{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36270/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36270","id":"gutenberg_36270","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36270","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Evolution"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE GOSPEL OF EVOLUTION\n\nFrom \"The Atheistic Platform\", Twelve Lectures\n\nBy Edward Aveling\n\n\nLondon: Freethought Publishing Company\n\n63, Fleet Street, E.C.\n\n1884\n\n\n\nTHE GOSPEL OF EVOLUTION\n\nA new and better Gospel is now preached to men. That which has for a\nlong time gone by the name of Gospel (good news) is neither news nor\ngood. It is not news, for it has been preached for nearly nineteen\ncenturies. Not that length of time alone could make it old and effete.\nBut the Gospel of Christianity has not within itself that inherent and\nstrong life of reality which makes even old truths to have a perennial\nfreshness, an eternal youth, Nor is the Gospel of Christianity good. In\nthe tales that it tells us of the past, in the advice that it gives\nus for the present, and in the hopes and threats it holds out for the\nfuture, it is a misleading guide, a poor philosopher, a false friend.\n\nThe legends have it that on the coming of the central figure of the\ndiscredited evangel the angels sang together: \"Peace on earth, good\nwill to men.\" It was a false alarm. Neither peace nor good will was\nforthcoming. But with the advent of this scientific gospel, the Gospel\nof Evolution, comes the possibility of \"striking a universal peace\nthrough sea and land,\" the possibility of the universal brotherhood of\nman.\n\nPerhaps we are all of us too anxious and too hopeful in the feeling that\nsome one idea will save the world. The religious creeds of different\nraces and times are the expression of this anxiety. We that have\nrejected all belief in the supernatural must take care that the same\nfancy that has spoilt the lives of so many does not mar our own. We must\nhave a care lest we make too much of some truth, even though it be a\nscientific conclusion, based on scientific observation and reasoning.\nAnd we must not forget that, of all the great generalisations, that\nof Evolution is the one most likely to be thus regarded, for it is a\ngeneralisation of generalisations. The mind of man is always longing for\nsome solid resting-place. Man wants to get back and back, to something\ncertain. He wants to feel that, whatever happens, some one great\nprinciple stands fast. The children of the decrepit gospel dreamed that\nthis was found in God. The children of the new Gospel know that in the\nindestructibility of matter and of motion, and in the infinite nature\nof the transformations of matter and motion, they have a solid fact on\nwhich to fall back when all else fails. Only it is very important to\nremember that, great as any idea may be, the mental effort needed for\nits understanding and its acquisition is to the individual of as much\nmoment as the idea itself. The exercise of our faculties is of as great\nvalue to us as the results attained by the exercise. The old parental\nhabit of asking of the school-boy or the school-girl: \"What prizes have\nyou gained?\" is only one form of a general error. The question is not,\n\"What prizes have you?\" but \"What have you learned?\" We are coming to\nrecognise this in some measure in our estimates of grown men and women.\nStill, however, to the vulgar, the measure of a man is the banker's\nbalance. But the thoughtful, as yet few in number, although the number\ngrows hourly, and even the commonplace people, if they are in the\nunaccustomed atmosphere of culture, are estimating the value of a\nhuman being by that which he actually does and is, rather than by the\nmagnitude of the cheques he can draw.\n\nWhat is, then, this Evolution? In the asking this question and in the\nattempt to answer we see how much happier is the position of the new\ngospel as compared with that of the old. The good news of Christianity,\nhaving no scientific and indeed no natural basis, has been Protean in\nits forms. These have been indefinitely varied according to the taste\nand fancy of the age and of the individual. The Gospel as preached\nby Messrs. Benson, Booth, Baldwin Brown, Spurgeon, Liddon, Moody, is\nsomewhat mixed. But the new evangel is founded wholly on a natural\nand scientific basis. There may be slight differences of opinion as\nto matters of detail among its apostles and its disciples, but the\nfundamental principles are accepted by all. Upon these, no doubt, much\nless any dispute reigns.\n\nEvolution is the name for the idea of the unity and continuity of\nphsenomena. The popular and unscientific notion was that there was not\nonly an original effort on the part of the supernatural causing the\nnatural, setting it going, in fact, but a continual interposition of\nthe supernatural from without, controlling the natural. Evolution is\nthe doctrine of non-intervention. According to this gospel, matter and\nmotion are all in all. Matter is the convenient name for all that which\ncan affect the senses of man. Motion is change of place, whether it\nbe of large, palpable masses, as when the arm is raised, or of minute\nimpalpable molecules, as when heat or electricity is at work.\n\nThe ordinary notion of movement is wholly confined to that which is\ncalled molar, that is, the motion of masses. Moles=a mass. Thus the\nmovements of a running man, or of a football when kicked, or of a\nrailway train when the engine draws it along, are all cases of molar\nmotion. But a finer kind of movement has of late years come within the\nken of mankind. It has been at work probably eternally. It is molecular\nmovement, or movement of small masses. But only very recently has the\nmind of man been able to take cognisance of this form. The researches\nof the physicists, the chemists, the biologists have demonstrated\nthat there is a whole world of movements that affect only the minute\nparticles of bodies. Thus heat is a mode of motion; electricity is\nanother; magnetism is a third. The familiar phenomena of light are no\nlonger regarded as due to any actual matter that has been thrown from a\nluminous body. They are the result of waves of a fluid imponderable and\nuniversal called ether, and there seems every reason to believe that the\nphenomena commonly called vital are of the same or of a Kindred order.\nLife, it would appear, is but a mode of motion. And though we know life\ngenerally only by its manifestations of molar motion, as in the blow of\nthe arm, or the stride of the leg, yet these massive movements are but\nthe outward representatives of a large number of internal movements, of\nchemical nature in digestion, of nervous nature in the sense-organs and\nnerve tissues. Every bodily movement visible to the ordinary eye is only\nthe obverse aspect of many molecular motions, not as yet visible to man.\n\nThe reasons why we regard matter and motion as all-sufficient in the\nexplanation of all the phenomena of the universe are several. In the\nfirst place, no destruction of matter has ever been witnessed. Second,\nno destruction of motion, has ever been witnessed. The creation of\neither matter or motion has been equally unseen. Transformations\nof matter from one of its infinitely many forms to some other are\nconstantly visible, and they are always unattended by the smallest\nincrease or diminution in the actual quantity of matter. So also with\nmotion--transformations without any change in quantity are continually\noccurring.\n\nThus, we see the rocks disintegrated by the action of rain and running\nwater, \"weathered\" by the action of the air. We see the matter of which\nthey consisted worn away and carried down by streams and rivers to be\ndeposited at the mouths of rivers or on the beds of seas. Or we set fire\nto a candle and watch its matter combining with the matter of the air\nto form the products of combustion, carbon, dioxide, steam, and their\nfellows. Or a dead animal or plant is seen to decay slowly into\nthese same gases that the burning candle gives forth and into certain\ninorganic salts. And these are all cases of the transformation of matter\nwithout any creation or destruction.\n\nOr we see the molar motion of a student's hands bringing together\nsome acid and two metals. At once chemical action, a form of molecular\nmotion, is set up. The molar motion of hands, a piece of silk, and a\nglass rod results in electricity, a mode of molecular motion. Or we\napply heat, a mode of molecular motion, to a bar of metal which expands,\nto a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen which unite chemically. Or to a\ncrystal of tourmaline, one end of which becomes positively electric, the\nother negatively. These are all cases of the transformation of motion\nwithout any creation or destruction. In all these cases the amount of\nmatter and the amount of motion remain unchanged. Only the quantities\nof particular kinds vary. The generalisation that the quantity of matter\nand motion in the universe is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,\nappears to be thoroughly established.\n\nMore than this. Not only is there no scientific basis whatever for the\nfancy of a creation or of a destruction of matter or of motion. The\nfancy is unthinkable. No human mind is capable of picturing to itself\nthe passage from the material to the immaterial, the moment of time in\nwhich the non-universe began to be the universe.\n\nYet again. Up to the present time every explanation of every phenomenon\nof the universe has been in terms of matter and of motion. The law of\ngravitation, Kepler's three great generalisations in astronomy, the\nphenomena of attraction and repulsion in electrified and magnetised\nbodies, the nature of chemical elements and compounds, the relation\nbetween, plants and animals in regard to their effect on the air,\nthe principles of variation, of natural selection, of heredity, of\nadaptation--these and thousands of other truths that unseal our eyes to\nthe beautiful meaning of nature, are all explanations as to how certain\nforms of matter are in certain states of motion. And if up to the\npresent hour all the explanations that have been forthcoming of natural\nthings are in terms of the natural, we are entitled to conclude that all\nexplanations hereafter will be in kindred terms.\n\nOr we may look on the question in another way. In the days of man's\ngreater ignorance everything was primarily or ultimately referred to the\nsupernatural. All phenomena were at first directly due to the action of\nthe supernatural. But, as time and knowledge advanced, these references\ngrew fewer and fewer in number. They were replaced by perfectly natural\nexplanations of events, and we are entitled to believe that this process\nof elimination has now gone on sufficiently far for us to hold that\nsince super-naturalism is unnecessary for the primary explanation of\nphenomena, it is also unnecessary for their ultimate explanation.\n\nFrom all that I have just said it will be understood that the Gospel\nof Evolution has a wider significance than popular notions imply. The\ngeneral idea, as to Evolution, that it is synonymous with Darwinism, is\nnot accurate. The Darwinian teaching is only a part, though in one sense\nit is the most important part, of the Evolution truth. Evolution itself\nmeans, as we have seen, the unity of phenomena.\n\nAll things are, according to this new principle, one huge continuity.\nWhilst Darwinism shows that man is not distinct from the lower\nanimals, and that all species of animals, and all species of plants are\nartificial groups gliding one into the other, just as in their gradual\ndevelopment they glided one out of the other, Evolution goes further\nthan this and does not fare worse. For the evolutionist not only\nbelieves that which the works of Darwin have made an assured truth, but\nhe believes that plants and animals have had a common parentage, that\nliving matter has originated from the non-living, that there has been no\nbreak in the vast series of phenomena at any point.\n\nSome of the general grounds for this belief have been given. Let us look\nrapidly at some of the more special. The principle of the conservation\nof energy already mentioned indirectly is, in a sense, the starting\npoint of thought on this subject. Grove's essay on the \"Correlation of\nthe Physical Forces,\" published a few years since, was the first clear\nenunciation of the generalisation towards which so many observations\nhad led. When he reminded men that chemical action, electricity, heat,\nsound, light, magnetism, and life were all convertible, one into\nthe other, and thus convertible in definite numerical proportions,\nmathematically calculable, the keynote of the idea of Evolution had been\nstruck.\n\nHarsh as it may seem, an idea in any branch of knowledge has never\nattained a sure basis until it is expressible in terms of mathematics.\nThere was a time when physics and chemistry were divorced from\nmathematics to a large extent. Now even the phenomena of electricity\nand the reactions one upon another of chemical bodies are expressed in\nalgebraical formulae. This is the result of the increased precision of\nour knowledge. Following in the footsteps of physics and chemistry the\nbiological sciences are becoming every day more mathematical. We have\nformulas to express the manner of the arrangement of leaves upon a stem,\nthe manner of arrangement of the parts of a flower. One of these days\nevery structural and functional fact in regard to every living thing\nwill be related to some formula of mathematics more or less general.\nWe shall not all become martinets or dryasdusts. There is a beauty in\nexactness. I sometimes think that the difference between the loveliness\nof our thinking and of our dreaming on natural phsenomena, as compared\nwith that which the older thinkers and dreamers enjoyed, will be as the\ndifference between the joy of a game of chess between skilled players or\nbetween those that know not even the moves. The child pushes the kings\nand queens and rooks and knights and bishops and pawns about at random,\nand laughs gaily. But the master' of the game, moving them according\nto definite rules, obtains a far higher enjoyment, and produces a\ncombination that has its poetry.\n\nThe very sciences that deal with these different modes of matter and\nmotion are now by no means as clearly marked off one from another as\ntheir earlier students thought they were. Physics, chemistry; geology,\nbotany, zoology, anatomy, physiology, how they all dovetail into, or\nactually overlap each other. It is impossible to say sometimes to which\ndomain of science a particular fact belongs. The distinctions between\nthe physical and the chemical properties of bodies are confessedly\nartificial. Botany implies a study of the anatomy and the physiology of\nplants. Physiology in its turn becomes only a question of chemistry;\nits phenomena are becoming reduced to mathematical expressions. We are\nlearning to calculate the actual amount of work done in the performance\nof different functions of the living body, in the same terms as we\ncalculate the work done by a steam engine. The respiratory organs or the\nmuscular during the day do so many foot-pounds of work. The foot-pound\nis the unit of measurement employed in the study of work. Work is done\nwhen matter is moved through space. The footpound is the amount of work\ndone when the mass of a pound is raised one foot against the gravitation\nattraction of the earth. A steam-engine does per day a certain number\nof foot-pounds of work. Its capacity for work is usually expressed by\nsaying that it is so many horse power. One horse power is equivalent to\n33,000 footpounds per minute. The physiologists are, by means of\nvery intricate and careful calculations, enabled to calculate with\never-increasing accuracy the equivalent in footpounds, _i.e._, the\nmechanical equivalent, of each of the body functions of the average man\n_per diem_.\n\nIf we turn to any of the special sciences the same dovetailing and\nover-lapping appear. In chemistry it is difficult to mark off any group\nof bodies from all other groups. The three sets of bodies that chemistry\nis supposed to study are elements, mixtures, and compounds. An _element_\nsuch as carbon or gold, is a body which has not yet been decomposed.\nA _mixture_ is that which results from putting together two or\nmore substances, without those substances undergoing any change of\nproperties. Thus brandy and water, or gunpowder is a mixture. The\nproperties of the brandy and of the water in the one case, and of the\ncharcoal, nitre and sulphur in the other, are unchanged. A _compound_\nis the result of the union of two or more elements with change of\nproperties; thus water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen, and its\nproperties are those of neither hydrogen nor oxygen. The fundamental\ndistinction supposed to be at the basis of all chemical study, that\nbetween elements and compounds, is found to be inapplicable when we\nstudy such bodies as cyanogen, a compound of the two elements carbon\nand nitrogen, that behaves like an element. Ammonium, a compound of four\natoms of hydrogen and one of nitrogen, also behaves like an element,\ntaking the place of such metallic elements as potassium or sodium. In\nfact all the so-called \"compound radicles\" which enter so largely into\nour study of organic chemistry are groups of two or atoms of two or more\nelements that behave as simple bodies. The metals and the non-metals are\nconnected by such forms as arsenic or selenium, placed by one chemist\namong the metals, by another among the non-metals. Hydrogen, usually\nclassed with the non-metals, has the power of replacing metallic\nelements. It does this so persistently that, on theoretical grounds,\nchemists had long spoken of hydrogen as probably essentially a metal.\nWhen the French chemist Pictet succeeded in liquefying hydrogen, until\nthen only known in the gas form, the liquid fell upon the floor of the\nlaboratory with a metallic ring. And who is to say positively whether an\nalloy of copper and zinc is to be regarded as a mixture or as a compound\nof the two metals?\n\nStill more important is the bridging over the supposed gulf between the\ninorganic and the organic chemical substances. A few years back this\ngulf was supposed to be great, fixed, impassable. The mineral or\ninorganic was makable by man. The organic was not, and never would be.\nThe chemist might go on continually manufacturing hydrogen and oxygen,\ncarbon dioxide, ammonia. But he was never to hope to make alcohol,\nsugar, urea, any of the multitudinous substances called organic. And\nnow all this folly of forbidding is at an end. The organic bodies are\nmanufactured by man. The inorganic and the organic are no more regarded\nas clearly distinguishable. Even the chemistry books by their very\ntitles recognise and proclaim this fact. We have no longer works on\norganic chemistry. We have volumes on the chemistry of carbon compounds.\n\nIn geology the different kinds of rocks graduate into each other.\nBetween the aqueous, or sedimentary, and the igneous, or those due to\nthe action of fire, range the metamorphic, i.e., sedimentary rocks\nthat have been afterwards subjected to heat. The various systems of\nsedimentary rocks are known now to be purely artificial if convenient\ndivisions. From the Laurentian up to the recent rocks there has never\nbeen any real hiatus. Nowhere is there the slightest evidence of pause\nor of recommencement. Our groups are artificial. Nature is like Oallio\nand cares for none of these things.\n\nWhilst rocks thus glide one into the other, the fossil remains that\nthey contain do likewise. If the view of the special creationist were\naccurate we ought to find isolated forms of dead animals and plants,\nwe ought to find sudden appearances in the rocks of forms not allied to\nthese already encountered, we ought not necessarily to find a series of\norganic remains ascending in complexity of structure. If the view of the\nevolutionist is accurate, we ought to find no forms of dead animals\nor plants isolated; we ought never to find a form appearing without\npreliminary heralds of its coming in the shape of kindred forms; we\nought to find a series of organic remains whose later members are in\nadvance of the earlier. These latter expectations are realised.\n\nIn like manner the gap supposed to exist between the kingdoms of the\nnon-living and living is closing up. As long as men had only studied the\nhigher forms of living things there was no difficulty in defining and\ndistinguishing living organisms. To define and to distinguish the lowest\nforms of those now known is impossible. How completely this is true can\nonly be understood by those who have studied the protoplasmic masses\nthat hover on the border line between the organic and the inorganic. But\neven the unskilled in microscopic work will be able to grasp something\nof the great truth if they will take the trouble to look up the\ninnumerable definitions of life that have been given by various\npersons, and note how unsatisfactory, how contradictory and often\nself-contradictory they are.\n\nIf we pass up into the kingdoms of the living, and study plants and\nanimals, the same unity of phenomena meets us. Our classification\nterms--order, genus, species, and so forth--are as artificial as our\nnames for the geological systems. No one holds to-day that any single\nspecies is clearly marked off from all others. Connecting links abound\nin our vegetable kingdom. The lichens, long regarded as a separate class\nof lowly organised plants are now known to be fungi that are parasitic\nupon algae. The higher cryptogams or flowerless plants are found to be\nat one in their structure and functions with the lower phsenogams or\nflowering plants.\n\nThe distinctions between plants and animals are found to have vanished.\nOnce again it is easy enough to distinguish high plants from high\nanimals. But no man can satisfactorily draw the line between the lower\nmembers of the two kingdoms. The old definitions of the animal and the\nplant given with a suicidal glibness in old books on botany and zoology,\nwhen tried in the balance of criticism, are found wanting. Even the\nfood-distinction, supposed to be the best distinction between the two\ngroups, fails. It is no longer true that plants feed on the inorganic,\nand animals on organic substances. The cases of vegetable parasites and\nof insectivorous plants give a direct contradiction to this statement.\nAnd it is very interesting to notice how gradual are the transitions in\nthis as in all cases. A group of plants known as saprophytes, that\nfeed on decaying organic things, is the natural transition between the\nordinary plants that eat inorganic food-stuffs, and those plants that,\nlike animals, exist on organic substances. So marked is this difficulty\nof distinguishing between the lower plants and the lower animals, that\nit has been suggested that a third kingdom of the living should be\nconstructed midway between the two generally recognised. This is to be\ncalled Protista, and is to include all the doubtful forms that are\nnot clearly members either of the Kingdom Animalia or of the Kingdom\nVegetabilia.\n\nIf the arbitrary nature of all our systems of classification is\nunderstood, this new division will do little harm. But for the\nsystematist the difficulty is by the establishment of this group only\ndoubled. Heretofore he had only to struggle over a particular living,\nthing, with the view to determine whether it were plant or animal. Now\nhe will have to struggle over it with the view of telling whether it\nis Protistic or animal, or Protistic or vegetable. But the true\nevolutionist will only look on the group of the Protista as containing\nforms that represent the parent condition of both vegetables and\nanimals.\n\nThe animal kingdom, no less than the vegetable, gives these results.\nAmphioxus, the little Mediterranean fish, links the Vertebrata, or\nback-boned animals, for ever on to the Invertebrata. The classes of\nthe Vertebrate sub-kingdom have their connecting links or intermediate\nforms. These classes, adopting for popular exposition the old\nclassification, are the Pisces, Amphibia, Eeptilia, Aves, Mammalia.\nWhilst Amphioxus at the lower end of the class of fishes connects\nthese with the soft-bodied animals, or Mollusca, at the upper end of the\nPisces, we have the Lepidosiren, or mud-fish. It is impossible to say\nwhether this animal is more of a fish or a reptile. With limbs rather\nthan fins, with three cavities to its heart, and a swim-bladder that\nacts as a lung, it has yet so many parts of its anatomy that are\npiscine as to lead Professor Huxley still to place it as a solitary\nrepresentative of the highest order of Pisces.\n\nThe class Amphibia is itself a confirmation of the general truth, for\nits members, such as the frogs, are in their early condition fish, and\nin their adult state reptiles. Pterodactyl of the Jurassic strata is\nthe winged lizard. Its name tells us that we have a form intermediate\nbetween the classes Reptilia and Aves. The duck-billed Platypus, or\nOrnithorhyncus, of Australia, is a furred mammal that suckles its young,\nand yet has a bird's bill, a bird's feet, a bird's wishing-bone, a\nbird's heart, a bird's alimentary canal. If we turn to the individual\nclasses, the same thing obtains. To take but the the highest class, the\nProsimiae, or half-apes, among the Mammalia are an order, that stands\ncentrally to the Insectivora, Eodentia, Cheiroptera, and Primates. There\nis no gap between man and the rest of the Primates. Not a single mark of\nanatomy, of physiology, or of psychology, clearly distinguishes man from\nthe highest apes.\n\nIf we study the individual animal, the same fact of the unity of\nphenomena is again borne in upon us. The bodily functions are by no\nmeans so distinct in their nature as we were wont to think. To take but\nan illustration.\n\nThe sense-organs of man are all found to be only so many modifications\nof the integument.\n\nThe skin or tactile organ is the integument. The tongue or taste organ\nis but the integument folded inwards and a little modified. The nasal\ncavities are also lined with a modification of the same tissue, and\neven the most complex sense organs that are at the same time the\nmost important--that is the eye and the ear--are, as the study of\ndevelopment or embryology shows us, only the result of a series of\nremarkable changes affecting certain parts of the epidermis of the\nanimal.\n\nThose physiological functions of the human body that appear to be\nclearly marked off are really not completely demarcated. Take as example\nthe excretory action of the skin, lungs, and the renal organs. The\nlungs get rid especially of carbon dioxide; the skin of water; the renal\norgans of the products of nitrogenous decay. But each of these organs\nalso eliminates those products which are eliminated by the other two.\nThus the lungs, whilst they get rid principally of carbon dioxide, also\nget rid of water in the form of steam and of nitrogenous matter.\nThe skin gives off a certain quantity of carbon dioxide and nitrogen\nexcreta. And the renal organs also eliminate all three of the chief\nforms of excretory matter. When any one of these three organs is not\nfunctioning at its best, extra work is thrown upon the others, and in\nsome extreme cases this metastasis, or transference of function, is very\nremarkable. Thus an ulcer in the human body has been known to secrete\nmilk.\n\nTry to realise at least something of what all this means. It is no\nlonger possible to mark off clearly the various domains of science.\nScience is one, for it is the study of nature, and nature is one.\nIn every branch of our knowledge that daily grows more unified,\nthe transitions are found to be innumerable and the gradations\ninfinitesimal. Our chemical groups, our geological rocks and strata,\nour inorganic and organic kingdoms, our plants and animals, our classes,\norders, genera, species, all are seen to be artificial.\n\nHere is then the new message that science is uttering to man. It is in\ntruth good news. There is no break anywhere. The universe is one vast\nwhole. It is true that at first there seems to be a loss because of the\nindistinctness that now veils the old lines of demarcation. At first\nsome taring of a shock is felt when we realise that the old definitions\nand classifications are only matters of convenience, and really\nrepresent nothing in nature. But our view of the whole gains\nincomparably. We are led to take a larger and more true conception of\nthe universe. If the subdivisions disappear the unity of the whole comes\nout with wonderful clearness. We study phenomena from below upwards, and\nsee something more than an unbroken series. We see that actually there\nis no below and no above.' The mineral kingdom of the non-living passes\ninto the living. This by gradual stages of ascent rises to the loftiest\nforms of plants and animals yet known. But these in their constant decay\nand in their death once for all as individuals, return to the mineral\nkingdom again. If only we grasp the full meaning of this new gospel\nfounded on science, all life acquires a new significance. Most of all\nour own life, as the highest expression known to us of the phenomena of\nmatter in motion, becomes more solemn and more full of hope. In it more\nthan in any other are gathered together the forces of the universe. The\nattraction of the stone for the planet, and of the particles of rock\none for another, the loves and hates of chemical atoms, the energies of\nelectrified and magnetised bodies, the variations of innumerable simpler\nforms of organisms, long chains of heredity reaching back through\nincalculable times, myriads of adaptations, struggles and failures,\ndeaths and lives, all have met in us. We, more than all others, are the\nheirs of the ages. While our less fortunate brethren, the lower animals,\nthe plants, the minerals, are playing their good part in the universal\nhistory, without the consciousness in full of the meaning of it all, we\nread the signs of the past and of to-day. \"We know what we are, but we\nknow not what we may be,\" in all the detail that our children's children\nwill see and live. Yet we know that the race has a future that will\ntranscend its past, as that past transcended the dark dumb lives of the\nancestry whence our kind has sprung.\n\nThe Gospel of Evolution is replacing that of Christianity. Science is\ntaking the place of Religion and yielding to mankind the poetry that\nits forerunner missed. Nature is our all in all. Only the whisper of a\nsecret thought here and there of hers has yet reached our ears. But\none. The only good result that is supposed to flow from prayer does\nnot really flow from prayer at all, but is explicable by purely natural\nfacts. It is healthier that people should know these facts, than that\nthey should refer real sensations to an imaginary cause. This special\nre-action which under certain circumstances follows, but is not paused\nby prayer to a supernatural existence, forms but a minute part of the\nresults which flow from belief in prayer. I desire to destroy prayer not\nonly because it is a fraud, but because it is a hindrance to progress.\nMen pray to do that which they should link hands to perform for\nthemselves. They are down on their knees, crying like children, when\nthey should be on their feet, working, striving for their fellows. I\ngrudge every moment of time that is given by man to god. Man wants all\nwe can do; our heart, our brain, our love, our faculties, all, all these\nare sacred to man; they must not be desecrated to the use of god. It is\nsacrilege to steal for god the wealth needed for the enriching of man.\n\nWhy, only a few weeks since I read a letter from the Dean of\nPeterborough, asking for L40,000 for the repair of Peterborough\nCathedral. And men, women and little children are rotting in cellars\nin the very city wherein that letter was published. And he will get it.\nL40,000 are given so easily for a house of god, but 40,000 pence would\nbe grudged to make decent the hovels in which human beings live. I hate\nthe charity which pours out wealth for a god, and counts in miserly\nfashion every farthing given for man.\n\nThere are no means of progress upon earth save those of study and of\nwork. Study of nature to find out what is; work to apply the knowledge\nfor the increase of human happiness. For centuries upon centuries men\nhave prayed to god for deliverance from poverty, from misery, from\ncrime; and poverty, misery and crime are found on every side. It is time\nthat we should turn from god to man, from prayer to work, from dreaming\nto acting. Man shall do for earth what prayer has failed to do; and\nman's thought, man's love, man's sturdy effort shall make that Golden\nAge for which so many have prayed, but so few have worked.\n\n\nPrinted by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh, at 63, Fleet Street,\n\nLondon, B.C.--1884.","title":"The Gospel of Evolution: From \"The Atheistic Platform\", Twelve Lectures","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":5616}