_Reader._ I should like to hear, doctor, how “primeval generation” can
afford you an argument against the Mosaic history of creation, and against
the necessity of a Creator.
_Büchner._ “There was a time when the earth—a fiery globe—was not merely
incapable of producing living beings, but was hostile to the existence of
vegetable and animal organisms” (p. 63).
_Reader._ Granted.
_Büchner._ “As soon as the temperature permitted it, organic life
developed itself” (_ibid._)
_Reader._ Not too much haste, doctor. The assertion that “life developed
itself” presupposes that life already existed somewhere, though
undeveloped. How do you account for this assumption?
_Büchner._ “It is certain, says Burmeister, that the appearance of animal
bodies upon the surface of the earth is a function which results with
mathematical certainty from existing relations of forces” (_ibid._)
_Reader._ It is impossible to believe Burmeister on his word. You know
that he is a short‐sighted philosopher. A man who says that “the earth and
the world are eternal,” that “eternity belongs to the essence of matter,”
and that matter nevertheless “is not unchangeable,” forfeits all claim to
be trusted in speculative questions. I, therefore, cannot yield to his
simple assertion; and if what he says is true, as you believe, I think
that you are ready to assign some reason for it, which will convince me
also.
_Büchner._ Nothing is easier, sir. For “there is exhibited (in the
terrestrial strata) a constant relation of the external conditions of the
surface of the earth to the existence of organic beings, and a necessary
dependence of the latter on the condition of the earth” (p. 64). “It was
only with the present existing differences of climate that the endless
variety of organic forms appeared which we now behold.... Of man the
highest organic being of creation, not a trace was found in the primary
strata; only in the uppermost, the so‐called alluvial layer, in which
human life could exist, he appears on the stage—the climax of gradual
development” (p. 65).
_Reader._ How does this show that “organic life developed itself” and was
a mere result of the development of the earth? It seems to me that your
answer has no bearing on the question, and that it is, on your lips, even
illogical. For you say somewhere: “It is certain that no permanent
transmutation of one species of animals into another has as yet been
observed; nor any of the higher organisms was produced by the union of
inorganic substances and forces without a previously existing germ
produced by homogeneous parents” (p. 68). This being _certain_, as you
own, I ask: If every organism is produced by parents, whence did the
parents come? Could they have arisen from the merely accidental
concurrence of external circumstances and conditions, or were they created
by an external power? In your theory, they must have arisen from external
circumstances, and therefore they had no parents; whilst you affirm that
without homogeneous parents they could not naturally be produced.
Moreover, if the first parents arose from a concurrence of external
conditions, why does not the same happen today?
_Büchner._ “This question has ever occupied philosophers and naturalists,
and has given rise to a variety of conflicting opinions. Before entering
upon this question, we must limit the axiom _Omne vivum ex ovo_ to that
extent that, though applicable to the infinite majority of organisms, it
does not appear to be universally valid” (p. 69).
_Reader._ Then you evidently contradict yourself.
_Büchner._ “At any rate, the question of spontaneous generations is not
yet settled” (_ibid._)
_Reader._ Do you mean that living organisms can be produced without
previously existing homogeneous parents, or germs, merely by the
concurrence of inorganic elements and natural forces?
_Büchner._ Yes, sir; and “although modern investigations tend to show that
this kind of generation, to which formerly was ascribed an extended sphere
of action, does not exactly possess a scientific basis, it is still not
improbable that it exists even now in the production of minute and
imperfect organisms” (p. 70).
_Reader._ You are cutting your own throat, doctor. For you own that your
theory has no scientific basis; and what you say about the non‐
improbability of some spontaneous generations has no weight whatever with
a philosophical mind.
_Büchner._ Indeed “the question of the first origin of all highly
organized plants and animals appears at first sight incapable of solution
without the assumption of a higher power, which has created the first
organisms, and endowed them with the faculty of propagation” (p. 71).
_Reader._ “At first sight,” you say. Very well. I accept this confession,
which, on your lips, has a peculiarly suggestive meaning.
_Büchner._ “Believing naturalists point to this fact with satisfaction.
They remind us, at the same time, of the wonderful structure of the
organic world, and recognize in it the prevalence of an immediate and
personal creative power, which, full of design, has produced this world.
‘The origin of organic beings,’ says B. Cotta, ‘is, like that of the
earth, an insoluble problem, leaving us only the appeal to an unfathomable
power of a Creator’ ” (_ibid._)
_Reader._ Cotta is more affirmative than you. He recognizes that the
problem is incapable of solution without a Creator, and does not add “at
first sight.” What do you reply?
_Büchner._ “We might answer these believers, that the germs of all living
beings had from eternity existed in universal space, or in the chaotic
vapors from which the earth was formed; and these germs, deposited upon
the earth, have there and then become developed, according to external
necessary conditions. The facts of these successive organic generations
would thus be sufficiently explained; and such an explanation is at least
less odd and far‐fetched than the assumption of a creative power, which
amused itself in producing, in every particular period, genera of plants
and animals, as preliminary studies for the creation of man—a thought
quite unworthy of the conception of a perfect Creator” (_ibid._)
_Reader._ I am afraid, doctor, that all this nonsense proceeds from cold‐
hearted maliciousness more than from ignorance. For how can you be
ignorant that, if there be anything odd and far‐fetched in any theory of
cosmogony, it is not the recognition of a creative power, but the
assumption of eternal germs wandering about from eternity amid chaotic
vapors? Your preference for this last assumption is an insult to reason,
which has no parallel but the act of passionate folly by which the Jews
preferred Barabbas to Christ. The Creator, as you well know, had no need
of “preliminary studies”: yet he might have “amused himself,” if he so
wished,(22) in making different genera of plants and animals, just as
noblemen and princes amuse themselves, without disgracing their rank, in
planting gardens, and petting dogs, horses, and birds. But this is not the
question. You pretend that the germs of all living beings had from
eternity existed in universal space. This you cannot prove either
philosophically or scientifically; and we have already established in a
preceding discussion that nothing changeable can have existed from
eternity.
_Büchner._ “But we stand in need of no such arguments” (p. 72).
_Reader._ Why, then, do you bring them forward?
_Büchner._ “The facts of science prove with considerable certainty that
the organic beings which people the earth owe their origin and propagation
solely to the conjoined action of natural forces and materials, and that
the gradual change and development of the surface of the earth is the
sole, or at least the chief, cause of the gradual increase of the living
world” (p. 72).
_Reader._ This is another of your vain assertions. For you confess that
“it is impossible at present to demonstrate with scientific exactness” the
gradual development of organic beings from mere material forces; and you
had previously affirmed that “there _must_ have existed individuals of the
same species, to produce others of the same kind” (p. 68). Where are,
then, to be found the facts of science which “prove with considerable
certainty” the contrary of what you acknowledge to be the fact? Is your
method of reasoning a mere oscillation between contradictories?
_Büchner._ “We may hope that future investigations will throw more light
on the subject” (_ibid._)
_Reader._ Very well. But, if this is the case, surely no “fact of science”
proves, as yet, the spontaneous evolution of life from inorganic matter.
And you may be certain that the future investigations of science will not
give the lie to the investigations of the past.
_Büchner._ “Our present knowledge is, however, sufficient to render it
highly probable, nay, perhaps morally certain, that a spontaneous
generation exists, and that higher forms have gradually and slowly become
developed from previously existing lower forms, always determined by the
state of the earth, but without the immediate influence of a higher power”
(_ibid._)
_Reader._ All this I have already answered; and I am rather tired, doctor,
of repeating the same remarks over and over again. Why should you make
these empty assertions, if you had real arguments to produce? And, if you
have no arguments, what is the use of saying and gainsaying at random, as
you do, the same things? Why do you assert that “the immediate influence
of a higher power” has nothing to do with the origin of life, when you
know that your assertion must remain unproved and can easily be refuted?
If “our present knowledge renders it highly probable, nay, perhaps,
morally certain, that a spontaneous generation exists,” why did you say
the contrary just a few lines before? It is inconceivable that a thinking
man should be satisfied with such a suicidal process of arguing.
_Büchner._ “The law of a gradual development of primeval times is
impressed upon the present living organic world” (p. 75). “All animal
forms are originally so much alike, that it is often impossible to
distinguish the embryo of a sheep from that of a man, whose future genius
may perhaps revolutionize the world” (p. 76).
_Reader._ What does it matter if it is impossible for us to distinguish
the embryo of a sheep from that of a man? Is it necessary to see with our
eyes what distinguishes the one from the other in order to know that they
are different? If we are reasonable, we must be satisfied that their
different development proves very conclusively their different
constitution.
But let this pass. Your line of argument requires you to show that the
first eggs and the first seeds are spontaneous products of blind inorganic
forces, without any immediate interference or influence of a higher power.
While this is not proved, nothing that you may say can help you out of
your false position. You may well allege with Vogt “the general law
prevalent through the whole animal world, that the resemblance of a common
plan of structure which connects various animals is more striking the
nearer they are to their origin, and that these resemblances become
fainter in proportion to the progress of their development and their
subjection to the elements from which they draw their nourishment” (p.
76). We know this; but what of it? The question is not about the
development of life from a germ, but about the development of a germ from
inorganic forces; and this is what you try constantly to forget. You say:
“The younger the earth was, the more definite and powerful must the
influence of external conditions have been; and it is by no means
impossible to imagine that the _same_ germs might, by very different
external circumstances, have conduced to very heterogeneous developments”
(p. 77). Were this as true as it is false, it would not advance your cause
by one step; for you here assume the germs as already existing.
_Büchner._ “The comparatively greater force of nature in former periods is
manifested in the singular forms of antediluvian animals as well as in
their enormous size” (p. 78).
_Reader._ Were those animals the product of merely inorganic forces?
_Büchner._ So it is believed.
_Reader._ On what ground?
_Büchner._ “If the contemplation of surrounding nature strikes us so much
by its grandeur that we cannot divest ourselves of the idea of a direct
creative cause, the origin of this feeling is owing to the fact that we
contemplate as a whole the united effects of natural forces through a
period of millions of years; and, thinking only of the present, and not of
the past, cannot imagine that nature has produced all this out of itself.
The law of analogies; the formation of prototypes; the necessary
dependence upon external circumstances which organic bodies exhibit in
their origin and form; the gradual development of higher organic forms
from lower organisms; the circumstance that the origin of organic beings
was not a momentary process, but continued through all geological periods;
that each period is characterized by creatures peculiar to it, of which
some individuals only are continued in the next period—all these relations
rest upon incontrovertible facts, and are perfectly irreconcilable with
the idea of a personal almighty creative power, which could not have
adopted such a slow and gradual labor, and have rendered itself dependent
upon the natural phases of the development of the earth” (pp. 84, 85).
_Reader._ If this is your ground for asserting the origin of organic
beings from the mere forces of matter, all I can say is that you should
learn a little philosophy before you venture again to write a book for the
public. Were you a philosopher, you would know that, independently of “the
united effects of natural forces through a period of millions of years,”
every grain of dust that floats in the air affords us a sufficient proof
of the existence of “a personal almighty creative power”; your “law of
analogies” would suggest to you the thought of a primitive source of life;
“the formation of prototypes” would compel you to ask, Who formed them?
and how could they be formed without an archetypal idea, which matter
could not possess? You would see that nothing can be gained by asserting,
as you do, that “the gradual development of the higher organic forms from
lower organisms rests upon incontrovertible facts,” while you cannot cite
a single one in support of your assertion. You would take care not to
attribute to the Creator an imaginary waste of time in “the slow and
gradual labor” of peopling the earth with organic beings, nor entertain
the absurd notion that he would have rendered himself “dependent upon the
natural phases of the development of the earth,” merely because his action
harmonized with the order of things he had created. Lastly, you would have
kept in view that the fact of which you were bound to give an explanation
was not the development of new organisms from existing organisms, but the
origin of the first organisms themselves from inorganic matter. Why did
you leave aside this last point, than which no other had a greater need of
demonstration?
_Büchner._ I may not be a philosopher; but certain it is that “science has
never obtained a greater victory over those who assume an extramundane or
supernatural principle to explain the problem of existence, than by means
of geology and petrifaction. Never has the human mind more decisively
saved the rights of nature. Nature knows neither a supernatural beginning
nor a supernatural continuance” (p. 88).
_Reader._ How stupid indeed! Your Masonic science cannot stand on its
legs, and you boast of victories! Do you not see, doctor, the absurdity of
your pretension? When did science attack religion, and was not defeated? I
speak of your infidel science, mind you; for true science has no need of
attacking religion. Your science tries “to explain the problem of
existence by means of geology and petrifaction” without a supernatural
principle. But is the origin of existence a problem? and can it be solved
by geology and petrifaction? Historical facts are no problems. You may
blot out history, it is true, as you might also put out the light, and
remain in the dark to your full satisfaction. Thus everything might become
a problem. But can you call this a scientific process? Why do you not
appeal to geology and petrifaction to explain, say, the origin of Rome,
and thus obtain “a great victory” over history? Yet it would be less
absurd to believe that Rome is a work of nature than to believe that life
originated in dead inorganic matter. The origin of life and of all other
things is a primitive fact, which lies outside the province of geology
altogether. Philosophy alone can account for it; and philosophy proclaims
that your infidel theory of primeval generation is a shameless imposture.
_Büchner._ This is a severe remark, sir.
_Reader._ I will take it back when you shall have proved that the first
organic germs originated in inorganic matter without supernatural
intervention.