IT may appear a very rash thing for any person who does not claim to be a
man of science to presume to give an opinion on any of the theories of
scientific men. But there is a vast difference between the facts of
science and the theories suggested for their explanation. The facts are,
as it were, the property of the investigators. The investigators have a
power of investigation which we outsiders have not, and it would be folly
for us who have not that power to presume to call in question their
information. But it is a very different matter with the theories either
founded on these facts or invented to explain them. When science has
given us the facts common-sense can discuss the theories founded on them;
and, without presuming to call in question the ascertained results of
scientific investigation, any person of ordinary intelligence may form
his own opinion as to the conclusions derived from the known facts. The
scientific men know the facts, and we do not; but, when they have told us
the facts, we can think as well as they. This point was exceedingly well
put by Canon Garbett at the Norwich Church Congress in 1865. He said:
“Beyond a certain point the conclusions and arguments of the man of
science cease to be exclusively his own, and become the common property
of all men. All argument rests on common principles, and when once the
facts of the case are clearly ascertained, any man who is trained to
reason correctly is competent to judge of them.” Again: “Let the man of
science,” said Canon Garbett, “reign supreme within his own sphere, and
let none but those trained in the same school and learned in the same
craft venture to dispute with him as he gathers his facts and generalizes
his rules. But when all this is done, and he proceeds to reason, then it
is different. He steps out of his special department into a sphere open
to all men alike. Tell me what your facts are, and if I sufficiently
master them I am as competent to judge of the validity of the conclusions
drawn from them as the man of science himself.”
There is scarcely any subject to which this principle applies more
completely than it does to Evolution; for what is called “the doctrine of
Evolution” is only a theory. It is not a collection of facts, but a
theory which some of its warmest advocates—as, _e.g._, Professor
Drummond—declare to be “still unproved.” {3} While, therefore, we fully
recognise that it would be the utmost folly “to debate a point of natural
history with Darwin, or a question of comparative anatomy with Owen,” we
may, by the aid of common-sense, form an opinion possibly as sound at
theirs on the unproved theory which has been founded on the ascertained
facts which those great investigators have placed within our reach. This
is all that I would attempt to do in the present paper. I do not propose
to call in question a single fact ascertained by men of science. All
that I would venture to do is to exercise the ordinary powers of thought
in considering one of the theories which some scientific men have
suggested as an explanation of those facts. I say “some scientific men,”
for there is a very great difference of opinion amongst scientific men,
and no one can read the admirable papers produced by the Victoria
Institute without perceiving now much accurate observation, how wide a
scientific knowledge, and how great a force of Baconian philosophy is
arrayed against the theory just now in the fashion.
Let us begin, then, with a few facts respecting which we are all agreed,
and which as they are sometimes called by the name of Evolution, are
supposed to supply evidence of the correctness of the theory.
(1) We all believe in _growth_. It is a matter of fact that the world
is full of growth. And this growth is not limited to gradual, or
continuous, enlargement or development; but consists sometimes in most
remarkable sudden changes, as when the egg becomes a chicken, the
caterpillar a chrysalis, and the chrysalis a butterfly. Every living
creature, whether plant or animal, has its own mode of growth; and no
living creature is born into the world in the fulness of its stature.
The man was once in his cradle, the eagle in its egg, the oak in its
acorn; and no one can point to any living thing, either in the animal or
vegetable kingdom, that began life with the full development of all the
powers or properties of its species. Whatever men may think of any
theory, as a matter of fact there is invariably growth as the first, and
most certain, accompaniment of life.
(2) Within certain limits we all believe in _variations_. Both plants
and animals of the same species vary according to circumstances, and are
all more or less affected by country, by climate, and by culture.
Amongst dogs, _e.g._, there are countless varieties of breed, to say
nothing of all the mongrels. Just so amongst flowers; there are
countless varieties of the rose, and these varieties may be multiplied to
any extent by culture. There is, moreover, a power of adaptation to
climate and other circumstances. In colder climates animals of the same
species have thicker coats than they have under the tropics. There
cannot be a question that both plants and animals will begin at once, if
placed in a new position, to adapt themselves to it; and, as a general
rule, if they fail in such adaptation, they die. Beyond all doubt, as a
matter of fact, there are variations resulting both from parentage and
environment. We are told by naturalists that some of these variations
are not of a permanent character, as, _e.g._, in the case of pigeons, of
which it is stated by Darwin that any number of breeds, if left to
themselves, will in time revert to the common Rock. But still the fact
remains, that within certain limits there are numberless variations, and
that these variations may be transmitted to posterity. Some of these
appear to have been produced in one way, and some in another; but,
however produced, there they are; and no one, whether scientific or
unscientific, can for one moment call in question the fact.
(3.) We all believe in _progression_. We see progression all around us.
It appears to be a universal law that there should be perpetual movement.
Sometimes there is advance, and sometimes retrogression—but always
movement; for when there is no advance, there is invariably decline.
Then, again, as far as observation is concerned, we find this progression
gradual and continuous. Characters are gradually formed; learning is
gradually acquired; power is gradually gained; and the whole world
advances by the gradual attainment of increasing knowledge. Such
progression is seen both in creation and revelation.
In Creation, for no one supposes that the world was created and peopled
by one instantaneous act of the Creator. There may be difficulties in
some of the commonly received interpretations of some of the statements
of that most wonderful narrative contained in Gen. i.; but there can be
no doubt whatever that it teaches progression. It begins with chaos, and
leads us step by step to a perfected cosmos. At the outset; “the earth
was waste, or without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of
the deep.” And at the end we see a fertile world covered with
vegetation, peopled by countless living creatures, with man, in the image
of God, at their head, all enjoying the bright light of the sun in
heaven; and all in so perfect a condition that “God saw everything that
He had made, and behold it was very good.” But this change did not take
place by one solitary act. The world did not leap by one bound from one
condition to the other. There were, according to Scripture no less than
six successive steps in the process. Let people explain the six days as
they please, and I fully acknowledge that there may be legitimate
differences in their explanations. But no one can doubt that the
narrative teaches progression; and that, according to that narrative, it
pleased God by a series of successive acts to complete the work which He
pronounced to be very good. No one, therefore, who believes in the Book
of Genesis can for one moment doubt progression in the work of the
creation.
Nor can there be the slightest doubt as to progression in Revelation.
Some people seem to speak of this as if it were a new discovery connected
with the theory of Evolution. Such persons ought to read an admirable
book called “The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation,” written many years
ago, and new published by the Religious Tract Society. It is perfectly
impossible to read through the Old and New Testaments as a complete book
without seeing progression. It is deeply to be deplored that such a man
as Professor Drummond should have said, as he is reported to have said in
his Sunday lectures, at Grosvenor House, {5a} “The Book of Genesis must
be regarded as presenting truth to children’s minds;” and should have
illustrated this by George Macdonald’s poem, “The Baby,” adding, “not
literally true, but true for the child. So Moses gave truth in the form
of a poem. If you say it is a scientific book, I give it up; but if you
regard it as a poem, then I can deal with it.” This appears to teach
that the Book of Genesis is regarded by him as something like a nursery
rhyme. But the report {5b} is evidently abridged; and I hope it is
incorrect. We know that there are sixty-six books in the Bible; but we
also believe that it is “a Book” complete in itself, and with all its
parts so beautifully proportioned that it forms one perfect whole for the
gradual development of the whole counsel of God. Thus we believe that
the one verse (Gen. iii 15), “I will put enmity between thee and the
woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and
thou shalt bruise his heel,” is the seed, or germ, of the whole Gospel;
and that just as the oak is in the acorn, so in these few words is
contained the whole covenant of God. The first twelve chapters of the
Book of Genesis trace the pedigree of that seed of the woman till the
call of the chosen family in Abraham; the historical books record the
varied history of that family, and show how sorely the heel of the
woman’s seed first bruised by the serpent; while the prophecies enlarge,
and expand the blessed hope of final victory in the promised One. At
length the Gospels reveal the long-expected Christ; and the Acts and the
Epistles unfold the principles and progress of His kingdom, till the
whole is complete in the Apocalypse, where we read of “the new heavens
and the new earth,” with the curse of sin gone for ever, with Satan cast
into the lake of fire, and with the seed of the woman triumphant over
death and hell. As the acorn to the oak, so is that first promise to the
Apocalypse. It is no poem, no myth, no nursery rhyme, but the germ of
the whole counsel of God—a germ containing the whole Gospel, and
requiring no less than four thousand years for its development.
Let no one suppose, therefore, for a moment that we do not believe in
progression, for we see it throughout nature; and we find it distinctly
taught in Scripture as a matter of historical fact, both in creation and
revelation. But the fact of progression is a totally different thing
from the theory of Evolution; and it is extremely important that the
distinction should be carefully borne in mind; for there are many, and
some of them clear-headed men, who, because they see the three
things—growth, variation, and progression, avow themselves believers in
Evolution, though all the while they really reject what should be
strictly termed “the Evolution theory.”
What then is the theory of Evolution? What is it which Bishop Temple
describes as “just at present the leading scientific doctrine,” {6a} and
for which he says the evidence “is enormously great, and increasing
daily”? {6b} It is extremely difficult to answer the question; for
evolutionists themselves, although they are perpetually trumpeting forth
the superiority of their scientific accuracy, very seldom take the
trouble to tell us what they mean. In a defence of Mr. Drummond’s book,
in the _Expositor_, the defender states, with reference to an article of
my own in the CHURCHMAN of February last, that there are at least four
theories of Evolution; and he also informs us which of the four it is
that Mr. Drummond teaches. It is a pity that Mr. Drummond did not tell
us this in his book, instead of leaving us to conclude, as some of us
have concluded that it was the doctrine of Mr. Herbert Spencer that
appeared to call forth his enthusiastic admiration.
Bishop Temple speaks of “_the_ two theories of Evolution;” and what he
does with the other two I do not know. He describes the one as that of
La Place, and the other as that of Darwin; the former being a theory for
the construction of the universe, and therefore by some called “Cosmical
Evolution;” the other for the development of vegetable and animal life,
and therefore termed “Biological Evolution.”
To begin with the _Biological_. This is briefly stated by Bishop Temple
{7a} in the words: “It cannot be denied that Darwin’s investigations have
made it extremely probable that the vast variety of plants and animals
have sprung from a much smaller number of original forms.” So Darwin, in
his summary, {7b} writes: “The several classes of facts which have been
considered in this chapter seem to me to proclaim so plainly that the
innumerable species, genera, and families with which this world is
peopled, are all descended, each within its own class or group, from
common parents, and have all been modified in the course of descent, that
I should without hesitation adopt this view, even if it were unsupported
by other facts or arguments.” I presume that there are very few amongst
us who would differ materially from either of these statements; for both
of them fully admit the original existence of a variety of common
parents, which is, in fact, a complete surrender of the whole position;
and Darwin limits the modifications in the course of descent to changes,
“each within its own class or group.” Now this is all for which the
anti-evolutionist contends; for all admit most freely the existence of
most marked variations within the circles of the various groups.
But, although in this passage there is this limitation, as a matter of
fact there is a great deal more claimed by both writers for Evolution;
for the title of Darwin’s book, “The Origin of Species,” shows very
clearly that he applies his theory not merely to variations within
species, but to the formation of the species within which these
variations take place. I do not gather from his book that his theory
goes so far as to suppose that either plants or animals have passed over
from one species to another, both species being already in existence; but
rather that through the power of “the struggle for existence,” “natural
selection,” and “survival of the fittest,” existing races have been so
changed and modified that new species have been evolved out of them, and
that in every such evolution there has been what evolutionists consider
to be improvement.