbodies with which we are acquainted are equally endowed with life\n(gleichmaessig belebt sind); that the distinction between living and dead\nmatter does not exist. When a stone is thrown into the air and falls by\ncertain laws to the ground, or when a solution of salt forms a crystal,\nthe result is neither more nor less a mechanical manifestation of life,\nthan the flowering of a plant, the generation or sensibility of animals,\nor the feelings or the mental activity of man. In thus establishing the\nmonistic theory of nature lies the highest and most comprehensive merit\nof the doctrine of descent, as reformed by Darwin.\" (p. 21) \"As to the\nmuch vaunted design in nature, it is a reality only for those whose\nviews of animal and vegetable life are to the last degree superficial.\nAny one who has gone deeper into the organization and vital activity of\nanimals and plants, who has made himself familiar with the action and\nreaction of vital phenomena, and the so-called economy of nature, comes\nof necessity to the conclusion, that design does not exist, any more\nthan the vaunted goodness of the Creator\" (die vielgeruehmte Allguete des\nSchoepfers). (p. 17)\n\nProfessor Huxley, in his review of this work of Haeckel, already quoted,\nsays: \"I do not like to conclude without reminding the reader of my\nentire concurrence with the general tenor and spirit of the work, and of\nmy high estimate of its value.\" If you take out of Haeckel's book its\ndoctrine of Monism, which he himself says means Materialism, it has no\n\"tenor or spirit\" in it. It is not, however, for us to say how far\nProfessor Huxley intended his indorsement to go.\n\nHaeckel says that Darwin's theory of evolution leads inevitably to\nAtheism and Materialism. In this we think he is correct. But we have\nnothing to do with Haeckel's logic or with our own. We make no charge\nagainst Mr. Darwin. We cite Haeckel merely as a witness to the fact that\nDarwinism involves the denial of final causes; that it excludes all\nintelligent design in the production of the organs of plants and\nanimals, and even in the production of the soul and body of man. This\nfirst of German naturalists would occupy a strange position in the sight\nof all Europe, if, after lauding a book to the skies because it teaches\na certain doctrine, it should turn out that the book taught no such\ndoctrine at all.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[29] _The Science of Nature versus the Science of Man_. By Noah Porter,\nPresident of Yale College. New York, 1871, p. 29.\n\n[30] _Natuerlische Schoepfungsgeschichte_. Von Dr. Ernst Haeckel,\nProfessor in der Universitaet Jena. Zweite Auflage, Berlin, 1873, pp. 8,\nand 9.\n\n\n_The Opponents of Darwinism._\n\n\n_The Duke of Argyll._\n\nWhen cultivated men undertake to refute a certain system, it is to be\npresumed that they give themselves the trouble to ascertain what that\nsystem is. As the advocates of Mr. Darwin's theory defend and applaud it\nbecause it excludes design, and as its opponents make that the main\nground of their objection to it, there can be no reasonable doubt as to\nits real character. The question is, How are the contrivances in nature\nto be accounted for? One answer is, They are due to the purpose of God.\nMr. Darwin says, They are due to the gradual and undesigned accumulation\nof slight variations. The Duke's first objection to that doctrine is,\nthat the evidence of design in the organs of plants and animals is so\nclear that Mr. Darwin himself cannot avoid using teleological language.\n\"He exhausts,\" he says, \"every form of words and of illustration by\nwhich intention or mental purpose can be described. 'Contrivance,'\n'beautiful contrivance,' 'curious contrivance,' are expressions which\noccur over and over again. Here is one sentence describing a particular\nspecies (of orchids): 'The labellum is developed _in order_ to attract\nthe Lepidoptera; and we shall soon see reason for supposing that the\nnectar is purposely so lodged, that it can be sucked only slowly _in\norder_ to give time for the curious chemical quality of the matter\nsetting hard and dry.'\"[31] We have already seen that Mr. Darwin's\nanswer to this objection is, that it is hard to keep from personifying\nnature, and that these expressions as used by him mean no more than\nchemists mean when they speak of affinities, and one element preferring\nanother.\n\nA second objection is, that a variation would not be useful to the\nindividual in which it happens to occur, unless other variations should\noccur at the right time and in the right order; and that the concurrence\nof so many accidents as are required to account for the infinite\ndiversity of forms in plants and animals, is altogether inconceivable.\n\nA third objection is, that the variations often have no reference to the\norganism of the animal itself but to other organisms. \"Take one\ninstance,\" he says, \"out of millions. The poison of a deadly snake,--let\nus for a moment consider what that is. It is a secretion of definite\nchemical properties with reference not only--not even mainly--to the\norganism of the animal in which it is developed, but specially to\nanother animal which it is intended to destroy.\" \"How,\" he asks, \"will\nthe law of growth adjust a poison in one animal with such subtle\nknowledge of the organization of the other, that the deadly virus shall\nin a few minutes curdle the blood, benumb the nerves, and rush in upon\nthe citadel of life? There is but one explanation: a Mind having minute\nand perfect knowledge of the structure of both has designed the one to\nbe capable of inflicting death upon the other. This mental purpose and\nresolve is the one thing which our intelligence perceives with direct\nand intuitive recognition. The method of creation by which this purpose\nhas been carried into effect is utterly unknown.\"[32]\n\nA fourth objection has reference to beauty. According to Mr. Darwin,\nflowers are not intentionally made beautiful, but those which happen to\nbe beautiful attract insects, and by their agency are fertilized and\nsurvive. Male birds are not intentionally arrayed in bright colors, but\nthose which happen to be so arrayed are attractive, and thus become the\nprogenitors of their race. Against this explanation the Duke earnestly\nprotests. He refers to the gorgeous adorned class of Hummingbirds, of\nwhich naturalists enumerate no less than four hundred and thirty\ndifferent species, distinguished one from the other, in general, only by\ntheir plumage. \"Now,\" he asks, \"what explanation does the law of natural\nselection give,--I will not say of the origin, but even of the\ncontinuance of such specific varieties as these? None whatever. A crest\nof topaz is no better in the struggle of existence than a crest of\nsapphire. A frill ending in spangles of the emerald is no better in the\nbattle of life than a frill ending in spangles of the ruby. A tail is\nnot affected for the purposes of flight, whether its marginal, or its\ncentral feathers are decorated with white. It is impossible to bring\nsuch varieties into any physical law known to us. It has relation\nhowever to a Purpose, which stands in close analogy with our knowledge\nof purpose in the works of men. Mere beauty and mere variety, for their\nown sake, are objects which we ourselves seek, when we can make the\nforces of nature subordinate to the attainment of them. There seems to\nbe no conceivable reason why we should doubt or question that these are\nends and aims also in the forms given to living organisms, when the\nfacts correspond with this view and with no other.\"[33]\n\nIt will be observed that all these objections have reference to the\ndenial of teleology on the part of Mr. Darwin. If his theory admitted\nthat the organisms in nature were due to a divine purpose, the\nobjections would be void of all meaning.\n\nThere is a fifth objection. According to Darwin's theory organs are\nformed by the slow accumulation of unintended variations, which happen\nto be favorable to the subject of them in the struggle for life. But in\nmany cases these organs, instead of being favorable, are injurious or\ncumbersome until fully developed. Take the wing of a bird, for example.\nIn its rudimental state, it is useful neither for swimming, walking, nor\nflying. Now, as Darwin says it took millions of years to bring the eye\nto perfection, how long did it take to render a rudimental wing useful?\nIt is no sufficient answer to say that these rudimental organs might\nhave been suited to the condition in which the animal existed, during\nthe formative process. This is perfectly arbitrary. It has no basis of\nfact. There are but three kinds of locomotion that we know of: in the\nwater, on the ground, and through the air; for all these purposes a\nhalf-formed wing would be an impediment.\n\nThe Duke devotes almost a whole chapter of his interesting book to the\nconsideration of \"contrivance in the machinery for flight.\" The\nconditions to secure regulated movement through the atmosphere are so\nnumerous, so complicated, and so conflicting, that the problem never has\nbeen solved by human ingenuity. In the structure of the bird it is\nsolved to perfection. As we are not writing a teleological argument, but\nonly producing evidence that Darwinism excludes teleology, we cannot\nfollow the details which prove that the wing of the gannet or swift is\nalmost as wonderful and beautiful a specimen of contrivance as the eye\nof the eagle.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[31] _Reign of Law_. London, 1867, p. 40.\n\n[32] _Reign of Law_. London, 1867, p. 37.\n\n[33] _Reign of Law_, pp. 247, 248.\n\n\n_Agassiz._\n\nEvery one knows that the illustrious Agassiz, over whose recent grave\nthe world stands weeping, was from the beginning a pronounced and\nearnest opponent of Mr. Darwin's theory. He wrote as a naturalist, and\ntherefore his objections are principally directed against the theory of\nevolution, which he regarded as not only destitute of any scientific\nbasis, but as subversive of the best established facts in zooelogy.\nNevertheless it is evident that his zeal was greatly intensified by his\napprehension that a theory which obliterates all evidence of the being\nof God from the works of nature, endangered faith in that great doctrine\nitself. The Rev. Dr. Peabody, in the discourse delivered on the occasion\nof Professor Agassiz's funeral, said: \"I cannot close this hasty and\ninadequate, yet fervent and hearty tribute, without recalling to your\nmemory the reverent spirit in which he pursued his scientific labors.\nNearly forty years ago, in his first great work on fossil fishes, in\ndeveloping principles of classification, he wrote in quotations, 'An\ninvisible thread in all ages runs through this immense diversity,\nexhibiting as a general result that there is a continual progress in\ndevelopment ending in man, the four classes of vertebrates presenting\nthe intermediate steps, and the invertebrates the constant accessory\naccompaniment. Have we not here the manifestation of a mind as powerful\nas prolific? an act of intelligence as sublime as provident? the marks\nof goodness as infinite as wise? the most palpable demonstration of the\nexistence of a personal God, author of all this; ruler of the universe,\nand the dispenser of all good? This at least is what I read in the works\nof creation.' And it was what he ever read, and with profound awe and\nadoration. To this exalted faith he was inflexibly loyal. The laws of\nnature were to him the eternal Word of God.\n\n\"His repugnance to Darwinism grew in great part from his apprehension of\nits atheistical tendency,--an apprehension which I confess I cannot\nshare; for I forget not that these theories, now in the ascendent, are\nmaintained by not a few devout Christian men, and while they appear to\nme unproved and incapable of demonstration, I could admit them without\nparting with one iota of my faith in God and Christ. Yet I cannot but\nsympathize most strongly with him in the spirit in which he resisted\nwhat seemed to him lese-majesty against the sovereign of the universe.\nNor was his a theoretical faith. His whole life, in its broad\nphilanthropy, in its pervading spirit of service, in its fidelity to\narduous trusts and duties, and in its simplicity and truthfulness,\nbespoke one who was consciously fulfilling a mission from God to his\nfellow-men.\"\n\nThe words \"evolution\" and \"Darwinism\" are so often in this country, but\nnot in Europe, used interchangeably, that it is conceivable that Dr.\nPeabody could retain his faith in God, and yet admit the doctrine of\nevolution. But it is not conceivable that any man should adopt the main\nelement of Mr. Darwin's theory, viz., the denial of all final causes,\nand the assertion, that since the first creation of matter and life, God\nhas left the universe to the control of unintelligent physical causes,\nso that all the phenomena of the plants and animals, all that is in man,\nand all that has ever happened on the earth, is due to physical force,\nand yet retain his faith in Christ. On that theory, there have been no\nsupernatural revelation, no miracles; Christ is not risen, and we are\nyet in our sins. It is not thus that this matter is regarded abroad. The\nChristians of Germany say that the only alternative these theories leave\nus, is Heathenism or Christianity; \"Heidenthum oder Christenthum, Die\nFrage der Zeit.\"\n\n\n_Janet._\n\nJanet, a professor of philosophy, is the author of a book on the\nMaterialism of Buechner.[34] The greater part of the last chapter of his\nwork is devoted to Darwinism. He says, \"Dr. Buechner invoked (Darwin's\nbook) as a striking confirmation of his doctrine.\" (p. 154) What\nBuechner's doctrine is has been shown on a previous page. The points of\ncoincidence between Darwin's system and his are, that both regard mind\nas a mere function of living matter; and both refer all the organs and\norganisms of living things to the unconscious, unintelligent operation\nof physical causes. Buechner's way of accounting for complicated organs\nwas, \"that the energy of the elements and forces of matter, which in\ntheir fated and accidental occurrence must have produced innumerable\nforms, which must needs limit each other mutually, and correspond,\napparently, the one with the other, as if they were made for that\npurpose. Out of all those forms, they only have survived which were\nadapted, in some manner, to the conditions of the medium in which they\nwere placed.\" (p. 30) This is very clumsy. No wonder Buechner preferred\nDarwin's method. The two systems are, indeed, exactly the same, but Mr.\nDarwin has a much more winning way of presenting it.\n\nProfessor Janet does not seem to have much objection to the doctrine of\nevolution in itself; it is the denial of teleology that he regards as\nthe fatal element of Mr. Darwin's theory. \"According to us,\" he says,\n\"the true stumbling-block of Mr. Darwin's theory, the perilous and\nslippery point, is the passage from artificial to natural selection; it\nis when he wants to establish that a blind and designless nature has\nbeen able to obtain, by the occurrence of circumstances, the same\nresults which man obtains by thoughtful and well calculated industry.\"\n(p. 174)\n\nTowards the end of his volume he says: \"We shall conclude by a general\nobservation. Notwithstanding the numerous objections we have raised\nagainst Mr. Darwin's theory, we do not declare ourselves hostile to a\nsystem of which zooelogists are the only competent judges. We are neither\nfor nor against the transmutation of species, neither for nor against\nthe principle of natural selection. The only positive conclusion of our\ndebate is this: no principle hitherto known, neither the action of\nmedia, nor habit, nor natural selection, can account for organic\nadaptations without the intervention of the principle of finality.\nNatural selection, unguided, submitted to the laws of a pure mechanism,\nand exclusively determined by accidents, seems to me, under another\nname, the chance proclaimed by Epicurus, equally barren, equally\nincomprehensible; on the other hand, natural selection guided beforehand\nby a provident will, directed towards a precise end by intentional laws,\nmight be the means which nature has selected to pass from one stage of\nbeing to another, from one form to another, to bring to perfection life\nthroughout the universe, and to rise by a continuous process from the\nmonad to man. Now, I ask Mr. Darwin himself, what interest has he in\nmaintaining that natural selection is not guided--not directed? What\ninterest has he in substituting accidental causes for every final cause?\nI cannot see. Let him admit that in natural, as well as in artificial\nselection, there may be a choice and direction; his principle\nimmediately becomes much more fruitful than it was before. His\nhypothesis, then, whilst having the advantage of exempting science from\nthe necessity of introducing the personal and miraculous intervention of\nGod in the creation of each species, yet would be free from the\nbanishing out of the universe an all-provident thought, and of\nsubmitting everything to blind and brute chance.\" (pp. 198, 199)\nProfessor Janet asks far too much of Mr. Darwin. To ask him to give up\nhis denial of final causes is like asking the Romanists to give up the\nPope. That principle is the life and soul of his system.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[34] _The Materialism of the Present Day: a Critique of Dr. Buechner's\nSystem_. By Paul Janet, Member of the Institute of France, Professor of\nPhilosophy at the Paris Faculte des Lettres. Translated from the French,\nby Gustave Masson, B. A. London and Paris, 1867.\n\n\n_M. Flourens._\n\nM. Flourens, recently dead, was one of the earliest and most pronounced\nopponents of Darwinism. He published in 1864 his \"Examen du Livre de M.\nDarwin sur l'Origine des Especes.\" His position as Member of the\nAcademie Francaise, and Perpetual Secretary of the Academie des\nSciences, or Institut de France, vouch for his high rank among the\nFrench naturalists. His connection with the Jardin des Plantes gave him\nenlarged opportunities for biological experiments. The result of his own\nexperience, as well as the experience of other observers, was, as he\nexpresses it, his solemn conviction that species are fixed and not\ntransmutable. No ingenuity of device could render hybrids fertile. \"They\nnever establish an intermediate species.\" It is, therefore, to the\ndoctrine of evolution his attention is principally directed.\nNevertheless, he is no less struck by Darwin's way of excluding all\nintelligence and design in his manner of speaking of nature. On this\npoint he quotes the language of Cuvier, who says: \"Nature has been\npersonified. Living beings have been called the works of nature. The\ngeneral bearing of these creatures to each other has become the laws of\nnature. It is thus while considering Nature as a being endowed with\nintelligence and will, but in its power limited and secondary, that it\nmay be said that she watches incessantly over the maintenance of her\nwork; that she does nothing in vain, and always acts by the most simple\nmeans.... It is easy to see how puerile are those who give nature a\nspecies of individual existence distinct from the Creator, and from the\nlaw which He has impressed upon the movements and peculiarities of the\nforms given by Him to living things, and which He makes to act upon\ntheir bodies with a peculiar force and reason.\" Older writers, says\nFlourens, in speaking of Nature, \"gave to her inclinations, intentions,\nand views, and horrors (of a vacuum), and sports,\" etc. He says that one\nof the principal objects of his book is to show how Mr. Darwin \"has\ndeluded himself, and perhaps others, by a constant abuse of figurative\nlanguage.\" \"He plays with Nature as he pleases, and makes her do\nwhatsoever he wishes.\" When we remember that Mr. Darwin defines Nature\nto be the aggregate of physical forces, we see how, in attributing\neverything to Nature, he effectually excludes the supernatural.\n\nIn his volume of \"Lay Sermons, Reviews,\" etc., Professor Huxley has a\nvery severe critique on M. Flourens's book. He says little, however, in\nreference to teleology, except in one paragraph, in which we read: \"M.\nFlourens cannot imagine an unconscious selection; it is for him a\ncontradiction in terms.\" Huxley's answer is, \"The winds and waves of the\nBay of Biscay have not much consciousness, and yet they have with great\ncare 'selected,' from an infinity of masses of silex, all grains of sand\nbelow a certain size and have heaped them by themselves over a great\narea.... A frosty night selects the hardy plants in a plantation from\namong the tender ones as effectually as if the intelligence of the\ngardener had been operative in cutting the weaker ones down.\"[35] If\nthis means anything, it means that as the winds and waves of the Bay of\nBiscay can make heaps of sand, so similar unconscious agencies can, if\nyou only give them time enough, make an elephant or a man; for this is\nwhat Mr. Darwin says natural selection has done.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[35] _Lay Sermons_, p. 347.\n\n\n_Rev. Walter Mitchell, M. A., Vice-President of the Victoria Institute._\n\nThe Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, under\nthe presidency of the Earl of Shaftesbury, includes among its members\nmany of the dignitaries of the Church of England, and a large number of\ndistinguished men of different professions and denominations. Its\nprincipal object is, \"To investigate fully and impartially the most\nimportant questions of philosophy and science, but more especially those\nthat bear on the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture, with the view\nof defending these truths against the opposition of Science, falsely so\ncalled.\" The Institute holds bi-monthly meetings, at which papers are\nread on some important topic, and then submitted to criticism and\ndiscussion. These papers, many of which are very elaborate, are\npublished in the Transactions of the Institute, together with a full\nreport of the discussions to which they gave rise. Six volumes, replete\nwith valuable and varied information, have already been published.\n\nVery considerable latitude of opinion is allowed. Hence we find in the\nTransactions, papers for and against evolution,--for and against\nDarwinism. It would be easy to quote extracts, pertinent to our subject,\nmore than enough to fill a volume much larger than the present. We must\ncontent ourselves with a few citations from the discussion on a paper in\nfavor of the credibility of Darwinism,[36] and another in favor of the\ndoctrine of evolution.[37] In summing up the debates on these two\ntopics, the chairman, Rev. Walter Mitchell, presented with great\nclearness and force his reasons for regarding Darwinism as incredible\nand impossible. In his protracted remarks he contrasts the Scriptural\ndoctrine, that of the Vestiges of Creation, and that of Darwin on the\norigin of species. He thus states the doctrine of the Bible on the\nsubject: \"If,\" he says, \"science be another name for real knowledge; if\nscience be the pursuit of sound wisdom; if science be the pursuit of\ntruth itself; I say that man has no right to reject anything that is\ntrue because it savors of God. Well, what is this hypothesis--older than\nthat of Darwin--which does, and does alone, account for all the observed\nfacts, or all that which we can read, recorded in the book of Nature? It\nis, that God created all things very good; that He made every vegetable\nafter its own kind; that He made every animal after its own kind; that\nHe allowed certain laws of variation, but that He has ordained strict,\nthough invisible and invincible barriers, which prevent that variation\nfrom running riot, and which includes it within strict and well defined\nlimits. This is a hypothesis which will account for all that we have\nlearnt from the works of Nature. It admits an intelligent Being as the\nAuthor of all the works of creation, animate as well as inanimate; it\nleaves no mysteries in the animate world unaccounted for. There is one\nthing which the animate, as well as the inanimate world declares to\nman, one thing everywhere plainly recorded, if we will only read it, and\nthat is the impress of design, the design of infinite wisdom. Any theory\nwhich comes in with an attempt to ignore design as manifested in God's\ncreation, is a theory, I say, which attempts to dethrone God. This the\ntheory of Darwin does endeavor to do. If asked how our old theory\naccounts for such uniformity of design in the midst of such perplexing\nvariety as we find in nature, we reply, that this can only be accounted\nfor on one admission, that the whole is the work of one Author, built\naccording, as it were, to one style; that it represents the unity of one\nmind with the infinite power of adapting all its works in the most\nperfect manner for the uses for which they were created.\" \"Whewell has\nboldly maintained, and he has never been controverted, that all real\nadvances in the sciences of physiology and comparative anatomy,--such as\nthat made by Harvey in discovering the circulation of the blood,--have\nbeen made by those who not only believed in the existence of design\neverywhere manifested in the animate world, but were led by that belief\nto make their discoveries.\"\n\nWhen discussing the paper of Mr. Henslow on evolution, he says: \"In\nspeaking of this paper I must commend the exceeding reverent tone in\nwhich the author has discussed the subject, and I should like to see all\nsuch subjects discussed in a similar tone. The view which Mr. Henslow\nbrings forward, however, does not appear to be a very original one. It\nwas the first view ever brought forward on the doctrine of evolution,\nand I was the first one to point out that the whole doctrine was one of\nretrograde character. The whole tone and character of this paper, except\nthat which relates to the attributes and moral government of God,[38] is\nnothing more or less than the same view of the doctrine of evolution\nwhich created such a sensation in this country when that famous book\ncame out, 'The Vestiges of Creation.' So far as I can understand the\narguments of Mr. Darwin, they have simply been an endeavor to eject out\nof the idea of evolution the personal work of the Deity. His whole\nendeavor has been to push the Creator farther and farther back out of\nview. The most laborious part of Darwin's attempt at reasoning,--for it\nis not true reasoning,--the most laborious part of his logic and\nreasoning, is intended to eliminate, as perfectly as any of the\natheistical authors have endeavored to do, the idea of design. Now,\nsetting revelation aside, the manner in which the unknown author of the\n'Vestiges of Creation' treated this subject, satisfactorily showed that\nthe doctrine of evolution was not in itself an atheistical doctrine, nor\ndid it deny the existence of design. So far as I could understand and\nmake out, having carefully read the book at the time it came out and\nafterwards, and having carefully analyzed and compared it and Mr.\nDarwin's book with each other, so far as I could understand it, the\ndoctrine of the author of the 'Vestiges of Creation' was simply, that\nGod created all things, and that when He created matter He impressed on\nit certain laws; that matter, being evolved according to those laws,\nshould produce beings and organs mutually adapted to one another and to\nthe world; and that every successive development which should be\nproduced was essentially foreseen, foreknown, and predetermined by the\nDeity. His idea, for instance, of the evolution of an eye from a more\nsimple organ was that the ultimate eye--man's eye, for instance--was to\nbe a perfect optical instrument, and that its perfection depended on the\nprevious design by the Creator, that at a certain period it should\nappear in a body quite adapted for its purposes. There is one\nquestion,--and not the only one, but we must consider it as an important\nquestion,--whether you can maintain a doctrine of evolution which shall\nnot be atheistical, and which shall admit the great argument of design?\nThat is one thing; but the next thing is, does such a doctrine as that\naccord either with revelation or with the facts of science? I do not\nbelieve that it can be made to agree with what we believe to be the\nrevealed Word of God, and I do not believe that it has in the least\ndegree been proved that the doctrine is consistent with sound science.\"\n\nAs to Mr. Darwin's theory, it is obvious from the passages already\nquoted that he considers its characteristic feature is not evolution,\nnor even natural selection, but the denial of teleology, or of\nintelligent control. Mr. Darwin admits the original creation of one or a\nfew forms of life; and Mr. Mitchell, in his comments on Mr. Warington's\ndefence of his theory, asks, \"Why am I to limit the work of the Creator\nto the simultaneous or successive creations of ten or twelve\ncommencements of the animate creation? Why, simply for the purpose of\nevading the evidence of design as manifested in the adaptation of all\nthe organs of every animate creature to its wants, which can only be\ndone by so incredible an hypothesis as that of Mr. Darwin. I say\nfearlessly, that any hypothesis which requires us to admit that the\nformation of such complex organs as the eye, the ear, the heart, the\nbrain, with all their marvellous structures and mechanical adaptations\nto the wants of the creatures possessing them, so perfectly in harmony,\ntoo, with the laws of inorganic matter, affords no evidence of design;\nthat such structures could be built up by gradual chance improvements,\nperpetuated by the law of transmission, and perfected by the destruction\nof creatures less favorably endowed, is so incredible, that I marvel to\nfind any thinking man capable of adopting it for a single moment.\" It is\nuseless to multiply quotations. Darwinism is never brought up either\nformally or incidentally, that its exclusion of design in the formation\nof living organisms is not urged as the main objection against the whole\ntheory.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[36] _The Credibility of Darwinism_. By George Warington, Esq., F. C.\nS., M. V. I.\n\n[37] _On certain Analogies between the Methods of Deity in Nature and\nRevelation_. By Rev. G. E. Henslow, M. A., F. L. S., M. V. I.\n\n[38] The second part of Mr. Henslow's paper concerns \"the methods of the\nDeity as revealed to us in the Bible.\" The same is substantially true of\nhis work, _The Theory of Evolution_.\n\n\n_Principal Dawson._\n\nDr. Dawson, as we are informed, is regarded as the first palaeontologist,\nand among the first geologists, in America. In his \"Story of Earth and\nMan,\"[39] he passes in review the several geological periods\nrecognized by geologists; describes as far as knowable the distribution\nof land and water during each period, and the vegetable and animal\nproductions by which they were distinguished. His book from beginning to\nend is anti-Darwinian. In common with other naturalists, his attention\nis directed principally to the doctrine of evolution, which he endeavors\nto prove is utterly untenable. That Mr. Darwin's theory excludes\nteleology is everywhere assumed as an uncontroverted and\nuncontrovertible fact. \"The evolutionist doctrine,\" he says, \"is itself\none of the strangest phenomena of humanity. It existed, and most\nnaturally, in the oldest philosophy and poetry, in connection with the\ncrudest and most uncritical attempts of the human mind to grasp the\nsystem of nature; but that in our day a system destitute of any shadow\nof proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech,\nand by the arbitrary and artificial coherence of its own parts, should\nbe accepted as philosophy, and should find able adherents to string on\nits thread of hypotheses our vast and weighty stores of knowledge, is\nsurpassingly strange.... In many respects these speculations are\nimportant, and worthy the attention of thinking men. They seek to\nrevolutionize the religious belief of the world, and if accepted would\ndestroy most of the existing theology and philosophy. They indicate\ntendencies among scientific thinkers, which, though probably temporary,\nmust, before they disappear, descend to lower strata, and reproduce\nthemselves in grosser forms, and with most serious effects on the whole\nstructure of society. With one class of minds they constitute a sort of\nreligion, which so far satisfies the craving for truth higher than those\nwhich relate to immediate wants and pleasures. With another and perhaps\nlarger class, they are accepted as affording a welcome deliverance from\nall scruples of conscience and fears of a hereafter. In the domain of\nscience evolutionism has like tendencies. It reduces the position of\nman, who becomes a descendant of inferior animals, and a mere term in a\nseries whose end is unknown. It removes from the study of nature the\nideas of final cause and purpose; and the evolutionist, instead of\nregarding the world as a work of consummate plan, skill, and adjustment,\napproaches nature as he would a chaos of fallen rocks, which may present\nforms of castles, and grotesque profiles of men and animals, but they\nare all fortuitous and without significance.\" (pp. 317, 318)\n\n\"Taking, then, this broad view of the subject, two great leading\nalternatives are presented to us. Either man is an independent product\nof the will of a Higher Intelligence, acting directly or through the\nlaws and materials of his own institution and production, or he has been\nproduced by an unconscious evolution from lower things. It is true that\nmany evolutionists, either unwilling to offend, or not perceiving the\nlogical consequences of their own hypothesis, endeavor to steer a middle\ncourse, and to maintain that the Creator has proceeded by way of\nevolution. But the bare, hard logic of Spencer, the greatest English\nauthority on evolution, leaves no place for this compromise, and shows\nthat the theory, carried out to its legitimate consequences, excludes\nthe knowledge of a Creator and the possibility of his work. We have,\ntherefore, to choose between evolution and creation, bearing in mind,\nhowever, that there may be a place in nature for evolution, properly\nlimited, as well as for other things, and that the idea of creation by\nno means excludes law and second causes.\" (p. 321)\n\n\"It may be said, that evolution may be held as a scientific doctrine in\nconnection with a modified belief in creation. The work of actual\ncreation may have been limited to a few elementary types, and evolution\nmay have done the rest. Evolutionists may still be theists. We have\nalready seen that the doctrine, as carried out to its logical\nconsequences, excludes creation and theism. It may, however, be shown\nthat even in its more modified form, and when held by men who maintain\nthat they are not atheists, it is practically atheistic, because\nexcluding the idea of plan and design, and resolving all things into the\naction of unintelligent forces. It is necessary to observe this, because\nit is the half-way-evolutionism, which professes to have a creator\nsomewhere behind it, that is most popular; though it is, if possible,\nmore unphilosophical than that which professes to set out with absolute\nand determined nonentity, or from self-existing stardust containing all\nthe possibilities of the universe.\"\n\nIn reference to the objection of evolutionists, that the origin of every\nnew species, on the theistic doctrine, supposes \"a miracle,\" an\nintervention of the divine efficiency without the agency of second\ncauses, Principal Dawson asks, \"What is the actual statement of the\ntheory of creation as it may be held by a modern man of science? Simply\nthis: that all things have been produced by the Supreme Creative will,\nacting either directly, or through the agency of the forces and material\nof his own production.\" (p. 340)\n\nHe thus sums up his argument against the doctrine of evolution,\nspecially in its application to man: \"Finally, the evolutionist picture\nwants some of the fairest lineaments of humanity, and cheats us with the\nsemblance of man without the reality. Shave and paint your ape as you\nmay, clothe him and set him up upon his feet, still he fails greatly of\nthe 'human form divine;' and so it is with him morally and spiritually\nas well. We have seen that he wants the instinct of immortality, the\nlove of God, the mental and spiritual power of exercising dominion over\nthe earth. The very agency by which he is evolved is of itself\nsubversive of all these higher properties; the struggle for existence is\nessentially selfish, and, therefore, degrading. Even in the lower\nanimals, it is a false assumption that its tendency is to elevate; for\nanimals, when driven to the utmost verge of the struggle for life,\nbecome depauperated and degraded. The dog which spends its life in\nsnarling contention with its fellow curs for insufficient food, will not\nbe a noble specimen of its race. God does not so treat his creatures.\nThere is far more truth to nature in the doctrine which represents Him\nas listening to the young ravens when they cry for food. But as applied\nto man, the theory of the struggle for existence, and survival of the\nfittest, though the most popular phase of evolutionism at present, is\nnothing less than the basest and most horrible of superstitions. It\nmakes man not merely carnal but devilish. It takes his lowest appetites\nand propensities, and makes them his God and Creator. His higher\nsentiments and aspirations, his self-denying philanthropy, his\nenthusiasm for the good and true, all the struggles and sufferings of\nheroes and martyrs, not to speak of that self-sacrifice which is the\nfoundation of Christianity, are, in the view of the evolutionist, mere\nloss and waste, failure in the struggle of life. What does he give us in\nexchange? An endless pedigree of bestial ancestors, without one gleam of\nhigh and holy tradition to enliven the procession; and for the future,\nthe prospect that the poor mass of protoplasm, which constitutes the sum\nof our being, and which is the sole gain of an indefinite struggle in\nthe past, must soon be resolved again into inferior animals or dead\nmatter. That men of thought and culture should advocate such a\nphilosophy, argues either a strange mental hallucination, or that the\nhigher spiritual nature has been wholly quenched within them. It is one\nof the saddest of many sad spectacles which our age presents.\" (p. 395)\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[39] _The Story of Earth and Man_. By J. W. Dawson, LL. D., F. R. S., F.\nG. S., Principal and Vice-Chancellor of McGill University, Montreal.\nAuthor of _Archaia, Acadian Geology_, etc. Second edition. London, 1873,\npp. 397.\n\n\n_Relation of Darwinism to Religion._\n\nThe consideration of that subject would lead into the wide field of the\nrelation between science and religion. Into that field we lack\ncompetency and time to enter; a few remarks, however, on the subject\nmay not be out of place. Those remarks, we would fain make in a humble\nway irenical. There is need of an Irenicum, for the fact is painfully\nnotorious that there is an antagonism between scientific men as a class,\nand religious men as a class. Of course this opposition is neither felt\nnor expressed by all on either side. Nevertheless, whatever may be the\ncause of this antagonism, or whoever are to be blamed for it, there can\nbe no doubt that it exists and that it is an evil.\n\nThe first cause of the alienation in question is, that the two parties,\nso to speak, adopt different rules of evidence, and thus can hardly\navoid arriving at different conclusions. To understand this we must\ndetermine what is meant by science, and by scientific evidence. Science,\naccording to its etymology, is simply knowledge. But usage has limited\nits meaning, in the first place, not to the knowledge of facts or\nphenomena, merely, but to their causes and relations. It was said of\nold, \"[Greek: hoti] scientiae fundamentum, [Greek: dioti] fastigium.\" No\namount of materials would constitute a building. They must be duly\narranged so as to make a symmetrical whole. No amount of disconnected\ndata can constitute a science. Those data must be systematized in their\nrelation to each other and to other things. In the second place, the\nword is becoming more and more restricted to the knowledge of a\nparticular class of facts, and of their relations, namely, the facts of\nnature or of the external world. This usage is not universal, nor is it\nfixed. In Germany, especially, the word _Wissenschaft_ is used of all\nkinds of ordered knowledge, whether transcendental or empirical. So we\nare accustomed to speak of mental, moral, social, as well as of natural\nscience. Nevertheless, the more restricted use of the word is very\ncommon and very influential. It is important that this fact should be\nrecognized. In common usage, a scientific man is distinguished specially\nfrom a metaphysician. The one investigates the phenomena of matter, the\nother studies the phenomena of mind, according to the old distinction\nbetween physics and metaphysics. Science, therefore, is the ordered\nknowledge of the phenomena which we recognize through the senses. A\nscientific fact is a fact perceived by the senses. Scientific evidence\nis evidence addressed to the senses. At one of the meetings of the\nVictoria Institute, a visitor avowed his disbelief in the existence of\nGod. When asked, what kind of evidence would satisfy him? he answered,\nJust such evidence as I have of the existence of this tumbler which I\nnow hold in my hand. The Rev. Mr. Henslow says, \"By science is meant the\ninvestigation of facts and phenomena recognizable by the senses, and of\nthe causes which have brought them into existence.\"[40] This is the main\nroot of the trouble. If science be the knowledge of the facts perceived\nby the senses, and scientific evidence, evidence addressed to the\nsenses, then the senses are the only sources of knowledge. Any\nconviction resting on any other ground than the testimony of the senses,\nmust be faith. Darwin admits that the contrivances in nature may be\naccounted for by assuming that they are due to design on the part of\nGod. But, he says, that would not be science. Haeckel says that to\nscience matter is eternal. If any man chooses to say, it was created,\nwell and good; but that is a matter of faith, and faith is imagination.\nUlrici quotes a distinguished German physiologist who believes in\nvital, as distinguished from physical forces; but he holds to\nspontaneous generation, not, as he admits, because it has been proved,\nbut because the admission of any higher power than nature is\nunscientific.[41]\n\nIt is inevitable that minds addicted to scientific investigation should\nreceive a strong bias to undervalue any other kind of evidence except\nthat of the senses, _i. e._, scientific evidence. We have seen that\nthose who give themselves up to this tendency come to deny God, to deny\nmind, to deny even self. It is true that the great majority of men,\nscientific as well as others, are so much under the control of the laws\nof their nature, that they cannot go to this extreme. The tendency,\nhowever, of a mind addicted to the consideration of one kind of\nevidence, to become more or less insensible to other kinds of proof, is\nundeniable. Thus even Agassiz, as a zooelogist and simply on zooelogical\ngrounds, assumed that there were several zones between the Ganges and\nthe Atlantic Ocean, each having its own flora and fauna, and inhabited\nby races of men, the same in kind, but of different origins. When told\nby the comparative philologists that this was impossible, because the\nlanguages spoken through that wide region, demonstrated that its\ninhabitants must have had a common descent, he could only answer that as\nducks quack everywhere, he could not see why men should not everywhere\nspeak the same language.\n\nA still more striking illustration is furnished by Dr. Lionel Beale, the\ndistinguished English physiologist. He has written a book of three\nhundred and eighty-eight pages for the express purpose of proving that\nthe phenomena of life, instinct, and intellect cannot be referred to any\nknown natural forces. He avows his belief that in nature \"mind governs\nmatter,\" and \"in the existence of a never-changing, all-seeing,\npower-directing and matter-guiding Omnipotence.\" He avows his faith in\nmiracles, and \"those miracles on which Christianity is founded.\"\nNevertheless, his faith in all these points is provisional. He says that\na truly scientific man, \"if the maintenance, continuity, and nature of\nlife on our planet should at some future time be fully explained without\nsupposing the existence of any such supernatural omnipotent influence,\nwould be bound to receive the new explanation, and might abandon the\nold conviction.\"[42] That is, all evidence of the truths of religion not\nfounded on nature and perceived by the senses, amounts to nothing.\n\nNow as religion does not rest on the testimony of the senses, that is on\nscientific evidence, the tendency of scientific men is to ignore its\nclaims. We speak only of tendency. We rejoice to know or believe that in\nhundreds or thousands of scientific men, this tendency is counteracted\nby their consciousness of manhood--the conviction that the body is not\nthe man,--by the intuitions of the reason and the conscience, and by the\ngrace of God. No class of men stands deservedly higher in public\nestimation than men of science, who, while remaining faithful to their\nhigher nature, have enlarged our knowledge of the wonderful works of\nGod.\n\nA second cause of the alienation between science and religion, is the\nfailure to make the due distinction between facts and the explanation of\nthose facts, or the theories deduced from them. No sound minded man\ndisputes any scientific fact. Religious men believe with Agassiz that\nfacts are sacred. They are revelations from God. Christians sacrifice to\nthem, when duly authenticated, their most cherished convictions. That\nthe earth moves, no religious man doubts. When Galileo made that great\ndiscovery, the Church was right in not yielding at once to the evidence\nof an experiment which it did not understand. But when the fact was\nclearly established, no man sets up his interpretation of the Bible in\nopposition to it. Religious men admit all the facts connected with our\nsolar system; all the facts of geology, and of comparative anatomy, and\nof biology. Ought not this to satisfy scientific men? Must we also admit\ntheir explanations and inferences? If we admit that the human embryo\npasses through various phases, must we admit that man was once a fish,\nthen a bird, then a dog, then an ape, and finally what he now is? If we\nadmit the similarity of structure in all vertebrates, must we admit the\nevolution of one from another, and all from a primordial germ? It is to\nbe remembered that the facts are from God, the explanation from men; and\nthe two are often as far apart as Heaven and its antipode.\n\nThese human explanations are not only without authority, but they are\nvery mutable. They change not only from generation to generation, but\nalmost as often as the phases of the moon. It is a fact that the planets\nmove. Once it was said that they were moved by spirits, then by\nvortexes, now by self-evolved forces. It is hard that we should be\ncalled upon to change our faith with every new moon. The same man\nsometimes propounds theories almost as rapidly as the changes of the\nkaleidoscope. The amiable Sir Charles Lyell, England's most\ndistinguished geologist, has published ten editions of his \"Principles\nof Geology,\" which so differ as to make it hard to believe that it is\nthe work of the same mind. \"In all the editions up to the tenth, he\nlooked upon geological facts and geological phenomena as proving the\nfixity of species and their special creation in time. In the tenth\nedition, just published, he announces his change of opinion on this\nsubject and his conversion to the doctrine of development by law.\"[43]\n\"In the eighth edition of his work,\" says Dr. Bree, \"Sir Charles Lyell,\nthe Nestor of geologists, to whom the present generation is more\nindebted than to any other for all that is known of geology in its\nadvanced stage, teaches that species have a real existence in nature,\nand that each was endowed at the time of its creation with the\nattributes and organization by which it is now distinguished.\" The\nchange on the part of this eminent geologist, it is to be observed, is a\nmere change of opinion. There was no change of the facts of geology\nbetween the publication of the eighth and of the tenth edition of his\nwork, neither was there any change in his knowledge of those facts. All\nthe facts relied upon by evolutionists, have long been familiar to\nscientific men. The whole change is a subjective one. One year the\nveteran geologist thinks the facts teach one thing, another year he\nthinks they teach another. It is now the fact, and it is feared it will\ncontinue to be a fact, that scientific men give the name of science to\ntheir explanations as well as to the facts. Nay, they are often, and\nnaturally, more zealous for their explanations than they are for the\nfacts. The facts are God's, the explanations are their own.\n\nThe third cause of the alienation between religion and science, is the\nbearing of scientific men towards the men of culture who do not belong\nto their own class. When we, in such connections, speak of scientific\nmen, we do not mean men of science as such, but those only who avow or\nmanifest their hostility to religion. There is an assumption of\nsuperiority, and often a manifestation of contempt. Those who call their\nlogic or their conjectures into question, are stigmatized as\nnarrow-minded, bigots, old women, Bible worshippers, etc.\n\nProfessor Huxley's advice to metaphysicians and theologians is, to let\nscience alone. This is his Irenicum. But do he and his associates let\nmetaphysics and religion alone? They tell the metaphysician that his\nvocation is gone; there is no such thing as mind, and of course no\nmental laws to be established. Metaphysics are merged into physics.\nProfessor Huxley tells the religious world that there is over-whelming\nand crushing evidence (scientific evidence, of course) that no event has\never occurred on this earth which was not the effect of natural causes.\nHence there have been no miracles, and Christ is not risen.[44] He says\nthat the doctrine that belief in a personal God is necessary to any\nreligion worthy of the name, is a mere matter of opinion. Tyndall,\nCarpenter, and Henry Thompson, teach that prayer is a superstitious\nabsurdity; Herbert Spencer, whom they call their \"great philosopher,\"\n_i. e._, the man who does their thinking, labors to prove that there\ncannot be a personal God, or human soul or self; that moral laws are\nmere \"generalizations of utility,\" or, as Carl Vogt says, that self\nrespect, and not the will of God, is the ground and rule of moral\nobligation. If any protest be made against such doctrines, we are told\nthat scientific truth cannot be put down by denunciation (or as Vogt\nsays, by barking). So doubtless the Pharisees, when our blessed Lord\ncalled them hypocrites and a generation of vipers, and said: \"Ye compass\nsea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him\ntwofold more the child of hell than yourselves,\" doubtless thought that\nthat was a poor way to refute their theory, that holiness and salvation\nwere to be secured by church-membership and church-rites. Nevertheless,\nas those words were the words of Christ, they were a thunderbolt which\nreverberates through all time and space, and still makes Pharisees of\nevery name and nation tremble. Huxley's Irenicum will not do. Men who\nare assiduously poisoning the fountains of religion, morality, and\nsocial order, cannot be let alone.\n\nHaeckel's Irenicum amounts to much the same as that of Professor Huxley.\nHe forbids the right to speak on these vital subjects, to all who are\nnot thoroughly versed in biology, and who are not entirely emancipated\nfrom the trammels of their long cherished traditional beliefs.[45] This,\nas the whole context shows, means that a man in order to be entitled to\nbe heard on the evolution theory, must be willing to renounce his faith\nnot only in the Bible, but in God, in the soul, in a future life, and\nbecome a monistic materialist.[46]\n\nIt is very reasonable that scientific men, in common with lawyers and\nphysicians and other professional men, should feel themselves entitled\nto be heard with special deference on subjects belonging to their\nrespective departments. This deference no one is disposed to deny to men\nof science. But it is to be remembered that no department of human\nknowledge is isolated. One runs into and overlaps another. We have\nabundant evidence that the devotees of natural science are not willing\nto confine themselves to the department of nature, in the common sense\nof that word. They not only speculate, but dogmatize, on the highest\nquestions of philosophy, morality, and religion. And further, admitting\nthe special claims to deference on the part of scientific men, other men\nhave their rights. They have the right to judge of the consistency of\nthe assertions of men of science and of the logic of their reasoning.\nThey have the right to set off the testimony of one or more experts\nagainst the testimony of others; and especially, they have the right to\nreject all speculations, hypotheses, and theories, which come in\nconflict with well established truths. It is ground of profound\ngratitude to God that He has given to the human mind intuitions which\nare infallible, laws of belief which men cannot disregard any more than\nthe laws of nature, and also convictions produced by the Spirit of God\nwhich no sophistry of man can weaken. These are barriers which no man\ncan pass without plunging into the abyss of outer darkness.\n\nIf there be any truth in the preceding remarks, then it is obvious that\nthere can be no harmony between science and religion until the evils\nreferred to be removed. Scientific men must come to recognize\npractically, and not merely in words, that there are other kinds of\nevidence of truth than the testimony of the senses. They must come to\ngive due weight to the testimony of consciousness, and to the intuitions\nof the reason and conscience. They must cease to require the deference\ndue to established facts to be paid to their speculations and\nexplanations. And they must treat their fellow-men with due respect. The\nPharisees said to the man whose sight had been restored by Christ, \"Thou\nwast altogether born in sin, and dost thou teach us!\" Men of science\nmust not speak thus. They must not say to every objector, Thou art not\nscientific, and therefore hast no right to speak. The true Irenicum is\nfor all parties to give due heed to such words as these, \"If any man\nwould be wise, let him become a fool, that he may be wise;\" or these,\n\"Be converted, and become as little children;\" or these, \"The Spirit of\nTruth shall guide you in all truth.\" We are willing to hear this called\ncant. Nevertheless, these latter words fell from the lips of Him who\nspake as never man spake.\n\nSo much, and it is very little, on the general question of the relation\nof science to religion. But what is to be thought of the special\nrelation of Mr. Darwin's theory to the truths of natural and revealed\nreligion? We have already seen that Darwinism includes the three\nelements, evolution, natural selection, and the denial of design in\nnature. These points, however, cannot now be considered separately.\n\nIt is conceded that a man may be an evolutionist and yet not be an\natheist and may admit of design in nature. But we cannot see how the\ntheory of evolution can be reconciled with the declarations of the\nScriptures. Others may see it, and be able to reconcile their allegiance\nto science with their allegiance to the Bible. Professor Huxley, as we\nhave seen, pronounces the thing impossible. As all error is antagonistic\nto truth, if the evolution theory be false, it must be opposed to the\ntruths of religion so far as the two come into contact. Mr. Henslow,\nindeed, says Science and Religion are not antagonistic because they are\nin different spheres of thought. This is often said by men who do not\nadmit that there is any thought at all in religion; that it is merely a\nmatter of feeling. The fact, however, is that religion is a system of\nknowledge, as well as a state of feeling. The truths on which all\nreligion is founded are drawn within the domain of science, the nature\nof the first cause, its relation to the world, the nature of second\ncauses, the origin of life, anthropology, including the origin, nature,\nand destiny of man. Religion has to fight for its life against a large\nclass of scientific men. All attempts to prevent her exercising her\nright to be heard are unreasonable and vain.\n\nIt should be premised that this paper was written for the single purpose\nof answering the question, What is Darwinism? The discussion of the\nmerits of the theory was not within the scope of the writer. What\nfollows, therefore, is to be considered only in the light of a practical\nconclusion.\n\n1. The first objection to the theory is its _prima facie_ incredibility.\nThat a single plant or animal should be developed from a mere cell, is\nsuch a wonder, that nothing but daily observation of the fact could\ninduce any man to believe it. Let any one ask himself, suppose this\nfact was not thus familiar, what amount of speculation, of arguments\nfrom analogies, possibilities, and probabilities, could avail to produce\nconviction of its truth. But who can believe that all the plants and\nanimals which have ever existed upon the face of the earth, have been\nevolved from one such germ? This is Darwin's doctrine. We are aware that\nthis apparent impossibility is evaded by the believers in spontaneous\ngeneration, who hold that such germ cells may be produced anywhere and\nat all times. But this is not Darwinism. Darwin wants us to believe that\nall living things, from the lowly violet to the giant redwoods of\nCalifornia, from the microscopic animalcule to the Mastodon, the\nDinotherium,--monsters the very description of which fill us with\nhorror,--bats with wings twenty feet in breadth, flying dragons,\ntortoises ten feet high and eighteen feet long, etc., etc., came one and\nall from the same primordial germ. This demand is the more unreasonable\nwhen we remember that these living creatures are not only so different,\nbut are, as to plants and animals, directly opposed in their functions.\nThe function of the plant, as biologists express it, is to produce\nforce, that of the animal to expend it. The plant, in virtue of a power\npeculiar to itself, which no art or skill of man can imitate, transmutes\ndead inorganic matter into organic matter, suited to the sustenance of\nanimal life, and without which animals cannot live. The gulf, therefore,\nbetween the plant and animal would seem to be impassable.\n\nFurther, the variations by which the change of species is effected are\nso trifling as often to be imperceptible, and their accumulation of them\nso slow as to evade notice,--the time requisite to accomplish any marked\nchange must be counted by millions, or milliards of years. Here is\nanother demand on our credulity. The apex is reached when we are told\nthat all these transmutations are effected by chance, that is, without\npurpose or intention. Taking all these things into consideration, we\nthink it may, with moderation, be said, that a more absolutely\nincredible theory was never propounded for acceptance among men.\n\n2. There is no pretence that the theory can be proved. Mr. Darwin does\nnot pretend to prove it. He admits that all the facts in the case can be\naccounted for on the assumption of divine purpose and control. All that\nhe claims for his theory is that it is possible. His mode of arguing is\nthat if we suppose this and that, then it may have happened thus and so.\nAmiable and attractive as the man presents himself in his writings, it\nrouses indignation, in one class at least of his readers, to see him by\nsuch a mode of arguing reaching conclusions which are subversive of the\nfundamental truths of religion.\n\n3. Another fact cannot fail to attract attention. When the theory of\nevolution was propounded in 1844 in the \"Vestiges of Creation,\" it was\nuniversally rejected; when proposed by Mr. Darwin, less than twenty\nyears afterward, it was received with acclamation. Why is this? The\nfacts are now what they were then. They were as well known then as they\nare now. The theory, so far as evolution is concerned, was then just\nwhat it is now. How then is it, that what was scientifically false in\n1844 is scientifically true in 1864? When a drama is introduced in a\ntheatre and universally condemned, and a little while afterward, with a\nlittle change in the scenery, it is received with rapturous applause,\nthe natural conclusion is, that the change is in the audience and not in\nthe drama.\n\nThere is only one cause for the fact referred to, that we can think of.\nThe \"Vestiges of Creation\" did not expressly or effectually exclude\ndesign. Darwin does. This is a reason assigned by the most zealous\nadvocates of his theory for their adoption of it. This is the reason\ngiven by Buechner, by Haeckel, and by Vogt. It is assigned also in\nexpress terms by Strauss, the announcement of whose death has diffused a\nfeeling of sadness over all who were acquainted with his antecedents. In\nhis last work, \"The Old Faith and the New,\" he admits \"that Darwin's\ndoctrine is a mere hypothesis; that it leaves the main points\nunexplained (Die Hupt und Cardinal-punkte noch unerklaert sind);\nnevertheless, as he has shown how miracles may be excluded, he is to be\napplauded as one of the greatest benefactors of the human race.\" (p.\n177) By \"Wunder,\" or miracle, Strauss means any event for which natural\ncauses are insufficient to account. \"We philosophers and critical\ntheologians,\" he says, \"have spoken well when we decreed the abolition\nof miracles; but our decree (macht-spruch) remained without effect,\nbecause we could not show them to be unnecessary, inasmuch as we were\nunable to indicate any natural force to take their place. Darwin has\nprovided or indicated this natural force, this process of nature; he has\nopened the door through which a happier posterity may eject miracles\nforever.\" Then follows the sentence just quoted, \"He who knows what\nhangs on miracle, will applaud Darwin as one of the greatest benefactors\nof the human race.\" With Strauss and others of his class, miracles and\ndesign are identical, because one as well as the other assumes\nsupernatural agency. He quotes Helmholtz, who says, \"Darwin's theory,\nthat adaptation in the formation of organisms may arise without the\nintervention of intelligence, by the blind operation of natural law;\"\nand then adds, \"As Helmholtz distinguishes the English naturalist as the\nman who has banished design from nature, so we have praised him as the\nman who has done away with miracles. Both mean the same thing.[47]\nDesign is the miracle-worker in nature, which has put the world upside\ndown; or as Spinoza says, has placed the last first, the effect for the\ncause, and thus destroyed the very idea of nature. Design in nature,\nespecially in the department of living organisms, has ever been appealed\nto by those who desire to prove that the world is not self-evolved, but\nthe work of an intelligent Creator.\" (p. 211) On page 175, he refers to\nthose who ridicule Darwin, and yet are so far under the influence of the\nspirit of the age as to deny miracles or the intervention of the Creator\nin the course of nature, and says: \"Very well; how do they account for\nthe origin of man, and in general the development of the organic out of\nthe inorganic? Would they assume that the original man as such, no\nmatter how rough and unformed, but still a man, sprang immediately out\nof the inorganic, out of the sea or the slime of the Nile? They would\nhardly venture to say that; then they must know that there is only the\nchoice between miracle, the divine hand of the Creator, and Darwin.\"\nWhat an alternative; the Creator or Darwin! In this, however, Strauss is\nright. To banish design from nature, as is done by Darwin's theory, is,\nin the language of the Rev. Walter Mitchell, virtually \"to dethrone the\nCreator.\"\n\nLudwig Weis, M. D., of Darmstadt, says it is at present \"the mode\" in\nGermany (and of course in a measure here), to glorify Buddhism.\nStrauss, he adds, says, \"Nature knows itself in man, and in that he\nexpresses the thought which all Idealism and all Materialism make the\ngrand end. To the same effect it is said, 'In Man the All comprehends\nitself as conscious being (comes to self-consciousness); or, in Man the\nabsolute knowledge (Wissen, the act of knowing) appears in the limits of\npersonality.' This was the doctrine of the Buddhist and of the ancient\nChinese.\" Thus, as Dr. Weis says, \"in the nineteenth century of the\nChristian era, philosophers and scientists have reached the point where\nthe Chinese were two thousand years ago.\"\n\nThe only way that is apparent for accounting for evolution being\nrejected in 1844, and for its becoming a popular doctrine in 1866, is,\nthat it happens to suit a prevailing state of mind. It is a fact, so far\nas our limited knowledge extends, that no one is willing to acknowledge\nhimself, not simply an evolutionist, but an evolutionist of the\nDarwinian school, who is not either a Materialist by profession, or a\ndisciple of Herbert Spencer, or an advocate of the philosophy of Hume.\n\nThere is another significant fact which goes to prove that the denial\nof design, which is the \"creative idea\" of Darwinism, is the main cause\nof its popularity and success. Professor Owen, England's greatest\nnaturalist, is a derivationist. Derivation and evolution are convertible\nterms. Both include the denial that species are primordial, or have each\na different origin; and both imply that one species is formed out of\nanother and simpler form. Professor Owen, however, although a\nderivationist, or evolutionist, is a very strenuous anti-Darwinian. He\ndiffers from Darwin as to two points. First, as to Natural Selection, or\nthe Survival of the Fittest. He says that is inconsistent with facts and\nutterly insufficient to account for the origin of species. He refers the\norigin of species to an inherent tendency to change impressed on them\nfrom the beginning. And second, he admits design. He denies that the\nsuccession and origin of species are due to chance, and expresses his\nbelief in the constant operation of creative power in the formation of\nspecies from the varied descendants of more generalized forms.[48] He\nbelieves \"that all living things have been produced by such law (of\nvariation) in time, their position and uses in the world having been\npreordained by the Creator.\"[49] Professor Owen says he has taught the\ndoctrine of derivation (evolution) for thirty years, but it attracted\nlittle attention. As soon, however, as Darwin leaves out design, we have\na prairie-fire. A prairie-fire, happily, does not continue very long;\nand while it lasts, it burns up little else than stubble.\n\n4. All the evidence we have in favor of the fixedness of species is, of\ncourse, evidence not only against Darwinism, but against evolution in\nall its forms. It would seem idle to discuss the question of the\nmutability of species, until satisfied what species is. This, unhappily,\nis a question which it is exceedingly difficult to answer. Not only do\nthe definitions given by scientific men differ almost indefinitely, but\nthere is endless diversity in classification. Think of four hundred and\neighty species of humming-birds. Haeckel says that one naturalist makes\nten, another forty, another two hundred, and another one, species of a\ncertain fossil; and we have just heard that Agassiz had collected eight\nhundred species of the same fossil animal. Haeckel also says (p. 246),\nthat there are no two zooelogists or any two botanists who agree\naltogether in their classification. Mr. Darwin says, \"No clear line of\ndemarcation has yet been drawn between species and sub-species, and\nvarieties.\" (p. 61) It is absolutely necessary, therefore, that a\ndistinction should be made between artificial and natural species. No\nman asserts the immutability of all those varieties of plants and\nanimals, which naturalists, for the convenience of classification, may\ncall distinct species. Haeckel, for example, gives a list of twelve\nspecies of man. So any one may make fifty species of dogs, or of horses.\nThis is a mere artificial distinction, which amounts to nothing. There\nis far greater difference between a pouter and a carrier pigeon, than\nbetween a Caucasian and a Mongolian. To call the former varieties of the\nsame species, and the latter distinct species, is altogether arbitrary.\nNevertheless, notwithstanding the arbitrary classifications of\nnaturalists, it remains true that there are what Professor Dana calls\n\"units\" of the organic world. \"When individuals multiply from generation\nto generation, it is but a repetition of the primordial type-idea, and\nthe true notion of the species is not in the resulting group, but in\nthe idea or potential element which is the basis of every individual of\nthe group.\"[50] Dr. Morton's definition of species as \"primordial\norganic forms,\" agrees with that given by Professor Dana; and both agree\nwith the Bible, which says that God created plants and animals each\nafter its kind. A primordial form is a form which was not evolved out of\nsome other form, but which began to be in the form--subject to such\nvarieties as we see in the dog, horse, and man--in which it continued\nduring the whole period of its existence.\n\nThe criteria of these primordial forms or species of nature, are, (1.)\nMorphological. Animals, however, may approach very nearly in their\nstructure, and yet belong to different species. It is only when the\npeculiarities of structure are indicative of specialty of design, that\nthey form a safe ground of classification. If the teeth of one animal\nare formed to fit it to feed on flesh, and those of another to fit it to\nfeed on plants; if one has webbed feet and another not; then, in all\nsuch cases, difference of structure proves difference of kind. (2.)\nPhysiological; that is, the internal nature, indicated by habits and\ninstincts, furnishes another safe criterion. (3.) Permanent fecundity.\nThe progenitors of the same species reproduce their kind from generation\nto generation; the progeny of different species, although nearly allied,\ndo not. It is a fixed law of nature that species never can be\nannihilated, except by all the individuals included in them dying out;\nand that new species cannot be produced. Every true species is\nprimordial. It is this fact, that is, that no variety, with the\nessential characteristics of species, has ever been produced, that\nforces, as we saw above, Professor Huxley to pronounce Mr. Darwin's\ndoctrine to be an unproved hypothesis. Species continue; varieties, if\nlet alone, always revert to the normal type. It requires the skill and\nconstant attention of man to keep them distinct.\n\nNow that there are such forms in nature, is proved not only from the\ntestimony of the great body of the most distinguished naturalists, but\nby all the facts in the case.\n\nFirst, the fact that such species are known to have existed unchanged,\nthrough what geologists consider almost immeasurable periods of time.\nPalaeontologists tell us that Trilobites abounded from the primordial age\ndown to the Carboniferous period, that is, as they suppose, through\nmillions of years. More wonderful still, the little animals whose\nremains constitute the chalk formations which are spread over large\nareas of country, and are sometimes a hundred feet thick, are now at\nwork at the bottom of the Atlantic. Principal Dawson tells us, with\nregard to Mollusks existing in a sub-fossil state in the Post-pliocene\nclays of Canada, that \"after carefully studying about two hundred\nspecies, and of some of these, many hundreds of specimens, I have\narrived at the conclusion that they are absolutely unchanged.... Here\nagain we have an absolute refusal, on the part of all these animals, to\nadmit that they are derived, or have tended to sport into new\nspecies.\"[51]\n\nOn the previous page he says, \"Pictet catalogues ninety-eight species of\nmammals which inhabited Europe in the Post-glacial period. Of these\nfifty-seven still exist unchanged, and the remainder have disappeared.\nNot one can be shown to have been modified into a new form, though some\nof them have been obliged, by changes of temperature and other\nconditions, to remove into distant and now widely separated regions.\"\n\nA second fact which attests the primordial character and fixedness of\nspecies is, that every species as it first appears, is not in a\ntransition state between one form and another, but in the perfection of\nits kind. Science has indeed discovered an ascending order in creation,\nwhich agrees marvellously with that given in the book of Genesis: first,\nvegetable productions; then the moving creatures in the sea; then\nterrestrial animals; and finally man. Naturalists, who utterly reject\nthe Scriptures as a divine revelation, speak with the highest admiration\nof the Mosaic account of the creation, as compared with any other\ncosmogony of the ancient world. While there is in general an ascending\nseries in these living forms, each was perfect in its kind.\n\nAgassiz says that fishes existed contemporaneously with species of all\nthe invertebrate sub-kingdoms in the Taconic, or sub-Cambrian strata.\nThis is the extreme limit of known geological strata in which life is\nfound to have existed. As the evolution of one species out of another\nrequires, according to Darwin, millions of years, it is out of the\nquestion to trace these animals beyond the strata in which their remains\nare now found. Yet \"crabs or lobsters, worms, cuttle-fish, snails,\njelly-fish, star-fish, oysters, the polyps lived contemporaneously with\nthe first known vertebrate animals that ever came into being--all as\nclearly defined by unmistakable ordinal or special characters as they\nare at the present moment.\"[52]\n\nThe foot of the horse is considered by zooelogists as \"one of the most\nbeautiful contrivances in nature.\" The remains of this animal found in\nwhat is called the Pliocene Period, show the foot to have been as\nperfect then as it is now.\n\nMr. Wallace says that man has existed on the earth a hundred thousand\nyears, and that it is probable that he existed four hundred thousand\nyears ago. Of course we do not believe this. We have little faith in the\nchronology of science. It gives no sure data for the calculation of\ntime, hence we find them differing from four thousand to four hundred\nthousand years as to the time required for certain formations. The most\ntrustworthy geologists teach that all that is known of the antiquity of\nman falls within the limits of Biblical chronology. The further,\nhowever, Darwinians push back the origin of man, the stronger, as\nagainst them, becomes the argument for the immutability of species. The\nearliest remains of man show that at his first appearance, he was in\nperfection. The oldest known human skull is that called the \"Engis,\"\nbecause found in the cave of Engis in Belgium. Of this skull Professor\nHuxley says it may have belonged to an individual of one of the existing\nraces of men. Principal Dawson, who has a cast of it, on the same shelf\nwith the skulls of some Algonquin Indians, says it might be taken for\nthe skull of an American Indian. Indeed, Dawson seems to think that\nthese fossil human remains go to show that the earliest men were better\ndeveloped than any of the extant races.\n\nThirdly. The historical evidence accessible all goes to prove the\nimmutability of species. The earliest historical records and the oldest\nmonuments prove that all extant animals were what they now are thousands\nof years ago.\n\nFourthly. The fact that hybrids cannot be perpetuated, that no device of\nman can produce a new species, is proof that God has fixed limits which\ncannot be passed. This Huxley himself admits to be an insuperable\nobjection. So long as it exists, he says, Darwin's doctrine must be\ncontent to remain a hypothesis; it cannot pretend to the dignity of a\ntheory. Another fact of like import is that varieties artificially\nproduced, if let alone, uniformly revert to the simple typical form. It\nis only by the utmost care they can be kept distinct. All the highly\nprized varieties of horses, cattle, sheep, pigeons, etc., without human\ncontrol, would be merged each class into one, with only the slight\ndifferences occasioned by diversities of climate and other external\nconditions. If in the sight of man it is important that the words of a\nbook should be kept distinct, it is equally evident that in the sight of\nGod it is no less important that the \"units of nature\" should not be\nmixed in inextricable and indistinguishable confusion.\n\nFifthly. The sudden appearance of new kinds of animals is another fact\nwhich Palaeontologists urge against the doctrine of evolution. According\nto the view of geologists great changes have, at remote periods,\noccurred in the state of the earth. Continents have been submerged and\nthe bottom of the sea raised above the surface of the waters.\nCorresponding changes have occurred in the state of the atmosphere\nsurrounding the globe, and in the temperature of the earth. Accompanying\nor following these revolutions new classes of plants and animals appear,\nadapted to the new condition of the earth's surface. Whence do they\ncome? They have, as Dawson expresses it, neither fathers nor mothers.\nNothing precedes them from which they could be derived; and nothing of\nthe same kind follows them. They live through their appointed period;\nand then, in a multitude of cases, finally disappear, and are in their\nturn followed by new orders or kinds. In other words, the links or\nconnecting forms of this assumed regular succession or derivation are\nnot to be found. This fact is so patent, that Hugh Miller, when arguing\nagainst the doctrine of evolution as proposed in the \"Vestiges of\nCreation,\" says, that the record in the rocks seems to have been written\nfor the very purpose of proving that such evolution is impossible.\n\nWe have the explicit testimony of Agassiz, as a Palaeontologist, that the\nfacts of geology contradict the theory of the transmutation of species.\nThis testimony has been repeatedly given and in various forms. In the\nlast production of his pen, he says: \"As a Palaeontologist I have from\nthe beginning stood aloof from this new theory of transmutation, now so\nwidely admitted by the scientific world. Its doctrines, in fact,\ncontradict what the animal forms buried in the rocky strata of our earth\ntell us of their own introduction and succession upon the surface of the\nglobe.\" \"Let us look now at the earliest vertebrates, as known and\nrecorded in geological surveys. They should, of course, if there is any\ntruth in the transmutation theory, correspond with the lowest in rank or\nstanding. What then are the earliest known vertebrates? They are\nSelachians (sharks and their allies) and Ganoids (garpikes and the\nlike), the highest of all living fishes, structurally speaking.\" He\ncloses the article from which these quotations are taken with the\nassertion, \"that there is no evidence of a direct descent of later from\nearlier species in the geological succession of animals.\"[53] It will be\nobserved that Agassiz is quoted, not as to matters of theory, but as to\nmatters of fact. The only answer which evolutionists can make to this\nargument, is the imperfection of the geological record. When asked,\nWhere are the immediate predecessors of these new species? they answer,\nThey have disappeared, or, have not yet been found. When asked, Where\nare their immediate successors? the answer again is, They have\ndisappeared.[54] This is an objection which Mr. Darwin, with his usual\ncandor, virtually admits to be unanswerable. We have already seen, that\nhe says, \"Every one will admit that the geological record is imperfect;\nbut very few can believe that it is so very imperfect as my theory\ndemands.\"\n\nSuch are some of the grounds on which geologists and palaeontologists of\nthe highest rank assert that the theory of evolution has not the\nslightest scientific basis; and they support their assertion with an\namount of evidence of which the above items are a miserable pittance.\n\nSixthly. There is another consideration of decisive importance. Strauss\nsays, there are three things which have been stumbling-blocks in the way\nof science. First, the origin of life; second, the origin of\nconsciousness; third, the origin of reason. These are equivalent to the\ngaps which, Principal Dawson says, exist in the theory of evolution. He\nstates them thus: 1. That between dead and living matter. 2. That\nbetween vegetable and animal life. \"These are necessarily the converse\nof each other: the one deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes\nand expends.\" 3. That \"between any species of plant or animal, and any\nother species. It was this gap, and this only, which Darwin undertook to\nfill up by his great work on the origin of species, but, notwithstanding\nthe immense amount of material thus expended, it yawns as wide as ever,\nsince it must be admitted that no case has been ascertained in which an\nindividual of one species has transgressed the limits between it and\nanother species.\" 4. \"Another gap is between the nature of the animal\nand the self-conscious, reasoning, and moral nature of man.\" (pp.\n325-328)\n\nFirst, as to the gap between death and life; this is what Dr. Stirling\ncalls the \"gulf of all gulfs, which Mr. Huxley's protoplasm is as\npowerless to efface as any other material expedient that has ever been\nsuggested.\"[55] This gulf Mr. Darwin does not attempt to bridge over. He\nadmits that life owes its origin to the act of the Creator. This,\nhowever, the most prominent of the advocates of Darwinism say, is giving\nup the whole controversy. If you admit the intervention of creative\npower at one point, you may as well admit it in any other. If life owes\nits origin to creative power, why not species? If the stupendous miracle\nof creation be admitted, there is no show of reason for denying\nsupernatural intervention in the operations of nature. Most Darwinians\nattempt to pass this gulf on the imaginary bridge of spontaneous\ngeneration. In other words, they say there is no gulf there. The\nmolecules of matter, in one combination, may as well exhibit the\nphenomena of life, as in other combinations, any other kind of\nphenomena. The distinguished Sir William Thomson cannot trust himself to\nthat bridge. \"Dead matter,\" he says, \"cannot become living matter\nwithout coming under the influence of matter previously alive. This\nseems to me as sure a teaching of science as the law of gravitation....\nI am ready to adopt, as an article of scientific faith, true through all\nspace and through all time, that life proceeds from life, and nothing\nbut life.\"[56] He refers the origin of life on this earth to falling\nmeteors, which bring with them from other planets the germs of living\norganisms; and from those germs all the plants and animals with which\nour world is now covered have been derived. Principal Dawson thinks that\nthis was intended as irony. But the whole tone of the address, and\nspecially of the closing portion of it, in which this idea is advanced,\nis far too serious to admit of such an explanation.\n\nNo one can read the address referred to without being impressed, and\neven awed, by the immensity and grandeur of the field of knowledge which\nfalls legitimately within the domain of science. The perusal of that\ndiscourse produces a feeling of humility analogous to the sense of\ninsignificance which every man experiences when he thinks of himself as\na speck on the surface of the earth, which itself is but a speck in the\nimmensity of the universe. And when a man of mere ordinary culture sees\nSir William Thomson surveying that field with a mastery of its details\nand familiarity with all the recondite methods of its investigation, he\nfeels as nothing in his presence. Yet this great man, whom we cannot\nhelp regarding with wonder, is so carried away by the spirit of his\nclass as to say, \"Science is bound, by the everlasting law of honor, to\nface fearlessly every problem which can fairly be brought before it. If\na probable solution, consistent with the ordinary course of nature, can\nbe found, we must not invoke an abnormal act of Creative Power.\" And,\ntherefore, instead of invoking Creative Power, he accounts for the\norigin of life on earth by falling meteors. How he accounts for its\norigin in the places whence the meteors came, he does not say. Yet Sir\nWilliam Thomson believes in Creative Power; and in a subsequent page, we\nshall quote his explicit repudiation of the atheistic element in the\nDarwinian theory.\n\nStrauss quotes Dubois-Reymond, a distinguished naturalist, as teaching\nthat the first of these great problems, viz. the origin of life, admits\nof explanation on scientific (i. e., in his sense, materialistic)\nprinciples; and even the third, viz. the origin of reason; but the\nsecond, or the origin of consciousness, he says, \"is perfectly\ninscrutable.\" Dubois-Reymond holds that \"the most accurate knowledge of\nthe essential organism reveals to us only matter in motion; but between\nthis material movement and my feeling pain or pleasure, experiencing a\nsweet taste, seeing red, with the conclusion 'therefore I exist,' there\nis a profound gulf; and it 'remains utterly and forever inconceivable\nwhy to a number of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, etc., it should not be a\nmatter of indifference how they lie or how they move; nor, can we in any\nwise tell how consciousness should result from their concurrent action.'\nWhether,\" adds Strauss, \"these _Verba Magistri_ are indeed the last word\non the subject, time only can tell.\"[57] But if it is inconceivable, not\nto say absurd, that sense-consciousness should consist in the motion of\nmolecules of matter, or be a function of such molecules, it can hardly\nbe less absurd to account for thought, conscience, and religious\nfeeling and belief on any such hypothesis. It may be said that Mr.\nDarwin is not responsible for these extreme opinions. That is very true.\nMr. Darwin is not a Monist, for in admitting creation, he admits a\ndualism as between God and the world. Neither is he a Materialist,\ninasmuch as he assumes a supernatural origin for the infinitesimal\nmodicum of life and intelligence in the primordial animalcule, from\nwhich without divine purpose or agency, all living things in the whole\nhistory of our earth have descended. All the innumerable varieties of\nplants, all the countless forms of animals, with all their instincts and\nfaculties, all the varieties of men with their intellectual endowments,\nand their moral and religious nature, have, according to Darwin, been\nevolved by the agency of the blind, unconscious laws of nature. This\ninfinitesimal spark of supernaturalism in Mr. Darwin's theory, would\ninevitably have gone out of itself, had it not been rudely and\ncontemptuously trodden out by his bolder, and more logical successors.\n\nThe grand and fatal objection to Darwinism is this exclusion of design\nin the origin of species, or the production of living organisms. By\ndesign is meant the intelligent and voluntary selection of an end, and\nthe intelligent and voluntary choice, application, and control of means\nappropriate to the accomplishment of that end. That design, therefore,\nimplies intelligence, is involved in its very nature. No man can\nperceive this adaptation of means to the accomplishment of a\npreconceived end, without experiencing an irresistible conviction that\nit is the work of mind. No man does doubt it, and no man can doubt it.\nDarwin does not deny it. Haeckel does not deny it. No Darwinian denies\nit. What they do is to deny that there is any design in nature. It is\nmerely apparent, as when the wind of the Bay of Biscay, as Huxley says,\n\"selects the right kind of sand and spreads it in heaps upon the\nplains.\" But in thus denying design in nature, these writers array\nagainst themselves the intuitive perceptions and irresistible\nconvictions of all mankind,--a barrier which no man has ever been able\nto surmount. Sir William Thomson, in the address already referred to,\nsays: \"I feel profoundly convinced that the argument of design has been\ngreatly too much lost sight of in recent zooelogical speculations.\nReaction against the frivolities of teleology, such as are to be found,\nnot rarely, in the notes of the learned commentators on 'Paley's Natural\nTheology,' has, I believe, had a temporary effect of turning attention\nfrom the solid irrefragable argument so well put forward in that\nexcellent old book. But overpowering proof of intelligence and\nbenevolent design lie all around us, and if ever perplexities, whether\nmetaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come\nback upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through nature the\ninfluence of a free will, and teaching us that all living beings depend\nupon one ever-acting Creator and Ruler.\"\n\nIt is impossible for even Mr. Darwin, inconsistent as it is with his\nwhole theory, to deny all design in the constitution of nature. What is\nhis law of heredity? Why should like beget like? Take two germ cells,\none of a plant, another of an animal; no man by microscope or by\nchemical analysis, or by the magic power of the spectroscope, can detect\nthe slightest difference between them, yet the one infallibly develops\ninto a plant and the other into an animal. Take the germ of a fish and\nof a bird, and they are equally indistinguishable; yet the one always\nunder all conditions develops into a fish and the other into a bird.\nWhy is this? There is no physical force, whether light, heat,\nelectricity, or anything else, which makes the slightest approximation\nto accounting for that fact. To say, as Stuart Mill would say, that it\nis an ultimate fact, and needs no explanation, is to say that there may\nbe an effect without an adequate cause. The venerable R. E. Von Baer,\nthe first naturalist in Russia, of whom Agassiz speaks in terms of such\naffectionate veneration in the \"Atlantic Monthly\" for January, 1874, has\nwritten a volume dated Dorpat, 1873, and entitled \"Zum Streit ueber den\nDarwinismus.\" In that volume, as we learn from a German periodical, the\nauthor says: \"The Darwinians lay great stress on heredity; but what is\nthe law of heredity but a determination of something future? Is it not\nin its nature in the highest degree teleological? Indeed, is not the\nwhole faculty of reproduction intended to introduce a new life-process?\nWhen a man looks at a dissected insect and examines its strings of eggs,\nand asks, Whence are they? the naturalist of our day has no answer to\ngive, but that they were of necessity gradually produced by the changes\nin matter. When it is further asked, Why are they there? is it wrong to\nsay, It is _in order that_ when the eggs are mature and fertilized, new\nindividuals of the same form should be produced.\"\n\nIt is further to be considered that there are innumerable cases of\ncontrivance, or evidence of design in nature, to which the principle of\nnatural selection, or the purposeless changes effected by unconscious\nforce, cannot apply; as for example, the distinction of sex, with all\nthat is therein involved. But passing by such cases, it may be asked,\nwhat would it avail to get rid of design in the vegetable and animal\nkingdom, while the whole universe is full of it? That this ordered\nCosmos is not from necessity or chance, is almost a self-evident fact.\nNot one man in a million of those who ever heard of God, either does\ndoubt or can doubt it. Besides how are the cosmical relations of light,\nheat, electricity, to the constituent parts of the universe, and\nespecially, so far as this earth is concerned, to vegetable and animal\nlife, to be accounted for? Is this all chance work? Is it by chance that\nlight and heat cause plants to carry on their wonderful operations,\ntransmuting the inorganic into the organic, dead matter into living and\nlife sustaining matter? Is it without a purpose that water instead of\ncontracting, expands at the freezing point?--a fact to which is due that\nthe earth north of the tropic is habitable for man or beast. It is no\nanswer to this question to say that a few other substances have the same\npeculiarity, when no good end, that we can see, is thereby accomplished.\nNo man is so foolish as to deny that his eye was intended to enable him\nto see, because he cannot tell what the spleen was made for. It is,\nhowever, useless to dwell upon this subject. If a man denies that there\nis design in nature, he can with quite as good reason deny that there is\nany design in any or in all the works ever executed by man.\n\nThe conclusion of the whole matter is, that the denial of design in\nnature is virtually the denial of God. Mr. Darwin's theory does deny all\ndesign in nature, therefore, his theory is virtually atheistical; his\ntheory, not he himself. He believes in a Creator. But when that Creator,\nmillions on millions of ages ago, did something,--called matter and a\nliving germ into existence,--and then abandoned the universe to itself\nto be controlled by chance and necessity, without any purpose on his\npart as to the result, or any intervention or guidance, then He is\nvirtually consigned, so far as we are concerned, to non-existence. It\nhas already been said that the most extreme of Mr. Darwin's admirers\nadopt and laud his theory, for the special reason that it banishes God\nfrom the world; that it enables them to account for design without\nreferring it to the purpose or agency of God. This is done expressly by\nBuechner, Haeckel, Vogt, and Strauss. The opponents of Darwinism direct\ntheir objections principally against this element of the doctrine. This,\nas was stated by Rev. Dr. Peabody, was the main ground of the earnest\nopposition of Agassiz to the theory. America's great botanist, Dr. Asa\nGray, avows himself an evolutionist; but he is not a Darwinian. Of that\npoint we have the clearest possible proof. Mr. Darwin, after explicitly\ndenying that the variations which have resulted in \"the formation of the\nmost perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were\nintentionally and specially guided,\" adds: \"However much we may wish it,\nwe can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief 'that variation\nhas been led along certain beneficial lines' like a stream 'along\ndefinite and useful lines of irrigation.'\"[58] If Mr. Darwin does not\nagree with Dr. Gray, Dr. Gray does not agree with Mr. Darwin. It is as\nto the exclusion of design from the operations of nature that our\nAmerican, differs from the English, naturalist. This is the vital point.\nThe denial of final causes is the formative idea of Darwin's theory, and\ntherefore no teleologist can be a Darwinian.\n\nDr. Gray quotes from another writer the sentence, \"It is a singular\nfact, that when we can find how anything is done, our first conclusion\nseems to be that God did not do it;\" and then adds, \"I agree with the\nwriter that this first conclusion is premature and unworthy; I will add,\ndeplorable. Through what faults of dogmatism on the one hand, and\nskepticism on the other, it came to be so thought, we need not here\nconsider. Let us hope, and I confidently expect, that it is not to last;\nthat the religious faith which survived without a shock the notion of\nthe fixedness of the earth itself, may equally outlast the notion of the\nabsolute fixedness of the species which inhabit it; that in the future,\neven more than in the past, faith in an _order_, which is the basis of\nscience, will not--as it cannot reasonably--be dissevered from faith in\nan _Ordainer_, which is the basis of religion.\"[59] We thank God for\nthat sentence. It is the concluding sentence of Dr. Gray's address as\nex-President of \"The American Association for the Advancement of\nScience,\" delivered August, 1872.\n\nDr. Gray goes further. He says, \"The proposition that the things and\nevents in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out,\nis doubtless tantamount to atheism.\" Again, \"To us, a fortuitous Cosmos\nis simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos.... If Mr.\nDarwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and\nthe results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if\nthe physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers\nphenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show\nthat such belief is atheistic.\"[60]\n\nWe have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism?\nIt is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin\nhimself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his\ntheory is atheistic; that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr.\nGray says, tantamount to atheism.\n\nAmong the last words of Strauss were these: \"We demand for our universe\nthe same piety which the devout man of old demanded for his God.\" \"In\nthe enormous machine of the universe, amid the incessant whirl and hiss\nof its jagged iron wheels, amid the deafening crash of its ponderous\nstamps and hammers, in the midst of this whole terrific commotion, man,\na helpless and defenceless creature, finds himself placed, not secure\nfor a moment that on an imprudent motion a wheel may not seize and rend\nhim, or a hammer crush him to a powder. This sense of abandonment is at\nfirst something awful.\"[61]\n\nAmong the last words of Paul were these: \"I know whom I have believed,\nand am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed\nunto Him against that day.... The time of my departure is at hand. I\nhave fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the\nfaith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness,\nwhich the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not\nto me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[40] _Science and Scripture not Antagonistic, because Distinct in their\nSpheres of Thought_. A Lecture, by Rev. George Henslow, M. A., F. L. S.,\nF. G. S. London, 1873, p. 1.\n\n[41] _Gott und Natur_, p. 200.\n\n[42] _Protoplasm; or, Matter and Life._ By Lionel S. Beale, M. B., F. R.\nS. Third edition. London & Philadelphia, 1874, p. 345; and the whole\nchapter on Design.\n\n[43] _Fallacies in the Hypothesis of Mr. Darwin_, by C. R. Bree, M. D.,\nF. Z. S. London, 1872, p. 290.\n\n[44] When Professor Huxley says, as quoted above, that he does not deny\nthe possibility of miracles, he must use the word miracle in a sense\npeculiar to himself.\n\n[45] _Jenaer Literaturzeitung_, January 3, 1874. In this number there is\na notice by Doctor Haeckel of two books,--_Descendenzlehre und\nDarwinismus_, von Oscar Schmidt, Leipzig, 1873; and _Die Fortschritte\ndes Darwinismus_, von J. W. Spengel, Coeln and Leipzig, 1874; in which he\nsays: \"Erstens, um in Sachen der Descendenz-Theorie mitreden zu koennen,\nein gewisser Grad von tieferer biologischer (sowohl morphologischer als\nphysiologischer) Bildung unentbehrlich, den die meistzen von jenen\nAuctoren (the opposers of the theory) nicht besitzen. Zweitens ist fuer\nein klares und zutreffendes Urtheil in diesem Sachen eine ruecksichtslose\nHingabe an vernunftgemaesse Erkenntniss und eine dadurch bedingte\nResignation auf uralte, liebgewordene und tief vererbte Vorurtheile\nerforderlich, zu welcher sich die wenigsten entschliesen koennen.\"\n\n[46] In his _Natuerlische Schoepfungsgeschichte_, Haeckel is still more\nexclusive. When he comes to answer the objections to the evolution, or,\nas he commonly calls it, the descendence theory, he dismisses the\nobjections derived from religion, as unworthy of notice, with the remark\nthat all Glaube ist Aberglaube; all faith is superstition. The\nobjections from _a priori_, or intuitive truths, are disposed of in an\nequally summary manner, by denying that there are any such truths, and\nasserting that all our knowledge is from the senses. The objection that\nso many distinguished naturalists reject the theory, he considers more\nat length. First, many have grown old in another way of thinking and\ncannot be expected to change. Second, many are collectors of facts,\nwithout studying their relations, or are destitute of the genius for\ngeneralization. No amount of material makes a building. Others, again,\nare specialists. It is not enough that a man should be versed in one\ndepartment; he must be at home in all: in Botany, Zooelogy, Comparative\nAnatomy, Biology, Geology, and Palaeontology. He must be able to survey\nthe whole field. Fourthly, and mainly, naturalists are generally\nlamentably deficient in philosophical culture and in a philosophical\nspirit. \"The immovable edifice of the true, monistic science, or what is\nthe same thing, natural science, can only arise through the most\nintimate interaction and mutual interpenetration of philosophy and\nobservation (Philosophie und Empirie).\" pp. 638-641. It is only a select\nfew, therefore, of learned and philosophical monistic materialists, who\nare entitled to be heard on questions of the highest moment to every\nindividual man, and to human society.\n\n[47] This short but significant sentence is omitted in the excellent\ntranslation of Strauss's book, by Mathilde Blind, republished in New\nYork, by Henry Holt & Company, 1873.\n\n[48] _The Fallacies of Darwinism_, by C. R. Bree, M. D., p. 308.\n\n[49] _The Fallacies of Darwinism_, p. 305.\n\n[50] _Bibliotheca Sacra_, 1857, p. 861.\n\n[51] _The Story of Earth and Man_, p. 358.\n\n[52] Dr. Bree, p. 275. We presume geologists differ in the terms which\nthey use to designate strata. Agassiz calls the oldest containing\nfossil, the sub-Cambrian. Principal Dawson calls the oldest the\nLaurentian, and places the first vertebrates in the Silurian. This is of\nno moment as to the argument. The important fact is that each species is\ndistinct as soon as it appears; and that many have remained to the\npresent time.\n\n[53] _Atlantic Monthly_, January, 1874.\n\n[54] We have heard a story of a gentleman who gave an artist a\ncommission for a historical painting, and suggested as the subject, the\nPassage of the Israelites over the Red Sea. In due time he was informed\nthat his picture was finished, and was shown by the artist a large\ncanvas painted red. \"What is that?\" he asked. \"Why,\" says the artist,\n\"that is the Red Sea.\" \"But where are the Israelites?\" \"Oh, they have\npassed over.\" \"And where are the Egyptians?\" \"They are under the sea.\"\n\n[55] _As Regards Protoplasm in Relation to Professor Huxley's Essay an\nthe Physical Basis of Life_. By Dr. James H. Stirling. See, also,\n_Physiological Anatomy and Physiology of Man_, by L. S. Beale; also,\n_The Mystery of Life in Reply to Dr. Gull's Attack on the Theory of\nVitality_. By L. S. Beale, M. D., 1871.\n\n[56] The address delivered by Sir William Thomson, as President of the\nBritish Association at its meeting in Edinburgh, 1871.\n\n[57] _The Old Faith and the New_. Prefatory Postscript, xxi.\n\n[58] _Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication_. New York,\n1868, vol. ii. pp. 515, 516.\n\n[59] _Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of\nScience_. Cambridge, 1873, p. 20.\n\n[60] The _Atlantic Monthly_ for October, 1860. The three articles in the\nJuly, August, and October numbers of the _Atlantic_, on this subject,\nhave been reprinted with the name of Dr. Asa Gray as their author.\n\n[61] Strauss says that as he has arrived at the conclusion that there is\nno personal God, and no life after death, it would seem to follow that\nthe question, Have we still a religion? \"must be answered in the\nnegative.\" But as he makes the essence of religion to consist in a sense\nof dependence, and as he felt himself to be helpless in the midst of\nthis whirling universe, he had that much religion left.\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENTS\n\n\n_The Great Theological Work of the Age._\n\nDR. HODGE'S THEOLOGY.\n\nSystematic Theology.\n\nBy CHARLES HODGE, D.D., LL.D.,\n\nof Princeton Theological Seminary.\n\n\n_Complete in three volumes 8vo, tinted paper. Price, vols. I. and II._,\n$4.50. _Vol. III._, $5.\n\nIn these volumes are comprised the results of the life-long labors and\ninvestigations of one of the most eminent theologians of the age. The\nwork covers the ground usually occupied by treatises on Systematic\nTheology, and adopts the commonly received divisions of the\nsubject,--THEOLOGY, Vol. I.; ANTHROPOLOGY, Vol. II.; SOTERIOLOGY AND\nESCHATOLOGY, Vol. III.\n\nThe INTRODUCTION is devoted to the consideration of preliminary matters,\nsuch as Method, or the principles which should guide the student of\nTheology, and the different theories as to the source and standard of\nour knowledge of divine things, Rationalism, Mysticism, the Roman\nCatholic doctrine of the Rule of Faith, and the Protestant doctrine on\nthat subject.\n\nThe department of THEOLOGY proper includes the origin of the Idea of\nGod, the Being of God, the Anti-Theistic systems of Atheism, Polytheism,\nMaterialism, and Pantheism; the Nature of God, the Divine Attributes,\nthe Doctrines of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, and of the Holy\nSpirit; the Decrees of God, Creation, Providence, and Miracles.\n\nThe department of ANTHROPOLOGY includes the Nature, Origin, and\nAntiquity of Man, his Primitive State and Probation; the Fall; the\nEffect of Adam's Sin upon himself and upon his Posterity; the Nature of\nSin; the Different Philosophical and Theological Theories on that\nsubject.\n\nSOTERIOLOGY includes the Plan or Purpose of God in reference to the\nSalvation of Men; the Person and Work of the Redeemer; his Offices as\nProphet, Priest, and King, the Work of the Holy Spirit in applying the\nredemption purchased by Christ; Common and Efficacious Grace,\nRegeneration, Faith, Justification, Sanctification, the Law or Rule of\nLife, and the means of Grace.\n\nESCHATOLOGY includes the State of the Soul after Death; the Second\nComing of Christ; the Resurrection of the Body; the General Judgment and\nEnd of the World, and the Doctrine concerning Heaven and Hell.\n\nThe plan of the author is to state and vindicate the teachings of the\nBible on these various subjects, and to examine the antagonistic\ndoctrines of different classes of Theologians. His book, therefore, is\nintended to be both didactic and elenchtic.\n\nThe various topics are discussed with that close and keen analytical and\nlogical power combined with that simplicity, lucidity, and strength of\nstyle which have already given Dr. HODGE a world-wide reputation as a\ncontroversialist and writer, and as an investigator of the great\ntheological problems of the day.\n\n_Single copies, sent post-paid on receipt of the price._\n\nSCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,\n\n654 Broadway, New York\n\nEDINBURGH REVIEW.--\"The BEST History of the Roman Republic.\"\n\nLONDON TIMES.--\"BY FAR THE BEST History of the Decline and Fall of the\nRoman Commonwealth.\"\n\n\nTHE\n\nHistory of Rome,\n\nFROM THE EARLIEST TIME TO THE PERIOD OF ITS DECLINE.\n\nBy Dr. THEODOR MOMMSEN.\n\nTranslated, with the author's sanction and additions, by the Rev. W. P.\nDICKSON, Regius Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of\nGlasgow, late Classical Examiner in the University of St. Andrews. With\nan Introduction by Dr. LEONHARD SCHMITZ, and a copious Index of the\nwhole four volumes, prepared especially for this edition.\n\nREPRINTED FROM THE REVISED LONDON EDITION\n\nFour Volumes crown 8vo. Price per volume, $2.00.\n\nDr. MOMMSEN has long been known and appreciated through his researches\ninto the languages, laws, and institutions of Ancient Rome and Italy, as\nthe most thoroughly versed scholar now living in these departments of\nhistorical investigation. To a wonderfully exact and exhaustive\nknowledge of these subjects, he unites great powers of generalization, a\nvigorous, spirited, and exceedingly graphic style and keen analytical\npowers, which give this history a degree of interest and a permanent\nvalue possessed by no other record of the decline and fall of the Roman\nCommonwealth. \"Dr. Mommsen's work,\" as Dr. Schmitz remarks in the\nintroduction, \"though the production of a man of most profound and\nextensive learning and knowledge of the world, is not as much designed\nfor the professional scholar as for intelligent readers of all classes\nwho take an interest in the history of by-gone ages, and are inclined\nthere to seek information that may guide them safely through the\nperplexing mazes of modern history.\"\n\n\nCRITICAL NOTICES.\n\n\n     \"A work of the very highest merit; its learning is exact and\n     profound; its narrative full of genius and skill; its descriptions\n     of men are admirably vivid. We wish to place on record our opinion\n     that Dr. Mommsen's is by far the best history of the Decline and\n     Fall of the Roman Commonwealth.\"--_London Times_.\n\n     \"Since the days of Niebuhr, no work on Roman History has appeared\n     that combines so much to attract, instruct, and charm the reader.\n     Its style--a rare quality in a German author--is vigorous,\n     spirited, and animated. Professor Mommsen's work can stand a\n     comparison with the noblest productions of modern history.\"--_Dr.\n     Schmitz._\n\n     \"This is the best history of the Roman Republic, taking the work on\n     the whole--the author's complete mastery of his subject, the\n     variety of his gifts and acquirements, his graphic power in the\n     delineation of national and individual character, and the vivid\n     interest which he inspires in every portion of his book. He is\n     without an equal in his own sphere.\"--_Edinburgh Review_.\n\n     \"A book of deepest interest.\"--_Dean Trench_.\n\n\nANOTHER GREAT HISTORICAL WORK.\n\n_The History of Greece,_\n\nBy Prof. Dr. ERNST CURTIUS.\n\nTranslated by ADOLPHUS WILLIAM WARD, M.A., Fellow of St. Peter's\nCollege, Cambridge, Prof. of History in Owen's College, Manchester.\n\nTo be completed in four or five vols., crown 8vo, at $2.50 per volume.\n\nPRINTED UPON TINTED PAPER, UNIFORM WITH MOMMSEN'S HISTORY OF ROME, AND\nTHE LIBRARY EDITION OF FROUDE'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND.\n\nVOLS. I., II., III., AND IV., NOW READY.\n\n\nCurtius' _History of Greece_ is similar in plan and purpose to Mommsen's\n_History of Rome_, with which it deserves to rank in every respect as\none of the great masterpieces of historical literature. Avoiding the\nminute details which overburden other similar works, it groups together\nin a very picturesque manner all the important events in the history of\nthis kingdom, which has exercised such a wonderful influence upon the\nworld's civilization. The narrative of Prof. Curtius' work is flowing\nand animated, and the generalizations, although bold, are philosophical\nand sound.\n\n\nCRITICAL NOTICES.\n\n\n     \"Professor Curtius' eminent scholarship is a sufficient guarantee\n     for the trustworthiness of his history, while the skill with which\n     he groups his facts, and his effective mode of narrating them,\n     combine to render it no less readable than sound. Professor Curtius\n     everywhere maintains the true dignity and impartiality of history,\n     and it is evident his sympathies are on the side of justice,\n     humanity, and progress.\"--_London Athenaeum_.\n\n     \"We can not express our opinion of Dr. Curtius' book better than by\n     saying that it may be fitly ranked with Theodor Mommsen's great\n     work.\"--_London Spectator_.\n\n     \"As an introduction to the study of Grecian history, no previous\n     work is comparable to the present for vivacity and picturesque\n     beauty, while in sound learning and accuracy of statement it is not\n     inferior to the elaborate productions which enrich the literature\n     of the age.\"--_N. Y. Daily Tribune_.\n\n     \"The History of Greece is treated by Dr. Curtius so broadly and\n     freely in the spirit of the nineteenth century, that it becomes in\n     his hands one of the worthiest and most instructive branches of\n     study for all who desire something more than a knowledge of\n     isolated facts for their education. This translation ought to\n     become a regular part of the accepted course of reading for young\n     men at college, and for all who are in training for the free\n     political life of our country.\"--_N. Y. Evening Post_.\n\n\n_This book sent post-paid, upon receipt of the price, by the\nPublishers,_\n\nSCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,\n\n654 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.\n\n\nPROSPECTUS\n\nOF A\n\nTheological & Philosophical Library\n\nEDITED BY\n\nHENRY B. SMITH, D.D., AND PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D.,\n\n_Professors in the Union Theological Seminary, New York._\n\nThe undersigned propose to publish a select and compact Library of\nText-Books upon all the main departments of Theology and Philosophy,\nadapted to the wants especially of ministers and students in all\ndenominations.\n\nSome of the works will be translated from the German and other\nlanguages; others will be based upon treatises by various authors; some\nwill be written for the Library by English or American scholars. The aim\nwill be to furnish at least one condensed standard work on each of the\nscientific divisions of Theology and Philosophy, giving the result of\nthe best critical investigations, excluding, however, such histories and\ncommentaries as extend through many volumes.\n\nThis scheme is not presented as final, but as indicating the aim of the\neditors. If sufficient encouragement be given, no pains will be spared\nto make the project complete, and thus to meet a great and acknowledged\ndesideratum in the apparatus for study. On all these topics every\nstudent needs, at least, one good work. To supply this will be the aim\nof our Library.\n\nThe various volumes will be published in the best style, on reasonable\nterms, and as rapidly as the nature of the work and the encouragement of\nthe public will allow.\n\nThe editors will be assisted by eminent scholars of various\ndenominations, who will respectively assume the literary responsibility\nfor the volumes prepared by themselves within the general plan and aim\nof the library.\n\n\nNOW READY,\n\nIN\n\nThe Theological and Philosophical Library.\n\nUEBERWEG'S HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY.\n\n\nVOL. I.--_History of the Ancient and Mediaeval Philosophy_. By Dr.\nFriedrich Ueberweg. Translated from the fourth German edition by George\nS. Morris, A.M., with additions by Noah Porter, D.D., LL.D., President\nof Yale College, and a general Introduction by the editor of the\nPhilosophical Library. One vol. 8vo, cloth, $3.50.\n\nVOL. II.--_History of Modern Philosophy_. With an Essay on English\nPhilosophy, by Dr. NOAH PORTER, President of Yale College; and on\nItalian Philosophy, by Professor V. BOTTA. One vol. 8vo, cloth. $4.00.\n\n_Sent, post-paid, upon receipt of the price by the Publishers,_\n\nSCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,\n\n654 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.\n\nLANGE'S COMMENTARY.\n\nNOW READY:\n\nThe Minor Prophets.\n\n_Edited by_ REV. DR. PHILIP SCHAFF, _and including_\n\n\n     HOSEA.--By OTTO SCHMOLLER, Ph. D., Urach, Wurtemberg. Translated,\n     with additions, by JAMES E. MCCURDY.\n\n     JOEL.--By OTTO SCHMOLLER, Ph. D. Translated, with additional Notes\n     and a New Version of the Hebrew Text, by JOHN FORSYTH, D.D., LL.D.\n\n     AMOS.--By OTTO SCHMOLLER, Ph. D. Translated and enlarged by TALBOT\n     W. CHAMBERS, D.D.\n\n     OBADIAH.--By PAUL KLEINERT, of Berlin. Translated, with additions,\n     by GEORGE R. BLISS, D.D.\n\n     JONAH.--By PAUL KLEINERT. Translated and enlarged by CHARLES\n     ELLIOTT, D.D.\n\n     MICAH.--By PAUL KLEINERT. Translated, with additions, by GEORGE R.\n     BLISS, D.D.\n\n     NAHUM, HABAKKUK, AND ZEPHANIAH.--By PAUL KLEINERT. Translated and\n     enlarged by CHARLES ELLIOTT, D.D.\n\n     HAGGAI.--By JAMES F. MCCURDY, Princeton, N. Y.\n\n     ZECHARIAH.--By TALBOT W. CHAMBERS, D.D., New York.\n\n     MALACHI.--By JOSEPH PACKARD, D.D. Alexandria, Va.\n\n\nOne vol. royal 8vo, cloth $5.00\n\n\n_The Volumes previously Published are_:\n\nOLD TESTAMENT.--I. GENESIS. II. JOSHUA, JUDGES, and RUTH. III. FIRST and\nSECOND KINGS. IV. PSALMS. V. PROVERBS, SONG OF SOLOMON, ECCLESIASTES.\nVI. JEREMIAH and LAMENTATIONS.\n\nNEW TESTAMENT.--I. MATTHEW. II. MARK and LUKE. III. JOHN. IV. ACTS. V.\nTHE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. VI. CORINTHIANS. VII. GALATIANS,\nEPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS. VIII. THESSALONIANS, TIMOTHY, TITUS,\nPHILEMON, and HEBREWS. IX. THE EPISTLES GENERAL OF JAMES, PETER, JOHN,\nand JUDE.\n\nEach one vol. 8vo. Price per vol., in half calf, $7.50: in sheep, $6.50:\nin cloth, $5.00.\n\n\nNAMES AND DENOMINATIONS OF CONTRIBUTORS.\n\nW. G. T. SHEDD, D.D., Presbyterian.\nE. A. WASHBURNE, D.D., Episcopal.\nA. C. KENDRICK, D.D., Baptist.\nW. H. GREEN, D.D., Presbyterian.\nJ. F. HURST, D.D., Methodist.\nTAYLER LEWIS, LL.D., Dutch Reformed.\nREV. CH. F. SHAFFER, D.D., Lutheran.\nR. D. HITCHCOCK, D.D., Presbyterian.\nE. HARWOOD, D.D., Episcopal.\nH. B. HACKETT, D.D., Baptist.\nJOHN LILLIE, D.D., Presbyterian.\nREV. W. G. SUMNER, Episcopal.\nPROF. CHARLES ELLIOTT, Presbyterian.\nTHOS. C. CONANT, D.D., Baptist.\nE. D. YEOMANS, D.D., Presbyterian.\nREV. C. C. STARBUCK, Congregational.\nJ. ISIDOR MOMBERT, D.D., Episcopal.\nD. W. POOR, D.D., Presbyterian.\nC. P. WING, D.D., Presbyterian.\nGEORGE E. DAY. D.D., Congregational.\nREV. P. H. STEENSTRA, Episcopal.\nA. GOSMAN, D.D., Presbyterian.\nPRES. CHAS. A. AIKEN, D.D., Presbyt'n.\nM. B. RIDDLE, D.D., Dutch Reformed.\nPROF. WM. WELLS, D.D., Methodist.\nW. H. HORNBLOWER, D.D., Presbyt'n.\nPROF. GEORGE BLISS, Baptist.\nT. W. CHAMBERS, D.D., Reformed.\n\n\n*** Each volume of \"LANGE'S COMMENTARY\" is complete\nin itself, and can be purchased separately. Sent, post-paid, to any\naddress upon receipt of the price ($5 per volume) by the publishers.\n\nSCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,\n\n654 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.\n\n\nManuals of Political Economy,\n\n_PUBLISHED BY_\n\nSCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.\n\n\nPerry's Elements of Political Economy.\n\nNEW EDITION, REVISED BY THE AUTHOR.\n\nThis treatise presents views favorable to the utmost freedom of\ncommerce, compatible with legitimate revenue from tariff taxes. It is a\nstandard text-book in all our colleges throughout the country. By ARTHUR\nLATHAM PERRY, Professor of Political Economy and History in Williams\nCollege. 487 _pages, price_ $2.50.\n\n\n     \"Your book interests students more than any other I have ever\n     instructed from,\"--_Pres. T. D. Woolsey, Yale College._\n\n     \"As a manual for general reading and popular instruction, Prof.\n     Perry's book is far superior to any work on the subject before\n     issued in the United States.\"--_N. Y. Times._\n\n     \"We cordially recommend this book to all, of whatever school of\n     political economy, who enjoy candid statement and full and logical\n     discussion.\"--_N. Y. Nation._\n\n     \"There is more common sense in this book than in any of the more\n     elaborate works on the same subject that have preceded it.\"--_N. Y.\n     Independent._\n\n     \"In all the portions of the book which we have read, the author\n     shows himself to be a clear, strong, bold, and generally sound\n     thinker.\"--_New Englander_.\n\n\n\nBowen's American Political Economy.\n\nThis treatise presents views compatible with the idea that \"every\ncountry has a political economy of its own, suitable to its own physical\ncircumstances of position on the globe, and to the character, habits,\nand institutions of the people.\" By FRANCIS BOWEN, Professor of\nPolitical Economy and Civil Polity in Harvard College. 495 _pages,\nprice_ $2.50\n\n\n     \"If our members of Congress would vote themselves a copy of this\n     book, and read it, fewer wild schemes would be concocted by them,\n     and a great saving of time and the people's money would be\n     secured.\"--_The Philadelphia Age._\n\n     \"His arguments are worth considering, and his whole book is of high\n     value to any American to study economical questions.\"--_Springfield\n     Republican._\n\n     \"A solid and well-reasoned treatise.... Mr. Bowen's views are\n     clearly stated and thoroughly reasoned.\"--_Boston\n     Congregationalist_.\n\n     ... \"There are hundreds going wrong to-day whom a careful perusal\n     of this volume would set right.\"--_N. Y. Daily Tribune_.\n\n\n***_Sent, post-paid, on receipt of price by the publishers._\n\n\nPrices and Styles of the Different Editions\n\nOF\n\nFROUDE'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND.\n\nThe Chelsea Edition.\n\nIn half roan, gilt top, per set of twelve vols. 12mo $21.00\n\nElegance and cheapness are combined in a remarkable degree in this\nedition. It takes its name from the place of Mr. Froude's residence in\nLondon, also famous as the home of Thomas Carlyle.\n\n\nTHE POPULAR EDITION.\n\nIn cloth, at the rate of $1.25 per volume. The set (12 vols.), in a neat\nbox. $15.00\n\nThe Same, in half calf extra 36.00\n\nThis edition is printed from the same plates as the other editions, and\non firm, white paper. It is, without exception, the cheapest set of\nbooks of its class ever issued in this country.\n\n\nThe Library Edition.\n\nIn twelve vols. crown 8vo, cloth $30.00 The Same, in half calf extra\n50.00\n\nThe Edition is printed on laid and tinted paper, at the Riverside Press,\nand is in every respect worthy a place in the most carefully selected\nlibrary.\n\n\nSHORT STUDIES ON GREAT SUBJECTS.\n\nBY JAMES ANTHONY FROUDE, M.A.,\n\n_\"History of England,\" \"The English in Ireland during the Eighteenth\nCentury,\" etc._\n\nPOPULAR EDITION. Two vols. 12mo, cloth, $1.50 per vol. The Set  $3.00\n\nCHELSEA EDITION. Two vols. 12mo, half roan, gilt top, $2.00 per volume.\nPer Set  4.00\n\n\nThe Complete Works of James Anthony Froude, M.A.\n\nHISTORY OF ENGLAND AND SHORT STUDIES.\n\nFourteen vols., in a neat Box.\n\nPOPULAR EDITION  $18.00 CHELSEA EDITION  25.00\n\n\n_The above works sent, post-paid, by the publishers, on receipt of the\nprice_\n\nSCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,\n\n654 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.\n\nPopular and Standard Works\n\nPUBLISHED BY\n\nSCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,\n\n654 Broadway, New York,\n\nIN 1873.\n\n\n1.  BAGEHOT'S (W.) LOMBARD STREET. 12mo                            $1 75\n2.  BIBLE COMMENTARY. Vol. II. 8vo                                  5 00\n3.    \"        \"      Vol. III. 8vo                                 5 00\n4.  COOK'S (F. C.) EXODUS. 8vo                                      1 50\n5.  DIEULAFAIT'S (L.) DIAMONDS AND PRECIOUS STONES.\n          _Illustrated_. 12mo                                       2 00\n6.  DODGE'S (MRS. MARY MAPES) HANS BRINKER. _Illustrated_. 12mo.    1 50\n7.  FIELD'S (T. W.) INDIAN BIBLIOGRAPHY. 8vo                        5 00\n8.  FISHER'S (DR. G. P.) HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION. 8vo            3 00\n9.  GUYOT'S (PROF. A.) PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY. Large 4to                2 25\n10. HALL'S (F.) MODERN ENGLISH. 12mo                                2 50\n11.   \"     \"  FALSE PHILOLOGY. 12mo,  boards                       1 25\n12. HOLLAND'S (DR. J. G) ARTHUR BONNICASTLE. _Illustrated_. 12mo.   1 75\n13. HOPKINS' (DR. M.) OUTLINE STUDY OF MAN. 12mo                    1 75\n  THE ILLUSTRATED LIBRARY OF TRAVEL AND ADVENTURE.\n    Each 1 vol. 12mo cloth                                          1 50\n      14. Central Africa.        15. Siam as It Was and Is.\n  THE LIBRARY OF CHOICE FICTION:\n    16. The Burgomaster's Family. 8vo. Cloth, $1.50; paper          1 00\n    17. Wandering Willie. 8vo. Paper                                  50\n    18. Galama. 8vo. Cloth, $1.25; paper                              75\n    19. May. By MRS. OLIPHANT. 8vo. Cloth, $1.50; paper             1 00\n20. LYNDON'S OXLEY. A Novel. 12mo                                   1 50\n21. MEDHURST'S (W. H.) THE FOREIGNER IN FAR CATHAY. 12mo            1 50\n22. PERRY'S (PROF. A. L.) POLITICAL ECONOMY. 11th edition revised.\n        Crown 8vo                                                   2 50\n23. SAXE HOLM'S STORIES. 12mo, extra gilt, $1.75; plain             1 50\n24. STANLEY'S (H. M.) MY KALULU. _Illustrated_. 12mo                2 00\n25. UEBERWEG'S (PROF. F.) HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. Vol. II. 8vo.      4 00\n26. VERNE'S (JULES) FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON. _Illustrated_.\n        Crown 8vo                                                   3 00\n27. VERNE'S (JULES) JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH.\n       _Illustrated_. 12mo                                          2 00\n28. VERY YOUNG COUPLE (A). 12mo                                     1 25\n\n\n***_Any of the above books sent postpaid to any\naddress upon receipt of the price by the publishers._","title":"What is Darwinism?","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":40411}