physicians and other professional men, should feel themselves entitled
to be heard with special deference on subjects belonging to their
respective departments. This deference no one is disposed to deny to men
of science. But it is to be remembered that no department of human
knowledge is isolated. One runs into and overlaps another. We have
abundant evidence that the devotees of natural science are not willing
to confine themselves to the department of nature, in the common sense
of that word. They not only speculate, but dogmatize, on the highest
questions of philosophy, morality, and religion. And further, admitting
the special claims to deference on the part of scientific men, other men
have their rights. They have the right to judge of the consistency of
the assertions of men of science and of the logic of their reasoning.
They have the right to set off the testimony of one or more experts
against the testimony of others; and especially, they have the right to
reject all speculations, hypotheses, and theories, which come in
conflict with well established truths. It is ground of profound
gratitude to God that He has given to the human mind intuitions which
are infallible, laws of belief which men cannot disregard any more than
the laws of nature, and also convictions produced by the Spirit of God
which no sophistry of man can weaken. These are barriers which no man
can pass without plunging into the abyss of outer darkness.
If there be any truth in the preceding remarks, then it is obvious that
there can be no harmony between science and religion until the evils
referred to be removed. Scientific men must come to recognize
practically, and not merely in words, that there are other kinds of
evidence of truth than the testimony of the senses. They must come to
give due weight to the testimony of consciousness, and to the intuitions
of the reason and conscience. They must cease to require the deference
due to established facts to be paid to their speculations and
explanations. And they must treat their fellow-men with due respect. The
Pharisees said to the man whose sight had been restored by Christ, "Thou
wast altogether born in sin, and dost thou teach us!" Men of science
must not speak thus. They must not say to every objector, Thou art not
scientific, and therefore hast no right to speak. The true Irenicum is
for all parties to give due heed to such words as these, "If any man
would be wise, let him become a fool, that he may be wise;" or these,
"Be converted, and become as little children;" or these, "The Spirit of
Truth shall guide you in all truth." We are willing to hear this called
cant. Nevertheless, these latter words fell from the lips of Him who
spake as never man spake.
So much, and it is very little, on the general question of the relation
of science to religion. But what is to be thought of the special
relation of Mr. Darwin's theory to the truths of natural and revealed
religion? We have already seen that Darwinism includes the three
elements, evolution, natural selection, and the denial of design in
nature. These points, however, cannot now be considered separately.
It is conceded that a man may be an evolutionist and yet not be an
atheist and may admit of design in nature. But we cannot see how the
theory of evolution can be reconciled with the declarations of the
Scriptures. Others may see it, and be able to reconcile their allegiance
to science with their allegiance to the Bible. Professor Huxley, as we
have seen, pronounces the thing impossible. As all error is antagonistic
to truth, if the evolution theory be false, it must be opposed to the
truths of religion so far as the two come into contact. Mr. Henslow,
indeed, says Science and Religion are not antagonistic because they are
in different spheres of thought. This is often said by men who do not
admit that there is any thought at all in religion; that it is merely a
matter of feeling. The fact, however, is that religion is a system of
knowledge, as well as a state of feeling. The truths on which all
religion is founded are drawn within the domain of science, the nature
of the first cause, its relation to the world, the nature of second
causes, the origin of life, anthropology, including the origin, nature,
and destiny of man. Religion has to fight for its life against a large
class of scientific men. All attempts to prevent her exercising her
right to be heard are unreasonable and vain.
It should be premised that this paper was written for the single purpose
of answering the question, What is Darwinism? The discussion of the
merits of the theory was not within the scope of the writer. What
follows, therefore, is to be considered only in the light of a practical
conclusion.
1. The first objection to the theory is its _primâ facie_ incredibility.
That a single plant or animal should be developed from a mere cell, is
such a wonder, that nothing but daily observation of the fact could
induce any man to believe it. Let any one ask himself, suppose this
fact was not thus familiar, what amount of speculation, of arguments
from analogies, possibilities, and probabilities, could avail to produce
conviction of its truth. But who can believe that all the plants and
animals which have ever existed upon the face of the earth, have been
evolved from one such germ? This is Darwin's doctrine. We are aware that
this apparent impossibility is evaded by the believers in spontaneous
generation, who hold that such germ cells may be produced anywhere and
at all times. But this is not Darwinism. Darwin wants us to believe that
all living things, from the lowly violet to the giant redwoods of
California, from the microscopic animalcule to the Mastodon, the
Dinotherium,--monsters the very description of which fill us with
horror,--bats with wings twenty feet in breadth, flying dragons,
tortoises ten feet high and eighteen feet long, etc., etc., came one and
all from the same primordial germ. This demand is the more unreasonable
when we remember that these living creatures are not only so different,
but are, as to plants and animals, directly opposed in their functions.
The function of the plant, as biologists express it, is to produce
force, that of the animal to expend it. The plant, in virtue of a power
peculiar to itself, which no art or skill of man can imitate, transmutes
dead inorganic matter into organic matter, suited to the sustenance of
animal life, and without which animals cannot live. The gulf, therefore,
between the plant and animal would seem to be impassable.
Further, the variations by which the change of species is effected are
so trifling as often to be imperceptible, and their accumulation of them
so slow as to evade notice,--the time requisite to accomplish any marked
change must be counted by millions, or milliards of years. Here is
another demand on our credulity. The apex is reached when we are told
that all these transmutations are effected by chance, that is, without
purpose or intention. Taking all these things into consideration, we
think it may, with moderation, be said, that a more absolutely
incredible theory was never propounded for acceptance among men.
2. There is no pretence that the theory can be proved. Mr. Darwin does
not pretend to prove it. He admits that all the facts in the case can be
accounted for on the assumption of divine purpose and control. All that
he claims for his theory is that it is possible. His mode of arguing is
that if we suppose this and that, then it may have happened thus and so.
Amiable and attractive as the man presents himself in his writings, it
rouses indignation, in one class at least of his readers, to see him by
such a mode of arguing reaching conclusions which are subversive of the
fundamental truths of religion.
3. Another fact cannot fail to attract attention. When the theory of
evolution was propounded in 1844 in the "Vestiges of Creation," it was
universally rejected; when proposed by Mr. Darwin, less than twenty
years afterward, it was received with acclamation. Why is this? The
facts are now what they were then. They were as well known then as they
are now. The theory, so far as evolution is concerned, was then just
what it is now. How then is it, that what was scientifically false in
1844 is scientifically true in 1864? When a drama is introduced in a
theatre and universally condemned, and a little while afterward, with a
little change in the scenery, it is received with rapturous applause,
the natural conclusion is, that the change is in the audience and not in
the drama.
There is only one cause for the fact referred to, that we can think of.
The "Vestiges of Creation" did not expressly or effectually exclude
design. Darwin does. This is a reason assigned by the most zealous
advocates of his theory for their adoption of it. This is the reason
given by Büchner, by Haeckel, and by Vogt. It is assigned also in
express terms by Strauss, the announcement of whose death has diffused a
feeling of sadness over all who were acquainted with his antecedents. In
his last work, "The Old Faith and the New," he admits "that Darwin's
doctrine is a mere hypothesis; that it leaves the main points
unexplained (Die Hupt und Cardinal-punkte noch unerklärt sind);
nevertheless, as he has shown how miracles may be excluded, he is to be
applauded as one of the greatest benefactors of the human race." (p.
177) By "Wunder," or miracle, Strauss means any event for which natural
causes are insufficient to account. "We philosophers and critical
theologians," he says, "have spoken well when we decreed the abolition
of miracles; but our decree (macht-spruch) remained without effect,
because we could not show them to be unnecessary, inasmuch as we were
unable to indicate any natural force to take their place. Darwin has
provided or indicated this natural force, this process of nature; he has
opened the door through which a happier posterity may eject miracles
forever." Then follows the sentence just quoted, "He who knows what
hangs on miracle, will applaud Darwin as one of the greatest benefactors
of the human race." With Strauss and others of his class, miracles and
design are identical, because one as well as the other assumes
supernatural agency. He quotes Helmholtz, who says, "Darwin's theory,
that adaptation in the formation of organisms may arise without the
intervention of intelligence, by the blind operation of natural law;"
and then adds, "As Helmholtz distinguishes the English naturalist as the
man who has banished design from nature, so we have praised him as the
man who has done away with miracles. Both mean the same thing.[47]
Design is the miracle-worker in nature, which has put the world upside
down; or as Spinoza says, has placed the last first, the effect for the
cause, and thus destroyed the very idea of nature. Design in nature,
especially in the department of living organisms, has ever been appealed
to by those who desire to prove that the world is not self-evolved, but
the work of an intelligent Creator." (p. 211) On page 175, he refers to
those who ridicule Darwin, and yet are so far under the influence of the
spirit of the age as to deny miracles or the intervention of the Creator
in the course of nature, and says: "Very well; how do they account for
the origin of man, and in general the development of the organic out of
the inorganic? Would they assume that the original man as such, no
matter how rough and unformed, but still a man, sprang immediately out
of the inorganic, out of the sea or the slime of the Nile? They would
hardly venture to say that; then they must know that there is only the
choice between miracle, the divine hand of the Creator, and Darwin."
What an alternative; the Creator or Darwin! In this, however, Strauss is
right. To banish design from nature, as is done by Darwin's theory, is,
in the language of the Rev. Walter Mitchell, virtually "to dethrone the
Creator."
Ludwig Weis, M. D., of Darmstadt, says it is at present "the mode" in
Germany (and of course in a measure here), to glorify Buddhism.
Strauss, he adds, says, "Nature knows itself in man, and in that he
expresses the thought which all Idealism and all Materialism make the
grand end. To the same effect it is said, 'In Man the All comprehends
itself as conscious being (comes to self-consciousness); or, in Man the
absolute knowledge (Wissen, the act of knowing) appears in the limits of
personality.' This was the doctrine of the Buddhist and of the ancient
Chinese." Thus, as Dr. Weis says, "in the nineteenth century of the
Christian era, philosophers and scientists have reached the point where
the Chinese were two thousand years ago."
The only way that is apparent for accounting for evolution being
rejected in 1844, and for its becoming a popular doctrine in 1866, is,
that it happens to suit a prevailing state of mind. It is a fact, so far
as our limited knowledge extends, that no one is willing to acknowledge
himself, not simply an evolutionist, but an evolutionist of the
Darwinian school, who is not either a Materialist by profession, or a
disciple of Herbert Spencer, or an advocate of the philosophy of Hume.
There is another significant fact which goes to prove that the denial
of design, which is the "creative idea" of Darwinism, is the main cause
of its popularity and success. Professor Owen, England's greatest
naturalist, is a derivationist. Derivation and evolution are convertible
terms. Both include the denial that species are primordial, or have each
a different origin; and both imply that one species is formed out of
another and simpler form. Professor Owen, however, although a
derivationist, or evolutionist, is a very strenuous anti-Darwinian. He
differs from Darwin as to two points. First, as to Natural Selection, or
the Survival of the Fittest. He says that is inconsistent with facts and
utterly insufficient to account for the origin of species. He refers the
origin of species to an inherent tendency to change impressed on them
from the beginning. And second, he admits design. He denies that the
succession and origin of species are due to chance, and expresses his
belief in the constant operation of creative power in the formation of
species from the varied descendants of more generalized forms.[48] He
believes "that all living things have been produced by such law (of
variation) in time, their position and uses in the world having been
preordained by the Creator."[49] Professor Owen says he has taught the
doctrine of derivation (evolution) for thirty years, but it attracted
little attention. As soon, however, as Darwin leaves out design, we have
a prairie-fire. A prairie-fire, happily, does not continue very long;
and while it lasts, it burns up little else than stubble.
4. All the evidence we have in favor of the fixedness of species is, of
course, evidence not only against Darwinism, but against evolution in
all its forms. It would seem idle to discuss the question of the
mutability of species, until satisfied what species is. This, unhappily,
is a question which it is exceedingly difficult to answer. Not only do
the definitions given by scientific men differ almost indefinitely, but
there is endless diversity in classification. Think of four hundred and
eighty species of humming-birds. Haeckel says that one naturalist makes
ten, another forty, another two hundred, and another one, species of a
certain fossil; and we have just heard that Agassiz had collected eight
hundred species of the same fossil animal. Haeckel also says (p. 246),
that there are no two zoölogists or any two botanists who agree
altogether in their classification. Mr. Darwin says, "No clear line of
demarcation has yet been drawn between species and sub-species, and
varieties." (p. 61) It is absolutely necessary, therefore, that a
distinction should be made between artificial and natural species. No
man asserts the immutability of all those varieties of plants and
animals, which naturalists, for the convenience of classification, may
call distinct species. Haeckel, for example, gives a list of twelve
species of man. So any one may make fifty species of dogs, or of horses.
This is a mere artificial distinction, which amounts to nothing. There
is far greater difference between a pouter and a carrier pigeon, than
between a Caucasian and a Mongolian. To call the former varieties of the
same species, and the latter distinct species, is altogether arbitrary.
Nevertheless, notwithstanding the arbitrary classifications of
naturalists, it remains true that there are what Professor Dana calls
"units" of the organic world. "When individuals multiply from generation
to generation, it is but a repetition of the primordial type-idea, and
the true notion of the species is not in the resulting group, but in
the idea or potential element which is the basis of every individual of
the group."[50] Dr. Morton's definition of species as "primordial
organic forms," agrees with that given by Professor Dana; and both agree
with the Bible, which says that God created plants and animals each
after its kind. A primordial form is a form which was not evolved out of
some other form, but which began to be in the form--subject to such
varieties as we see in the dog, horse, and man--in which it continued
during the whole period of its existence.
The criteria of these primordial forms or species of nature, are, (1.)
Morphological. Animals, however, may approach very nearly in their
structure, and yet belong to different species. It is only when the
peculiarities of structure are indicative of specialty of design, that
they form a safe ground of classification. If the teeth of one animal
are formed to fit it to feed on flesh, and those of another to fit it to
feed on plants; if one has webbed feet and another not; then, in all
such cases, difference of structure proves difference of kind. (2.)
Physiological; that is, the internal nature, indicated by habits and
instincts, furnishes another safe criterion. (3.) Permanent fecundity.
The progenitors of the same species reproduce their kind from generation
to generation; the progeny of different species, although nearly allied,
do not. It is a fixed law of nature that species never can be
annihilated, except by all the individuals included in them dying out;
and that new species cannot be produced. Every true species is
primordial. It is this fact, that is, that no variety, with the
essential characteristics of species, has ever been produced, that
forces, as we saw above, Professor Huxley to pronounce Mr. Darwin's
doctrine to be an unproved hypothesis. Species continue; varieties, if
let alone, always revert to the normal type. It requires the skill and
constant attention of man to keep them distinct.
Now that there are such forms in nature, is proved not only from the
testimony of the great body of the most distinguished naturalists, but
by all the facts in the case.
First, the fact that such species are known to have existed unchanged,
through what geologists consider almost immeasurable periods of time.
Palæontologists tell us that Trilobites abounded from the primordial age
down to the Carboniferous period, that is, as they suppose, through
millions of years. More wonderful still, the little animals whose
remains constitute the chalk formations which are spread over large
areas of country, and are sometimes a hundred feet thick, are now at
work at the bottom of the Atlantic. Principal Dawson tells us, with
regard to Mollusks existing in a sub-fossil state in the Post-pliocene
clays of Canada, that "after carefully studying about two hundred
species, and of some of these, many hundreds of specimens, I have
arrived at the conclusion that they are absolutely unchanged.... Here
again we have an absolute refusal, on the part of all these animals, to
admit that they are derived, or have tended to sport into new
species."[51]
On the previous page he says, "Pictet catalogues ninety-eight species of
mammals which inhabited Europe in the Post-glacial period. Of these
fifty-seven still exist unchanged, and the remainder have disappeared.
Not one can be shown to have been modified into a new form, though some
of them have been obliged, by changes of temperature and other
conditions, to remove into distant and now widely separated regions."
A second fact which attests the primordial character and fixedness of
species is, that every species as it first appears, is not in a
transition state between one form and another, but in the perfection of
its kind. Science has indeed discovered an ascending order in creation,
which agrees marvellously with that given in the book of Genesis: first,
vegetable productions; then the moving creatures in the sea; then
terrestrial animals; and finally man. Naturalists, who utterly reject
the Scriptures as a divine revelation, speak with the highest admiration
of the Mosaic account of the creation, as compared with any other
cosmogony of the ancient world. While there is in general an ascending
series in these living forms, each was perfect in its kind.
Agassiz says that fishes existed contemporaneously with species of all
the invertebrate sub-kingdoms in the Taconic, or sub-Cambrian strata.
This is the extreme limit of known geological strata in which life is
found to have existed. As the evolution of one species out of another
requires, according to Darwin, millions of years, it is out of the
question to trace these animals beyond the strata in which their remains
are now found. Yet "crabs or lobsters, worms, cuttle-fish, snails,
jelly-fish, star-fish, oysters, the polyps lived contemporaneously with
the first known vertebrate animals that ever came into being--all as
clearly defined by unmistakable ordinal or special characters as they
are at the present moment."[52]
The foot of the horse is considered by zoölogists as "one of the most
beautiful contrivances in nature." The remains of this animal found in
what is called the Pliocene Period, show the foot to have been as
perfect then as it is now.
Mr. Wallace says that man has existed on the earth a hundred thousand
years, and that it is probable that he existed four hundred thousand
years ago. Of course we do not believe this. We have little faith in the
chronology of science. It gives no sure data for the calculation of
time, hence we find them differing from four thousand to four hundred
thousand years as to the time required for certain formations. The most
trustworthy geologists teach that all that is known of the antiquity of
man falls within the limits of Biblical chronology. The further,
however, Darwinians push back the origin of man, the stronger, as
against them, becomes the argument for the immutability of species. The
earliest remains of man show that at his first appearance, he was in
perfection. The oldest known human skull is that called the "Engis,"
because found in the cave of Engis in Belgium. Of this skull Professor
Huxley says it may have belonged to an individual of one of the existing
races of men. Principal Dawson, who has a cast of it, on the same shelf
with the skulls of some Algonquin Indians, says it might be taken for
the skull of an American Indian. Indeed, Dawson seems to think that
these fossil human remains go to show that the earliest men were better
developed than any of the extant races.
Thirdly. The historical evidence accessible all goes to prove the
immutability of species. The earliest historical records and the oldest
monuments prove that all extant animals were what they now are thousands
of years ago.
Fourthly. The fact that hybrids cannot be perpetuated, that no device of
man can produce a new species, is proof that God has fixed limits which
cannot be passed. This Huxley himself admits to be an insuperable
objection. So long as it exists, he says, Darwin's doctrine must be
content to remain a hypothesis; it cannot pretend to the dignity of a
theory. Another fact of like import is that varieties artificially
produced, if let alone, uniformly revert to the simple typical form. It
is only by the utmost care they can be kept distinct. All the highly
prized varieties of horses, cattle, sheep, pigeons, etc., without human
control, would be merged each class into one, with only the slight
differences occasioned by diversities of climate and other external
conditions. If in the sight of man it is important that the words of a
book should be kept distinct, it is equally evident that in the sight of
God it is no less important that the "units of nature" should not be
mixed in inextricable and indistinguishable confusion.