a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably
arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World." (vol. ii.
p. 372) Mr. Darwin adds: "He who denounces these views (as irreligious)
is bound to explain why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of
man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the
laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of
the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction." (vol. ii. p.
378)
FOOTNOTE:
[7] _Descent of Man_, etc. By Charles Darwin, M. A., F. R. S., etc. New
York, 1871, vol. i. p. 179.
_The Sense in which Mr. Darwin uses the Word "Natural."_
We have not yet reached the heart of Mr. Darwin's theory. The main idea
of his system lies in the word "natural." He uses that word in two
senses: first, as antithetical to the word artificial. Men can produce
very marked varieties as to structure and habits of animals. This is
exemplified in the production of the different breeds of horses, cattle,
sheep, and dogs; and specially, as Mr. Darwin seems to think, in the
case of pigeons. Of these, he says, "The diversity of breeds is
something astonishing." Some have long, and some very short bills; some
have large feet, some small; some long necks, others long wings and
tails, while others have singularly short tails; some have thirty, and
even forty, tail-feathers, instead of the normal number of twelve or
fourteen. They differ as much in instinct as they do in form. Some are
carriers, some pouters, some tumblers, some trumpeters; and yet all are
descendants of the Rock Pigeon which is still extant. If, then, he
argues, man, in a comparatively short time, has by artificial selection
produced all these varieties, what might be accomplished on the
boundless scale of nature, during the measureless ages of the geologic
periods.
Secondly, he uses the word natural as antithetical to supernatural.
Natural selection is a selection made by natural laws, working without
intention and design. It is, therefore, opposed not only to artificial
selection, which is made by the wisdom and skill of man to accomplish a
given purpose, but also to supernatural selection, which means either a
selection originally intended by a power higher than nature; or which is
carried out by such power. In using the expression Natural Selection,
Mr. Darwin intends to exclude design, or final causes. All the changes
in structure, instinct, or intelligence, in the plants or animals,
including man, descended from the primordial germ, or animalcule, have
been brought about by unintelligent physical causes. On this point he
leaves us in no doubt. He defines nature to be "the aggregate action and
product of natural laws; and laws are the sequence of events as
ascertained by us." It had been objected that he often uses teleological
language, speaking of purpose, intention, contrivance, adaptation, etc.
In answer to this objection, he says: "It has been said, that I speak of
natural selection as a power or deity; but who objects to an author
speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the
planet?" He admits that in the literal sense of the words, natural
selection is a false term; but "who ever objected to chemists, speaking
of the elective affinities of various elements?--and yet an acid cannot
strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference
combines." (p. 93) We have here an affirmation and a negation. It is
affirmed that natural selection is the operation of natural laws,
analogous to the action of gravitation and of chemical affinities. It is
denied that it is a process originally designed, or guided by
intelligence, such as the activity which foresees an end and consciously
selects and controls the means of its accomplishment. Artificial
selection, then, is an intelligent process; natural selection is not.
There are in the animal and vegetable worlds innumerable instances of at
least apparent contrivance, which have excited the admiration of men in
all ages. There are three ways of accounting for them. The first is the
Scriptural doctrine, namely, that God is a Spirit, a personal,
self-conscious, intelligent agent; that He is infinite, eternal, and
unchangeable in his being and perfections; that He is ever present; that
this presence is a presence of knowledge and power. In the external
world there is always and everywhere indisputable evidence of the
activity of two kinds of force: the one physical, the other mental. The
physical belongs to matter, and is due to the properties with which it
has been endowed; the other is the everywhere present and ever acting
mind of God. To the latter are to be referred all the manifestations of
design in nature, and the ordering of events in Providence. This
doctrine does not ignore the efficiency of second causes; it simply
asserts that God over-rules and controls them. Thus the Psalmist says,
"I am fearfully and wonderfully made.... My substance was not hid from
thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought (or embroidered)
in the lower parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance yet
being imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in
continuance were fashioned, when as yet there were none of them." "He
who fashioned the eye, shall not He see? He that formed the ear shall
not He hear?" "God makes the grass to grow, and herbs for the children
of men." He sends rain, frost, and snow. He controls the winds and the
waves. He determines the casting of the lot, the flight of an arrow, and
the falling of a sparrow. This universal and constant control of God is
not only one of the most patent and pervading doctrines of the Bible,
but it is one of the fundamental principles of even natural religion.
The second method of accounting for contrivances in nature admits that
they were foreseen and purposed by God, and that He endowed matter with
forces which He foresaw and intended should produce such results. But
here his agency stops. He never interferes to guide the operation of
physical causes. He does nothing to control the course of nature, or the
events of history. On this theory it may be said, (1.) That it is
utterly inconsistent with the Scriptures. (2.) It does not meet the
religious and moral necessities of our nature. It renders prayer
irrational and inoperative. It makes it vain for a man in any emergency
to look to God for help. (3.) It is inconsistent with obvious facts. We
see around us innumerable evidences of the constant activity of mind.
This evidence of mind and of its operations, according to Lord Brougham
and Dr. Whewell, is far more clear than that of the existence of matter
and of its forces. If one or the other is to be denied, it is the latter
rather than the former. Paley indeed says, that if the construction of a
watch be an undeniable evidence of design it would be a still more
wonderful manifestation of skill, if a watch could be made to produce
other watches; and, it may be added, not only other watches, but all
kinds of time-pieces in endless variety. So it has been asked, if man
can make a telescope, why cannot God make a telescope which produces
others like itself? This is simply asking, whether matter can be made to
do the work of mind? The idea involves a contradiction. For a telescope
to make a telescope, supposes it to select copper and zinc in due
proportions and fuse them into brass; to fashion that brass into
inter-entering tubes; to collect and combine the requisite materials for
the different kinds of glass needed; to melt them, grind, fashion, and
polish them; adjust their densities and focal distances, etc., etc. A
man who can believe that brass can do all this, might as well believe in
God. The most credulous men in the world are unbelievers. The great
Napoleon could not believe in Providence; but he believed in his star,
and in lucky and unlucky days.
This banishing God from the world is simply intolerable, and, blessed be
his name, impossible. An absent God who does nothing is, to us, no God.
Christ brings God constantly near to us. He said to his disciples,
"Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap; which have neither
store-house nor barn; and God feedeth them; how much better are ye than
the fowls. And which of you by taking thought can add to his stature one
cubit? Consider the lilies how they grow; they toil not, neither do they
spin; and yet I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not
arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothe the grass, which is
to-day in the field, and to-morrow is cast into the oven; how much more
will He clothe you, O ye of little faith." "And seek ye not what ye
shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. For
all these things do the nations of the world seek after; and your Father
knoweth that ye have need of these things." It may be said that Christ
did not teach science. True, but He taught truth; and science, so
called, when it comes in conflict with truth, is what man is when he
comes in conflict with God.
The advocates of these extreme opinions protest against being considered
irreligious. Herbert Spencer says, that his doctrine of an inscrutable,
unintelligent, unknown force, as the cause of all things, is a much more
religious doctrine than that of a personal, intelligent, and voluntary
Being of infinite power and goodness. Matthew Arnold holds that an
unconscious "power which makes for right," is a higher idea of God than
the Jehovah of the Bible. Christ says, God is a Spirit. Holbach thought
that he made a great advance on that definition, when he said, God is
motion.
The third method of accounting for the contrivances manifested in the
organs of plants and animals, is that which refers them to the blind
operation of natural causes. They are not due to the continued
coöperation and control of the divine mind, nor to the original purpose
of God in the constitution of the universe. This is the doctrine of the
Materialists, and to this doctrine, we are sorry to say, Mr. Darwin,
although himself a theist, has given in his adhesion. It is on this
account the Materialists almost deify him.
From what has been said, it appears that Darwinism includes three
distinct elements. First, evolution; or the assumption that all organic
forms, vegetable and animal, have been evolved or developed from one, or
a few, primordial living germs; second, that this evolution has been
effected by natural selection, or the survival of the fittest; and
third, and by far the most important and only distinctive element of his
theory, that this natural selection is without design, being conducted
by unintelligent physical causes. Neither the first nor the second of
these elements constitute Darwinism; nor do the two combined. As to the
first, namely, evolution, Mr. Darwin himself, in the historical sketch
prefixed to the fifth edition of his "Origin of Species," says, that
Lamarck, in 1811 and more fully in 1815, "taught that all species,
including man, are descended from other species." He refers to some six
or eight other scientists, as teaching the same doctrine. This idea of
Evolution was prominently presented and elaborated in the "Vestiges of
Creation," first published in 1844. Ulrici, Professor in the University
of Halle, Germany, in his work "Gott und die Natur," says that the
doctrine of evolution took no hold on the minds of scientific men, but
was positively rejected by the most eminent physiologists, among whom he
mentions J. Müller, K. Wagner, Bischoff, Hoffmann, and others.[8] The
Rev. George Henslow, Lecturer on Botany at St. Bartholomew's Hospital,
London, himself a pronounced evolutionist, says the theories of Lamarck
and of the "Vestiges of Creation" have given place to that of Mr.
Darwin; "and there are not wanting many symptoms of decay in the
acceptance even of his. Not only has he considerably modified his views
in later editions of the 'Origin of Species,' distinctly expressing the
opinion that he attributed too great influence to natural selection, but
even men of science, Owen, Huxley,--and at least in its application to
man, Wallace himself,--are either opposed to it in great measure, or
else give it but a qualified assent. Thus, it has been the fate of all
theories of the development of living things to lapse into oblivion.
_Evolution_ itself, however, will stand the same."[9] We find in the
"Transactions of the Victoria Institute," a still more decided
repudiation of Darwinism on the part of Mr. Henslow. He there says: "I
do not believe in Darwin's theory; and have endeavored to refute it by
showing its utter impossibility."[10] He defines Evolution by saying,
"It supposes all animals and plants that exist now, or have ever
existed, to have been produced through laws of generation from
preëxisting animals and plants respectively; that affinity amongst
organic beings implies, or is due to community of descent; and that the
degree of affinity between organisms is in proportion to their nearness
of generation, or, at least, to the persistence of common characters,
they being the products of originally the same parentage."[11] A man,
therefore, may be an evolutionist, without being a Darwinian. It should
be mentioned that Mr. Henslow expressly excludes man, both as to body
and soul, from the law of evolution.
Nor is the theory of natural selection the vital principle of Mr.
Darwin's theory, unless the word natural be taken in a sense
antithetical to supernatural. In the historical sketch just referred to,
Mr. Darwin not only says that he had been anticipated in teaching the
doctrine of Evolution by Lamarck and the author of the "Vestiges of
Creation;" but that the theory of natural selection, as the means of
accounting for evolution, was not original with him. He tells us that as
early as 1813, Dr. W. C. Wells "distinctly recognizes the principle of
natural selection;" and that Mr. Patrick Matthew, in 1831, "gives
precisely the same view of the origin of species as that propounded by
Mr. Wallace and myself." Ideas are like seed: they are often cast forth,
and not finding a congenial soil produce no fruit. To Mr. Darwin is
undoubtedly due the elaboration and thoroughly scientific defence of the
theory of natural selection, and to him is to be referred the deep and
widespread interest which it has excited.
FOOTNOTES:
[8] _Gott und die Natur_. Von D. Hermann Ulrici. Zweite Auflage.
Leipzig, 1866, p. 394.
[9] _The Theory of Evolution of Living Things and the Application of the
Principles of Evolution to Religion_. By Rev. George Henslow, M. A., F.
L. S., F. G. S. London, 1873, pp. 27, 28.
[10] _Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, or
Philosophical Society of Great Britain_. Vol. iv. London, 1870, p. 278.
[11] _Evolution and Religion_, p. 29.
_Darwinism excludes Teleology._
It is however neither evolution nor natural selection, which give
Darwinism its peculiar character and importance. It is that Darwin
rejects all teleology, or the doctrine of final causes. He denies design
in any of the organisms in the vegetable or animal world. He teaches
that the eye was formed without any purpose of producing an organ of
vision.
Although evidence on this point has already been adduced, yet as it is
often overlooked, at least in this country, so that many men speak
favorably of Mr. Darwin's theory, who are no more Darwinians than they
are Mussulmans; and as it is this feature of his system which brings it
into conflict not only with Christianity, but with the fundamental
principles of natural religion, it should be clearly established. The
sources of proof on this point are,--1st. Mr. Darwin's own writings. 2d.
The expositions of his theory given by its advocates. 3d. The character
of the objections urged by its opponents.
The point to be proved is that it is the distinctive doctrine of Mr.
Darwin, that species owe their origin, not to the original intention of
the divine mind; not to special acts of creation calling new forms into
existence at certain epochs; not to the constant and everywhere
operative efficiency of God, guiding physical causes in the production
of intended effects; but to the gradual accumulation of unintended
variations of structure and instinct, securing some advantage to their
subjects.
_Darwin's own Testimony._
That such is Mr. Darwin's doctrine we prove from his own writings. And
the first proof from that source is found in express declarations. When
an idea pervades a book and constitutes its character, detached passages
constitute a very small part of the evidence of its being inculcated. In
the present case, however, such passages are sufficient to satisfy even
those who have not had occasion to read Mr. Darwin's books. In referring
to the similarity of structure in animals of the same class, he says,
"Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity
of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or the doctrine of
final causes."[12]
On the last page of his work, he says: "It is interesting to
contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with
birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and
with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these
elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and
dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced
by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being
growth with reproduction; variability from the indirect and direct
action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a ratio of
increase so high as to lead to a struggle for life, and as a consequence
to natural selection, entailing divergence of character and extinction
of less improved forms. Thus from the war of nature, from famine and
death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, the
production of the higher animals directly follows. There is a grandeur
in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally
breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that whilst
this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity,
from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (p. 579)
In another of his works, he asks, "Did He (God) ordain that crop and
tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary, in order that the fancier might
make his grotesque pouter and fan-tail breeds? Did He cause the frame
and mental qualities of the dog to vary, in order that a breed might be
formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull,
for man's brutal sport? But if we give up the principle in one case; if
we do not admit that the variations of the primeval dog were
intentionally guided in order, for instance, that the greyhound, that
perfect image of symmetry and vigor, might be formed; no shadow of
reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature
and the results of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork
through natural selection of the most perfectly adapted animals in the
world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided. However
much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray, in his
belief 'that variations have been led along certain beneficial lines, as
a stream is led along useful lines of irrigation.'"[13]
Variations, which by their gradual accumulation give rise to new
species, genera, families, and orders, are themselves, step by step,
accidental. Mr. Darwin sometimes says they happen by chance; sometimes
he says they happen of necessity; at others he says, "We are profoundly
ignorant of their causes." These are only different ways of saying that
they are not intentional. When a man lets anything fall from his hands,
and says it was accidental, he does not mean that it was causeless, he
only means that it was not intentional. And that is precisely what
Darwin means when he says that species arise out of accidental
variations. His whole book is an argument against teleology. The whole
question is, How are we to account for the innumerable varieties, kinds,
and genera of plants and animals, including man? Were they intended? or,
Did they arise from the gradual accumulations of unintentional
variations? His answer to these questions is plain. On page 245, he
says: "Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that
the more complex organs and instincts have been perfected not by means
superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by innumerable
slight variations, each good for the individual possessor.
Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination[14]
insuperably great, cannot be considered real, if we admit the following
propositions, namely, that all parts of the organizations and instincts
offer, at least, individual differences; that there is a struggle for
existence, which leads to the preservation of profitable deviations of
structure or instinct; and, lastly, that gradations in the state of
perfection of each organ may have existed, each good of its kind." He
says, over and over, that if beauty or any variation of structure can be
shown to be intended, it would "annihilate his theory." His doctrine is
that such unintended variations, which happen to be useful in the
struggle for life, are preserved, on the principle of the survival of
the fittest. He urges the usual objections to teleology derived from
undeveloped or useless organs, as web-feet in the upland goose and
frigate-bird, which never swim.
What, however, perhaps more than anything, makes clear his rejection of
design is the manner in which he deals with the complicated organs of
plants and animals. Why don't he say, they are the product of the divine
intelligence? If God made them, it makes no difference, so far as the
question of design is concerned, how He made them: whether at once or by
a process of evolution. But instead of referring them to the purpose of
God, he laboriously endeavors to prove that they may be accounted for
without any design or purpose whatever.
"To suppose," he says, "that the eye with all its inimitable
contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for
admitting different degrees of light, and for the correction of
spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural
selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (p.
222) Nevertheless he attempts to explain the process. "It is scarcely
possible," he says, "to avoid comparing the eye with the telescope. We
know that this instrument has been perfected by the long continued
efforts of the highest of human intellects; and we naturally infer that
the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not
this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the
Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must
compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to
take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with spaces filled with fluid,
and with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part
of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to
separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at
different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer
slowly changing in form. Further, we must suppose that there is a power
represented by natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, always
intently watching each slight alteration in the transparent layers, and
carefully preserving each, which, under varied circumstances, tends to
produce a distinct image. We must suppose each new state of the
instrument to be multiplied by the million; each to be preserved until a
better is produced, and the old ones to be all destroyed. In living
bodies, variations will cause the slight alterations, generation will
multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out
with unerring skill each improvement."[15] (p. 226) "Let this process,"
he says, "go on for millions of years," and we shall at last have a
perfect eye.