{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_52273/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_52273","id":"gutenberg_52273","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52273","summary":null,"tags":["Bible and evolution","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Evolution (Biology) -- Religious aspects -- Christianity","Temple, Frederick, 1821-1902"],"text":"Transcribed from the [1885?] Elliot Stock edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n\n\n\n\n                                EVOLUTION.\n\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                    BY\n                         REV. EDWARD HOARE, M.A.\n\n       VICAR OF TUNBRIDGE WELLS, AND HONORARY CANON OF CANTERBURY.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                     _Reprinted from_ THE CHURCHMAN.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 LONDON:\n                 ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                             Price Twopence.\n\n\n\n\nEVOLUTION.\n\n\nIT may appear a very rash thing for any person who does not claim to be a\nman of science to presume to give an opinion on any of the theories of\nscientific men.  But there is a vast difference between the facts of\nscience and the theories suggested for their explanation.  The facts are,\nas it were, the property of the investigators.  The investigators have a\npower of investigation which we outsiders have not, and it would be folly\nfor us who have not that power to presume to call in question their\ninformation.  But it is a very different matter with the theories either\nfounded on these facts or invented to explain them.  When science has\ngiven us the facts common-sense can discuss the theories founded on them;\nand, without presuming to call in question the ascertained results of\nscientific investigation, any person of ordinary intelligence may form\nhis own opinion as to the conclusions derived from the known facts.  The\nscientific men know the facts, and we do not; but, when they have told us\nthe facts, we can think as well as they.  This point was exceedingly well\nput by Canon Garbett at the Norwich Church Congress in 1865.  He said:\n\u201cBeyond a certain point the conclusions and arguments of the man of\nscience cease to be exclusively his own, and become the common property\nof all men.  All argument rests on common principles, and when once the\nfacts of the case are clearly ascertained, any man who is trained to\nreason correctly is competent to judge of them.\u201d  Again: \u201cLet the man of\nscience,\u201d said Canon Garbett, \u201creign supreme within his own sphere, and\nlet none but those trained in the same school and learned in the same\ncraft venture to dispute with him as he gathers his facts and generalizes\nhis rules.  But when all this is done, and he proceeds to reason, then it\nis different.  He steps out of his special department into a sphere open\nto all men alike.  Tell me what your facts are, and if I sufficiently\nmaster them I am as competent to judge of the validity of the conclusions\ndrawn from them as the man of science himself.\u201d\n\nThere is scarcely any subject to which this principle applies more\ncompletely than it does to Evolution; for what is called \u201cthe doctrine of\nEvolution\u201d is only a theory.  It is not a collection of facts, but a\ntheory which some of its warmest advocates\u2014as, _e.g._, Professor\nDrummond\u2014declare to be \u201cstill unproved.\u201d {3}  While, therefore, we fully\nrecognise that it would be the utmost folly \u201cto debate a point of natural\nhistory with Darwin, or a question of comparative anatomy with Owen,\u201d we\nmay, by the aid of common-sense, form an opinion possibly as sound at\ntheirs on the unproved theory which has been founded on the ascertained\nfacts which those great investigators have placed within our reach.  This\nis all that I would attempt to do in the present paper.  I do not propose\nto call in question a single fact ascertained by men of science.  All\nthat I would venture to do is to exercise the ordinary powers of thought\nin considering one of the theories which some scientific men have\nsuggested as an explanation of those facts.  I say \u201csome scientific men,\u201d\nfor there is a very great difference of opinion amongst scientific men,\nand no one can read the admirable papers produced by the Victoria\nInstitute without perceiving now much accurate observation, how wide a\nscientific knowledge, and how great a force of Baconian philosophy is\narrayed against the theory just now in the fashion.\n\nLet us begin, then, with a few facts respecting which we are all agreed,\nand which as they are sometimes called by the name of Evolution, are\nsupposed to supply evidence of the correctness of the theory.\n\n(1)  We all believe in _growth_.  It is a matter of fact that the world\nis full of growth.  And this growth is not limited to gradual, or\ncontinuous, enlargement or development; but consists sometimes in most\nremarkable sudden changes, as when the egg becomes a chicken, the\ncaterpillar a chrysalis, and the chrysalis a butterfly.  Every living\ncreature, whether plant or animal, has its own mode of growth; and no\nliving creature is born into the world in the fulness of its stature.\nThe man was once in his cradle, the eagle in its egg, the oak in its\nacorn; and no one can point to any living thing, either in the animal or\nvegetable kingdom, that began life with the full development of all the\npowers or properties of its species.  Whatever men may think of any\ntheory, as a matter of fact there is invariably growth as the first, and\nmost certain, accompaniment of life.\n\n(2)  Within certain limits we all believe in _variations_.  Both plants\nand animals of the same species vary according to circumstances, and are\nall more or less affected by country, by climate, and by culture.\nAmongst dogs, _e.g._, there are countless varieties of breed, to say\nnothing of all the mongrels.  Just so amongst flowers; there are\ncountless varieties of the rose, and these varieties may be multiplied to\nany extent by culture.  There is, moreover, a power of adaptation to\nclimate and other circumstances.  In colder climates animals of the same\nspecies have thicker coats than they have under the tropics.  There\ncannot be a question that both plants and animals will begin at once, if\nplaced in a new position, to adapt themselves to it; and, as a general\nrule, if they fail in such adaptation, they die.  Beyond all doubt, as a\nmatter of fact, there are variations resulting both from parentage and\nenvironment.  We are told by naturalists that some of these variations\nare not of a permanent character, as, _e.g._, in the case of pigeons, of\nwhich it is stated by Darwin that any number of breeds, if left to\nthemselves, will in time revert to the common Rock.  But still the fact\nremains, that within certain limits there are numberless variations, and\nthat these variations may be transmitted to posterity.  Some of these\nappear to have been produced in one way, and some in another; but,\nhowever produced, there they are; and no one, whether scientific or\nunscientific, can for one moment call in question the fact.\n\n(3.)  We all believe in _progression_.  We see progression all around us.\nIt appears to be a universal law that there should be perpetual movement.\nSometimes there is advance, and sometimes retrogression\u2014but always\nmovement; for when there is no advance, there is invariably decline.\nThen, again, as far as observation is concerned, we find this progression\ngradual and continuous.  Characters are gradually formed; learning is\ngradually acquired; power is gradually gained; and the whole world\nadvances by the gradual attainment of increasing knowledge.  Such\nprogression is seen both in creation and revelation.\n\nIn Creation, for no one supposes that the world was created and peopled\nby one instantaneous act of the Creator.  There may be difficulties in\nsome of the commonly received interpretations of some of the statements\nof that most wonderful narrative contained in Gen. i.; but there can be\nno doubt whatever that it teaches progression.  It begins with chaos, and\nleads us step by step to a perfected cosmos.  At the outset; \u201cthe earth\nwas waste, or without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of\nthe deep.\u201d  And at the end we see a fertile world covered with\nvegetation, peopled by countless living creatures, with man, in the image\nof God, at their head, all enjoying the bright light of the sun in\nheaven; and all in so perfect a condition that \u201cGod saw everything that\nHe had made, and behold it was very good.\u201d  But this change did not take\nplace by one solitary act.  The world did not leap by one bound from one\ncondition to the other.  There were, according to Scripture no less than\nsix successive steps in the process.  Let people explain the six days as\nthey please, and I fully acknowledge that there may be legitimate\ndifferences in their explanations.  But no one can doubt that the\nnarrative teaches progression; and that, according to that narrative, it\npleased God by a series of successive acts to complete the work which He\npronounced to be very good.  No one, therefore, who believes in the Book\nof Genesis can for one moment doubt progression in the work of the\ncreation.\n\nNor can there be the slightest doubt as to progression in Revelation.\nSome people seem to speak of this as if it were a new discovery connected\nwith the theory of Evolution.  Such persons ought to read an admirable\nbook called \u201cThe Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation,\u201d written many years\nago, and new published by the Religious Tract Society.  It is perfectly\nimpossible to read through the Old and New Testaments as a complete book\nwithout seeing progression.  It is deeply to be deplored that such a man\nas Professor Drummond should have said, as he is reported to have said in\nhis Sunday lectures, at Grosvenor House, {5a} \u201cThe Book of Genesis must\nbe regarded as presenting truth to children\u2019s minds;\u201d and should have\nillustrated this by George Macdonald\u2019s poem, \u201cThe Baby,\u201d adding, \u201cnot\nliterally true, but true for the child.  So Moses gave truth in the form\nof a poem.  If you say it is a scientific book, I give it up; but if you\nregard it as a poem, then I can deal with it.\u201d  This appears to teach\nthat the Book of Genesis is regarded by him as something like a nursery\nrhyme.  But the report {5b} is evidently abridged; and I hope it is\nincorrect.  We know that there are sixty-six books in the Bible; but we\nalso believe that it is \u201ca Book\u201d complete in itself, and with all its\nparts so beautifully proportioned that it forms one perfect whole for the\ngradual development of the whole counsel of God.  Thus we believe that\nthe one verse (Gen. iii 15), \u201cI will put enmity between thee and the\nwoman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and\nthou shalt bruise his heel,\u201d is the seed, or germ, of the whole Gospel;\nand that just as the oak is in the acorn, so in these few words is\ncontained the whole covenant of God.  The first twelve chapters of the\nBook of Genesis trace the pedigree of that seed of the woman till the\ncall of the chosen family in Abraham; the historical books record the\nvaried history of that family, and show how sorely the heel of the\nwoman\u2019s seed first bruised by the serpent; while the prophecies enlarge,\nand expand the blessed hope of final victory in the promised One.  At\nlength the Gospels reveal the long-expected Christ; and the Acts and the\nEpistles unfold the principles and progress of His kingdom, till the\nwhole is complete in the Apocalypse, where we read of \u201cthe new heavens\nand the new earth,\u201d with the curse of sin gone for ever, with Satan cast\ninto the lake of fire, and with the seed of the woman triumphant over\ndeath and hell.  As the acorn to the oak, so is that first promise to the\nApocalypse.  It is no poem, no myth, no nursery rhyme, but the germ of\nthe whole counsel of God\u2014a germ containing the whole Gospel, and\nrequiring no less than four thousand years for its development.\n\nLet no one suppose, therefore, for a moment that we do not believe in\nprogression, for we see it throughout nature; and we find it distinctly\ntaught in Scripture as a matter of historical fact, both in creation and\nrevelation.  But the fact of progression is a totally different thing\nfrom the theory of Evolution; and it is extremely important that the\ndistinction should be carefully borne in mind; for there are many, and\nsome of them clear-headed men, who, because they see the three\nthings\u2014growth, variation, and progression, avow themselves believers in\nEvolution, though all the while they really reject what should be\nstrictly termed \u201cthe Evolution theory.\u201d\n\nWhat then is the theory of Evolution?  What is it which Bishop Temple\ndescribes as \u201cjust at present the leading scientific doctrine,\u201d {6a} and\nfor which he says the evidence \u201cis enormously great, and increasing\ndaily\u201d? {6b}  It is extremely difficult to answer the question; for\nevolutionists themselves, although they are perpetually trumpeting forth\nthe superiority of their scientific accuracy, very seldom take the\ntrouble to tell us what they mean.  In a defence of Mr. Drummond\u2019s book,\nin the _Expositor_, the defender states, with reference to an article of\nmy own in the CHURCHMAN of February last, that there are at least four\ntheories of Evolution; and he also informs us which of the four it is\nthat Mr. Drummond teaches.  It is a pity that Mr. Drummond did not tell\nus this in his book, instead of leaving us to conclude, as some of us\nhave concluded that it was the doctrine of Mr. Herbert Spencer that\nappeared to call forth his enthusiastic admiration.\n\nBishop Temple speaks of \u201c_the_ two theories of Evolution;\u201d and what he\ndoes with the other two I do not know.  He describes the one as that of\nLa Place, and the other as that of Darwin; the former being a theory for\nthe construction of the universe, and therefore by some called \u201cCosmical\nEvolution;\u201d the other for the development of vegetable and animal life,\nand therefore termed \u201cBiological Evolution.\u201d\n\nTo begin with the _Biological_.  This is briefly stated by Bishop Temple\n{7a} in the words: \u201cIt cannot be denied that Darwin\u2019s investigations have\nmade it extremely probable that the vast variety of plants and animals\nhave sprung from a much smaller number of original forms.\u201d  So Darwin, in\nhis summary, {7b} writes: \u201cThe several classes of facts which have been\nconsidered in this chapter seem to me to proclaim so plainly that the\ninnumerable species, genera, and families with which this world is\npeopled, are all descended, each within its own class or group, from\ncommon parents, and have all been modified in the course of descent, that\nI should without hesitation adopt this view, even if it were unsupported\nby other facts or arguments.\u201d  I presume that there are very few amongst\nus who would differ materially from either of these statements; for both\nof them fully admit the original existence of a variety of common\nparents, which is, in fact, a complete surrender of the whole position;\nand Darwin limits the modifications in the course of descent to changes,\n\u201ceach within its own class or group.\u201d  Now this is all for which the\nanti-evolutionist contends; for all admit most freely the existence of\nmost marked variations within the circles of the various groups.\n\nBut, although in this passage there is this limitation, as a matter of\nfact there is a great deal more claimed by both writers for Evolution;\nfor the title of Darwin\u2019s book, \u201cThe Origin of Species,\u201d shows very\nclearly that he applies his theory not merely to variations within\nspecies, but to the formation of the species within which these\nvariations take place.  I do not gather from his book that his theory\ngoes so far as to suppose that either plants or animals have passed over\nfrom one species to another, both species being already in existence; but\nrather that through the power of \u201cthe struggle for existence,\u201d \u201cnatural\nselection,\u201d and \u201csurvival of the fittest,\u201d existing races have been so\nchanged and modified that new species have been evolved out of them, and\nthat in every such evolution there has been what evolutionists consider\nto be improvement.\n\nThe arguments which Bishop Temple adduces for this theory are\u2014\n\n(1)  \u201cThe unity of plan which can be found pervading any great class of\nanimals seems to point to unity of ancestry.\u201d {7c}  He illustrates this\nby remarking that vertebrate animals are formed on a common plan.\n\n(2)  \u201cSlight variations are perpetually being produced.\u201d {7d}\n\n(3)  \u201cThe frequent occurrence both in plants or animals of useless parts\nwhich still remain as indications of organs that once were useful, and\nhave long become useless.\u201d {7e}\n\nBut is this scientific evidence?  As to the 1st, the Bishop only claims\nfor it that it \u201c_seems_ to point.\u201d  As to the 2nd, it quietly assumes the\nwhole point at issue, for no one denies that there are variations \u201cwithin\neach class or group,\u201d and the fact that such variations exist within a\ncertain class or group is no proof that they can extend beyond it.  And\nas for the 3rd who knows that those that are called \u201cuseless parts\u201d are\nreally useless, though their use may not be known?  And if they are\nuseless now, what evidence is there that they were once useful, or were\never used?  There is not the slightest scientific evidence in any one of\nthese three points for the theory which they are adduced to support.\nThere is not a single fact to prove the theory, and all that can be said\nby the most ardent advocate is that the conjecture seems to be probable.\nBut how different is the evidence on the other side of the controversy!\nThere we find certain clearly-defined and indisputable facts which cannot\nbe doubted, and which cannot be reconciled with this new theory.\n\n\n\n(1)  _Biological Evolution_.\n\n\nThere cannot be a doubt that there are certain great classes of plants\nand animals found in the world, which have certain distinct\ncharacteristics, and which, as a matter of fact, do not merge into each\nother.  There seems to be considerable variation in the names given to\nthem, and they appear to be distinguished by the name sometimes of\n\u201cspecies,\u201d sometimes of \u201cgenus,\u201d sometimes of \u201cclass or group,\u201d and\nsometimes of \u201ckind.\u201d  In the sentence quoted from Darwin on p. 6, he\nspeaks of species, genera, and families; and describes them as being all\ndescended each within its own class or group.  This confusion of terms is\ndifficult to reconcile with the boasted claim to scientific accuracy.\nThat I may not be entangled by any questionable name I will distinguish\nthese groups as A, B, C, D, etc., and our question is whether they have\nbeen evolved from each other or through each other, from a common stock;\nor whether they are separate creations.  For the answer to this question\nlet three facts be carefully considered.\n\n(i.)  There is the remarkable and clearly-established law of the\nsterility of all hybrids between any two of these great divisions.  Both\nA and B may contain a great number of varieties, and all the varieties of\nA can breed freely with each other.  In such case there is no failure of\nfertility in the progeny.  The same is true of B and all the varieties\nthat spring from it.  If these varieties be expressed by the figures 1,\n2, 3, etc., A1 may breed with A2, A3, or any other number, and so may\nintroduce a fresh variety in the race A.  But if A, or any variation of\nA, should breed with B, or any variation of B, there may be in the first\ninstance a progeny; but there is a fixed and invariable law of nature\nthat there should be no perpetuation of that progeny, for every\nindividual so born is barren.  Mules e.g., can never give birth to mules,\nand the mule race has no power of self-propagation.  Now see how this\nbears on the subject of Evolution.  If B were evolved out of A, there\nwould, of course, be countless intermediate variations, and these\nvariations would all have the power of perpetuating their kind.  A would\nproduce A1, A1 would produce A2, and so on, till A98 would produce A99,\nand, finally, to complete the series, A99 would produce A100, or B.  But\nat this point, if the Evolution theory is to be reconciled with facts, a\nnew and most strange law must be suddenly evolved; and the continuity of\nlaw must be broken.  A98 may breed with A99, and their offspring may\nperpetuate their race; but if A99 should breed with A100, which is B, it\nis true there may be offspring, but that offspring will bare no power of\nself-perpetuation.  How can evolutionism explain such a fracture in the\ncontinuity of law?  And is not the scientific fact dead against the\nEvolution theory?\n\n(ii.)  As a matter of fact we do not find that continuous chain of\nintermediate links which the theory requires.  The theory is, that as\nthere are to be no sudden jumps in nature, the various numbers are\nevolved from each other in a vast series of almost imperceptible\nimprovement; and it follows of necessity that, if the theory were true,\ninstead of finding distinct classes, we should find various lines of\nprogress stealing into each other in steps so minute that it would be\nvery difficult to detect their differences.  If, _e.g._, man has been\nevolved from monkey there ought not to be a yawning chasm, as there now\nis, between the two, but there ought to be a vast series of connecting\nlinks bridging the chasm between monkeyism and manhood; and there ought\nto be a race of monkeys still existing so near to man in physical\nstructure and mental power that the birth of man from such a parentage\nshould be within the range of natural probability.  Let A be monkey, and\nB man, then there ought to be a continuous line of intermediate numbers,\nand A99 ought to approximate so closely to B that it would be perfectly\nnatural for B to be its child.\n\nBut where are these links to be found? and what naturalist can discover\nthem?  If the theory be true, the process must still be going on, and the\nworld must be teeming with these intermediate races.  But where are they?\nBishop Temple as attempted to answer this question thus:\n\n    If it be asked why this variety does not range by imperceptible\n    degrees from extreme forms in one direction to extreme forms in the\n    other, the answer is to be found in the enormous prodigality, and the\n    equally enormous waste of life and living creatures . . .  Eggs, and\n    seeds, and germs are destroyed by millions, and so in a less but\n    still enormous proportion are the young that come from those that\n    have not been destroyed.  There is no waste like the waste of life\n    that is to be seen in nature . . .  The inevitable operation of this\n    waste, as Darwin\u2019s investigation showed, has been to destroy all\n    those varieties which were not well fitted to their surroundings, and\n    to keep those that were. (P. 165.)\n\nBut if this be the solution of the difficulty, how is it that those at\nthe bottom of the scale remain?  One of the great principle employed to\nexplain the theory is \u201cthe survival of the fittest.\u201d  The result\ntherefore must be continuous progress, and the _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_ of each\nsuccessive formation is its superior fitness above the form from which it\nsprang.  A1 survives because it is superior in fitness to A, and A2\nbecause it is superior to A1, and so forth.  The effect therefore of the\nBishop\u2019s principle would be that the inferior forms at the bottom of the\nscale would perish, while the superior that have risen out of them, by\nreason of their greater adaptation to their environment, would survive.\nBut this is not the fact.  As a matter of fact, A, at the bottom of the\nscale, survives, though A99, at the top, is gone.  The countless\nmultitude of intermediate formations has disappeared, but the parent\nstock remains.  If ever there was a race of animals so near man as to\nrender it nothing more than natural that it should give birth to man,\nthat race has wholly disappeared, while animals vastly inferior still\nexist in all their strength.  Such a fact appears to me to be fatal to\nthe theory.\n\n(iii.)  But the geological evidence is stronger still.  If all these\ncreatures have arisen in succession, and perished, we may well ask,\n\u201cWhere are their bones?\u201d  Each successive race, according to the theory,\nhas been sufficiently powerful to overpower its predecessors, and to\nreproduce its own kind.  It is clear, therefore, that we should naturally\nlook for the geological remains of those once-powerful animals.  But here\nwe are met by the hard, stubborn, rocky fact, that there is no trace of\nthem in the geological record.  We find the remains of A, B, C, D, etc.,\nbut between them there is a complete hiatus; and if there were 1000 links\nbetween A and B, the geologist cannot show you one of them.  He can show\nyou A, and he can show you B; but as for A 20, 30, and 40, he can only\ntell you that they are not yet discovered.  I know that some good\nChristian people are afraid of geology, and in that I believe they make a\ngreat mistake; for though I grant there may be danger in shallow,\nsuperficial, theoretical geology, I never can doubt that the real record\nof the rocks is in perfect harmony with the real record of Scripture.\nSo, in this instance, it has furnished us with an unanswerable proof that\nthe evolutionist theory is not founded in fact, and that nothing has yet\nbeen discovered in the geological record to shake our confidence in the\ngrand, old, Scriptural statement, \u201cGod made the beast of the earth after\nits kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth\nupon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good.\u201d  We all\nknow that it is not the object of the Book of Genesis to teach science;\nand some, I grieve to think, are not afraid of calling it a myth, or even\na poem for the childhood of the world; but I venture to affirm that the\nstatement of the Inspired Book which describes each kind as a separate\ncreation is more in accordance with well-known geological facts, and is\ntherefore more scientifically accurate than the theories of those who\nadopt the conjecture that the various kinds, species, or groups evolved\nthemselves either from each other or from a common stock.\n\n\n\n(2)  _Cosmical Evolution_.\n\n\nBut if this be the case with Biological Evolution, how is it with\nCosmical Evolution, or the evolution of inanimate matter?  Bishop Temple\ndescribes it as \u201cthat which begins with Laplace, and explains the way in\nwhich the earth was fitted to be the habitation of living creatures;\u201d\n{11a} and again he says: {11b}\n\n    It cannot, then, be well denied that the astronomers and geologists\n    here made it exceedingly probable that this earth on which we live\n    has been brought to its present condition by passing through a\n    succession of changes from an original state of great heat and\n    fluidity, perhaps even from a mixture mainly consisting of gases;\n    that such a body as the planet Jupiter represents one of the stages\n    through which it has passed; that such a body as the moon represents\n    a stage toward which it is tending; that it has shrank as it cooled,\n    and as it shrank formed the elevations which we call mountains, and\n    the depressions which contain the seas and oceans; that it has been\n    worn by the action of heat from within and water from without, and in\n    consequence of this action presents the appearance when examined\n    below the surface of successive strata or layers; that different\n    kinds of animal and vegetable life have followed one another on the\n    surface, and that some of their remains are found in these strata\n    now: and that all this has taken enormous periods of time.  All this\n    is exceedingly probable, because it is the way in which, as Laplace\n    first pointed out, under well established scientific laws of matter,\n    particularly the law of gravitation and the law of the radiation of\n    heat, a great fluid mass would naturally change.\n\nThere is nothing in that explanation to militate against the Scriptural\naccounts of the formation of the present world; and it may have pleased\nGod to make use of the laws of gravitation and radiation of heat in order\nto bring our world into its present form.  But the structure of the earth\nis not all, or nearly all.\n\nThere is found on the earth, and within it, an infinite variety of\nsubstances.  There are metals; such as gold, silver, lead, iron, etc.\nThere are precious stones of gorgeous beauty, diamonds, rubies, etc.,\netc.  There is vegetable matter of every description, from the tenderest\nblade of grass to the hard wood of the forest oak.  And there are animals\nof all classes and all characters, from the lowest mollusk to the most\nperfect and elaborate vertebrate.  And the question is, What made them?\nWere they produced by the cooling of the earth?  Was it gravitation or\nradiation that made the gold, the ruby, the fern, the oak, the animal,\nand the water?\n\nBut in addition to these various substances, the world abounds with what\nwe call \u201cLaws.\u201d  There are the laws of electricity, of heat, of\nchemistry, of force, of motion, etc.; besides those to which all these\ngreat changes are ascribed, the laws of heat and gravitation\u2014and, What\nmade them?  Are they all the result of the cooling of the earth?  Was one\nmass of fluid matter cooled into iron, one into gold, one into wood, and\none into flesh? and did they all evolve from themselves by some\nmysterious power, those wonderful laws of nature to which they are all\nsubject and which they all obey?  In their case there was no \u201cstruggle\nfor existence,\u201d no \u201csurvival of the fittest,\u201d and no \u201cnatural\nselection\u201d\u2014no thought, no mind, no design, and no plan in themselves; and\nit is indeed hard to suppose that they not only evolved themselves, but\nalso evolved laws of such marvellous subtlety and power, that their\ndiscovery and use form the greatest achievement of modern science.\n\nIt may perhaps interest some to know how it is all supposed to have been\ndone, and as Mr. Herbert Spencer appears to be the great apostle of the\ntheory, I will give, in his own words, the conclusion of his elaborate\nargument.  In \u201cFirst Principles\u201d (p. 396) he gives his great conclusion,\nand prints it in italics that there may be no mistake as to its vast\nimportance: \u201cEvolution,\u201d he says, \u201cis an integration of matter and\nconcomitant dissipation of motion, during which the matter passes from an\nindefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity,\nand during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel\ntransformation.\u201d  Is it for such as that that we are to give up our faith\nin the creation of God?\n\nBut this is not all, for not merely is the earth filled with various\nsubstances, and governed by various laws; but there is a third element\nfor which even Mr. Spencer\u2019s definition fails to account, and that is\nlife.  There is life abounding everywhere; but what science can tell us\neither what it is or whence it came?  Was it produced either by\ngravitation or radiation?  Did the cooling of the earth produce life on\nits surface?  I know no greater evidence of the utter failure of the\nevolutionist theory than the suggestion made on one occasion (I think in\nan inaugural address to the British Association), that life came in a\nmeteoric stone from some already formed habitable world.  With reference\nto such an idea it is enough to ask four questions.  How did it get into\nthat other world?  How did it attach itself to the meteoric stone?  How\ndid it survive the awful blow which it must have experienced when it\nstruck the earth? and how did it spread itself when it found itself alone\nin the utter loneliness of an uninhabited world?  Such is the theory of\nthose who would struggle to create a world without a God; and I venture\nto affirm that there is infinitely more true science in the words, \u201cAll\nthings were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was\nmade.  In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.\u201d\n\nBut, though I have thus followed Bishop Temple in his twofold division of\nthe theory of Evolution, there is another twofold division which I regard\nas of incomparably greater importance.  I refer to the Theistic and\nAtheistic theory.\n\nI.  There is a Theistic theory, for there can be no doubt whatever that\nmany of those who accept the Evolution theory hold it in the firm belief\nin the creative power of a self-existing Creator.  Bishop Temple, _e.g._,\nstates the question thus:\n\n    In the one case the Creator made the animals at once such as they now\n    are; in the other case He impressed on certain particles of matter,\n    which either at the beginning or at some point in the history of His\n    creation He endowed with life, such inherent powers that in the\n    ordinary course of time living creatures such as the present were\n    developed.  The creative power remains the same in either case. {13}\n\nFor my own part, I should be almost disposed to consider that the\ncreative power was the greater on the theory of Evolution; for to make a\ngerm which should evolve itself into all the countless varieties, both of\nanimate and inanimate existence, is, if possible, a greater miracle than\nthe creation of each separate species.  There is great skill shown in the\nmanufacture both of a railway train and a steamboat, but the skill would\nbe of a much higher order if a person were to construct a train with its\nengine and all its carriages, and impart to it the remarkable property\nthat when it arrived at the sea-coast it should of itself without the\naction of man, turn itself into a steamboat.\n\nThus a person may hold the Evolution theory to its fullest extent without\nentertaining the slightest doubt as to the creative power of our God.\nIndeed, Bishop Temple says:\n\n    The doctrine of Evolution leaves the argument for an intelligent\n    Creator and Governor of the world stronger than it was before.  There\n    is still as much as ever the proof of an intelligent purpose\n    pervading all creation.  The difference is that the execution of that\n    purpose belongs more to the original act of creation, less to acts of\n    government since.  There is more Divine foresight, there is less\n    Divine interposition; and whatever has been taken from the latter has\n    been added to the former. (P. 122.)\n\nThere is such a joy in the blessed assurance of Divine interposition, and\nit seems so clearly taught in Scripture, that it is impossible to regard\nwithout the utmost jealousy the suggestion of even such a transfer as\nthat described in these words.  But still, however greatly we may regret\nthe theory, we are bound in justice to recognise the fact that those who\nhold it may believe in a Creator God with a faith as firm and unshaken as\nthat which brings peace to our own souls.\n\nI cannot refrain from adding that this was the view of Darwin himself.\nHe has been claimed as an ally by those who deny the creation of God; so\nthat it is most satisfactory to read such a passage as that with which\nhis book concludes:\n\n    There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,\n    having been originally breathed BY THE CREATOR into a few forms or\n    into one; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according\n    to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless\n    forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, have been and are being\n    evolved. (P. 429.)\n\nWe may wholly differ from him in his theory of Evolution, but we rejoice\nto agree with him in the conviction that life, was originally breathed\nforth by the Creator.\n\n2.  But there is also an Atheistic theory of Evolution, which does, in\nfact, substitute Evolution for God.  The doctrine of Evolution is used,\naccording to Bishop Temple, \u201cto prove that no intelligence planned the\nworld.\u201d  The theory seems to be that through the power of certain laws\nthe original atoms have gradually evolved themselves into all the\nbeauties and endless varieties of this thickly-peopled world.  It is\npitiable to see the hopeless shifts to which intelligent men are driven\nin order to maintain such a theory.  They are compelled to face the\nquestions, \u201cWhence came the atoms? and now did the laws originate?\u201d  And\nMr. Herbert Spencer for an answer to such questions is compelled to\nresort to what he terms \u201cThe Persistence of Force.\u201d  We might push the\ninquiry one step farther, and inquire what was the origin of this\nPersistence of Force? and we cannot but wonder that a man who is\nconsidered one of the great thinkers of the age should not be compelled,\nwhen thus driven into a corner, to acknowledge with candour that his\npersistent force is nothing less than the omnipotence of God.  But no, he\ncannot admit the existence of a God, and in a note on p. 192 of his\n\u201cFirst Principles,\u201d he actually tells us that he and Professor Huxley\ninvented the term \u201cPersistence of Force,\u201d instead of what used to be the\nterm employed, \u201cConservation of Force,\u201d because \u201cConservation implies a\nConserver,\u201d and that he denies.  Thus his theory of Evolution is employed\nto show how the world evolved itself without the interference of a\nCreator, or even a Conserver of Force.  The whole thing is supposed to\nhave been done without design, without plan, without intelligence,\nwithout skill, and in fact without any action of mind or intelligent\npower.  The whole is supposed to be the result of certain unintelligent\nlaws, not ordained by any Lawgiver, or carried out by any Conserver.  In\nother words, the Evolution theory is the Atheist\u2019s substitute for God.\n\nNow surely, if this be the case, those who write and speak in favour of\nthe Evolution theory ought to be much more careful than some of them have\nbeen in defining what they are speaking of.  Some of them speak of \u201cthe\ndoctrine of Evolution,\u201d as if there was only one doctrine, and some speak\nin most rapturous terms of its most extraordinary value\u2014as, _e.g._, when\nMr. Drummond said in Grosvenor House that \u201cIt was the Great thought of\nthe century, perhaps the greatest the world has ever found out;\u201d but\nsurely when they do so they are bound to tell us what they mean.  Do they\nmean simply growth? or progression? or variation within species?  Or do\nthey mean evolution from species to species? or the evolution of the\ninanimate world?  On such points there ought to be a clear and\nunmistakable definition.  Above all, do they mean an evolution by God, or\nwithout Him?  An evolution by the design of a divine Person, or by\n\u201cPersistence of Force,\u201d whatever that may be?  \u201cEvolution,\u201d in the\nvocabulary of Mr. Spencer and his followers, means nothing less than a\ntheory for the formation of the world and all things therein, without the\naction or design of a personal Creator; and surely it is to be deeply\ndeplored that Christian advocates should employ exactly the same term\nwithout the slightest caution or protest.  I do not say that in their\nwritings there are no passages which, if carefully collected and spliced\ntogether, may indicate what they mean.  But what I maintain is, that as\nthe word \u201cEvolution\u201d is employed by them to express the mode according to\nwhich our Heavenly Father has formed the whole creation, both animate and\ninanimate, and by Atheists to express the mode by which the world is\nsupposed to have formed itself, they ought not to use the word without\nmaking it as clear as the sun in heaven in what sense they employ it.\nThey may speak of \u201cEvolution\u201d as the great scientific theory of the day,\nor as the greatest achievement of the age, and unless they are much more\ncareful than some have been, their authority may be quoted as endorsing\nthe theory invented by Atheists and maintained by them in support of\ntheir Atheism.  Men\u2019s minds are governed by words, and surely we have a\nright to ask of those who glory in scientific accuracy that they should\nclearly define what they mean, and not leave their unscientific readers\nto discover, as best they may, whether they wish us to believe in\nself-evolution or Divine formation; in a self-evolution by Persistence of\nForce, or in a marvellous creation by the design, the skill, and the\nomnipotence of God.  If they write about Evolution in the loose way in\nwhich some have done lately while they appear to speak with admiration of\nMr. Herbert Spencer\u2019s philosophy, they cannot be surprised if they are\nregarded as teaching his Evolution theory, and if the effect of their\nwriting is to weaken faith and strengthen Atheism.\n\nBut let no one suppose for one moment that, because we deplore the loose,\ninaccurate, and unscientific manner in which some of those who glory in\ntheir scientific accuracy appear to confound fact and theory, on that\naccount we undervalue scientific investigations, or think lightly of\nscientific facts.  In proof of this I would conclude this paper by an\nextract from the writings of a truly scientific investigator, the late\nMr. F. Buckland, who writes:\n\n    Of late years, the doctrines of so-called Evolution and Development\n    have seemingly gained ground among those interested in natural\n    history; but to put matters very straight, I steadfastly believe that\n    the Great Creator, as indeed we are directly told, made all things\n    perfect and \u201cvery good\u201d from the beginning; perfect and very good\n    every created thing is now found to be, and will so continue to the\n    end.  I am very willing to prove my case, by holding a court at any\n    time or place, before any number of people of any class.  I would\n    impanel a jury of the most eminent and skilful railway and mechanical\n    engineers, while the only witnesses I should call would be the fish\n    fresh from the deep-sea trawler, the city fish market, or the\n    fishmonger\u2019s slab: I would adduce from them evidence of \u201cdesign,\n    beauty, and order,\u201d as evinced in such as the electric organs of the\n    torpedo, the gun-lock spine of the file-fish, the water-reservoir and\n    spectacles of the eel, the teeth of the gilt-head bream, the anchor\n    of the lump-sucker and remora, the colouring of the perch and bleak,\n    the ichthyophagous teeth of the pike, shark, and silvery hair-tail;\n    the tail of the fox shark, the prehensile lips of the dory and sprat,\n    the nose of the barbel and dogfish, the resplendence of the arctic\n    gymnetrus and scabbard-fish, the dagger in the tail of the sting-ray,\n    the nest of the stickleback, the armour-plates of the sturgeon, the\n    nostril-breathing powers and store of fat in the salmon; migrations\n    of the salmon, herring, pilchard, sprat, and mackerel; and, above\n    all, the enormous fertility of fishes useful as food to the human\n    race.  I am satisfied that I should obtain a verdict in favour of my\n    view of the case, namely, that in all these wonderful contrivances\n    there exists evidence of design and forethought, and a wondrous\n    adaptation of means to an end. (_Life_, p. 424.)\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n{3}  Address in Grosvenor House, May 3, 1885.\n\n{5a}  May 3, 1885.\n\n{5b}  In the _Christian Commonwealth_.\n\n{6a}  \u201cBampton Lectures,\u201d p. 162.\n\n{6b}  _Ibid._ p. 167.\n\n{7a}  \u201cBampton Lectures,\u201d p. 164.\n\n{7b}  \u201cOrigin of Species,\u201d p. 403.\n\n{7c}  \u201cBampton Lectures,\u201d p. 164.\n\n{7d}  _Ibid._ p. 164.\n\n{7e}  _Ibid._, p. 166.\n\n{11a}  P. 167.\n\n{11b}  P. 162.\n\n{13} \u201cLectures,\u201d p. 114.","title":"Evolution","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":7412}