the fundamentals: volume 7, chapter 1: the passing of evolution

8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 7, Chapter 1: The Passing of Evolution

1/16

..

•

•

•

•

•

-

•

VOLU ME

VII

CHA ,PTER I

THE PASSING OF EVOLUTION

•

BY PROfESSOR

GEORGE

FREDERICK WRIGHT~ D

1

•

D.,

LL.

D.,

OBERLIN

COLLE

1

GE, OBERLIN,

OHIO

•

The · wo1·d

evo lution

is in

itself innocent enough,

and

has

a large range of legitim,at~ use. The Bible, ind

1

eed, tea,ches a

sy,stem of evoluti ,on,. The

,worl ,d,

was

not

mad

1

e in an instant,

or even in

one day (

what,ever

period day may signify) but in

six

days.

Throughout ,

the

whole

proces

1

S1

there was

an

orderly

progress from lower to higher forms of matter aitd life. In

short there is an established or er in all the Creator s work.

Even tl1e King,dom of Heave ,11 s like ,a grain

0£

n1ustard

see,d

wl1ich being

planted

grew from

the

,smallest

b,eginn,in,gs to

be

a tree in ,which the fowls of

l1eaven

co,u]d t,ake refuge. Sro

everywhere there is first the blade, then the

,ear, then

the

£ull

corn

in

tl1e ea.r.

l

But recently the word has come into much deserved disre-

pute

by

the

inje ,ction into it

of erro ,neous an

1

d harmful

theo

lo,gi1al

and

phi1osopl1ical i1npticati,ons. The

widely

current

doc,trine

of ev,olution

whic]1 we

ar e

n

1

ow

,compelled

to combat

is one

which practical]y elin1inates GoE1from

the

who

1

le

1

cre

ative

process and

relegates mankind to the tender mercies of

a mechanical universe the

wheels

of whose

machinery

are left

to move on

withoL1t

any immediate Divine direction.

This

d,octrine

of evolution received

such

an impulse

from

· Darwinism and

has

been so

often

confounde ,d with

,t

that it is

•

important at the

OU t

et

to,

discriminate the two. Darwinism

was not, i,11

he

mind of

its ,author ,

a th

1

eory

o univers ,al evo1u-

• •

\

•


2/16

•

6

The Fundamentals

•

•

tion, and

Dar ·win

rare]y · used

the

w,ord. The title of

Darwin's

great wor .k was,I 'The Origin of Species

by

Means of Natural

Selec·tion. The

probl

1

em

whi

1

ch

he set

o,ut to solve

touche ·d

but a small

part

of the

field

of e·volution. , His propositio11

w.a.s simply

that sp

1

ecies may reasonab 'ly

be

supposed to be

•

nothing more than enlarged 01§ accentuated varieties, which

all admit are descendant .s fro1n a cotnmon ancestry. Fo1

example, there ar ·e a great

tnany

varieties .

1

0£ o,ak trees .. But

it

is supposed

by

all botanists

that

these have

origi ·nated

from

la common

ancest

1

or. Sorile chestnut trees, however, ,

differ

less from some

1

oak tr ,ees than the extreme varieties of b,ot.h

do from each other. Nevertheless, the o·ak and the chestnut

are r

1

ecko ·ned not as v,arieties, but as different species. .But

the dividing

line

between

them

is

s·o,

uncertai ·n that jt is im

possible to define · it. in Janguage; hence, some botanists have

se,t up an in

1

de,pendent

specie.s

betwe

1

en the

tw

1

0,

which

th,e.y

ca·tt ''chestnut oak.

WHAT

IS

A ''SPECIES ,'?

1

This, l1owever, is but a single illustration of the great

clifficulty

which . scientjfic

men have ha,d

in

getting a.

satis i-

•

•

factor ,y definition of species. That most general]y accep

1

ted

is · ''a collection of individual plants and animals which re

semble each o·ther S

1

0 clo

1

se]y that

th,ey

can re asonably be sup-

posed to

have descended from a

comm,on

ancestor.'' It is

easy to

1

see, however, tl1.at, this definition begls the wh

1

ole ques

tion at issue. For we have no certain mea ·ns of knowing ho

1

w

wide]y the pr ,ogeny may in .some cases differ from the parent;

and we do n

1

o·t

know but

that

resen1bl.ance.s

may

result

fro

1

r.a ·

the action of other ·

1

causes than t'hat of p

1

arental connecti.on4E

The defi11ition is far .fro ·m

being

One

that

would

be acce .pted

in the exact sciences.

•

It

m·ay

be ''reasonably · supposed'' t'hat such small differ-

ences as se·parate species have res

1

ulted th ·rough vari .ations of

individua1s descended from a common ancestry, yet it is a long

•

•

•


3/16

•

•

•

The

Pllssing 1of

Evol u tion

7

l

1

eap to assert that, tl1erefore, it may be reaso ·nably supposed

· that all the differences bet,veen

animals

or

between pla.nts

may

l1ave ari ,sen in

a

s·imilar manner ..

•

A characteristic difference

between

the African elephant

and th,e In

1

dian elep,hant, ·for example, is th.at the Afri ,can ele,- ·

phant has

three

toes on his hinder feet and the Indian has

four .

While ·,

ther ,ef

ore, it may not be

a

g1·eat

stret

1

e·11of

imagination to suppose

that

this

difference

has arisen

by

a

natural process, without

any

1outside

interve ,ntion,

it.

is an.

indefinitely

large1· stretch of the imagination to

suppose

that

·all the me:mb·ers of the gener ,al famil:y· to which

they

belo,n,g

have originated

in

a like manner; for, this

family,

or order~

i.ncludes,

n.ot

only

the

el

1

ephant, but

the

·rhinoc

1

eros, h.ippopota

must tapir, wild boar and horse.

But many of Darwin's followers and expounder ,s, have

gone to ·extreme lengths in their assertions, and have an

·nounced far

more astonis 'hing ·co11clusions

than these . Not

only

do

t·hey

assert,

with

a

positiveness

of which

Darwin

was

never ,guilty,. that speci.es have had a common origin

through

natural causes, but that

all

1

organic 'beings had been

equally

independent . of s,upernatural forces. It is a s,mall thing

th.at

t·he

two

species of

elephant should have descended

f·rom a

common stock. Nothing will satisfy them but to assert that

the elephant,

the

lion, the bear, the

mouse,

the kanga~oo, the

whale,

the sh.ark, the

shad, birds of every

de,scription ·indeed,

all forms

of anin1a life, including

t·he ,oyste1· and

the

sn.ail~

have arisen

by

strictly natural processes

from so1ne

minute

speck of

1if

e,, which originate ,d in far distant ·time.

OR.IG.IN OF LIFE

•

It need not be said that su~h conclusions must rest upon

very attenu ,ate,d evid

1

ence,

su,ch as is ·not per.mitt ,ed to

have

weight in the ordinary affairs of life. But even this is

only

the be.cinnj·ng wi·th

thoroughgoing

ev;o]utionists. To be con·

sist~nt , must not only have all species of animals or plants,

•

•

•


4/16

•

•

•

I

I

•

•

•

•

8

The

undanientals

•

I

..

but all animals and plants des

1

c

1

en

1

ding · from a common

origin,

which

they

a .ser t to be an almost form ·less protoplasm,

wl1ich

is supposed to

have appeared in

the

earliest geological

ages .

•

N1or does

tl1is

by any 1neans b

ring them to

thei ·1·

final

goal·, for

to carl"Y out

tl1eir

theory

t.hey must .le .p to the

concltt.sion

that life itself

l1as

originated,

sp·onta ·neously,

by a natural

· process,

f

·om

inorganic ma tt er .

•

But of this they have confesse ·dly no .sc.ientific pro ,of. For,

so -far

as

is

ye.t

known,

life

sprin .gs only from

antecedent

life .

The fir st

chapter

o,f Gen

esis,

to

wl1ich

referenc .e l1as a1rea,dy

been made, f'urnishes as perfect a

defini·tio

1

n of plant ' life as

has ev

1

er been given. P lant life,

'1vhich

is th,e earliest

f,or1n

of

living matter, is desc1·ihed ''as that whicl1 has Sr1ed ·in itself''

and ''yiel

1

ds

seed

aft ·er

his kind.'

1

' A half century ago the

theory of

sp,onta ·neous .

genera ,tion had many support .er·s.. It

was believed

that

minute fo ,rms

of

pla11t

life had sprung

up

from certai 11c

1

onditions .of

in

1

organic matter

witl1out

the

inter

vention of seeds or spores. Bottle s of water, which were

S

1

Up1o

1

sed to have be·en shut off from all access of· livi.ng germs,

were found,

after standing

a sufficient

length

of ti ·me, to sw·arm .

with 111inute iving organisms.

But experiments show·ed that g·e·rms must l1ave b,e

1

en in the

water befor

e

it

\\l?as

et .aside. For,

on

sub jec ting

it

to a hi .gher

de.gree of temperat ttre, so as app .arent ly to kill the germs ., n·0

Iife was ever

1

developed in

it.

A ll positive bas ·is for bridging

t·he chasm between .living matter and lifele .ss matter has tht1s

been removed from the realm of sci.ence .

•

THE MY,STERY

1

0F

FIRST

BEG.INNINGS

This brings

us to th-e

i1nportant

conclusion that the origin

of .life, and we may add of variatio ·ns, is t,o finite minds an

inso .]uble proble1n ; and

so Darwin regarded it.

At

tl1e very

outset of hisl

spec·ulation,

he rested · on. th

1

e supposition that

the

Creator

in the

'beginning

breathed the ·forces of life into

I

several forms

o·f

p

1ant.s and animals,

and

at

the

same time

•

•

•

•


5/16

•

•

•

T he Passing of

Evol ·ittion

I~

•

1

endowe·d them wit'h

the marv ,e1ot1s

cap.a

1

city

:for

v,ariation

which

we

kno,v they

poss,esse

This mys,te·rious capacity for variati

1

on lies at

the

basis

of his theory. If anytl1ing is to be

evolved in

an orderly

1nanner from the 1·e~iden·t forces ·of primor

1

dia1 matter

it

must

first have been involved through the creative act of the Divine

•

Bein,g. But n

1

0 on,e know,s wl,at

causes :vari,a.tio,n

in p,]ants

1

or

animals. Like the wind it comes,, but we know not whence it

,comet,h

or

wl1itl1er

it

go,,etl1.

B,ree

1

ders

,and garde ,ners do not

attempt

to

produce

varieti es

directly. Tl1·ey simply observe

th,e vari ,atio,ns

whic)J occur, and s,el

1

ect

for propagati ,on those

whicl1 will best serve their purposes. They are well aware

'tha't v,ariations , wh,.,cl1 tl1ey pe:rpetuate

are

not o:nly

mysterio ,us1

in their

origin, but

superficial in their ,character.

In Darwinis ,m the

chan,ging

co,nditions of life , to which

every individual is subjected,

are

n1ade to

t ake the

place of

the br'e,ecler an.d seicure what is call .ed natural ,selection~ In

this case, however, the pecttliari ties s,elected and preserved must

al1vvays be positively advantageous to the

life

of

the

indi-

. vidttals preserved .. But to be of advantage a variation

m1;1st

both

be consider ,abl,e

in amount , and

1

corr ,elated

t

1

0 other

varia

tions so

that

th ,ey

shall not be antagonistic to one another. For

,exampl .i,,

if a

deer were born with

the

capability of

gr,owing

antlers so large t'hat the y ,voul

1

d be a

decide,d

advantage to him

in his .stn1,ggle for existence, he must at the s,ame tim

1

e have a

neck

strong enough

to support its ,veight, and otl1er portions

of his frame capable

1

of bearing the

increa ,,ed

strain. Other-

wise his antl ,ers would be the ruin of all his hopes instead ,of

an advantage. It isl irnpossible to co1;1ceive of this ciombina,-

tion of adv ,antageous variations without bringing ·in the hand

and th ,e designing mind of the

Ori .ginal

Creator.

Of this, as of every ot 'her variety of evolution, it can be

truly said in the words 0

1

f

0

1

ne of the most distinguished physi-

- '

cistst Clerk

Maxwell:

''I ha,,·e

examined

all

th.at

have

cotne

,,rithin

tny

reach,

an ,d

have found

that

every

one must

have

a

I

•


6/16


7/16

I

•

ll

ventured the opinion that these were the same as Spencer s

vitalized molecules in which dwelt an intrinsic aptitude to

aggregate into the £orms of the species, Spencer .came out at

once a11dsaid that it was no such thing. They were not at ail

alike. Darwin, in reply,, said he w,as sorry for the mistake.

But

he ha

1

d

£·eared

that

as he

di,d not know exactly what

Spencer meant by his vitalized molecules, a charge of pla·

giarism might be brought against him if he did not give

Spen·

cer due credit. But

otl1ers

seemed

to

find

it

as ·hard to

1

under

stand what Darwin meant by his gem ,mules with their

mar

velous mutual affinity for each other,

as

he did what

Spencer

meant b y vitalized molecules. Bates wrote him that after

reading the chapte:r twice

he

failed to understand it ; and Sir

H.

Holland set

it

down as

very

tough, while Hooker

and

Huxley

thought the language was mere

tautology,

and both

fai]ed to gain a distinct

idea

from

it. (

Letters

of Darwin,

V

1

0Iw

i., p. 262.)

Indeed, thoroughgoing evolution

has

no such universal ac-

ceptance as is frequently represented to be the case. Few

naturalists are willing to project the theory beyond the narrow

limits of their own province. Sttch naturalists as Asa Gray

and Alfred Rus ,sel

Wa11ace,

who

in

a

general

way

accepted

the main propositions of Darwini sm, both insisted that natural

selection

could. attain its ends only as giving effect

t o

the

designs . of

the

Creator.

Agassiz,

Owen, Mivart, Sir William

Dawson, a11d Weissmann either rej ected the hypotl1esis alt


8/16

•

•

•

•

(

12

•

The Futtdamenta ls

- ing link between man and the apes, calling it Pithecanthropus. ·

. -·•.

e,

a few years after, Du

Bois

,discov,ered in recent

volcanic,

(leposits in Java a small incomplete skull in one place,

and near .

by a. diseased femur ( thigh bone),

and

not far away two

molar teeth. These were hailed as remains of the missing

link , and it was forthwith dubbed

Pitliecanthropus

Erectus.

The skull was indeed small, being only two-thirds the size of

that

of the average

man. But

Professor

Cope,

one

of

our

most , c.ompete .nt co.mpara tive anatomists, concluded that as the

''femur is that of a man, it is in no sense a connecting link.

'The erect for1n carries with

it

al1 the anatomical character-

•

istics of a perfect man. (''Primary Factors,'' 1896, pt. l,

chap. vi,) #

But the Darwinians themselves have made their full share

of erroneous assumptions

of

facts, and of

illogical co,nclusions .

It will suffice fo,r o,ur present purpose to refer to a few of

t.hes,e.

Darwin himself made two great mistakes which in tl1e eyes

of discerning studen ts vitiate his whole theory.

1. As to Geological Time. The

establishment of Dar-

•

•

win' 's

theory

as

he origina .11y

proposed

it

i,nv

1

olved the

.existen .ce

of the ear ·th ·in substantial ly its present con ,dition f,or an i11defi

nite, not to say infini te, period of time. In one of hi ·s calcula-

•

tions in the first edition of ''Origin of Species,'' he arrived at

the startling conclusion that 306,662,400 years is ''a mere

trifle•' of geological time. It was not long, however, before

his son, Sir George H. Darwin, den1onstrated to the

general

satisfaction

of physicists and

astro

1

nom ,e1~s

l1at life could

not

have begun . on earth m.ore than 100 million years ago, and

probabl .Y ·not

more , than .50 million ;

w·11ile

L·ord

Kelvin would

reduce the period to less than

30

million year s, which Alfred

Russel

WalJace

affirms is

sufficient

time for the deposition

of all the geological strata. Evolutionists are now fighting hard

and against great odds to be

allowed

l

00 million

years for the

deve.lopment of the present drama of life upon the earth .

'

•

-


9/16

•

•

•

•

13

•

•

The

difference

between 306,662,400 years, regarded as ''a

m

1

ere trifle ,''

an ,d

24,1000,000,

or even 100,000,000

years,

as

constituting the

wliole sum,

is trem~ndous. For,

it

neces-

s,ita,tes, la

r,apidity

in the de.v

1

lop

1

ment of species which must

he regarded as by leaps and bounds,

an,d

so would well accord

with

the

the ,ory

of

creat .io

1

n by special Divine

interventio ,n.

If a critic of Darwinism had made so egregious an error as

this which Darwin introduced into . the very foundation of his

theory,.

he '\\'ould

have been the subject of

an

in1,mense

amount

of ridicule. The only excuse

whi.ch

Darwin could make

was

t·hat at the time no one knew

any

·better. But that excu,se

sho ,ws the folly of

building such

an

enormous theory

upon an

Unknow ·n fou11dation,

2.

As to tlie

Minuteness

of Beneficial l(ariations.

The

unlimited geological

time required

by

Darwin's original theory

is closely bound up with his

view

of the

n1inuteness

of the

steps through whicl1 progress has been mad.e. The words

which

he

constantly uses when speaking of variations

are

''slight,'' ''small,''

''ex .tremely gr1dttal~'' ''insensible

grada-

tions.

But

early in

the

discussion it was

shown by

Mivart

that ''minute incipient variatio11s in any special direction''

,vou]d be

valueless; since,

to

be

of

advantage in any cas

1

e,

they must be considerable in

am.ount. And furthermore, in

1

orde ,r to be of permanent adyanta ,ge, a variation of one organ

, must

be

accompanied with

numerous other variations in other

p,arts of tl1,e org ,anism ..

The

ab ,surdity

in supposing the .acquisition of advantageous

qualities by chan ice vari ,ations is shown in th ,e pertinent illus-

tration a

1

dduced

by

Herbert Spencer from the

anatomy

of the

cat. To ,give tl1e cat power of leaping to a,ny

advan ,tageou .s,

height,

the ·re

must be a

simu 'ltaneous

variation

in

all

tl1e bones,

sinews, and muscles of the hinder e

1

xtr ·e,mities; and,.

at the

same time, to save the cat

from

disaster

when

it descends

from

an elevation, there mus,t be, v~riati .on of a totall ,y·

different

c'ha1·acter in

,all the bon

1

es a,nd

tendons

and ·musc·les,

1of

t·he f

1

r ,e

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


10/16

14

Iimb.s. To learn the character of these changes, one has but

to ''co ·ntrast the markedly bent hind limbs

of

a cat

with

its

al-

most straigl1t :fore limbs, or contrast the silence of the upward

spring on to the table with the thud which the fore paws make

· as it jum .ps off the tab1e.'' S

1

numerous are the sin1ttltane,ous

changes necessary to secure any advantage here, that the prob

abilities against their arising fortuitously run up into billions,

if not into infinity ; so that they are outside of any rational

•

•

•

recogn1

t1on.

THE , ORIGIN OF MAN

I

The

failure of

evolution to account for man is conspicuous.

Early in the Darwinian dis.cussian ,, Alfred Russel Wallace,

Darwin's most d·istinguisl1ed co-worker, instanc

1

ed various

phy sical peculiarities in man which could not have originated

thr ough natural selection alone, but which necessitated the

interference of a superior directing power .

Among these are. (a) the a

1

bsence in 1nan of

any

natural

protecti ve cov

1

ering.

The nakedness of man which exposes

him to

1

the inclemency of the ,veathe ,r could never in itself

have been an advantage whi,ch natural selection could take

hold of. It could have

been

of use only when his

intelligence

was so developed

that

he could construct tools f

ot skinning

anima]s and for weaving and sewing garments. And that

practica .11y nvolves all

es.sential

hum.an attributes. ·

. (b ,) The size o f the human b1 tJtn. Man's brain is out of

all proportion to the rnental 11eedsof the highe ,st of

the

anitnal

creation below him . . Without man's intelligenc

1

e

such

a brain

would be an incuinbrance rather than an advantage. The

weight of

tl1e

largest brain of a goril]a

is

considerably less

than half that of the average man, and only one third that

of the best

d,eveloped

of the human race.

( c) This increase in the size of 'the brain is connected al o

with a

number of other special

adaptstions

of the

bodily

franie

to

the

wa1its

of

.the

hu~man

mind ,, For example, the

thumb

of

•


11/16

1 lte Passing of Evolutio11,

15

the

hind

limb of

the ape beJc,om,es

a

big toe in

man,

which

is

•

a most

important

member for a being

whicl1

,vould walk in

an uprigl1t position, but a disadvaatage to one

who walks

on

all

four .

Tl1e fore limbs of tl1e ape are sho,rtened into the

arms of a man, tl1us adapting

them

to

his u.pright positi ,on and

to the various uses which

are

advantageous in that position.

Furthermore, to make it

possible

to maintain the erect

posi,

tion of man there has to be a special

construction

of the ball

and socket joint in the hip

bones

and in t·he

adjus ,tment of

,all the vertebr ,a of the back and neck. All these would be di.s

a:dvantageous to an .ape-like creature devoid of man's in-

telligence. ·

( d)

Man s intellectital capacity

belongs to a different

order from that of tl1e lower animals.

Natt1ralists

,do in

1

deed

classify men and apes together in the ame g nus anatom

ically,. But . to

cd1note

the human sp

1

ecies they atl,d the word

''sapiens.'' Tl1at

i

they 1nust regard

his

in_elligence as a

specific

characteri stic..

The lower

animals do

indeed hav.e

many

co

1

mmon instinct s with man,. and in

inany

cas

1

es their

instincts are far uperior to those of man. ut in his reason

ing

powers

man is apparently separated from the

lower

ani-

1nals,

one and all, by an impassable gulf.

Romanes, aft r collecting the

manifestations

of

intelligent

reasoning from every known specie of the lower animal ,

found

that they

only equalled,

altogether,

the

intelligence of a;

child 15 month . old. He could

find no

such

boundles

out

look

of

intelligence

in the

lower animals

as th re i in man.

As any one can s~e, it would

be

absurd to

try

to teach an ele

phant

geology,

an agle

astronomy, or

a

dog theology. Yet

there is no race of

/1,uman

beings

b1tt l1as capacity

to com-

p1~ehend

these

s,cie1ices. .

· Again, man is

ometin1e ,

and

not

improperly,

defined

as a

''t I . · k

· oo using a111n1al.

No ani1nal ever uses,

1nuc/1

ess ma ·

es

a tool.

But

the

lowest

races of

men show

great ingenuity

in making tools, while even the rudest flint implement bears

•

•


12/16

•

•

,

•

•

•

.

;

•

16

•

•

· indubitable evidence of a

power

to adapt

·means t.o

en

1

ds

whi

1

ch

IJlaces it'. maker in a category

by himself.

Again, n1an is somet :imes, and properly, d,efined .as a ''fire

using animal.''

No animal ever 1nakes a

fire. Monkeys do

indeed gather rot1nd a fire

whe11

·it is 1nade. But the 1nak

ing of ,one is utte .r1y b~>ro,nd tl1eir capacity. 1'.~an, however,

,e,ven in his lo~r,est stages } knows how

t

1

0 make fire a.t. his

will. So great is this accomplishment, that it. is no wonder the

Greeks Iooke ,d upon it as a direct gift

from

he·aven. ,

Again, man may properly be described as a ''speaking

,ar1in1a1. No othe 'r animal uses ·artic·itlate

la1igitage .

.

But 1nan

not 011ly use .s

it i11

6peech

h

1

ttt

i11 ,rvriti11g.

How · absurd

it

· woi1ld

be. to try to teac h

a learne ,d pig

·to translate and under ·

stan ·d tl1e cun.eiform inscrip

1

tions unearthed from the de

se1·ted moun

1

ds of Babylonia.

Finally,

man may p,rope1·ly be

1

described as

a

''religious ajii

r n·ial} but who

\t\

ou ld e·ver think of improving the

nature

of

the lo\ver

a11imals by

de]ivering se ·rmons in their presence

or

1

distributing Bibles a1nong them? Yet, the Bible a Boal,

co

1

mpo .sed of every species .

of

literature, con,taining the high

es1

flights

1

f poet .ry and eloquence

ever

wri 'tte11,

and p.re

se11ting·

the

sublimest conceptions

of

Go,d

.and

of .

tl1e

future

_1if

e eve1..e11tertai11ed

has been

ti·anslated . into

every l.an

g11age u.11der heaven, and has found in tho .se Janguages the

app

1

ropria ,te

figu·res

of speech for ·

effectually

pr

1

esenting

its

ideas.

THE CUMULATIVE

ARGUMENT

•

Now,

all these

pecul .iarities

both

in

the body

a11d

the

n1i·nd

of man, to h.av

1

e been adv ,ant .ageous, mttst hav ,e taken place

simult

1

aneously and at the same t.i1ne have been c,onsiderable

in

1

a1nount. To supp

1

ose al,] tl1is to occur without the inter

vention of

the

S·up1·eme Pesigning

Mind

i,s to commit

logical

''hara-kiri.'' Such chance combinations are .beyon,d. all po s-

sibility of rational belief . · .

It

is fai .r to add, h

1

owever,

that

Darwin

never

st1pposed

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


13/16

•

•

The Passing of Evolutio1~

li

•

that n1an was descended from any species of existing apes;

but he always spo

1

ke of

1

ot1r

supposed an

1

cestor as ap

1

c-lik·e,

a

form, from which ~he apes were supposed to have varied in

one

direction

a .s

f

a1·

as.

m.a.n

had in

artoither.

All

eff orts .,

however, to find traces of sucl1 connecting links as this theory

supposes hlave. failed.

The

N eandc ·rthaI

s.l


14/16

•

•

•

18

The , Fundamental s,

•

•

lowi,ng are blind guides

leading

on to an

end

which it is

11ot

pleasant

to

contemplate, and from which

we

can

be

delivered ~

only by the coming ,of . the So·n of M,a11.

•

..

CONCLUSION

Tl1e title ·of thi s pap.e,r is perhaps a misnome ·r. For, dou.bt- ..

less,

the

passing of

the present phas ·e o,f ·evoluti ,on is not

final .

Theor :ies of

1

evolution have · chas

1

ed

1

a,ch othe ·r off

tl11

field

in ·.

ra . id succession for thou sands , of years. Evolution is not a ..

new thing in ph .i'losophy, ,and su,ch is

tl1e

frailty of huma11 na

ture that it is not likely to , disappear suddenly from among ~

men. The

cr ,a.ze

of the

last hal.f centu1~

is little n1ore than

the · rec1·udese·nce of a philosophy which has divided

tl1e

opin - ~

ion of men from the earliest ages. In both the Egyptian and .

the

E.ast

Indian myth.0

1

logy ,, ·the

world and all

thi ,ngs

in.

it~

were evolved from an egg; and so in the Polynesian myths ..

But

the

Po

1

lynesians .

h,ad to

have

a bird to

lay the egg,

and .

tl1e Egyptians and the Br·ahmans had to have some , sort of ' a

deity to c:--eate heir ,s. The Greek philosophers str uggled with .

the probl

1

em

without

co·ming

to

any m

1

ore·

satisf ,aicito,ry co,n--..

clusion. Aniximander, iike Professor Huxley, traced every- ··

thing ba

1

ck to, ,an ''infinity'' which..gradttall .Y worked its,elf into ~

a sort

0

1

f

pristine

''mud'' ( som,ething

like

Huxley's explode d.

· ''bathybius:'), c,ut of which everything else evolved; wl1ilc

Thales of Miletus tried

to

think of water as the m

1

otl1e1·

of

everything, and Aneximenes prac tically deified the air. Dio

get1es imagin ,ed a ''mind stuff'' ( somethin .g like Weissmann's

''biophores,' '' Darwin's ''gemmu1es

po,ss,essed

with

affinity

for

each 0th .er, and Spencer's ''vitalized molecul

1

es'') wh .ich actecl ·

as

if

it had inte]ligence ;·

wl1ile

Heraclitus

th

1

ought that

fire-·

was the only

element

pure enough

to produce

the soul of

man. These speculations culmina ·t

1

ed in th.e gre iat poem of ~·

Lucretius entitled, De Rerum Natura, written shortly

·befo

1

re

the be,ginmio.g of the Chris,t.ian

1

era. His

atomic theory

was

something like

that which pr ·evails

at the

present time among .:

•

•

•


15/16

•

•

The Passing of Evolittion

19

pi1ysicis

1

ts. Amid the unceasing motion of these atoms there

somehow appeared, according to him, the orderly

f

orrns and

the living processes of nature. ,

Modern evolutionary speculations have not made much real

progress ovet tho se of the ancients. As already remarked,.

they are, in their

bolder

forms atheistic; while in their

mild- ·

er forms they are deistic admitting, indeed, the agency of

God at the beginning, but nowhere else. The attempt, how

ever, to give

the

doctrine standing

tl1rough

Darwin s theory

of

the Origin of Spe,cies by Means of Natural Se lection has not

been successful ; for at best, that theory can enlarge but lit

tle our comprehension

of the

adequacy

of

resident

forces

to

produce a,nd

conserve

variations of

,species,

and cannot in the

least degree banish the idea of design from the process.

It

is, there£ ore,

impossib ,]e

to get any such

proof

of

evo·

lution as shall seriously modify our conception of ·Chris

tianity. The : mechanism ,of the

unive ,r,se is so

complicated

that no man can say that

it

is closed to Divine interference.

Especially is this seen to be the case since we know that the

free w ll of man does pierce the joints of nat1tre liarness

and i1iterfere with its order to a limited extent. Man, by

cultivation,

mal


16/16

•

•

•

•

•

•

,

I

•

The Fundamentals

Spiritual things are not to be discovered by material in-

•

struments

nor

detected

by

the

mat

1

erial

senses ,.

Physica l

science cannot penetrate to the origin of anything, but must

conte ,nt

itself

to deal

with

processes

already

begun. Profound

mystery hangs over the birth

of

e,Tery

human

soul. Wh

1

0

can tell wl1en

it

becomes a free personality, reflecting the

ima,ge

of its Creator? Is the soul, as well as tl1e body, be,got ,ten by the

p,arent

? .

This

question

has ,divi,de

1

d theologians from the

time

1

~£ Augustine to the

present

day.

The wors,t foes of

Ch ri stianity are not physicists but ineta

physicians. Hume is

more dangerous

than Darwi n; the ag

nosticism of Hamilton and Mansel is harder to meet than

that of Tyndall and

H11x1ey;

the fatalism of the philosophers

is lllore to be dreaded than the materialism of any s.cientific

men. The sophistries of the Socratic

phi10

sophy

touching

the

•

freedom

of

the will are more subtile

than

those

of

the Spen-

ceri jan s,choo]. ,Christianity,

being a

religio

1

n of fact ,and

hi.s

tory, is a free-born son in the family of the inductive sciences,

•

and is not special]y hampered by the

para ,doxe,s

inevitably con-

nect ,ed with al]

a,ttempts ,

to

1

give expressio ,n to ultimate

con

ceptions of truth, The

field, is ,no,w a,s free

as

it

has

ever been

to thos ,e :who are content to a,ct upon such

pos,itive evide,nce

of

the

trut :h of

Christianity as t he

Creator

has · b,e

1

en

pleased to

afford them. The evidence for evolution, even in its milder

•

form, does not

b

1

egin to be as strong as that for

tI1e revelation

•

,0 1 God in the Bible.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• ...

the fundamentals: volume 7, chapter 1: the passing of evolution

Documents