EDEN OR EVOLUTION
GENESIS AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES
_Early Beliefs in Creation_
Although we may entirely reject the evidence of man’s presence on
earth long before the dawn of history, even so there still remains a
perplexing question that must be answered. What was man’s origin? It
is surprising how many people have attempted to solve this troublesome
problem. It seems to be one of the first questions that primitive man
tried to answer for himself when he began his earliest speculations.
He was naturally anxious to know who made the land and the water and
the sky and all that is in them. He was especially interested, when he
thought about such things, in deciding how he came to be what he was
himself. And so, from earliest times, beliefs concerning the beginning
of things have sprung up all over the world. They constitute a mass of
speculation, which is called cosmogony (beliefs or theories about the
creation of the universe). Only a few races or tribes of mankind have
failed to indulge in speculations leading to such beliefs. Appearing as
they do in the infancy or early life of a race, these beliefs must be
the fruit of the primitive human mind. In peoples who have failed to
progress and have always remained primitive, such beliefs, like many
other traits and customs, continue for generations almost unchanged.
Sometimes they become an important part of the religion of the race. If
they are looked upon less seriously they form themes for folklore.
This searching question about man’s origin has always been present and
is, in fact, still with us. In times gone by, when man was primitive,
or at least more primitive than he is to-day, he tried to answer the
question as best he could. He was hampered by lack of facts because
his knowledge and understanding of his own surroundings were limited.
His racial experience in the world had yet been too brief for him to
do more than see the great generalities of nature. At best he could
merely surmise the truth of the universe. He had neither the training,
the methods, nor the instruments necessary to disclose the intimate
details upon which reasonable theories might be based. Being so largely
destitute of facts, he relied upon intuition or drew heavily upon his
imagination. It is a matter of wonder that his beliefs often took such
noble form.
Not infrequently a common central theme runs through the beliefs of
primitive people, even though they may belong to different races and
are separated from each other by long distances. Such, for example, is
the belief in the manlike appearance of the Supreme Being held by the
Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, and many other ancient civilizations. Early
ideas concerning _creation_ illustrate this common or central theme
still more vividly. Doubtless the conception of creation has its
supreme expression in the opening chapters of Genesis in the Hebrew
Testament. But other primitive people had exactly the same ideas about
creation and the origin of man. This way of solving the problem must
have been one of the inherent tendencies of the human mind in its
earliest beginnings. Isolated peoples in far-distant parts of the earth
could not have shared such similar ideas as a result of racial contacts
or propinquity. Time and distance set them widely apart. The similarity
might be ascribed to traditions handed down from a common stock. In
any event, an identical theme runs through the creation story of many
different peoples. The most effective record of this theme is given in
Genesis, especially in the first chapter, the King James version of
which is accepted by many as the highest literary mark ever set by the
English language. It is of particular interest for us to follow the
sequence of events in this incomparable chapter which depicts creation
with such grandeur that it may well be called inspired.
_Early Accounts of Creation_
According to this record, creation proceeded as a succession of
separate miracles. First came the miracle creating heaven and earth,
then the creation of light, of the firmament, of the earth set apart
from the waters, of vegetation upon the earth, of the sun, moon,
and stars, of fish and fowl, of beasts and cattle and all creeping
things, of man and woman together in the image and likeness of the
Creator. The second chapter of Genesis repeats the story of creation,
but this time in a minor key, with certain striking differences and
discrepancies. The grandeur of the original description and its
sublime intuition are missing. The master mind which conceived it has
obviously been replaced by one at once much more naïve and manifesting
a thoroughly parochial interest in the affairs and frailties of
humankind. This second narration largely reverses the original order
given to creation. By it man is created before all other animals and
woman last of all. This account produces man from the dust of the
ground, into which the Creator breathes the breath of life and gives
him a living soul, while the rib taken from man is used to create
woman. The discrepancies in the two accounts are obvious at once. To
explain them the second chapter is attributed to a very early writer
(Jehovistic document). The first chapter is ascribed to a much later
writing (Priestly document) made during the Hebrew captivity in Egypt.
Earlier than this Biblical record was the Babylonian idea of creation.
These people also conceived that man was molded out of clay. According
to the Babylonian version of creation, the god Bel cut off his own
head, and the other gods, catching the flowing blood, mixed it with
the dust of the earth, and from this bloody paste molded the forms of
men. The Babylonians believed that men were wise because their mortal
clay was thus tempered with divine blood. According to the Egyptians,
the father of the gods molded men out of clay on his potter’s wheel.
A Greek explanation of man’s origin contains the same idea, in that
Prometheus is said to have molded the first men out of clay at Panopeus
in Phocis. These naïve conceptions about the origin of mankind,
common to the Hebrew, the Babylonian, the Egyptian, and the Greek,
were doubtless handed down to these ancient civilized people by their
savage or barbarous forefathers. Legends of creation of exactly this
kind are current among savages and barbarians of the present day. It
is particularly interesting to note the different forms in which this
story has made its appearance in many distant places of the earth.
_Creation Beliefs of Barbarous People_
The Australian blacks, near Melbourne, held that the Creator cut
large sheets of bark with his big knife. He placed on one of these a
mass of clay and prepared it with his knife until it had the proper
consistency. Then he set a portion of the clay on another piece of
bark and fashioned it in human form, making first the legs and then
the trunk and arms and finally the head. Having finished his molding,
he took stringy bark from the eucalyptus tree, made hair of it, and
attached it to the heads of his models. When all was finished he blew
his breath into the mouths and noses and navels of these clay men until
they rose and spoke as full-grown human beings.
In New Zealand the Maoris believed that a certain god took red
riverside clay, kneaded it with his own blood into a likeness of
himself, with eyes, legs, and arms exactly similar to his own. When
this model was finished he breathed into it the breath of life through
its mouth and nostrils, with the result that the clay man at once came
to life and sneezed.
Among the Tahiti there is a tradition that the first man and woman were
made by the chief god, who created them out of red earth. In Netherland
Island, one of the Ellice Islands, a great deity is supposed to have
made models of man and woman out of the earth and brought them to life
by lifting them up. Similar in general conception is the tradition of
creation among the Pelew Islanders who believe that certain of their
deities made man and woman out of clay by kneading it with the blood
of various animals. This feature is a new detail and somewhat of a
departure from the general story. It shows, moreover, the interest
which these primitive people had in explaining the different behaviour
of their fellow men. Thus they believed that the characters of these
first men as well as their descendants were due to the characteristic
traits of the animal whose blood was mingled with the clay. Men, for
instance, who had rats’ blood in their clay were thieves. Those who had
serpents’ blood were sneaks and informers. Those who were vitalized by
cocks’ blood were brave and daring.
According to a Melanesian legend in one of the Banks Islands, the great
hero Qat molded men from red clay taken from the marshy riverside. At
first he made men and pigs to appear alike, but subsequently he forced
the pigs to go upon all fours and caused men to walk upright. This
distinction indicates man’s early recognition of the subtle meanings of
the erect posture. Qat also constructed a female out of flexible twigs.
Finally she smiled at him, and by this unfailing sign of feminine
allurement he immediately recognized her as the first woman.
Inhabitants of the Kei Islands believe that their ancestors were
fashioned out of clay by the supreme god who breathed the breath of
life into the clay models. The Dyaks of British Borneo claim that the
first man was made by two birds. After several failures in attempting
to hew him out of rock they at length molded him out of damp clay and
infused into his veins the red gum of the Kumpang tree. When they
called him he answered, and they gave him a name which in the Dyak
tongue means “molded earth.”
In India also the same kind of legend explains man’s origin. The Kumis
who inhabit the hill tracts in eastern India believe that a powerful
god made the world and the trees and the creeping things first. After
this he made a man and a woman, shaping their bodies from clay. When
he had finished his work a great snake came while the god was sleeping
and devoured the two images. This occurred several times, so that the
deity was much perplexed. Feeling that after his day’s work he needed
a good night’s sleep, it was impossible for him to sit up to protect
his handiwork. At length he conceived the plan of making a dog out of
clay before he created his next models of man and woman. This device
solved the problem in a satisfactory manner. The god was now able to
sleep in peace after his hard work of modelling human beings, since the
dog, watching over them, would bark and frighten away the destructive
serpent. To this day the Kumis believe this is the reason why dogs howl
when a man is dying.
Africa has similar legends about the creation of mankind. Many of the
natives on the White Nile believe that men were modelled out of clay.
They even go so far as to explain the different complexions of various
races by the differently coloured clay out of which they are molded.
Their great creator, wandering about the world, found pure white earth
or sand and from this he fashioned the white man. Returning to Egypt he
molded red and brown men from the mud of the Nile. Finally, coming upon
black earth far in the depths of Africa, he created black men.
The story of man’s creation out of clay also occurs in America among
the Eskimos and the Indians from Alaska to Paraguay. Many of the
Eskimos have the belief that a certain spirit made a man of clay. Then
having set him upon the shore to dry he breathed into him and gave him
life. Certain Indians of California conceive of an all-powerful being
who created man out of a deposit of clay which he found on the shores
of a lake. From this clay he made both male and female, and the Indians
of the present day are descended from this original clay man and woman.
The Mayas in Central America believe that their gods first made men out
of clay, but that these clay models lacked vitality because they were
dissolved by water. Then the gods created man out of the wood of one
tree and the woman from the sap of another. Unfortunately these human
beings could neither move nor propagate their kind, and for this reason
the gods caused a shower of pitch to produce a flood, which destroyed
this wooden race. A few of them survived, however, and from them are
descended the small monkeys. The Maya gods at last created four perfect
men out of yellow and white maize, and, wishing to confer the greatest
boon, while these four perfect beings slept, four women were created
for them.
_Primitive Ideas Foreshadowing Evolution_
It is interesting also to find that all savage people did not believe
in the legend that ascribed the origin of man to clay models or to
effigies made by some supreme being. Many primitive races appear to
have preferred the theory of evolution to this other idea of creation.
In any event, even if they did not fully recognize the nature of their
belief, their idea was that man evolved from some lower form of animal
life. The particular form of animal from which this evolution started
varied considerably with the local colour, with the character and with
the opportunities of different people.
Some California Indians believe that they are descended from coyotes.
In their early stages of evolution all members of their tribe walked on
all fours. Slowly they acquired some of the features of human beings,
one toe or one finger at a time. Then came an eye or an ear, until at
length these animals grew to be perfect human beings by losing their
tails. This loss, which was regarded as deplorable, came from the habit
of sitting upright.
The Iroquois, belonging to one important clan, hold that they are the
descendants of mud turtles that formerly inhabited a certain large
pool in their territories. The Choctaw Indians believe that they
were descended from crayfish, while throughout the Osage Indians it
is generally understood that their ancestors were a male snail and a
female beaver. A great flood carried the snail down the Missouri River,
leaving him upon a bank, where the sun ripened him into a man. In time
he met and married a beaver maid, and these two were the ancestors of
the Osages. The Delaware Indians call the rattlesnake their grandfather
and would on no account destroy one of these serpents.
Certain Indians of Peru claim to be descended from the puma or American
lion, and this animal is worshipped as their god. Some natives of East
Africa look upon the hyena as one of their ancestors. The death of this
animal is mourned by the whole people with great funereal ceremony. On
the Gold Coast of West Africa certain tribes believe that they were
descended from the horse mackerel.
Natives of Borneo think that the first man and woman were born from a
tree which had become fertilized by a creeping vine that waved to and
fro in the wind. Some of the primitive inhabitants in the northeastern
extremity of Celebes believe that they are descended from apes and
that the parent stock of these animals still inhabits the woods. The
aborigines of western Australia considered that their ancestors were
swans, ducks, or various other kinds of water birds, which were later
transformed into men.
All of these illustrations of the creation idea among primitive people
show that man has held at least two widely different views about his
own origin. One of these is the idea of separate miraculous creation;
the other corresponds to or foreshadows the theory of evolution. In
accordance with the view of separate creation, a god or a tribal hero
was the great creator who fashioned the first members of the race
in their present form. According to the other view, man was evolved
from lower forms of animals, or even from vegetable life. These two
viewpoints of man’s origin still divide the peoples of the world. It
is probably true, as Sir James Frazer has said, that “by weighing one
consensus against the other, with Genesis in the one scale and the
Origin of Species in the other, it might be found, when the scales
were finally trimmed, that the balance hung even between creation and
evolution.”
The development of the evolutionary theory among civilized people has a
long history. This theory has already passed through many interesting
phases. Doubtless other equally interesting phases lie before it. At
present there are many who still believe that Darwin was the originator
of the evolutionary idea. This belief is in no sense true. The origin
of the doctrine long antedates Darwin’s time. It may be traced back to
the age when the human race first began to think clearly. Like many
other things of high cultural value, it had its earliest recognizable
beginnings in the Greek period--in those days when man sought to gain
an intelligent understanding of himself and the world in which he lived.
_Growth of the Evolutionary Theory_
The basic conception of evolution is as old as Empedocles (450 B. C.).
Aristotle (384-322 B. C.) was the originator of the theory of animal
descent, which he formulated with remarkable clearness. A strong
inhibiting influence fell upon this conception of life as a result of
mediæval scholasticism. This influence restrained further developments
until the subject was again reopened in the Eighteenth Century. The
works of Leibnitz and Buffon (1707-1788) reawakened interest in this
problem. Modern constructive efforts to formulate the theory of
evolution did not begin, however, until the early Nineteenth Century.
By a strange coincidence, the real founding of this theory occurred in
the year of Darwin’s birth, 1809. Up to this time, with few exceptions,
it was thought that man’s body was the result of special creation. Some
savage people, as we have seen, have believed that man was derived from
lower animals. But this belief was only a fantastic forerunner of the
evolutionary concept. The birthplace of the theory was in Paris. It
may appear strange that such a doctrine did not originate in the great
schools of learning, and that it first saw the light in the quiet,
out-of-the-way location of the Museum of Natural History. The names
of three scientific immortals are associated with this revolutionary
conception of the animal kingdom. All three of these distinguished men
lived at the same time, worked together at the same place, and together
profoundly influenced our modern views of man’s place in nature.
The most noted of this famous trio in his own day was Cuvier
(1769-1832). He was a professor of comparative anatomy and though only
forty years of age was accumulating the material for his epoch-making
work, _Ossements Fossiles_. This work was to show conclusively that the
great ages of time, filled with multitudes of strange, extinct animals,
had passed over the earth before the dawn of our modern era. Cuvier
believed that each group of these extinct animals represented a series
of separate creations. It was doubtless his energetic and brilliant
insistence upon this point that denied to the French nation the first
place of distinction in advancing the theory of evolution. Although
he held vigorously to the old creative interpretation of life, Cuvier
was in a sense an unconscious promoter of the evolutionary idea. His
recognition of a succession of epochs in the earth’s history and in
the animal inhabitants of the globe was an important step toward the
modern theory. Besides this, his keen powers of observation had enabled
him to discern one of the chief principles underlying evolution. This
principle is known as the law of “correlation of parts.” In consequence
of this law there is a definite relation of one part of the body to
another, as well as a combination of these parts in the habits of the
animal. Thus, horns belong with hoofs, and hoofs are associated with
complicated grinding teeth, which latter in their turn are possessed by
animals having complex stomachs and feeding on plants.
The second great pioneer in the discovery of life’s true origin was
somewhat younger than Cuvier. This was Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. He
was intent upon seeking the common plan upon which all animals with
backbones were built. In this way he was laying the foundations of that
broad conception of life which holds that all living things have a
common descent.
The third of these great French contemporaries was more obscure
than either of his associates in the Museum. In his own period the
public heard and knew little of him. He was a retiring person, but
an indefatigable student. As time passes it is he who stands as the
towering figure of this famous trio. In 1809, when he was already
sixty-five years of age, he made his remarkable contribution to
knowledge. His careful studies of nearly fifty years were then
published in two small volumes entitled _Philosophie Zoologique_. This
was a milestone in human progress. In consequence of this work alone
the name of Jean Baptiste Pierre Lamarck will stand as one of the most
eminent figures of science. From his long and laborious researches he
had reached the conclusion that all living creatures were the outgrowth
of a common tree of life. In this treatise of his there appears the
first clear declaration that man has been evolved from some anthropoid
ancestor like the chimpanzee, and that man’s erect posture has been
derived from one which was ape-like.
_The Lamarckian and Darwinian Theories_
The Lamarckian theory of evolution holds that progress takes place by
the imperceptible transformation of one species into another through
the efforts of the organism to adapt itself to new conditions. It also
maintains that, by inheritance, the changes thus produced are handed on
from one generation to the next. These changes may be slight, almost
insensible variations produced by the use or disuse of certain parts
and organs. Through their accumulated effects they are capable of
transforming one species into another. The following quotation from
Lamarck’s _Philosophie Zoologique_ (Vol. 1, p. 349) furnishes some of
the more important details in the concept by which he explains the
evolution of man:
Indeed, if any race of primates (quadrumanes) whatsoever,
particularly the more highly evolved of them, were to lose, either
from force of circumstances or any other cause, the aptitude for tree
climbing and of grasping the branches with their feet, as with their
hands, for security of grip, and if the individuals of this race,
for a series of generations, be obliged to use their feet only in
walking, and cease using their hands as feet; then there is no doubt,
from the evidence produced in the foregoing chapters, that these apes
would finally be transformed into man (bimanes) and that the great
toe would no longer be separated from the other toes like a thumb,
the feet merely serving the purposes of progression.
Despite the fact that Lamarck was a pioneer he did not, in so far as
the evolution of man is concerned, induce a single anatomist of his
own time or of a succeeding generation to follow in his footsteps.
In this respect his great work remained strangely ineffective. The
more persuasive introduction of the evolutionary theory was made by
an illustrious English naturalist, Charles Darwin. After a somewhat
mediocre university career, for which he received the degree of
Bachelor of Arts, Darwin devoted himself to the natural sciences. In
his early manhood he spent five years on the famous barque _Beagle_
in which he made a trip around the globe. Twenty-three years later
(1859) he published his renowned _Origin of Species_, which proved to
be one of the most revolutionary books ever written. In an educational
sense, Darwin was far more fortunate than Lamarck. Almost at once he
obtained the ear of the public and started the theory of evolution
on its strenuous course around the world. Twelve years later (1871)
he published his second monumental book, _The Descent of Man_, which
proved to be the most telling step in our modern knowledge of man’s
evolution. These two great books set forth the Darwinian theory. Like
Lamarck, Darwin believed that progress from lower to higher forms of
animal life took place as a result of insensible variations. These
variations were due to what Darwin and one of his contemporaries,
Alfred Russell Wallace, called natural selection. This factor was the
prime and sufficient cause of evolution. Through its operations new
species arose by the selective action of external conditions upon
individual variations. Natural selection, as a law, implies the effects
of those forces which separate living creatures into two groups--those
which survive and those which, being ill equipped to make the struggle
for existence, perish. The selective effects of external conditions
on an organism or its parts operate in such a way that individual
variations or peculiarities of advantage are perpetuated in the race
and thus give rise to the survival of the fittest. Darwin in his
_Descent of Man_ makes clear his opinion of the manner in which natural
selection has operated in human evolution:
As soon as some ancient member (elsewhere defined as some species
of anthropoid like the chimpanzee) in the great series of the
primates came to be less arboreal, owing to a change in its manner of
procuring subsistence, or to a change in the surrounding conditions,
its habitual manner of progression would have been modified and
thus it would be rendered more strictly quadrupedal or bipedal....
Man alone has become a biped and we can, I think, partly see how he
has come to assume his erect attitude which forms one of his most
conspicuous characters.... As the progenitors of man became more
and more erect and their hands and arms more and more modified for
prehension and other purposes, with their feet and legs at the same
time transformed for firm support and progression, endless other
changes in structure would have become necessary. The pelvis would
have to be broadened, the spine peculiarly curved, and the head fixed
in an altered position, all which changes have been attained by man.
It is very difficult to decide how far these modifications are the
result of _natural selection_ and how far of the _inherited effects_
of the increased use of certain parts or of the action of one part on
another. No doubt these means often coöperate.
Comparing the explanations given by Lamarck and by Darwin it is
clear at once that they have much in common. Both suppose that man
was evolved from a chimpanzee-like anthropoid. Both agree that the
transformation had been initiated by a change from an arboreal to a
terrestrial mode of existence. Both believe that the results of habit
or of function acquired by one generation may be inherited by the next
generation. Darwin made certain important additions to this theory.
He applied the law of natural selection--the tendency of successful
individuals to survive and prosper. He also recognized the effects of
sexual tendencies and perceived that there was a law of correlation of
parts. By this latter mechanism a number of structures were modified at
the same time to suit some particular function of the body.
Since Darwin’s time, although the general principle involved in the
theory of evolution has been accepted by scientists everywhere,
there has been much discussion concerning specific details of the
evolutionary process. Simultaneously with the conviction that evolution
was a fact in the animal life there arose an eager desire to discover
its underlying causes. Many students of the problem have arrived at
independent explanations of their own. To some the theory of Lamarck
has been considered satisfactory; to others Darwin’s interpretation
is most convincing. Such differences of opinion as do exist among
those who have seriously pursued this matter centre primarily upon the
causes of evolution. For this reason a number of different theories are
recognized to-day. It is probable that these theories do not represent
all of the differing shades of opinion concerning this subject at
present. They may be said, however, to express the high points of
difference. Their chief interest lies in the fact that they indicate
the degree of energy and determination devoted to the solution of
this problem. Recent students of the Darwinian theory have modified
and extended it in such a way as to make the law of natural selection
entirely sufficient to explain evolution. Such students, with Weismann
the most prominent among them, deny the inheritance of acquired
characters. This view is known as the neo-Darwinian theory.
Lamarck’s original conception was also modified and became the basis of
the neo-Lamarckian theory. This view recognized all of Lamarck’s ideas,
including insensible variation, use and disuse of parts, and hereditary
transmission. But it added to these causative factors certain
influences of consciousness and the will, thus introducing an internal
and psychological principle in the evolutionary process. In America
this newer view of Lamarck’s conception has been vigorously upheld by
many naturalists (Cope and Hyatt) who attempted to explain evolution
according to the fundamental laws of growth plus the inherited effects
of use and disuse.
Explanations such as these seem to lose sight of many influences acting
upon animal life from without and along certain determinate lines.
These influences were highly specific in their character and embraced
definite chemical and physical factors. Their effects were concentrated
upon limited organic areas, such, for example, as the eye, but they
spread to correlated organs like the brain, the muscles, and the bones,
all of which are functionally continuous with the visual apparatus of
vertebrates. Such a spread of modifying influences from a determinate
focus like the eye throughout the entire body caused a widespread
tendency to variation and thus afforded the opportunity for progressive
development. This explanation is known as the Orthogenetic Theory
(Eimer, 1897).
Still more recently the pendulum has swung away from this extremely
materialistic viewpoint in what is called the Creative Theory of
Evolution (Henri Bergson, 1907). According to this explanation the
variations that bring about evolution from lower to higher forms of
life require some good genius to preserve and collect the effects in
the interest of progress. This presiding genius working from within
is the original impetus of life, the _élan vitale_, or vital impetus
(entelechy), which like some internal perfecting agency passes from
one generation of germs to the next and through the developed organism
bridges the interval between generations.
Philosophy, with its conception of an internal creative power common
to all life and biology, pinning its faith to physicochemical factors,
have vied with each other in bringing to light the causes of evolution.
Among the latest explanations is the Energy Theory (Henry Fairfield
Osborn, 1918). This interpretation holds that the life of every animal
is due to the action, reaction, and interaction of four types of
energy. The first type arises from chemical elements and compounds
surrounding the animal (inorganic environment). The second is the
energy derived from the body substance of the developing organism
(protoplasm and body chromatin, the chief substance in the nucleus
of body cells). The third source of energy is from the sex cells,
especially those parts of them which contain the hereditary elements
(hereditary chromatin). The fourth type of energy comes from the
living matter surrounding the animal (life environment). Selection and
adaptation are constantly at work upon the reactions of these four
types of energy. Divergence in the form of different animals depends
upon adaptations to special conditions of life as seen, for example,
in the whales and the meat-eaters. Altogether there are twelve major
environments for living, like the plain, the forest, the air, the sea,
which require special adaptations. All life has tended to radiate out
into such habitat zones, and the four types of energy represented by
each living creature have been adjusted to a particular environment.
This spreading out of life into many different zones of existence is a
recognized principle in natural selection (law of adaptive radiation.
Osborn).
The most recent interpretation is that offered by the Emergent
Theory of Evolution (C. Lloyd Morgan, 1928). Evolution, according to
this explanation, is the name given to the plan of sequence in all
natural events. Orderly sequence presents from time to time something
genuinely new. In the physical world emergence is exemplified by the
advent of each new kind of atom, each new kind of molecule, each new
form of life. Emergence is not the mere addition to or subtraction
from existing properties. It is the appearance of something new and
unpredictable from the combination of properties already in existence.
A true emergence of this kind is produced by the combination of carbon
and sulphur out of which the gaseous carbon bisulphide arises. This gas
is totally different from either sulphur or carbon, its two combining
ingredients. It is something genuinely new and hence an emergent. This
principle affects all spheres of life in such a manner that it is
possible for new characters, new structures, new activities to appear
as emergents from preëxisting elements. Variations and progressive
development may be thus explained as the result of orderly sequence.
In spite of the differences in opinion among scientists concerning
the evolutionary process, there is an almost unanimous agreement with
regard to the correctness of the general theory of evolution and the
principle underlying it. To attempt a critical estimation of these
several theories would be futile and far removed from our present
purpose. Doubtless each one of them contains some portion of the truth.
It is, however, their large number that is of striking significance,
inasmuch as these theories indicate a widespread, profound, and growing
interest concerning evolution among intelligent people. Whatever their
minor differences, such theories demonstrate a determined effort in the
search for truth and manifest tendencies in thinking which cannot fail
eventually to reshape the intellectual outlook of mankind.