organism of the animal itself but to other organisms. "Take one
instance," he says, "out of millions. The poison of a deadly snake,--let
us for a moment consider what that is. It is a secretion of definite
chemical properties with reference not only--not even mainly--to the
organism of the animal in which it is developed, but specially to
another animal which it is intended to destroy." "How," he asks, "will
the law of growth adjust a poison in one animal with such subtle
knowledge of the organization of the other, that the deadly virus shall
in a few minutes curdle the blood, benumb the nerves, and rush in upon
the citadel of life? There is but one explanation: a Mind having minute
and perfect knowledge of the structure of both has designed the one to
be capable of inflicting death upon the other. This mental purpose and
resolve is the one thing which our intelligence perceives with direct
and intuitive recognition. The method of creation by which this purpose
has been carried into effect is utterly unknown."[32]
A fourth objection has reference to beauty. According to Mr. Darwin,
flowers are not intentionally made beautiful, but those which happen to
be beautiful attract insects, and by their agency are fertilized and
survive. Male birds are not intentionally arrayed in bright colors, but
those which happen to be so arrayed are attractive, and thus become the
progenitors of their race. Against this explanation the Duke earnestly
protests. He refers to the gorgeous adorned class of Hummingbirds, of
which naturalists enumerate no less than four hundred and thirty
different species, distinguished one from the other, in general, only by
their plumage. "Now," he asks, "what explanation does the law of natural
selection give,--I will not say of the origin, but even of the
continuance of such specific varieties as these? None whatever. A crest
of topaz is no better in the struggle of existence than a crest of
sapphire. A frill ending in spangles of the emerald is no better in the
battle of life than a frill ending in spangles of the ruby. A tail is
not affected for the purposes of flight, whether its marginal, or its
central feathers are decorated with white. It is impossible to bring
such varieties into any physical law known to us. It has relation
however to a Purpose, which stands in close analogy with our knowledge
of purpose in the works of men. Mere beauty and mere variety, for their
own sake, are objects which we ourselves seek, when we can make the
forces of nature subordinate to the attainment of them. There seems to
be no conceivable reason why we should doubt or question that these are
ends and aims also in the forms given to living organisms, when the
facts correspond with this view and with no other."[33]
It will be observed that all these objections have reference to the
denial of teleology on the part of Mr. Darwin. If his theory admitted
that the organisms in nature were due to a divine purpose, the
objections would be void of all meaning.
There is a fifth objection. According to Darwin's theory organs are
formed by the slow accumulation of unintended variations, which happen
to be favorable to the subject of them in the struggle for life. But in
many cases these organs, instead of being favorable, are injurious or
cumbersome until fully developed. Take the wing of a bird, for example.
In its rudimental state, it is useful neither for swimming, walking, nor
flying. Now, as Darwin says it took millions of years to bring the eye
to perfection, how long did it take to render a rudimental wing useful?
It is no sufficient answer to say that these rudimental organs might
have been suited to the condition in which the animal existed, during
the formative process. This is perfectly arbitrary. It has no basis of
fact. There are but three kinds of locomotion that we know of: in the
water, on the ground, and through the air; for all these purposes a
half-formed wing would be an impediment.
The Duke devotes almost a whole chapter of his interesting book to the
consideration of "contrivance in the machinery for flight." The
conditions to secure regulated movement through the atmosphere are so
numerous, so complicated, and so conflicting, that the problem never has
been solved by human ingenuity. In the structure of the bird it is
solved to perfection. As we are not writing a teleological argument, but
only producing evidence that Darwinism excludes teleology, we cannot
follow the details which prove that the wing of the gannet or swift is
almost as wonderful and beautiful a specimen of contrivance as the eye
of the eagle.
FOOTNOTES:
[31] _Reign of Law_. London, 1867, p. 40.
[32] _Reign of Law_. London, 1867, p. 37.
[33] _Reign of Law_, pp. 247, 248.
_Agassiz._
Every one knows that the illustrious Agassiz, over whose recent grave
the world stands weeping, was from the beginning a pronounced and
earnest opponent of Mr. Darwin's theory. He wrote as a naturalist, and
therefore his objections are principally directed against the theory of
evolution, which he regarded as not only destitute of any scientific
basis, but as subversive of the best established facts in zoölogy.
Nevertheless it is evident that his zeal was greatly intensified by his
apprehension that a theory which obliterates all evidence of the being
of God from the works of nature, endangered faith in that great doctrine
itself. The Rev. Dr. Peabody, in the discourse delivered on the occasion
of Professor Agassiz's funeral, said: "I cannot close this hasty and
inadequate, yet fervent and hearty tribute, without recalling to your
memory the reverent spirit in which he pursued his scientific labors.
Nearly forty years ago, in his first great work on fossil fishes, in
developing principles of classification, he wrote in quotations, 'An
invisible thread in all ages runs through this immense diversity,
exhibiting as a general result that there is a continual progress in
development ending in man, the four classes of vertebrates presenting
the intermediate steps, and the invertebrates the constant accessory
accompaniment. Have we not here the manifestation of a mind as powerful
as prolific? an act of intelligence as sublime as provident? the marks
of goodness as infinite as wise? the most palpable demonstration of the
existence of a personal God, author of all this; ruler of the universe,
and the dispenser of all good? This at least is what I read in the works
of creation.' And it was what he ever read, and with profound awe and
adoration. To this exalted faith he was inflexibly loyal. The laws of
nature were to him the eternal Word of God.
"His repugnance to Darwinism grew in great part from his apprehension of
its atheistical tendency,--an apprehension which I confess I cannot
share; for I forget not that these theories, now in the ascendent, are
maintained by not a few devout Christian men, and while they appear to
me unproved and incapable of demonstration, I could admit them without
parting with one iota of my faith in God and Christ. Yet I cannot but
sympathize most strongly with him in the spirit in which he resisted
what seemed to him lese-majesty against the sovereign of the universe.
Nor was his a theoretical faith. His whole life, in its broad
philanthropy, in its pervading spirit of service, in its fidelity to
arduous trusts and duties, and in its simplicity and truthfulness,
bespoke one who was consciously fulfilling a mission from God to his
fellow-men."
The words "evolution" and "Darwinism" are so often in this country, but
not in Europe, used interchangeably, that it is conceivable that Dr.
Peabody could retain his faith in God, and yet admit the doctrine of
evolution. But it is not conceivable that any man should adopt the main
element of Mr. Darwin's theory, viz., the denial of all final causes,
and the assertion, that since the first creation of matter and life, God
has left the universe to the control of unintelligent physical causes,
so that all the phenomena of the plants and animals, all that is in man,
and all that has ever happened on the earth, is due to physical force,
and yet retain his faith in Christ. On that theory, there have been no
supernatural revelation, no miracles; Christ is not risen, and we are
yet in our sins. It is not thus that this matter is regarded abroad. The
Christians of Germany say that the only alternative these theories leave
us, is Heathenism or Christianity; "Heidenthum oder Christenthum, Die
Frage der Zeit."
_Janet._
Janet, a professor of philosophy, is the author of a book on the
Materialism of Büchner.[34] The greater part of the last chapter of his
work is devoted to Darwinism. He says, "Dr. Büchner invoked (Darwin's
book) as a striking confirmation of his doctrine." (p. 154) What
Büchner's doctrine is has been shown on a previous page. The points of
coincidence between Darwin's system and his are, that both regard mind
as a mere function of living matter; and both refer all the organs and
organisms of living things to the unconscious, unintelligent operation
of physical causes. Büchner's way of accounting for complicated organs
was, "that the energy of the elements and forces of matter, which in
their fated and accidental occurrence must have produced innumerable
forms, which must needs limit each other mutually, and correspond,
apparently, the one with the other, as if they were made for that
purpose. Out of all those forms, they only have survived which were
adapted, in some manner, to the conditions of the medium in which they
were placed." (p. 30) This is very clumsy. No wonder Büchner preferred
Darwin's method. The two systems are, indeed, exactly the same, but Mr.
Darwin has a much more winning way of presenting it.
Professor Janet does not seem to have much objection to the doctrine of
evolution in itself; it is the denial of teleology that he regards as
the fatal element of Mr. Darwin's theory. "According to us," he says,
"the true stumbling-block of Mr. Darwin's theory, the perilous and
slippery point, is the passage from artificial to natural selection; it
is when he wants to establish that a blind and designless nature has
been able to obtain, by the occurrence of circumstances, the same
results which man obtains by thoughtful and well calculated industry."
(p. 174)
Towards the end of his volume he says: "We shall conclude by a general
observation. Notwithstanding the numerous objections we have raised
against Mr. Darwin's theory, we do not declare ourselves hostile to a
system of which zoölogists are the only competent judges. We are neither
for nor against the transmutation of species, neither for nor against
the principle of natural selection. The only positive conclusion of our
debate is this: no principle hitherto known, neither the action of
media, nor habit, nor natural selection, can account for organic
adaptations without the intervention of the principle of finality.
Natural selection, unguided, submitted to the laws of a pure mechanism,
and exclusively determined by accidents, seems to me, under another
name, the chance proclaimed by Epicurus, equally barren, equally
incomprehensible; on the other hand, natural selection guided beforehand
by a provident will, directed towards a precise end by intentional laws,
might be the means which nature has selected to pass from one stage of
being to another, from one form to another, to bring to perfection life
throughout the universe, and to rise by a continuous process from the
monad to man. Now, I ask Mr. Darwin himself, what interest has he in
maintaining that natural selection is not guided--not directed? What
interest has he in substituting accidental causes for every final cause?
I cannot see. Let him admit that in natural, as well as in artificial
selection, there may be a choice and direction; his principle
immediately becomes much more fruitful than it was before. His
hypothesis, then, whilst having the advantage of exempting science from
the necessity of introducing the personal and miraculous intervention of
God in the creation of each species, yet would be free from the
banishing out of the universe an all-provident thought, and of
submitting everything to blind and brute chance." (pp. 198, 199)
Professor Janet asks far too much of Mr. Darwin. To ask him to give up
his denial of final causes is like asking the Romanists to give up the
Pope. That principle is the life and soul of his system.
FOOTNOTE:
[34] _The Materialism of the Present Day: a Critique of Dr. Büchner's
System_. By Paul Janet, Member of the Institute of France, Professor of
Philosophy at the Paris Faculté des Lettres. Translated from the French,
by Gustave Masson, B. A. London and Paris, 1867.
_M. Flourens._
M. Flourens, recently dead, was one of the earliest and most pronounced
opponents of Darwinism. He published in 1864 his "Examen du Livre de M.
Darwin sur l'Origine des Espèces." His position as Member of the
Académie Française, and Perpetual Secretary of the Académie des
Sciences, or Institut de France, vouch for his high rank among the
French naturalists. His connection with the Jardin des Plantes gave him
enlarged opportunities for biological experiments. The result of his own
experience, as well as the experience of other observers, was, as he
expresses it, his solemn conviction that species are fixed and not
transmutable. No ingenuity of device could render hybrids fertile. "They
never establish an intermediate species." It is, therefore, to the
doctrine of evolution his attention is principally directed.
Nevertheless, he is no less struck by Darwin's way of excluding all
intelligence and design in his manner of speaking of nature. On this
point he quotes the language of Cuvier, who says: "Nature has been
personified. Living beings have been called the works of nature. The
general bearing of these creatures to each other has become the laws of
nature. It is thus while considering Nature as a being endowed with
intelligence and will, but in its power limited and secondary, that it
may be said that she watches incessantly over the maintenance of her
work; that she does nothing in vain, and always acts by the most simple
means.... It is easy to see how puerile are those who give nature a
species of individual existence distinct from the Creator, and from the
law which He has impressed upon the movements and peculiarities of the
forms given by Him to living things, and which He makes to act upon
their bodies with a peculiar force and reason." Older writers, says
Flourens, in speaking of Nature, "gave to her inclinations, intentions,
and views, and horrors (of a vacuum), and sports," etc. He says that one
of the principal objects of his book is to show how Mr. Darwin "has
deluded himself, and perhaps others, by a constant abuse of figurative
language." "He plays with Nature as he pleases, and makes her do
whatsoever he wishes." When we remember that Mr. Darwin defines Nature
to be the aggregate of physical forces, we see how, in attributing
everything to Nature, he effectually excludes the supernatural.
In his volume of "Lay Sermons, Reviews," etc., Professor Huxley has a
very severe critique on M. Flourens's book. He says little, however, in
reference to teleology, except in one paragraph, in which we read: "M.
Flourens cannot imagine an unconscious selection; it is for him a
contradiction in terms." Huxley's answer is, "The winds and waves of the
Bay of Biscay have not much consciousness, and yet they have with great
care 'selected,' from an infinity of masses of silex, all grains of sand
below a certain size and have heaped them by themselves over a great
area.... A frosty night selects the hardy plants in a plantation from
among the tender ones as effectually as if the intelligence of the
gardener had been operative in cutting the weaker ones down."[35] If
this means anything, it means that as the winds and waves of the Bay of
Biscay can make heaps of sand, so similar unconscious agencies can, if
you only give them time enough, make an elephant or a man; for this is
what Mr. Darwin says natural selection has done.
FOOTNOTE:
[35] _Lay Sermons_, p. 347.
_Rev. Walter Mitchell, M. A., Vice-President of the Victoria Institute._
The Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, under
the presidency of the Earl of Shaftesbury, includes among its members
many of the dignitaries of the Church of England, and a large number of
distinguished men of different professions and denominations. Its
principal object is, "To investigate fully and impartially the most
important questions of philosophy and science, but more especially those
that bear on the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture, with the view
of defending these truths against the opposition of Science, falsely so
called." The Institute holds bi-monthly meetings, at which papers are
read on some important topic, and then submitted to criticism and
discussion. These papers, many of which are very elaborate, are
published in the Transactions of the Institute, together with a full
report of the discussions to which they gave rise. Six volumes, replete
with valuable and varied information, have already been published.
Very considerable latitude of opinion is allowed. Hence we find in the
Transactions, papers for and against evolution,--for and against
Darwinism. It would be easy to quote extracts, pertinent to our subject,
more than enough to fill a volume much larger than the present. We must
content ourselves with a few citations from the discussion on a paper in
favor of the credibility of Darwinism,[36] and another in favor of the
doctrine of evolution.[37] In summing up the debates on these two
topics, the chairman, Rev. Walter Mitchell, presented with great
clearness and force his reasons for regarding Darwinism as incredible
and impossible. In his protracted remarks he contrasts the Scriptural
doctrine, that of the Vestiges of Creation, and that of Darwin on the
origin of species. He thus states the doctrine of the Bible on the
subject: "If," he says, "science be another name for real knowledge; if
science be the pursuit of sound wisdom; if science be the pursuit of
truth itself; I say that man has no right to reject anything that is
true because it savors of God. Well, what is this hypothesis--older than
that of Darwin--which does, and does alone, account for all the observed
facts, or all that which we can read, recorded in the book of Nature? It
is, that God created all things very good; that He made every vegetable
after its own kind; that He made every animal after its own kind; that
He allowed certain laws of variation, but that He has ordained strict,
though invisible and invincible barriers, which prevent that variation
from running riot, and which includes it within strict and well defined
limits. This is a hypothesis which will account for all that we have
learnt from the works of Nature. It admits an intelligent Being as the
Author of all the works of creation, animate as well as inanimate; it
leaves no mysteries in the animate world unaccounted for. There is one
thing which the animate, as well as the inanimate world declares to
man, one thing everywhere plainly recorded, if we will only read it, and
that is the impress of design, the design of infinite wisdom. Any theory
which comes in with an attempt to ignore design as manifested in God's
creation, is a theory, I say, which attempts to dethrone God. This the
theory of Darwin does endeavor to do. If asked how our old theory
accounts for such uniformity of design in the midst of such perplexing
variety as we find in nature, we reply, that this can only be accounted
for on one admission, that the whole is the work of one Author, built
according, as it were, to one style; that it represents the unity of one
mind with the infinite power of adapting all its works in the most
perfect manner for the uses for which they were created." "Whewell has
boldly maintained, and he has never been controverted, that all real
advances in the sciences of physiology and comparative anatomy,--such as
that made by Harvey in discovering the circulation of the blood,--have
been made by those who not only believed in the existence of design
everywhere manifested in the animate world, but were led by that belief
to make their discoveries."
When discussing the paper of Mr. Henslow on evolution, he says: "In
speaking of this paper I must commend the exceeding reverent tone in
which the author has discussed the subject, and I should like to see all
such subjects discussed in a similar tone. The view which Mr. Henslow
brings forward, however, does not appear to be a very original one. It
was the first view ever brought forward on the doctrine of evolution,
and I was the first one to point out that the whole doctrine was one of
retrograde character. The whole tone and character of this paper, except
that which relates to the attributes and moral government of God,[38] is
nothing more or less than the same view of the doctrine of evolution
which created such a sensation in this country when that famous book
came out, 'The Vestiges of Creation.' So far as I can understand the
arguments of Mr. Darwin, they have simply been an endeavor to eject out
of the idea of evolution the personal work of the Deity. His whole
endeavor has been to push the Creator farther and farther back out of
view. The most laborious part of Darwin's attempt at reasoning,--for it
is not true reasoning,--the most laborious part of his logic and
reasoning, is intended to eliminate, as perfectly as any of the
atheistical authors have endeavored to do, the idea of design. Now,
setting revelation aside, the manner in which the unknown author of the
'Vestiges of Creation' treated this subject, satisfactorily showed that
the doctrine of evolution was not in itself an atheistical doctrine, nor
did it deny the existence of design. So far as I could understand and
make out, having carefully read the book at the time it came out and
afterwards, and having carefully analyzed and compared it and Mr.
Darwin's book with each other, so far as I could understand it, the
doctrine of the author of the 'Vestiges of Creation' was simply, that
God created all things, and that when He created matter He impressed on
it certain laws; that matter, being evolved according to those laws,
should produce beings and organs mutually adapted to one another and to
the world; and that every successive development which should be
produced was essentially foreseen, foreknown, and predetermined by the
Deity. His idea, for instance, of the evolution of an eye from a more
simple organ was that the ultimate eye--man's eye, for instance--was to
be a perfect optical instrument, and that its perfection depended on the
previous design by the Creator, that at a certain period it should
appear in a body quite adapted for its purposes. There is one
question,--and not the only one, but we must consider it as an important
question,--whether you can maintain a doctrine of evolution which shall
not be atheistical, and which shall admit the great argument of design?
That is one thing; but the next thing is, does such a doctrine as that
accord either with revelation or with the facts of science? I do not
believe that it can be made to agree with what we believe to be the
revealed Word of God, and I do not believe that it has in the least
degree been proved that the doctrine is consistent with sound science."