initial commit of ebook 19192HEADmain

10 files changed, 14033 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/19192-8.txt b/19192-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..96ca931
--- /dev/null
+++ b/19192-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,4593 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of What is Darwinism?, by Charles Hodge
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: What is Darwinism?
+
+Author: Charles Hodge
+
+Release Date: September 6, 2006 [EBook #19192]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT IS DARWINISM? ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Martin Pettit and
+the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+http://www.pgdp.net (This file was made using scans of
+public domain works from the University of Michigan Digital
+Libraries)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+WHAT IS DARWINISM?
+
+BY
+CHARLES HODGE,
+PRINCETON, N. J.
+
+NEW YORK:
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG, AND COMPANY.
+1874.
+
+
+Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG, & COMPANY,
+In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
+
+
+RIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGE:
+STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY
+H. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY.
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS.
+
+
+                                                           PAGE
+IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION                                    1
+
+DIFFERENT THEORIES AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE,
+AND SPECIALLY OF VEGETABLE AND ANIMAL ORGANISMS.
+  1. The Scriptural Theory                                    3
+  2. The Pantheistic Theory                                   7
+  3. The Epicurean Theory                                    10
+  4. The Doctrine of Herbert Spencer                         11
+  5. Hylozoic Theory                                         21
+  6. Unscriptural Forms of Theism                            22
+
+DARWIN'S THEORY                                              26
+
+NATURAL SELECTION                                            31
+
+SENSE IN WHICH DARWIN USES THE WORD NATURAL                  40
+
+THE THREE ELEMENTS OR DARWINISM                              48
+
+THE EXCLUSION OF DESIGN IN NATURE THE FORMATIVE IDEA
+OF DARWIN'S THEORY                                           49
+
+PROOF OF DARWIN'S DENIAL OF TELEOLOGY, FROM HIS OWN
+WRITINGS                                                     53
+
+PROOF FROM THE EXPOSITIONS OF HIS THEORY BY ITS AVOWED
+ADVOCATES.
+  Mr. Russell Wallace                                        64
+  Professor Huxley                                           72
+  Dr. Büchner                                                84
+  Carl Vogt                                                  85
+  Prof. Haeckel                                              87
+  Strauss                                                   147
+
+PROOF FROM THE OBJECTIONS URGED BY THE OPPONENTS OF
+MR. DARWIN'S THEORY.
+  Duke of Argyll                                             96
+  Agassiz                                                   101
+  Professor Janet                                           105
+  M. Flourens                                               108
+  Rev. Walter Mitchell                                      111
+  Principal Dawson                                          119
+
+RELATION OF DARWINISM TO RELIGION                           125
+
+CAUSES OF THE ANTAGONISM BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION       126
+
+THE EVOLUTION THEORY CONTRARY TO FACTS AND TO SCRIPTURE     141
+
+SIR WILLIAM THOMSON ON TELEOLOGY                            165
+
+DR. ASA GRAY                                                174
+
+DARWINISM TANTAMOUNT TO ATHEISM                             177
+
+
+
+
+WHAT IS DARWINISM?
+
+
+This is a question which needs an answer. Great confusion and diversity
+of opinion prevail as to the real views of the man whose writings have
+agitated the whole world, scientific and religious. If a man says he is
+a Darwinian, many understand him to avow himself virtually an atheist;
+while another understands him as saying that he adopts some harmless
+form of the doctrine of evolution. This is a great evil.
+
+It is obviously useless to discuss any theory until we are agreed as to
+what that theory is. The question, therefore, What is Darwinism? must
+take precedence of all discussion of its merits.
+
+The great fact of experience is that the universe exists. The great
+problem which has ever pressed upon the human mind is to account for its
+existence. What was its origin? To what causes are the changes we
+witness around us to be referred? As we are a part of the universe,
+these questions concern ourselves. What are the origin, nature, and
+destiny of man? Professor Huxley is right in saying, "The question of
+questions for mankind--the problem which underlies all others, and is
+more interesting than any other--is the ascertainment of the place which
+Man occupies in nature and of his relation to the universe of things.
+Whence our race has come, what are the limits of our power over nature,
+and of nature's power over us, to what goal are we tending, are the
+problems which present themselves anew and with undiminished interest to
+every man born into the world."[1] Mr. Darwin undertakes to answer these
+questions. He proposes a solution of the problem which thus deeply
+concerns every living man. Darwinism is, therefore, a theory of the
+universe, at least so far as the living organisms on this earth are
+concerned. This being the case, it may be well to state, in few words,
+the other prevalent theories on this great subject, that the points of
+agreement and of difference between them and the views of Mr. Darwin may
+be the more clearly seen.
+
+
+_The Scriptural Solution of the Problem of the Universe_.
+
+That solution is stated in words equally simple and sublime: "In the
+beginning God created the heavens and the earth." We have here, first,
+the idea of God. The word God has in the Bible a definite meaning. It
+does not stand for an abstraction, for mere force, for law or ordered
+sequence. God is a spirit, and as we are spirits, we know from
+consciousness that God is, (1.) A Substance; (2.) That He is a person;
+and, therefore, a self-conscious, intelligent, voluntary agent. He can
+say I; we can address Him as Thou; we can speak of Him as He or Him.
+This idea of God pervades the Scriptures. It lies at the foundation of
+natural religion. It is involved in our religious consciousness. It
+enters essentially into our sense of moral obligation. It is inscribed
+ineffaceably, in letters more or less legible, on the heart of every
+human being. The man who is trying to be an atheist is trying to free
+himself from the laws of his being. He might as well try to free himself
+from liability to hunger or thirst.
+
+The God of the Bible, then, is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and
+unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, goodness, and truth.
+As every theory must begin with some postulate, this is the grand
+postulate with which the Bible begins. This is the first point.
+
+The second point concerns the origin of the universe. It is not eternal
+either as to matter or form. It is not independent of God. It is not an
+evolution of his being, or his existence form. He is extramundane as
+well as antemundane. The universe owes its existence to his will.
+
+Thirdly, as to the nature of the universe; it is not a mere phenomenon.
+It is an entity, having real objective existence, or actuality. This
+implies that matter is a substance endowed with certain properties, in
+virtue of which it is capable of acting and of being acted upon. These
+properties being uniform and constant, are physical laws to which, as
+their proximate causes, all the phenomena of nature are to be referred.
+
+Fourthly, although God is extramundane, He is nevertheless everywhere
+present. That presence is not only a presence of essence, but also of
+knowledge and power. He upholds all things. He controls all physical
+causes, working through them, with them, and without them, as He sees
+fit. As we, in our limited spheres, can use physical causes to
+accomplish our purposes, so God everywhere and always coöperates with
+them to accomplish his infinitely wise and merciful designs.
+
+Fifthly, man a part of the universe, is, according to the Scriptures, as
+concerns his body, of the earth. So far, he belongs to the animal
+kingdom. As to his soul, he is a child of God, who is declared to be the
+Father of the spirits of all men. God is a spirit, and we are spirits.
+We are, therefore, of the same nature with God. We are God-like; so that
+in knowing ourselves we know God. No man conscious of his manhood can be
+ignorant of his relationship to God as his Father.
+
+The truth of this theory of the universe rests, in the first place, so
+far as it has been correctly stated, on the infallible authority of the
+Word of God. In the second place, it is a satisfactory solution of the
+problem to be solved,--(1.) It accounts for the origin of the universe.
+(2.) It accounts for all the universe contains, and gives a satisfactory
+explanation of the marvellous contrivances which abound in living
+organisms, of the adaptations of these organisms to conditions external
+to themselves, and for those provisions for the future, which on any
+other assumption are utterly inexplicable. (3.) It is in conflict with
+no truth of reason and with no fact of experience.[2] (4.) The
+Scriptural doctrine accounts for the spiritual nature of man, and meets
+all his spiritual necessities. It gives him an object of adoration,
+love, and confidence. It reveals the Being on whom his indestructible
+sense of responsibility terminates. The truth of this doctrine,
+therefore, rests not only on the authority of the Scriptures, but on the
+very constitution of our nature. The Bible has little charity for those
+who reject it. It pronounces them to be either derationalized or
+demoralized, or both.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[1] _Evidences of Man's Place in Nature._ London, 1864, p. 57.
+
+[2] The two facts which are commonly urged as inconsistent with Theism,
+are the existence of misery in the world, and the occurrence of
+undeveloped or useless organs, as teeth in the jaws of the whale and
+mammæ on the breast of a man. As to the former objection, sin, which is
+the only real evil, is accounted for by the voluntary apostasy of man;
+and as to undeveloped organs they are regarded as evidences of the great
+plan of structure which can be traced in the different orders of
+animals. These unused organs were--says Professor Joseph Le Conte, in
+his interesting volume on Religion and Science, New York, 1874, p.
+54--regarded as blunders in nature, until it was discovered that use is
+not the only end of design. "By further patient study of nature," he
+says, "came the recognition of another law beside use,--a law of order
+underlying and conditioning the law of use. Organisms are, indeed,
+contrived for use, but according to a preordained plan of structure,
+which must not be violated." It is of little moment whether this
+explanation be considered satisfactory or not. It would certainly be
+irrational to refuse to believe that the eye was made for the purpose of
+vision, because we cannot tell why a man has mammæ. A man might as well
+refuse to admit that there is any meaning in all the writings of Plato,
+because there is a sentence in them which he cannot understand.
+
+
+_The Pantheistic Theory_.
+
+This has been one of the most widely diffused and persistent forms of
+human thought on this whole subject. It has been for thousands of years
+not only the philosophy, but the religion of India, and, to a great
+extent, of China. It underlies all the forms of Greek philosophy. It
+crept into the Church, concealed under the disguise of Scriptural
+terminology, in the form of Neo-Platonism. It was constantly reappearing
+during the Middle Ages, sometimes in a philosophical, and sometimes a
+mystical form. It was revived by Spinoza in the seventeenth century, and
+subsequently became dominant in the philosophy and literature of Europe.
+It is coming up again. Some distinguished naturalists are swinging round
+from one pole to the opposite; from saying there is no God, to teaching
+that everything is God. Sometimes, one and the same book in one half
+teaches materialism, in the other half idealism: the one affirming that
+everything is matter, the other that matter is nothing, but that
+everything is mind, and mind is God.
+
+The leading principles of the Pantheistic theory are,--(1.) That there
+is an Infinite and Absolute Being. Of this Being nothing can be affirmed
+but actuality. It is denied that it is conscious, intelligent, or
+voluntary. (2.) It is subject to the blind necessity of self-evolution
+or development. (3.) This development being necessary is constant; from
+everlasting to everlasting. According to the Braminical doctrine,
+indeed, there are successive cycles of activity and repose, each cycle
+being measured by countless milliards of centuries. According to the
+moderns, self-evolution being necessary, there can be no repose, so that
+Ohne Welt kein Gott. (4.) The Finite is, therefore, the existence form
+of the Infinite; all that is in the latter for the time being is in the
+former. All that is possible is actual. (5.) The Finite is the Infinite,
+or, to use theistic language, the World is God, in the sense that all
+the world is and contains is the form in which God, at each successive
+moment, exists. There is no power, save only the power manifested in
+the world; no consciousness, intelligence, or voluntary activity, but in
+finite things, and the aggregate of these is the power, consciousness,
+intelligence, and activity of God. What we call sin is as much a form of
+God's activity as what we call virtue. In other words, there is no such
+thing as free agency in man, no such thing as sin or responsibility.
+When a man dies he sinks into the abyss of being as a drop of water is
+lost in the ocean. (6.) Man is the highest form of God's existence. God
+is incarnate in the human race. Strauss says, that what the Church
+teaches of Christ is not true of any individual man, but is true of
+mankind. Or, as Feuerbach more concisely expresses it, "Man alone is our
+God." The blasphemy of some of the German philosophers on this subject
+is simply unutterable. In India we see the practical operation of this
+system when it takes hold on the people. There the personification of
+the Infinite as evil (the Goddess Kala) is the most popular object of
+worship.
+
+
+_Epicurean Theory._
+
+Epicurus assumed the existence of matter, force and motion,--Stoff und
+Kraft. He held that all space was filled with molecules of matter in a
+state of rapid motion in every direction. These molecules were subject
+to gravity and endowed with properties or forces. One combination of
+molecules gave rise to unorganized matter, another to life, another to
+mind; and from the various combinations, guided by unintelligent
+physical laws, all the wonderful organisms of plants and animals have
+arisen. To these combinations also all the phenomena of life, instinct,
+and intelligence in the world are to be referred. This theory has been
+adopted in our day by a large class of scientific men, especially in
+Germany. The modern advocates of the theory are immeasurably superior to
+the ancient Epicureans in their knowledge of astronomy, botany, zoölogy,
+and biology; but in their theory of the universe, and in their mode of
+accounting for all the phenomena of life and intelligence, they are
+precisely on the same level. They have not added an idea to the system,
+which has ever been regarded as the opprobrium of human thought.
+Büchner, Moleschott, Vogt, hold that matter is eternal and
+indestructible; that matter and force are inseparable: the one cannot
+exist without the other. What, it is asked, is motion without something
+moving? What is electricity without an electrified body? What is
+attraction without molecules attracting each other? What is
+contractibility without muscular fibre, or secretion without a secreting
+gland? One combination of molecules exhibits the phenomena of life,
+another combination exhibits the phenomena of mind. All this was taught
+by the old heathen philosopher more than two thousand years ago. That
+this system denies the existence of God, of mind as a thinking substance
+distinct from matter, and of the possibility of the conscious existence
+of man after death, are not inferences drawn by opponents, but
+conclusions openly avowed by its advocates.
+
+
+_Herbert Spencer's New Philosophy._
+
+Mr. Darwin calls Spencer our "great philosopher." His is the speculating
+mind of the new school of science. This gives to his opinions special
+interest, although no one but himself is to be held responsible for his
+peculiar views, except so far as others see fit to avow them. Mr.
+Spencer postulates neither mind nor matter. He begins with Force. Force,
+however, is itself perfectly inscrutable. All we know about it is, that
+it is, that it is indestructible, and that it is persistent.
+
+As to the origin of the universe, he says there are three possible
+suppositions: 1st. That it is self-existent. 2d. That it is
+self-created. 3d. That it is created by an external agency.[3] All these
+he examines and rejects. The first is equivalent to Atheism, by which
+Spencer understands the doctrine which makes Space, Matter, and Force
+eternal and the causes of all phenomena. This, he says, assumes the idea
+of self-existence, which is unthinkable. The second theory he makes
+equivalent to Pantheism. "The precipitation of vapor," he says, "into
+cloud, aids us in forming a symbolic conception of a self-evolved
+universe;" but, he adds, "really to conceive self-creation, is to
+conceive potential existence passing into actual existence by some
+inherent necessity, which we cannot do." (p. 32). The Theistic theory,
+he says, is equally untenable. "Whoever agrees that the atheistic
+hypothesis is untenable because it involves the impossible idea of
+self-existence, must perforce admit that the theistic hypothesis is
+untenable if it contains the same impossible idea." (p. 38). The origin
+of the universe is, therefore, a fact which cannot be explained. It must
+have had a cause; and all we know is that its cause is unknowable and
+inscrutable.
+
+When we turn to nature the result is the same. Everything is
+inscrutable. All we know is that there are certain appearances, and that
+where there is appearance there must be something that appears. But what
+that something is, what is the noumenon which underlies the phenomenon,
+it is impossible for us to know. In nature we find two orders of
+phenomena, or appearances; the one objective or external, the other
+subjective in our consciousness. There are an Ego and a non-Ego, a
+subject and object. These are not identical. "It is," he says,
+"rigorously impossible to conceive that our knowledge is a knowledge of
+appearances only, without at the same time conceiving a reality of which
+they are appearances, for appearance without reality is unthinkable."
+(p. 88). So far we can go. There is a reality which is the cause of
+phenomena. Further than that, in that direction, our ignorance is
+profound. He proves that space cannot be an entity, an attribute, or a
+category of thought, or a nonentity. The same is true of time, of
+motion, of matter, of electricity, light, magnetism, etc., etc. They all
+resolve themselves into appearances produced by an unknown cause.
+
+As the question, What is matter? is a crucial one, he dwells upon it in
+various parts of his writings. Newton's theory of ultimate atoms;
+Leibnitz's doctrine of monads; and the dynamic theory of Boscovich,
+which makes matter mere centres of force, are all dismissed as
+unthinkable. It is not very clear in what sense that word is to be
+taken. Sometimes it seems to mean, meaningless; at others,
+self-contradictory or absurd; at others, inconceivable, _i. e._ that of
+which no conception or mental image can be formed; at any rate, it
+implies what is unknowable and untenable. The result is, so far as
+matter is concerned, that we know nothing about it. "Our conception of
+matter," he says, "reduced to its simplest shape, is that of coexistent
+positions that offer resistance, as contrasted with our conception of
+space in which the coexistent positions offer no resistance." (p. 166).
+Resistance, however, is a form of force; and, therefore, on the
+following page, Spencer says, "that forces standing in certain
+correlations, form the whole contents of our idea of matter."
+
+When we turn from the objective to the subjective, from the external to
+the inward world, the result is still the same. He agrees with Hume in
+saying that the contents of our consciousness is a series of impressions
+and ideas. He dissents, however, from that philosopher, in saying that
+that series is all we know. He admits that impressions necessarily imply
+that there is something that is impressed. He starts the question, What
+is it that thinks? and answers, We do not know. (p. 63). He admits that
+the reality of individual personal minds, the conviction of personal
+existence is universal, and perhaps indestructible. Nevertheless that
+conviction cannot justify itself at the bar of reason; nay, reason is
+found to reject it. (p. 65). Dean Mansel says, that consciousness gives
+us a knowledge of self as a substance and not merely of its varying
+states. This, however, he says, "is absolutely negatived by the laws of
+thought. The fundamental condition to all consciousness, emphatically
+insisted upon by Mr. Mansel in common with Sir William Hamilton and
+others, is the antithesis of subject and object.... What is the
+corollary from this doctrine, as bearing on the consciousness of self?
+The mental act in which self is known implies, like every other mental
+act, a perceiving subject and a perceived object. If, then, the object
+perceived is self, what is the subject that perceives? Or if it is the
+true self which thinks, what other self can it be that is thought of?
+Clearly, a true cognition of self implies a state in which the knowing
+and the known are one--in which subject and object are identified; and
+this Mr. Mansel rightly holds to be the annihilation of both. So that
+the personality of which each is conscious, and of which the existence
+is to each a fact beyond all others the most certain, is yet a thing
+which cannot be known at all; knowledge of it is forbidden by the very
+nature of human thought." (pp. 65, 66).
+
+Mr. Spencer does not seem to expect that any man will be shaken in his
+conviction by any such argument as that. When a man is conscious of
+pain, he is not to be puzzled by telling him that the pain is one thing
+(the object perceived) and the self another thing (the perceiving
+subject). He knows that the pain is a state of the self of which he is
+conscious. Consciousness is a form of knowledge; but knowledge of
+necessity supposes an intelligent reality which knows. A philosophy
+which cannot be received until men cease to believe in their own
+existence, must be in extremis.
+
+Mr. Spencer's conclusion is, that the universe--nature, or the external
+world with all its marvels and perpetual changes,--the world of
+consciousness with its ever varying states, are impressions or
+phenomena, due to an inscrutable, persistent force.
+
+As to the nature of this primal force or power, he quotes abundantly and
+approvingly from Sir William Hamilton and Mr. Mansel, to prove that it
+is unknowable, inconceivable, unthinkable. He, however, differs from
+those distinguished writers in two points. While admitting that we know
+no more of the first cause than we do of a geometrical figure which is
+at once a circle and a square, yet we do know that it is actual. For
+this conviction we are not dependent on faith. In the second place,
+Hamilton and Mansel taught that we know that the Infinite cannot be a
+person, self-conscious, intelligent, and voluntary; yet we are forced
+by our moral constitution to believe it to be an intelligent person.
+This Mr. Spencer denies. "Let those," he says, "who can, believe that
+there is eternal war between our intellectual faculties and our moral
+obligations. I, for one, admit of no such radical vice in the
+constitution of things." (p. 108). Religion has always erred, he
+asserts, in that while it teaches that the Infinite Being cannot be
+known, it insists on ascribing to it such and such attributes, which of
+course assumes that so far forth it is known. We have no right, he
+contends, to ascribe personality to the "Unknown Reality," or anything
+else, except that it is the cause of all that we perceive or experience.
+There may be a mode of being, as much transcending intelligence and
+will, as these transcend mechanical motion. To show the folly of
+referring to the Unknown the attributes of our own spirits, he makes
+"the grotesque supposition that the tickings and other movements of a
+watch constituted a kind of consciousness; and that a watch possessed of
+such a consciousness, insisted on regarding the watchmaker's actions as
+determined like its own by springs and escapements." (p. 111). The vast
+majority of men, instead of agreeing with Mr. Spencer in this matter,
+will doubtless heartily, each for himself, join the German philosopher
+Jacobi, in saying, "I confess to Anthropomorphism inseparable from the
+conviction that man bears the image of God; and maintain that besides
+this Anthropomorphism, which has always been called Theism, is nothing
+but Atheism or Fetichism."[4]
+
+Mr. Spencer, therefore, in accounting for the origin of the universe and
+all its phenomena, physical, vital, and mental, rejects Theism, or the
+doctrine of a personal God, who is extramundane as well as antemundane,
+the creator and governor of all things; he rejects Pantheism, which
+makes the finite the existence-form of the Infinite; he rejects Atheism,
+which he understands to be the doctrine of the eternity and
+self-existence of matter and force. He contents himself with saying we
+must acknowledge the reality of an unknown something which is the cause
+of all things,--the noumenon of all phenomena. "If science and religion
+are to be reconciled, the basis of the reconciliation must be this
+deepest, widest, and most certain of all facts,--that the Power which
+the universe manifests is utterly inscrutable." (p. 46). "The ultimate
+of ultimates is Force." "Matter and motion, as we know them, are
+differently conditioned manifestations of force." "If, to use an
+algebraic illustration, we represent Matter, Motion, and Force, by the
+symbols _x_, _y_, _z_; then we may ascertain the values of _x_ and _y_
+in terms of _z_, but the value of _z_ can never be found; _z_ is the
+unknown quantity, which must forever remain unknown, for the obvious
+reason that there is nothing in which its value can be expressed." (pp.
+169, 170).
+
+We have, then, no God but Force. Atheist is everywhere regarded as a
+term of reproach. Every man instinctively recoils from it. Even the
+philosophers of the time of the French Revolution repudiated the charge
+of atheism, because they believed in motion; and motion being
+inscrutable, they believed in an inscrutable something, _i. e._ in
+Force. We doubt not Mr. Spencer would indignantly reject the imputation
+of atheism; nevertheless, in the judgment of most men, the difference
+between Antitheist and Atheist is a mere matter of orthography.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[3] _First Principles of a New System of Philosophy._ By Herbert
+Spencer. Second edition. New York, 1869, p. 30.
+
+[4] _Von den göttlichen Dingen_, _Werke_, III. pp. 422, 425. Leipzig,
+1816.
+
+
+_Hylozoic Theory._
+
+This theory assumes the universe to be eternal. There is nothing extra,
+or antemundane. There is but one substance, and that substance is
+matter. Matter, however, has an active and passive principle. Life and
+rationality are among its attributes or functions. The universe,
+therefore, is a living whole pervaded by a principle not only of life
+but of intelligence. This hylozoic doctrine, some modern scientific men,
+as Professor Tyndall, seem inclined to adopt. They tell us that matter
+is not the dead and degraded thing it is commonly regarded. It is active
+and transcendental. What that means, we do not know. The word
+transcendental is like a parabola, in that there is no knowing where its
+meaning ends. To say that matter is transcendental, is saying there is
+no telling what it is up to. This habit of using words which have no
+definite meaning is very convenient to writers, but very much the
+reverse for readers. Some of the ancient Stoics distinguished between
+the active and passive principles in the world, calling the one mind,
+the other, matter. These however were as intimately united as matter and
+life in a plant or animal.
+
+
+_Theism in Unscriptural Forms._
+
+There are men who are constrained to admit the being of God, who depart
+from the Scriptural doctrine as to his relation to the world. According
+to some, God created matter and endowed it with certain properties, and
+then left it to itself to work out, without any interference or control
+on his part, all possible results. According to others, He created not
+only matter, but life, or living germs, one or more, from which without
+any divine intervention all living organisms have been developed.
+Others, again, refer not only matter and life, but mind also to the act
+of the Creator; but with creation his agency ceases. He has no more to
+do with the world, than a ship-builder has with the ship he has
+constructed, when it is launched and far off upon the ocean. According
+to all these views a creator is a mere _Deus ex machina_, an assumption
+to account for the origin of the universe.
+
+Another general view of God's relation to the world goes to the opposite
+extreme. Instead of God doing nothing, He does everything. Second causes
+have no efficiency. The laws of nature are said to be the uniform modes
+of divine operation. Gravitation does not flow from the nature of
+matter, but is a mode of God's uniform efficiency. What are called
+chemical affinities are not due to anything in different kinds of
+matter, but God always acts in one way in connection with an acid, and
+in another way in connection with an alkali. If a man places a particle
+of salt or sugar on his tongue, the sensation which he experiences is
+not to be referred to the salt or sugar, but to God's agency. When this
+theory is extended, as it generally is by its advocates, from the
+external to the internal world, the universe of matter and mind, with
+all their phenomena, is a constant effect of the omnipresent activity of
+God. The minds of some men, as remarked above, are so constituted that
+they can pass from the theory that God does nothing, to the doctrine
+that He does everything, without seeing the difference. Mr. Russel
+Wallace, the companion and peer of Mr. Darwin, devotes a large part of
+his book on "Natural Selection," to prove that the organs of plants and
+animals are formed by blind physical causes. Toward the close of the
+volume he teaches that there are no such causes. He asks the question,
+What is Matter? and answers, Nothing. We know, he says, nothing but
+force; and as the only force of which we have any immediate knowledge
+is mind-force, the inference is "that the whole universe is not merely
+dependent on, but actually _is_, the will of higher intelligences, or of
+one Supreme Intelligence."[5] This is a transition from virtual
+materialism to idealistic pantheism. The effect of this admission on the
+part of Mr. Wallace on the theory of natural selection, is what an
+explosion of its boiler would be to a steamer in mid-ocean, which should
+blow out its deck, sides, and bottom. Nothing would remain above water.
+
+The Duke of Argyll seems at times inclined to lapse into the same
+doctrine. "Science," he says, "in the modern doctrine of conservation of
+energy and the convertibility of forces, is already getting a firm hold
+of the idea, that all kinds of force are but forms of manifestations of
+one central force issuing from some one fountain-head of power. Sir John
+Herschel has not hesitated to say, 'that it is but reasonable to regard
+the force of gravitation as the direct or indirect result of a
+consciousness or will existing somewhere.' And even if we cannot
+certainly identify force in all its forms with the direct energies of
+the one Omnipresent and All-pervading Will, it is at least in the
+highest degree unphilosophical to assert the contrary,--to think or to
+speak, as if the forces of nature were either independent of, or even
+separate from the Creator's power."[6] The Duke, however, in the general
+tenor of his book, does not differ from the common doctrine, except in
+one point. He does not deny the efficiency of physical causes, or
+resolve them all into the efficiency of God; but he teaches that God, in
+this world at least, never acts except through those causes. He applies
+this doctrine even to miracles, which he regards as effects produced by
+second causes of which we are ignorant, that is, by some higher law of
+nature. The Scriptures, however, teach that God is not thus bound; that
+He operates through second causes, with them, or without them, as He
+sees fit. It is a purely arbitrary assumption, that when Christ raised
+the dead, healed the lepers, or gave sight to the blind, any second
+cause intervened between the effect and the efficiency of his will. What
+physical law, or uniformly acting force, operated to make the axe float
+at the command of the prophet? or, in that greatest of all miracles,
+the original creation of the world.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[5] _The Theory of Natural Selection._ By Alfred Russel Wallace. London,
+1870, p. 368.
+
+[6] _Reign of Law._ By the Duke of Argyle. Fifth edition, London, 1867,
+p. 123.
+
+
+_Mr. Darwin's Theory._
+
+We have not forgotten Mr. Darwin. It seemed desirable, in order to
+understand his theory, to see its relation to other theories of the
+universe and its phenomena, with which it is more or less connected. His
+work on the "Origin of Species" does not purport to be philosophical. In
+this aspect it is very different from the cognate works of Mr. Spencer.
+Darwin does not speculate on the origin of the universe, on the nature
+of matter, or of force. He is simply a naturalist, a careful and
+laborious observer; skillful in his descriptions, and singularly candid
+in dealing with the difficulties in the way of his peculiar doctrine. He
+set before himself a single problem, namely, How are the fauna and flora
+of our earth to be accounted for? In the solution of this problem, he
+assumes:--
+
+1. The existence of matter, although he says little on the subject. Its
+existence however, as a real entity, is everywhere taken for granted.
+
+2. He assumes the efficiency of physical causes, showing no disposition
+to resolve them into mind-force, or into the efficiency of the First
+Cause.
+
+3. He assumes also the existence of life in the form of one or more
+primordial germs. He does not adopt the theory of spontaneous
+generation. What life is he does not attempt to explain, further than to
+quote (p. 326), with approbation, the definition of Herbert Spencer, who
+says, "Life depends on, or consists in, the incessant action and
+reaction of various forces,"--which conveys no very definite idea.
+
+4. To account for the existence of matter and life, Mr. Darwin admits a
+Creator. This is done explicitly and repeatedly. Nothing, however, is
+said of the nature of the Creator and of his relation to the world,
+further than is implied in the meaning of the word.
+
+5. From the primordial germ or germs (Mr. Darwin seems to have settled
+down to the assumption of only one primordial germ), all living
+organisms, vegetable and animal, including man, on our globe, through
+all the stages of its history, have descended.
+
+6. As growth, organization, and reproduction are the functions of
+physical life, as soon as the primordial germ began to live, it began
+to grow, to fashion organs however simple, for its nourishment and
+increase, and for the reproduction, in some way, of living forms like
+itself. How all living things on earth, including the endless variety of
+plants, and all the diversity of animals--insects, fishes, birds, the
+ichthyosaurus, the mastodon, the mammoth, and man--have descended from
+the primordial animalcule, he thinks, may be accounted for by the
+operation of the following natural laws, viz.:--
+
+First, the law of Heredity, or that by which like begets like. The
+offspring are like the parent.
+
+Second, the law of Variation, that is, while the offspring are, in all
+essential characteristics, like their immediate progenitor, they
+nevertheless vary more or less within narrow limits, from their parent
+and from each other. Some of these variations are indifferent, some
+deteriorations, some improvements, that is, they are such as enable the
+plant or animal to exercise its functions to greater advantage.
+
+Third, the law of Over Production. All plants and animals tend to
+increase in a geometrical ratio; and therefore tend to overrun
+enormously the means of support. If all the seeds of a plant, all the
+spawn of a fish, were to arrive at maturity, in a very short time the
+world could not contain them. Hence of necessity arises a struggle for
+life. Only a few of the myriads born can possibly live.
+
+Fourth, here comes in the law of Natural Selection, or the Survival of
+the Fittest. That is, if any individual of a given species of plant or
+animal happens to have a slight deviation from the normal type,
+favorable to its success in the struggle for life, it will survive. This
+variation, by the law of heredity, will be transmitted to its offspring,
+and by them again to theirs. Soon these favored ones gain the
+ascendency, and the less favored perish; and the modification becomes
+established in the species. After a time another and another of such
+favorable variations occur, with like results. Thus very gradually,
+great changes of structure are introduced, and not only species, but
+genera, families, and orders in the vegetable and animal world, are
+produced. Mr. Darwin says he can set no limit to the changes of
+structure, habits, instincts, and intelligence, which these simple laws
+in the course of millions or milliards of centuries may bring into
+existence. He says, "we cannot comprehend what the figures 60,000,000
+really imply, and during this, or perhaps a longer roll of years, the
+land and waters have everywhere teemed with living creatures, all
+exposed to the struggle for life, and undergoing change." (p. 354). "Mr.
+Croll," he tells us, "estimates that about sixty millions of years have
+elapsed since the Cambrian period, but this, judging from the small
+amount of organic change since the commencement of the glacial period,
+seems a very short time for the many and the great mutations of life,
+which have certainly occurred since the Cambrian formation; and the
+previous one hundred and forty million years can hardly be considered as
+sufficient for the development of the varied forms of life which
+certainly existed toward the close of the Cambrian period." (p. 379).
+Years in this connection have no meaning. We might as well try to give
+the distance of the fixed stars in inches. As astronomers are obliged to
+take the diameter of the earth's orbit as the unit of space, so
+Darwinians are obliged to take a geological cycle as their unit of
+duration.
+
+
+_Natural Selection._
+
+As Natural Selection which works so slowly is a main element in Mr.
+Darwin's theory, it is necessary to understand distinctly what he means
+by it. On this point he leaves us no room for doubt. On p. 92, he says:
+"This preservation of favorable variations, and the destruction of
+injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or, the Survival of the
+Fittest." "Owing to the struggle (for life) variations, however slight
+and from whatever cause proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable
+to the individuals of a species, in their infinitely complex relations
+to other organic beings and to their physical conditions of life, will
+tend to the preservation of such individuals, and will generally be
+inherited by their offspring. The offspring also will thus have a better
+chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which
+are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called
+this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved,
+by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's
+power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer
+of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and sometimes is
+equally convenient." (p. 72). "Slow though the progress of selection may
+be, if feeble man can do so much by artificial selection, I can see no
+limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and infinite complexity of
+the co-adaptations between all organic beings, one with another, and
+with their physical conditions of life, which may be effected in the
+long course of time by nature's power of selection, or the survival of
+the fittest." (p. 125). "It may be objected that if organic beings thus
+tend to rise in the scale, how is it that throughout the world a
+multitude of the lowest forms still exist; and how is it that in each
+great class some forms are far more highly developed than others?... On
+our theory the continuous existence of lowly forms offers no difficulty;
+for natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, does not
+necessarily include progressive development, it only takes advantage of
+such variations as arise and are beneficial to each creature under its
+complex relations of life.... Geology tells us that some of the lowest
+forms, the infusoria and rhizopods, have remained for an enormous period
+in nearly their present state." (p. 145). "The fact of little or no
+modification having been effected since the glacial period would be of
+some avail against those who believe in an innate and necessary law of
+development, but is powerless against the doctrine of natural selection,
+or the survival of the fittest, which implies only that variations or
+individual differences of a favorable nature occasionally arise in a few
+species and are then preserved." (p. 149)
+
+This process of improvement under the law of natural selection includes
+not only changes in the organic structure of animals, but also in their
+instincts and intelligence. On entering on this part of his subject, Mr.
+Darwin says, "I would premise that I have nothing to do with the origin
+of the primary mental powers, any more than I have with that of life
+itself. We are concerned only with the diversities of instinct and of
+other mental qualities within the same class." (p. 255) He shows that
+even in a state of nature the instincts of animals of the same species
+do in some degree vary, and that they are transmitted by inheritance. A
+mastiff has imparted courage to a greyhound, and a greyhound has
+transmitted to a shepherd-dog a disposition to hunt hares. Among
+sporting dogs, the young of the pointer or retriever have been known to
+point or to retrieve without instruction. "If," he says, "it can be
+shown that instincts do vary ever so little, then I can see no
+difficulty in natural selection preserving and continually accumulating
+variations of instinct to any extent that was profitable. It is thus, as
+I believe, that all the most complex and wonderful instincts have
+arisen." (p. 257) He was rather unguarded in saying that he saw no
+difficulty in accounting for the most wonderful instincts of animals. He
+admits that he has found very great difficulty. He selects three cases
+which he found it specially hard to deal with: that of the cuckoo, that
+of the cell-building bee, and of the slave-making ant. He devotes much
+space and labor in endeavoring to show how the instinct of the bee, for
+example, in the construction of its cell, _might_ have been gradually
+acquired. It is clear, however, that he was not able fully to satisfy
+even his own mind; for he admits that "it will be thought that I have an
+over-weening confidence in the principle of natural selection, when I do
+not admit that such wonderful and well established facts do not
+annihilate the theory." (p. 290) This remark was made with special
+reference to the instincts of the ant, which he finds very hard to
+account for. He adds, "No doubt many instincts of very difficult
+explanation could be opposed to the theory of natural selection: cases
+in which we cannot see how an instinct could possibly have originated;
+cases in which no intermediate gradations are known to exist; cases of
+instinct of such trifling importance that they could hardly have been
+acted upon by natural selection; cases of instincts almost identically
+the same in animals so remote in the scale of nature, that we cannot
+account for their similarity by inheritance from a common progenitor,
+and consequently cannot believe that they were independently acquired
+through natural selection. I will not here enter on those cases, but
+will confine myself to one special difficulty which at first appeared to
+me insuperable, and actually fatal to the whole theory. I allude to
+neuters, or sterile females in insect communities; for these neuters
+often differ widely in instinct and structure from both the males and
+the fertile females, and yet, from being sterile, they cannot propagate
+their kind." (p. 289) He is candid enough to say, in conclusion, "I do
+not pretend that the facts given in this chapter (on instinct)
+strengthen in any great degree my theory; but none of the cases of
+difficulty, to the best of my judgment, annihilate it." (p. 297) When it
+is remembered that his theory is, that slight variations occurring in an
+individual advantageous to it (not to its associates), in the struggle
+for life, is perpetuated by inheritance, it is no wonder that the case
+of sterile ants gave him so much trouble. Accidental sterility is not
+favorable to the individual, and its being made permanent by
+inheritance, is out of the question, for the sterile have no
+descendants. Yet these sterile females are not degenerations, they are
+in general larger and more robust than their associates.
+
+We have thus seen that, according to Mr. Darwin, all the infinite
+variety of structure in plants and animals is due to the law of natural
+selection. "On the principle of natural selection with divergence of
+character," he says, "it does not seem incredible that, from some such
+low and intermediate form, both animals and plants have been developed,
+and if we admit this, we must likewise admit that all the organized
+beings which have ever lived on this earth may be descended from some
+one primordial form." (p. 573) We have seen also that he does not
+confine his theory to organic structure, but applies it to all the
+instincts and all the forms of intelligence manifested by irrational
+creatures. Nor does he stop there; he includes man within the sweep of
+the same law. "In the distant future I see open fields for far more
+important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that
+of the _necessary_ acquirement of each mental power and capacity by
+gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history."
+(p. 577)
+
+The "distant future" was near at hand. In his introduction to his work
+on the "Descent of Man," he says, he had determined not to publish on
+that subject, "as I thought that I should thus only add to the
+prejudices against my views. It seemed to me sufficient to indicate, in
+the first edition of my 'Origin of Species,' that by this work 'light
+would be thrown on the origin of man and his history;' and this implies
+that man must be included with other organic beings in any general
+conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on this earth. Now the
+case wears a wholly different aspect. When a naturalist like Carl Vogt
+(we shall see in what follows what kind of a witness he is) ventures to
+say in his address as President of the National Institution of Geneva
+(1869), 'Personne, en Europe au moins, n'ose plus soutenir la création
+indépendante et de toutes piéces, des espéces,'--it is manifest that at
+least a large number of naturalists must admit that species are the
+modified descendants of other species; and this especially holds good of
+the younger and rising naturalists.... Of the older and honored chiefs
+in natural science, many unfortunately are still opposed to evolution in
+every form." Carl Vogt would not write thus. To him no man is honored
+who does agree with him, and any man who believes in God he execrates.
+
+In 1871, Mr. Darwin ventured on the publication of his "Descent of Man."
+In that work, he endeavors to show that the proximate progenitor of man
+is the ape. He says "there is less difference of structure between the
+two, than between the higher and lower forms of apes themselves." Not
+only so, but he attempts to show that the mental faculties of man are
+derived by slight variations, long continued, from the measure of
+intellect possessed by lower animals. He even says, that there is less
+difference in intelligence between man and the higher mammals, than
+there is between the intelligence of the ant and that of the coccus,
+insects of the same class.[7]
+
+In like manner he teaches that man's moral nature has been evolved by
+slow degrees from the social instincts common to many animals. (pp. 68,
+94) The moral element, thus derived, he admits might lead to very
+different lines of conduct. "If men," he says, "were reared under the
+same conditions as hives-bees, there can hardly be a doubt, that our
+unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to
+kill all their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile
+daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (vol. i. p. 70)
+
+"Lower animals, especially the dog, manifest love, reverence, fidelity,
+and obedience; and it is from these elements that the religious
+sentiment in man has been slowly evolved by a process of natural
+selection." (vol. i. p. 65)
+
+The grand conclusion is, "man (body, soul, and spirit) is descended from
+a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably
+arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World." (vol. ii.
+p. 372) Mr. Darwin adds: "He who denounces these views (as irreligious)
+is bound to explain why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of
+man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the
+laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of
+the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction." (vol. ii. p.
+378)
+
+FOOTNOTE:
+
+[7] _Descent of Man_, etc. By Charles Darwin, M. A., F. R. S., etc. New
+York, 1871, vol. i. p. 179.
+
+
+_The Sense in which Mr. Darwin uses the Word "Natural."_
+
+We have not yet reached the heart of Mr. Darwin's theory. The main idea
+of his system lies in the word "natural." He uses that word in two
+senses: first, as antithetical to the word artificial. Men can produce
+very marked varieties as to structure and habits of animals. This is
+exemplified in the production of the different breeds of horses, cattle,
+sheep, and dogs; and specially, as Mr. Darwin seems to think, in the
+case of pigeons. Of these, he says, "The diversity of breeds is
+something astonishing." Some have long, and some very short bills; some
+have large feet, some small; some long necks, others long wings and
+tails, while others have singularly short tails; some have thirty, and
+even forty, tail-feathers, instead of the normal number of twelve or
+fourteen. They differ as much in instinct as they do in form. Some are
+carriers, some pouters, some tumblers, some trumpeters; and yet all are
+descendants of the Rock Pigeon which is still extant. If, then, he
+argues, man, in a comparatively short time, has by artificial selection
+produced all these varieties, what might be accomplished on the
+boundless scale of nature, during the measureless ages of the geologic
+periods.
+
+Secondly, he uses the word natural as antithetical to supernatural.
+Natural selection is a selection made by natural laws, working without
+intention and design. It is, therefore, opposed not only to artificial
+selection, which is made by the wisdom and skill of man to accomplish a
+given purpose, but also to supernatural selection, which means either a
+selection originally intended by a power higher than nature; or which is
+carried out by such power. In using the expression Natural Selection,
+Mr. Darwin intends to exclude design, or final causes. All the changes
+in structure, instinct, or intelligence, in the plants or animals,
+including man, descended from the primordial germ, or animalcule, have
+been brought about by unintelligent physical causes. On this point he
+leaves us in no doubt. He defines nature to be "the aggregate action and
+product of natural laws; and laws are the sequence of events as
+ascertained by us." It had been objected that he often uses teleological
+language, speaking of purpose, intention, contrivance, adaptation, etc.
+In answer to this objection, he says: "It has been said, that I speak of
+natural selection as a power or deity; but who objects to an author
+speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the
+planet?" He admits that in the literal sense of the words, natural
+selection is a false term; but "who ever objected to chemists, speaking
+of the elective affinities of various elements?--and yet an acid cannot
+strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference
+combines." (p. 93) We have here an affirmation and a negation. It is
+affirmed that natural selection is the operation of natural laws,
+analogous to the action of gravitation and of chemical affinities. It is
+denied that it is a process originally designed, or guided by
+intelligence, such as the activity which foresees an end and consciously
+selects and controls the means of its accomplishment. Artificial
+selection, then, is an intelligent process; natural selection is not.
+
+There are in the animal and vegetable worlds innumerable instances of at
+least apparent contrivance, which have excited the admiration of men in
+all ages. There are three ways of accounting for them. The first is the
+Scriptural doctrine, namely, that God is a Spirit, a personal,
+self-conscious, intelligent agent; that He is infinite, eternal, and
+unchangeable in his being and perfections; that He is ever present; that
+this presence is a presence of knowledge and power. In the external
+world there is always and everywhere indisputable evidence of the
+activity of two kinds of force: the one physical, the other mental. The
+physical belongs to matter, and is due to the properties with which it
+has been endowed; the other is the everywhere present and ever acting
+mind of God. To the latter are to be referred all the manifestations of
+design in nature, and the ordering of events in Providence. This
+doctrine does not ignore the efficiency of second causes; it simply
+asserts that God over-rules and controls them. Thus the Psalmist says,
+"I am fearfully and wonderfully made.... My substance was not hid from
+thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought (or embroidered)
+in the lower parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance yet
+being imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in
+continuance were fashioned, when as yet there were none of them." "He
+who fashioned the eye, shall not He see? He that formed the ear shall
+not He hear?" "God makes the grass to grow, and herbs for the children
+of men." He sends rain, frost, and snow. He controls the winds and the
+waves. He determines the casting of the lot, the flight of an arrow, and
+the falling of a sparrow. This universal and constant control of God is
+not only one of the most patent and pervading doctrines of the Bible,
+but it is one of the fundamental principles of even natural religion.
+
+The second method of accounting for contrivances in nature admits that
+they were foreseen and purposed by God, and that He endowed matter with
+forces which He foresaw and intended should produce such results. But
+here his agency stops. He never interferes to guide the operation of
+physical causes. He does nothing to control the course of nature, or the
+events of history. On this theory it may be said, (1.) That it is
+utterly inconsistent with the Scriptures. (2.) It does not meet the
+religious and moral necessities of our nature. It renders prayer
+irrational and inoperative. It makes it vain for a man in any emergency
+to look to God for help. (3.) It is inconsistent with obvious facts. We
+see around us innumerable evidences of the constant activity of mind.
+This evidence of mind and of its operations, according to Lord Brougham
+and Dr. Whewell, is far more clear than that of the existence of matter
+and of its forces. If one or the other is to be denied, it is the latter
+rather than the former. Paley indeed says, that if the construction of a
+watch be an undeniable evidence of design it would be a still more
+wonderful manifestation of skill, if a watch could be made to produce
+other watches; and, it may be added, not only other watches, but all
+kinds of time-pieces in endless variety. So it has been asked, if man
+can make a telescope, why cannot God make a telescope which produces
+others like itself? This is simply asking, whether matter can be made to
+do the work of mind? The idea involves a contradiction. For a telescope
+to make a telescope, supposes it to select copper and zinc in due
+proportions and fuse them into brass; to fashion that brass into
+inter-entering tubes; to collect and combine the requisite materials for
+the different kinds of glass needed; to melt them, grind, fashion, and
+polish them; adjust their densities and focal distances, etc., etc. A
+man who can believe that brass can do all this, might as well believe in
+God. The most credulous men in the world are unbelievers. The great
+Napoleon could not believe in Providence; but he believed in his star,
+and in lucky and unlucky days.
+
+This banishing God from the world is simply intolerable, and, blessed be
+his name, impossible. An absent God who does nothing is, to us, no God.
+Christ brings God constantly near to us. He said to his disciples,
+"Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap; which have neither
+store-house nor barn; and God feedeth them; how much better are ye than
+the fowls. And which of you by taking thought can add to his stature one
+cubit? Consider the lilies how they grow; they toil not, neither do they
+spin; and yet I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not
+arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothe the grass, which is
+to-day in the field, and to-morrow is cast into the oven; how much more
+will He clothe you, O ye of little faith." "And seek ye not what ye
+shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. For
+all these things do the nations of the world seek after; and your Father
+knoweth that ye have need of these things." It may be said that Christ
+did not teach science. True, but He taught truth; and science, so
+called, when it comes in conflict with truth, is what man is when he
+comes in conflict with God.
+
+The advocates of these extreme opinions protest against being considered
+irreligious. Herbert Spencer says, that his doctrine of an inscrutable,
+unintelligent, unknown force, as the cause of all things, is a much more
+religious doctrine than that of a personal, intelligent, and voluntary
+Being of infinite power and goodness. Matthew Arnold holds that an
+unconscious "power which makes for right," is a higher idea of God than
+the Jehovah of the Bible. Christ says, God is a Spirit. Holbach thought
+that he made a great advance on that definition, when he said, God is
+motion.
+
+The third method of accounting for the contrivances manifested in the
+organs of plants and animals, is that which refers them to the blind
+operation of natural causes. They are not due to the continued
+coöperation and control of the divine mind, nor to the original purpose
+of God in the constitution of the universe. This is the doctrine of the
+Materialists, and to this doctrine, we are sorry to say, Mr. Darwin,
+although himself a theist, has given in his adhesion. It is on this
+account the Materialists almost deify him.
+
+From what has been said, it appears that Darwinism includes three
+distinct elements. First, evolution; or the assumption that all organic
+forms, vegetable and animal, have been evolved or developed from one, or
+a few, primordial living germs; second, that this evolution has been
+effected by natural selection, or the survival of the fittest; and
+third, and by far the most important and only distinctive element of his
+theory, that this natural selection is without design, being conducted
+by unintelligent physical causes. Neither the first nor the second of
+these elements constitute Darwinism; nor do the two combined. As to the
+first, namely, evolution, Mr. Darwin himself, in the historical sketch
+prefixed to the fifth edition of his "Origin of Species," says, that
+Lamarck, in 1811 and more fully in 1815, "taught that all species,
+including man, are descended from other species." He refers to some six
+or eight other scientists, as teaching the same doctrine. This idea of
+Evolution was prominently presented and elaborated in the "Vestiges of
+Creation," first published in 1844. Ulrici, Professor in the University
+of Halle, Germany, in his work "Gott und die Natur," says that the
+doctrine of evolution took no hold on the minds of scientific men, but
+was positively rejected by the most eminent physiologists, among whom he
+mentions J. Müller, K. Wagner, Bischoff, Hoffmann, and others.[8] The
+Rev. George Henslow, Lecturer on Botany at St. Bartholomew's Hospital,
+London, himself a pronounced evolutionist, says the theories of Lamarck
+and of the "Vestiges of Creation" have given place to that of Mr.
+Darwin; "and there are not wanting many symptoms of decay in the
+acceptance even of his. Not only has he considerably modified his views
+in later editions of the 'Origin of Species,' distinctly expressing the
+opinion that he attributed too great influence to natural selection, but
+even men of science, Owen, Huxley,--and at least in its application to
+man, Wallace himself,--are either opposed to it in great measure, or
+else give it but a qualified assent. Thus, it has been the fate of all
+theories of the development of living things to lapse into oblivion.
+_Evolution_ itself, however, will stand the same."[9] We find in the
+"Transactions of the Victoria Institute," a still more decided
+repudiation of Darwinism on the part of Mr. Henslow. He there says: "I
+do not believe in Darwin's theory; and have endeavored to refute it by
+showing its utter impossibility."[10] He defines Evolution by saying,
+"It supposes all animals and plants that exist now, or have ever
+existed, to have been produced through laws of generation from
+preëxisting animals and plants respectively; that affinity amongst
+organic beings implies, or is due to community of descent; and that the
+degree of affinity between organisms is in proportion to their nearness
+of generation, or, at least, to the persistence of common characters,
+they being the products of originally the same parentage."[11] A man,
+therefore, may be an evolutionist, without being a Darwinian. It should
+be mentioned that Mr. Henslow expressly excludes man, both as to body
+and soul, from the law of evolution.
+
+Nor is the theory of natural selection the vital principle of Mr.
+Darwin's theory, unless the word natural be taken in a sense
+antithetical to supernatural. In the historical sketch just referred to,
+Mr. Darwin not only says that he had been anticipated in teaching the
+doctrine of Evolution by Lamarck and the author of the "Vestiges of
+Creation;" but that the theory of natural selection, as the means of
+accounting for evolution, was not original with him. He tells us that as
+early as 1813, Dr. W. C. Wells "distinctly recognizes the principle of
+natural selection;" and that Mr. Patrick Matthew, in 1831, "gives
+precisely the same view of the origin of species as that propounded by
+Mr. Wallace and myself." Ideas are like seed: they are often cast forth,
+and not finding a congenial soil produce no fruit. To Mr. Darwin is
+undoubtedly due the elaboration and thoroughly scientific defence of the
+theory of natural selection, and to him is to be referred the deep and
+widespread interest which it has excited.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[8] _Gott und die Natur_. Von D. Hermann Ulrici. Zweite Auflage.
+Leipzig, 1866, p. 394.
+
+[9] _The Theory of Evolution of Living Things and the Application of the
+Principles of Evolution to Religion_. By Rev. George Henslow, M. A., F.
+L. S., F. G. S. London, 1873, pp. 27, 28.
+
+[10] _Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, or
+Philosophical Society of Great Britain_. Vol. iv. London, 1870, p. 278.
+
+[11] _Evolution and Religion_, p. 29.
+
+
+_Darwinism excludes Teleology._
+
+It is however neither evolution nor natural selection, which give
+Darwinism its peculiar character and importance. It is that Darwin
+rejects all teleology, or the doctrine of final causes. He denies design
+in any of the organisms in the vegetable or animal world. He teaches
+that the eye was formed without any purpose of producing an organ of
+vision.
+
+Although evidence on this point has already been adduced, yet as it is
+often overlooked, at least in this country, so that many men speak
+favorably of Mr. Darwin's theory, who are no more Darwinians than they
+are Mussulmans; and as it is this feature of his system which brings it
+into conflict not only with Christianity, but with the fundamental
+principles of natural religion, it should be clearly established. The
+sources of proof on this point are,--1st. Mr. Darwin's own writings. 2d.
+The expositions of his theory given by its advocates. 3d. The character
+of the objections urged by its opponents.
+
+The point to be proved is that it is the distinctive doctrine of Mr.
+Darwin, that species owe their origin, not to the original intention of
+the divine mind; not to special acts of creation calling new forms into
+existence at certain epochs; not to the constant and everywhere
+operative efficiency of God, guiding physical causes in the production
+of intended effects; but to the gradual accumulation of unintended
+variations of structure and instinct, securing some advantage to their
+subjects.
+
+
+_Darwin's own Testimony._
+
+That such is Mr. Darwin's doctrine we prove from his own writings. And
+the first proof from that source is found in express declarations. When
+an idea pervades a book and constitutes its character, detached passages
+constitute a very small part of the evidence of its being inculcated. In
+the present case, however, such passages are sufficient to satisfy even
+those who have not had occasion to read Mr. Darwin's books. In referring
+to the similarity of structure in animals of the same class, he says,
+"Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity
+of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or the doctrine of
+final causes."[12]
+
+On the last page of his work, he says: "It is interesting to
+contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with
+birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and
+with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these
+elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and
+dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced
+by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being
+growth with reproduction; variability from the indirect and direct
+action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a ratio of
+increase so high as to lead to a struggle for life, and as a consequence
+to natural selection, entailing divergence of character and extinction
+of less improved forms. Thus from the war of nature, from famine and
+death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, the
+production of the higher animals directly follows. There is a grandeur
+in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally
+breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that whilst
+this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity,
+from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
+wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (p. 579)
+
+In another of his works, he asks, "Did He (God) ordain that crop and
+tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary, in order that the fancier might
+make his grotesque pouter and fan-tail breeds? Did He cause the frame
+and mental qualities of the dog to vary, in order that a breed might be
+formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull,
+for man's brutal sport? But if we give up the principle in one case; if
+we do not admit that the variations of the primeval dog were
+intentionally guided in order, for instance, that the greyhound, that
+perfect image of symmetry and vigor, might be formed; no shadow of
+reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature
+and the results of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork
+through natural selection of the most perfectly adapted animals in the
+world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided. However
+much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray, in his
+belief 'that variations have been led along certain beneficial lines, as
+a stream is led along useful lines of irrigation.'"[13]
+
+Variations, which by their gradual accumulation give rise to new
+species, genera, families, and orders, are themselves, step by step,
+accidental. Mr. Darwin sometimes says they happen by chance; sometimes
+he says they happen of necessity; at others he says, "We are profoundly
+ignorant of their causes." These are only different ways of saying that
+they are not intentional. When a man lets anything fall from his hands,
+and says it was accidental, he does not mean that it was causeless, he
+only means that it was not intentional. And that is precisely what
+Darwin means when he says that species arise out of accidental
+variations. His whole book is an argument against teleology. The whole
+question is, How are we to account for the innumerable varieties, kinds,
+and genera of plants and animals, including man? Were they intended? or,
+Did they arise from the gradual accumulations of unintentional
+variations? His answer to these questions is plain. On page 245, he
+says: "Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that
+the more complex organs and instincts have been perfected not by means
+superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by innumerable
+slight variations, each good for the individual possessor.
+Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination[14]
+insuperably great, cannot be considered real, if we admit the following
+propositions, namely, that all parts of the organizations and instincts
+offer, at least, individual differences; that there is a struggle for
+existence, which leads to the preservation of profitable deviations of
+structure or instinct; and, lastly, that gradations in the state of
+perfection of each organ may have existed, each good of its kind." He
+says, over and over, that if beauty or any variation of structure can be
+shown to be intended, it would "annihilate his theory." His doctrine is
+that such unintended variations, which happen to be useful in the
+struggle for life, are preserved, on the principle of the survival of
+the fittest. He urges the usual objections to teleology derived from
+undeveloped or useless organs, as web-feet in the upland goose and
+frigate-bird, which never swim.
+
+What, however, perhaps more than anything, makes clear his rejection of
+design is the manner in which he deals with the complicated organs of
+plants and animals. Why don't he say, they are the product of the divine
+intelligence? If God made them, it makes no difference, so far as the
+question of design is concerned, how He made them: whether at once or by
+a process of evolution. But instead of referring them to the purpose of
+God, he laboriously endeavors to prove that they may be accounted for
+without any design or purpose whatever.
+
+"To suppose," he says, "that the eye with all its inimitable
+contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for
+admitting different degrees of light, and for the correction of
+spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural
+selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (p.
+222) Nevertheless he attempts to explain the process. "It is scarcely
+possible," he says, "to avoid comparing the eye with the telescope. We
+know that this instrument has been perfected by the long continued
+efforts of the highest of human intellects; and we naturally infer that
+the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not
+this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the
+Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must
+compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to
+take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with spaces filled with fluid,
+and with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part
+of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to
+separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at
+different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer
+slowly changing in form. Further, we must suppose that there is a power
+represented by natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, always
+intently watching each slight alteration in the transparent layers, and
+carefully preserving each, which, under varied circumstances, tends to
+produce a distinct image. We must suppose each new state of the
+instrument to be multiplied by the million; each to be preserved until a
+better is produced, and the old ones to be all destroyed. In living
+bodies, variations will cause the slight alterations, generation will
+multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out
+with unerring skill each improvement."[15] (p. 226) "Let this process,"
+he says, "go on for millions of years," and we shall at last have a
+perfect eye.
+
+It would be absurd to say anything disrespectful of such a man as Mr.
+Darwin, and scarcely less absurd to indulge in any mere extravagance of
+language; yet we are expressing our own experience, when we say that we
+regard Mr. Darwin's books the best refutation of Mr. Darwin's theory. He
+constantly shuts us up to the alternative of believing that the eye is a
+work of design or the product of the unintended action of blind physical
+causes. To any ordinarily constituted mind, it is absolutely impossible
+to believe that it is not a work of design. Darwin himself, it is
+evident, dear as his theory is, can hardly believe it. "It is
+indispensable," he says, "to arrive at a just conclusion as to the
+formation of the eye, that the reason should conquer the imagination;
+but I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any
+degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to
+so startling an extent." (p. 225)
+
+It will be observed that every step in his account of the formation of
+the eye is an arbitrary assumption. We must first assume a thick layer
+of tissue; then that the tissue is transparent; then that it has
+cavities filled with fluid; that beneath the tissue is a nerve sensitive
+to light; then that the fluid is constantly varying in density and
+thickness; that its surfaces are constantly changing their contour; that
+its different portions are ever shifting their relative distances; that
+every favorable change is seized upon and rendered permanent,--thus
+after millions of years we may get an eye as perfect as that of an
+eagle. In like manner we may suppose a man to sit down to account for
+the origin and contents of the Bible, assuming as his "working
+hypothesis," that it is not the product of mind either human or divine,
+but that it was made by a type-setting machine worked by steam, and
+picking out type hap-hazard. In this way in a thousand years one
+sentence might be produced, in another thousand a second, and in ten
+thousand more, the two might get together in the right position. Thus in
+the course of "millions of years" the Bible might have been produced,
+with all its historical details, all its elevated truths, all its
+devout and sublime poetry, and above all with the delineation of the
+character of Christ, the [Greek: idea tôn ideôn], the ideal of majesty
+and loveliness, before which the whole world, believing and unbelieving,
+perforce bows down in reverence. And when reason has sufficiently
+subdued the imagination to admit all this, then by the same theory we
+may account for all the books in all languages in all the libraries in
+the world. Thus we should have Darwinism applied in the sphere of
+literature. This is the theory which we are told is to sweep away
+Christianity and the Church!
+
+Mr. Darwin gives the same unsatisfactory account of the marvellous
+"contrivances" in the vegetable world. In one species of Orchids, the
+labellum or lower lip is hollowed into a great bucket continually filled
+with water, secreted from two horns which stand above it; when the
+bucket is sufficiently filled, the water flows out through a pipe or
+spout on one side. The bees, which crowd into the flower for sake of the
+nectar, jostle each other, so that some fall into the water; and their
+wings becoming wet they are unable to fly, and are obliged to crawl
+through the spout. In doing this they come in contact with the pollen,
+which, adhering to their backs, is carried off to other flowers. This
+complicated contrivance by which the female plants are fertilized has,
+according to the theory, been brought about by the slow process of
+natural selection or survival of the fittest.
+
+Still more wonderful is the arrangement in another species of Orchids.
+When the bee begins to gnaw the labellum, he unavoidably touches a
+tapering projection, which, when touched, transmits a vibration which
+ruptures a membrane, which sets free a spring by which a mass of pollen
+is shot, with unerring aim, over the back of the bee, who then departs
+on his errand of fertilization.
+
+A very large class of plants are fertilized by means of insects. These
+flowers are beautiful, not for the sake of beauty,--for that Mr. Darwin
+says would annihilate his theory,--but those which happen to be
+beautiful attract insects, and thus become fertilized and perpetuated,
+while the plainer ones are neglected and perish. So with regard to
+birds. The females are generally plain, because those of bright colors
+are so exposed during the period of incubation that they are destroyed
+by their enemies. In like manner male birds are usually adorned with
+brilliant plumage. This is accounted for on the ground that they are
+more attractive, and thus they propagate their race, while the plainer
+ones have few or no descendants. Thus all design is studiously and
+laboriously excluded from every department of nature.
+
+The preceding pages contain only a small part of the evidence furnished
+by Mr. Darwin's own writings, that his doctrine involves the denial of
+all final causes. The whole drift of his books is to prove that all the
+organs of plants and animals, all their instincts and mental endowments,
+may be accounted for by the blind operation of natural causes, without
+any intention, purpose, or coöperation of God. This is what Professor
+Huxley and others call "the creative idea," to which the widespread
+influence of his writings is to be referred.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[12] _Origin of Species_, p. 517.
+
+[13] _The Variations of Animals and Plants under Domestication._ By
+Charles Darwin, F. R. S., etc. New York, 1868, vol. ii. pp. 515, 516.
+
+[14] What can the word "imagination" mean in this sentence, if it does
+not mean "Common Sense?"
+
+[15] Mr. Darwin's habit of personifying nature has given, as his friend
+Mr. Wallace says, his readers a good deal of trouble. He defines nature
+to be the aggregate of physical forces; and in the single passage
+quoted, he speaks of Natural Selection "as intently watching" "picking
+out with unerring skill," and "carefully preserving." It is true, he
+tells us this is all to be understood metaphorically.
+
+
+_Testimony of the Advocates of the Theory._
+
+It is time to turn to the exposition of Darwinism by its avowed
+advocates, in proof of the assertion that it excludes all teleology.
+
+The first of these witnesses is Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace, himself a
+distinguished naturalist. Mr. Darwin informs his readers that as early
+as 1844, he had collected his material and worked out his theory, but
+had not published it to the world, although it had been communicated to
+some of his friends. In 1858 he received a memoir from Mr. Wallace, who
+was then studying the natural history of the Malay Archipelago. From
+that memoir he learnt that Mr. Wallace had "arrived at almost exactly
+the same conclusions as I (he himself) have on the origin of species."
+This led to the publishing his book on that subject contemporaneously
+with Mr. Wallace's memoir. There has been no jealousy or rivalry between
+these gentlemen. Mr. Wallace gracefully acknowledges the priority of Mr.
+Darwin's claim, and attributes to him the credit of having elaborated
+and sustained it in a way to secure for it universal attention. These
+facts are mentioned in order to show the competency of Mr. Wallace as a
+witness as to the true character of Darwinism.
+
+Mr. Wallace, in "The Theory of Natural Selection," devotes a chapter to
+the consideration of the objections urged by the Duke of Argyll, in his
+work on the "Reign of Law," against that theory. Those objections are
+principally two: first, that design necessarily implies an intelligent
+designer; and second, that beauty not being an advantage to its
+possessor in the struggle for life, cannot be accounted for on the
+principle of the survival of the fittest. The Duke, he says, maintains
+that contrivance and beauty indicate "the constant supervision and
+interference of the Creator, and cannot possibly be explained by the
+unassisted action of any combination of laws. Now, Mr. Darwin's work,"
+he adds, "has for its main object to show that all the phenomena of
+living things--all their wonderful organs and complicated structures,
+their infinite variety of form, size, and color, their intricate and
+involved relations to each other--may have been produced by the action
+of a few general laws of the simplest kind, laws which are in most cases
+mere statements of admitted facts." (p. 265) Those laws are those with
+which we are familiar: Heredity, Variations, Over Production, Struggle
+for Life, Survival of the Fittest. "It is probable," he says, "that
+these primary facts or laws are but results of the very nature of life,
+and of the essential properties of organized and unorganized matter. Mr.
+Herbert Spencer, in his 'First Principles' and in his 'Biology,' has, I
+think, made us able to understand how this may be; but at present we
+may accept these simple laws, without going further back, and the
+question then is, Whether the variety, the harmony, the contrivance, and
+the beauty we perceive, can have been produced by the action of these
+laws alone, or whether we are required to believe in the incessant
+interference and direct action of the mind and will of the Creator." (p.
+267)[16] Mr. Wallace says, that the Duke of Argyll maintains that God
+"has personally applied general laws to produce effects which those laws
+are not in themselves capable of producing; that the universe alone with
+all its laws intact, would be a sort of chaos, without variety, without
+harmony, without design, without beauty; that there is not (and
+therefore we may presume that there could not be) any self-developing
+power in the universe. I believe, on the contrary, that the universe is
+so constituted as to be self-regulating; that as long it contains life,
+the forms under which that life is manifested have an inherent power of
+adjustment to each other and to their surroundings; and that this
+adjustment necessarily leads to the greatest amount of variety and
+beauty and enjoyment, because it does depend on general laws, and not on
+a continual supervision and rearrangement of details." (p. 268) "The
+strange springs and traps and pitfalls found in the flowers of Orchids,
+cannot," he says, "be necessary _per se_, since exactly the same end is
+gained in ten thousand other flowers which do not possess them. Is it
+not then an extraordinary idea, to imagine the Creator of the universe
+contriving the various complicated parts of these flowers, as a mechanic
+might contrive an ingenious toy or a difficult puzzle? Is it not a more
+worthy conception, that they are the results of those general laws which
+were so coördinated at the first introduction of life upon the earth as
+to result necessarily in the utmost possible development of varied
+forms." (p. 270) "I for one," he says, "cannot believe that the world
+would come to chaos if left to law alone.... If any modification of
+structure could be the result of law, why not all? If some
+self-adaptations should arise, why not others? If any varieties of
+color, why not all the varieties we see? No attempt is made to explain
+this except by reference to the fact that 'purpose' and 'contrivance'
+are everywhere visible, and by an illogical deduction they could only
+have arisen by the direct action of some mind, because the direct action
+of our minds produce similar 'contrivances;' but it is forgotten that
+adaptation, however produced, must have the appearance of design." (p.
+280)[17] After referring to the fact that florists and breeders can
+produce varieties in plants and animals, so that, "whether they wanted a
+bull-dog to torture another animal, a greyhound to catch a hare, or a
+bloodhound to hunt down their oppressed fellow-creatures, the required
+variations have always appeared," he adds: "To be consistent, our
+opponents must maintain that every one of the variations that have
+rendered possible the changes produced by man, have been determined at
+the right time and place by the Creator. Every race produced by the
+florist or breeder, the dog or the pigeon fancier, the rat-catcher, the
+sporting man, or the slave-hunter, must have been provided for by
+varieties occurring when wanted; and as these variations were never
+withheld, it would prove that the sanction of an all-wise and all
+powerful Being has been given to that which the highest human minds
+consider to be trivial, mean, or debasing." (p. 290)[18]
+
+The Nebular Hypothesis, as propounded by La Place, proposed to account
+for the origin of the universe, by a process of evolution under the
+control of mere physical forces. That hypothesis has, so far as
+evolution is concerned, been adopted by men who sincerely believe in God
+and in the Bible. But they hold not only that God created matter and
+endowed it with its properties, but that He designed the universe, and
+so controlled the operation of physical laws that they accomplished his
+purpose. So there are Christian men who believe in the evolution of one
+kind of plants and animals out of earlier and simpler forms; but they
+believe that everything was designed by God, and that it is due to his
+purpose and power that all the forms of vegetable and animal life are
+what they are. But this is not the question. What Darwin and the
+advocates of his theory deny, is all design. The organs, even the most
+complicated and wonderful, were not intended. They are said to be due to
+the undirected and unintended operation of physical laws. This is Mr.
+Wallace's argument. He endeavors to show that it is unworthy of God that
+He should be supposed to have contrived the mechanism of the orchids, as
+a mechanist contrives a curious puzzle.
+
+We recently heard Prof. Joseph Henry, in a brief address, say
+substantially: "If I take brass, glass, and other materials, and fuse
+them, the product is a slag. This is what physical laws do. If I take
+those same materials, and form them into a telescope, that is what mind
+does." This is the whole question in a nutshell. That design implies an
+intelligent designer, is a self evident truth. Every man believes it;
+and no man can practically disbelieve it. Even those naturalists who
+theoretically deny it, if they find in a cave so simple a thing as a
+flint arrow-head, are as sure that it was made by a man as they are of
+their own existence. And yet they want us to believe that an eagle's eye
+is the product of blind natural causes. No combination of physical
+forces ever made a ship or a locomotive. It may, indeed, be said that
+they are dead matter, whereas plants and animals live. But what is life
+but one form of the organizing efficiency of God?
+
+Mr. Wallace does not go as far as Mr. Darwin. He recoils from regarding
+man either as to body or soul as the product of mere natural causes. He
+insists that "a superior intelligence is necessary to account for man."
+(p. 359) This of course implies that the agency of no such higher
+intelligence is admitted in the production of plants or of animals lower
+than man.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[16] The question is not, as Mr. Wallace says, "How has the Creator
+worked?" but it is, as he himself states, whether the essential
+properties of matter have alone worked out all the wonders of creation;
+or, whether they are to be referred to the mind and will of God. It is
+worthy of remark how Messrs. Darwin and Wallace refer to Mr. Spencer as
+their philosopher. We have seen what Spencer's philosophy is.
+
+[17] It is, therefore, clear that design is what Mr. Darwin and Mr.
+Wallace repudiate.
+
+[18] That God permits men in the use of the laws of nature to distil
+alcohol and brew poisons, does not prove that He approves of drunkenness
+or murder.
+
+
+_Professor Huxley._
+
+The second witness as to the character of Mr. Darwin's theory is
+Professor Huxley. We have some hesitation in including the name of this
+distinguished naturalist among the advocates of Darwinism.[19] On the
+one hand, in his Essay on the Origin of Species, printed in the
+"Westminster Review," in 1860, and reprinted in his "Lay Sermons,"
+etc., in 1870, he says: "There is no fault to be found with Mr. Darwin's
+method, but it is another thing whether he has fulfilled all the
+conditions imposed by that method. Is it satisfactorily proved that
+species may[20] be originated by selection? that none of the phenomena
+exhibited by species are inconsistent with the origin of species in this
+way? If these questions can be answered in the affirmative, Mr. Darwin's
+view steps out of the rank of hypotheses into that of theories; but so
+long as the evidence at present adduced falls short of enforcing that
+affirmative, so long, to our minds, the new doctrine must be content to
+remain among the former,--an extremely valuable, and in the highest
+degree probable, doctrine; indeed, the only extant hypothesis which is
+worth anything in a scientific point of view; but still a hypothesis,
+and not yet a theory of species. After much consideration," he adds,
+"and assuredly with no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear
+conviction that, as the evidence now stands, it is not absolutely proven
+that a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by species
+in Nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or
+natural."[21]
+
+Again, in his work on "Man's Place in Nature," he expresses himself much
+to the same effect: "A true physical cause is admitted to be such only
+on one condition, that it shall account for all the phenomena which come
+within the range of its operation. If it is inconsistent with any one
+phenomenon it must be rejected; if it fails to explain any one
+phenomenon it is so far to be suspected, though it may have a perfect
+right to provisional acceptance.... Our acceptance, therefore, of the
+Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link in the
+chain of evidence is wanting; and so long as all the animals and plants
+certainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock are
+fertile, and their progeny are fertile one with another, that link will
+be wanting. For so long selective breeding will not be proved to be
+competent to all that is required if it produce natural species."[22] In
+immediate connection with the above passage, there is another which
+throws a clear light on Professor Huxley's cosmical views. "The whole
+analogy of natural operations furnish so complete and crushing an
+argument against the intervention of any but what are called secondary
+causes, in the production of all the phenomena of the universe; that, in
+view of the intimate relations of man and the rest of the living world,
+and between the forces exerted by the latter and all other forces, I can
+see no reason for doubting that all are coördinate terms of nature's
+great progression, from formless to formed, from the inorganic to the
+organic, from blind force to conscious intellect and will."[23]
+
+Ought not this to settle the matter? Are we to give up the Bible and all
+our hopes for the sake of an hypothesis that all living things,
+including man, on the face of the earth, are descended from a primordial
+animalcule, by natural selection, when such a man as Huxley, who (as
+Voltaire said of the prophet Habbakuk) is _capable de tout_, says that
+it has not been proved that any one species has thus originated?
+
+But on the other hand, while he honestly admits that Darwin's doctrine
+is a mere hypothesis and not a theory, he has nevertheless written at
+least three essays or reviews in its exposition and vindication. He is
+freely referred to on the continent of Europe, at least, as an ardent
+advocate of the doctrine; and he quotes without protest such
+designations of himself. At any rate, as he assures his readers that he
+has no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, as he has devoted much time and
+attention to the subject, and as he is one of the most prominent
+naturalists of the age, there can be no question as to his competency as
+a witness as to what Darwinism is.
+
+His testimony that Mr. Darwin's doctrine excludes all teleology, or
+final causes, is explicit. In his review of the "Criticisms on the
+Origin of Species," he says, "that when he first read Mr. Darwin's book,
+that which struck him most forcibly was the conviction that teleology,
+as commonly understood, had received its death-blow at Mr. Darwin's
+hands. For the teleological argument runs thus: An organ is precisely
+fitted to perform a function or purpose; therefore, it was specially
+constructed to perform that function. In Paley's famous illustration,
+the adaptation of all the parts of a watch to the function or purpose of
+showing the time, is held to be evidence that the watch was specially
+contrived to that end; on the ground that the only cause we know of
+competent to produce such an effect as a watch which shall keep time, is
+a contriving intelligence adapting the means directly to that end."[24]
+This, Mr. Huxley tells us, is precisely what Darwin denies with
+reference to the organs of plants and animals. The eye was not formed
+for the purpose of seeing, or the ear for hearing. It so happened that a
+nerve became sensitive to light; then in course of time, it happened
+that a transparent tissue came over it; and thus in "millions of years"
+an eye, as we have seen above, happened to be formed. No such organ was
+ever intended or designed by God or man. "An apparatus," says Professor
+Huxley, "thoroughly adapted to a particular purpose, might be the result
+of a method of trial and error worked by unintelligent agents, as well
+as by the application of means appropriate to the end by an intelligent
+agent." "For the notion that every organism has been created as it is
+and launched straight at a purpose, Mr. Darwin substitutes the
+conception of something, which may fairly be termed a method of trial
+and error. Organisms vary incessantly; of these variations the few meet
+with surrounding conditions which suit them, and thrive; the many are
+unsuited, and become extinguished." "For the teleologist an organism
+exists, because it was made for the conditions in which it is found; for
+the Darwinian an organism exists, because, out of many of its kind, it
+is the only one which has been able to persist in the conditions in
+which it is found." "If we apprehend," Huxley further says, "the spirit
+of the 'Origin of Species' rightly, then, nothing can be more entirely
+and absolutely opposed to teleology, as it is commonly understood, than
+the Darwinian theory." (p. 303)
+
+It has already been stated that Mr. Wallace does not apply the doctrine
+of evolution to man; neither does Mr. Mivart, a distinguished
+naturalist, who is a member of the Latin Church. The manner in which
+Professor Huxley speaks of these gentlemen shows how thoroughly, in his
+judgment, Mr. Darwin banishes God from his works: "Mr. Wallace and Mr.
+Mivart are as stout evolutionists as Mr. Darwin himself; but Mr. Wallace
+denies that man can have been evolved from a lower animal by that
+process of natural selection, which he, with Mr. Darwin, holds to be
+sufficient for the evolution of all animals below man; while Mr. Mivart,
+admitting that natural selection has been one of the conditions of the
+animals below man, maintains that natural selection must, even in their
+case, have been supplemented by some other cause,--of the nature of
+which, unfortunately, he does not give us any idea. Thus Mr. Mivart is
+less of a Darwinian than Mr. Wallace, for he has faith in the power of
+natural selection. But he is more of an evolutionist than Mr. Wallace,
+because Mr. Wallace thinks it necessary to call in an intelligent agent,
+a sort of supernatural Sir John Sebright, to produce even the animal
+frame of man; while Mr. Mivart requires no Divine assistance till he
+comes to man's soul."[25]
+
+In the "Academy" for October, 1869, there is a review by Professor
+Huxley of Dr. Haeckel's "Natürlische Schöpfungsgeschichte," in which he
+says: "Professor Haeckel enlarges on the service which the 'Origin of
+Species' has done in favoring what he terms 'the causal or mechanical'
+view of living nature as opposed to the 'teleological or vitalistic'
+view. And no doubt it is quite true the doctrine of evolution is the
+most formidable of all the commoner and coarser forms of teleology.
+Perhaps the most remarkable service to the philosophy of Biology
+rendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of Teleology and
+Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both which his view
+offers.
+
+"The teleology which supposes that the eye, such as we see it in man or
+in the higher vertebrata, was made with the precise structure which it
+exhibits, to make the animal which possesses it to see, has undoubtedly
+received its death-blow. But it is necessary to remember that there is a
+higher teleology, which is not touched by the doctrine of evolution, but
+is actually based on the fundamental proposition of evolution. That
+proposition is, that the whole world, living and not living, is the
+result of the mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of forces
+possessed by the molecules of which the primitive nebulosity of the
+universe was composed. If this be true, it is no less certain that the
+existing world lay potentially in the cosmic vapor; and that a
+sufficient intelligence could, from a knowledge of the properties of
+that vapor, have predicted, say, the state of fauna of Great Britain in
+1869, with as much certainty as one can say what will happen to the
+vapor of the breath on a cold winter's day." This is the doctrine of the
+self-evolution of the universe. We know not what may lie behind this in
+Mr. Huxley's mind; but we are very sure that there is not an idea in the
+above paragraph which Epicurus of old, and Büchner, Vogt, Haeckel, and
+other "Materialisten von Profession," would not cheerfully adopt. His
+distinction between a higher and lower teleology is of no account in
+this discussion. What is the teleology to which, he says, Mr. Darwin has
+given the death-blow, the extracts given above clearly show. The eye,
+Huxley says, was not made for the purpose of seeing, or the ear for the
+purpose of hearing. "According to teleology," he says, "each organism is
+like a rifle bullet fired straight at a mark; according to Darwin,
+organisms are like grapeshot, of which one hits something and the rest
+fall wide."[26]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[19] Mr. Huxley, if we may judge from what he says of himself, is
+somewhat liable to be misunderstood. He says he was fourteen years
+laboring to resist the charge of Positivism made against the class of
+scientific men to which he belongs. He also tells us in his letter to
+Professor Tyndall, prefixed to his volume of _Lay Sermons and
+Addresses_, that the "Essay on the Physical Basis of Life," included in
+that volume, was intended as a protest, from the philosophical side,
+against what is commonly called Materialism. It turned out, however,
+that the public regarded it as an argument in favor of Materialism. This
+we think was a very natural, if not an unavoidable mistake, on the part
+of the public. For in that Essay, he says that Protoplasm, or the
+physical basis of life, "is a kind of matter common to all living
+beings, that the powers or faculties of all kinds of living matter,
+diverse as they may be in degree, are substantially of the same kind."
+Protoplasm as far as examined contains the four elements,--carbon,
+hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. These are lifeless bodies, "but when
+brought together under certain conditions, they give rise to the still
+more complex body Protoplasm; and this protoplasm exhibits the phenomena
+of life." There is no more reason, he teaches, for assuming the
+existence of a mysterious something called vitality to account for vital
+phenomena, than there is for the assumption of something called Aquasity
+to account for the phenomena of water. Life is said to be "the product
+of a certain disposition of material molecules." The matter of life is
+"composed of ordinary matter, differing from it only in the manner in
+which its atoms are aggregated. I take it," he says, "to be demonstrable
+that it is utterly impossible to prove that anything whatever may not be
+the effect of a material and necessary cause, and that human logic is
+equally incompetent to prove that any act is really spontaneous. A
+really spontaneous act is one, which, by the assumption, has no cause;
+and the attempt to prove such a negative as this, is on the face of the
+matter absurd. And while it is thus a philosophical impossibility to
+demonstrate that any given phenomenon is not the effect of a material
+cause, any one who is acquainted with the history of science will admit
+that its progress has, in all ages, meant, and now more than ever means,
+the extension of what we call matter and causation, and the concomitant
+gradual banishment from all regions of human thought of what we call
+spirit and spontaneity."
+
+[20] It cannot escape the attention of any one that Mr. Darwin, Mr.
+Wallace, Professor Huxley, and all the other advocates or defenders of
+Darwinism, do not pretend to prove anything more than that species _may_
+be originated by selection, not that there is no other satisfactory
+account of their origin. Mr. Darwin admits that referring them to the
+intention and efficiency of God, accounts for everything, but, he says,
+that is not science.
+
+[21] _Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews_. By Thomas Henry Huxley, LL.
+D., F. R. S. London, 1870, p. 323.
+
+[22] _Evidence of Man's Place in Nature_. London, 1864, p. 107.
+
+[23] Since writing the above paragraph our eye fell on the following
+note on the 89th page of the Duke of Argyle's _Reign of Law_, which it
+gives us pleasure to quote. It seems that a writer in the _Spectator_
+had charged Professor Huxley with Atheism. In the number of that paper
+for February 10, 1866, the Professor replies: "I do not know that I care
+very much about popular odium, so there is no great merit in saying that
+if I really saw fit to deny the existence of a God I should certainly do
+so, for the sake of my own intellectual freedom, and be the honest
+atheist you are pleased to say I am. As it happens, however, I cannot
+take this position with honesty, inasmuch as it is, and always has been,
+a favorite tenet, that Atheism is as absurd, logically speaking, as
+Polytheism." In the same paper he says, "The denying the possibility of
+miracles seems to me quite as unjustifiable as speculative Atheism." How
+this can be reconciled with the passages quoted above, we are unable to
+see.
+
+[24] _Lay Sermons_, etc., p. 330.
+
+[25] _Contemporary Review_, vol. xviii. 1871, p. 444. In this same
+article Mr. Huxley says: "Elijah's great question, Will ye serve God or
+Baal? Choose ye, is uttered audibly enough in the ears of every one of
+us as we come to manhood. Let every man who tries to answer it seriously
+ask himself whether he can be satisfied with the Baal of authority, and
+with all the good things his worshippers are promised in this world and
+the next. If he can, let him, if he be so inclined, amuse himself with
+such scientific implements as authority tells him are safe and will not
+cut his fingers; but let him not imagine that he is, or can be, both a
+true son of the Church and a loyal soldier of science." "And, on the
+other hand, if the blind acceptance of authority appear to him in its
+true colors, as mere private judgment _in excelsis_, and if he have
+courage to stand alone face to face with the abyss of the Eternal and
+Unknowable, let him be content, once for all, not only to renounce the
+good things promised by 'Infallibility,' but even to bear the bad things
+which it prophesies; content to follow reason and fact in singleness and
+honesty of purpose, wherever they may lead, in the sure faith that a
+hell of honest men will to him be more endurable than a paradise full of
+angelic shams." There can be no doubt that the Apostle Paul believed in
+the infallibility of the Scriptures. Imagine Professor Huxley calling
+St. Paul to his face, a sham! What are all the Huxleys who have ever
+lived or ever can live, to that one Paul in power for good over human
+thought, character, and destiny!
+
+Professor Huxley goes on in the next paragraph to say: "Mr. Mivart
+asserts that 'without belief in a personal God there is no religion
+worthy of the name.' This is a matter of opinion. But it may be
+asserted, with less reason to fear contradiction, that the worship of a
+personal God, who, on Mr. Mivart's hypothesis, must have used words
+studiously calculated to deceive his creatures and worshippers, is 'no
+religion worthy of the name.' 'Incredibile est, Deum illis verbis ad
+populum fuisse locutum quibis deciperetur,' is a verdict in which for
+once Jesuit casuistry concurs with the healthy moral sense of all
+mankind." (p. 458). Mr. Huxley calls believers in the Scriptures, and
+(apparently) believers in a personal God, bigots, old ladies of both
+sexes, bibliolators, fools, etc., etc.
+
+[26] _Lay Sermons_, etc. p. 331.
+
+
+_Büchner._
+
+Dr. Louis Büchner, president of the medical association of
+Hessen-Darmstadt, etc., etc., is not only a man of science but a popular
+writer. Perhaps no book of its class, in our day, has been so widely
+circulated as his volume on "Kraft und Stoff," Matter and Force. It has
+been translated into all the languages of Europe. He holds that matter
+and force are inseparable; there cannot be the one without the other;
+both are eternal and imperishable; neither can be either increased or
+diminished; life originated spontaneously by the combination of
+molecules of matter under favorable conditions; all the phenomena of the
+universe, inorganic and organic, whether physical, vital, or mental, are
+due to matter and its forces. Consequently there is no God, no creation,
+no mind distinct from matter, no conscious existence of man after death.
+All this is asserted in the most explicit terms. Dr. Büchner has
+published a work on Darwinism in two volumes. Darwin's theory, he says,
+"is the most thoroughly naturalistic that can be imagined, and far more
+atheistic than that of his decried predecessor Lamarck, who admitted at
+least a general law of progress and development; whereas, according to
+Darwin, the whole development is due to the gradual summation of
+innumerable minute and accidental operations."[27]
+
+FOOTNOTE:
+
+[27] _Sechs Vorlesungen über die Darwinische Theorie_. Von Ludwig
+Büchner. Zweite Auflage, Leipzig, 1848, vol. i. p. 125.
+
+
+_Carl Vogt._
+
+In his preface to his work on the "Descent of Man," Mr. Darwin quotes
+this author as a high authority. We see him elsewhere referred to as one
+of the first physiologists of Germany. Vogt devotes the concluding
+lecture of the second volume of his work on Man, to the consideration
+of Darwinism. He expresses his opinion of it, after high commendation,
+in the following terms. He says that it cannot be doubted that Darwin's
+"theory turns the Creator--and his occasional intervention in the
+revolutions of the earth and in the production of species--without any
+hesitation out of doors, inasmuch as it does not leave the smallest room
+for the agency of such a Being. The first living germ being granted, out
+of it the creation develops itself progressively by natural selection,
+through all the geological periods of our planets, by the simple law of
+descent--no new species arises by creation and none perishes by divine
+annihilation--the natural course of things, the process of evolution of
+all organisms and of the earth itself, is of itself sufficient for the
+production of all we see. Thus Man is not a special creation, produced
+in a different way, and distinct from other animals, endowed with an
+individual soul and animated by the breath of God; on the contrary, Man
+is only the highest product of the progressive evolution of animal life
+springing from the group of apes next below him."[28]
+
+After this no one can be surprised to hear him say, that "the pulpits of
+the orthodox, the confessionals of the priests, the platforms of the
+interior missions, the presidential chairs of the consistories, resound
+with protestations against the assaults made by Materialism and
+Darwinism against the very foundations of society." (p. 286) This he
+calls "Das Wehgeschrei der Moralisten" (the Wail of the Moralists). The
+designation Moralists is a felicitous one, as applied to the opponents
+of Vogt and his associates. It distinguishes them as men who have not
+lost their moral sense; who refuse to limit their faith to what can be
+proved by the five senses; who bow to the authority of the law written
+by the finger of God, on the hearts of men, which neither sophistry nor
+wickedness can effectually erase. All Vogt thinks it necessary to reply
+to these Moralists is, "Lasst sie bellen, bis sie ausgebellt haben" (Let
+them bark till they are tired). "Ende."
+
+FOOTNOTE:
+
+[28] _Vorlesungen über den Menschen, seine Stellung in der Schoepfung
+und in der Geschichte der Erde_. Von Carl Vogt. Giessen, 1863, vol. ii.
+p. 260.
+
+
+_Haeckel._
+
+Dr. Ernst Haeckel, Professor in the University of Jena, is said to stand
+at the head of the living naturalists of Germany. His work on "Natural
+History of Creation" contains a course of lectures delivered to the
+professors, students, and citizens of Jena. It is, therefore, somewhat
+popular in its character. The ability of the writer is manifest on every
+page. The distinctness of his perceptions, precision of language,
+perspicuity of style, and the strength of his convictions, give the
+impression of a man fully master of his subject, who has thought himself
+through, and is perfectly satisfied with the conclusions at which he has
+arrived. At the same time it is the impression of a man who is developed
+only on one side; who never looks within; who takes no cognizance of the
+wonders revealed in consciousness; to whom the intuitions of reason and
+of the conscience, the sense of dependence on a will higher than our
+own--the sense of obligation and responsibility are of no account,--in
+short a man to whom the image of God enstamped on the soul of man is
+invisible. This being the case, he that is least in the kingdom of
+heaven is greater than he.
+
+Haeckel admits that the title of his book, "Natural Creation," _i. e._
+creation by natural laws, is a contradiction. He distinguishes,
+however, between the creation of substance and the creation of form. Of
+the former he says science knows nothing. To the scientist matter is
+eternal. If any one chooses to assume that it was created by an
+extramundane power, Haeckel says he will not object. But that is a
+matter of faith; and "where faith begins, science ends." The very
+reverse of this is true. Science must begin with faith. It cannot take a
+single step without it. How does Haeckel know that his senses do not
+deceive him? How does he know that he can trust to the operations of his
+intellect? How does he know that things are as they appear? How does he
+know that the universe is not a great phantasmagoria, as so many men
+have regarded it, and man the mere sport of chimeras? He must believe in
+the laws of belief impressed on his nature. Knowledge implies a mind
+that knows, and confidence in the act of knowing implies belief in the
+laws of mind. "An inductive science of nature," says President Porter,
+"presupposes a science of induction, and a science of induction
+presupposes a science of man."[29] Haeckel, however, says faith is the
+mere product of the poetic imagination; science, of the understanding;
+if its conclusions come into conflict with the creations of the
+imagination, the latter, of course, must give way.[30]
+
+He says, there have ever been two conflicting theories of the universe:
+the one, monistic; the other, dualistic. The one admits of only one
+substance, matter; the other of two, matter and mind. He prefers to call
+the former monism rather than materialism, because the latter term often
+includes the idea of moral materialism, _i. e._ the doctrine that
+sensual pleasure is the end of life; a doctrine, he says, much more
+frequently held by princely church-men than by men of science. He
+maintains, however, that "all knowable nature is one; that the same
+eternal, immutable (ehernen, brazen) laws are active in the life of
+animals and plants, in the formation of crystals, and the power of
+steam; in the whole sphere of biology, zoölogy, and botany. We have,
+therefore, the right to hold fast the monistic and mechanical view,
+whether men choose to brand the system as Materialism or not. In this
+sense, all natural science, with the law of causation at its head, is
+thoroughly materialistic." (p. 32)
+
+The monistic theory he calls "mechanical or causal," as distinguished
+from the dualistic theory, which he calls "teleological or vitalistic."
+According to the latter, "the vegetable and animal kingdoms are
+considered as the products of a creative agency, working with a definite
+design. In looking on an organism, the conviction seems unavoidable that
+so skilfully constructed a machine, such a complicated working
+apparatus, as an organism is, could be produced only by an agency
+analogous to, although far more perfect than the agency of man." "This,"
+he says, "supposes the Creator to be an organism analogous to man,
+although infinitely more perfect; who contemplates his formative powers,
+lays the plan of the machine, and then, by the use of appropriate means,
+produces an effect answering to the preconceived plan.... However highly
+the Creator may be exalted, this view involves the ascription to Him of
+human attributes, in virtue of which he can form a plan, and construct
+organisms to correspond with it. That is the view to which Darwin's
+doctrine is directly opposed, and of which Agassiz is, among
+naturalists, the most important advocate. The famous work of Agassiz,
+'Essay on Classification,' which is in direct opposition to Darwin's,
+and appeared about the same time, has carried out logically to the
+utmost the absurd anthropomorphic doctrine of a Creator." (p. 17)
+
+The monistic theory is called "mechanical and causal," because it
+supposes that all the phenomena of the universe, organic and inorganic,
+vegetable and animal, vital and mental, are due to mechanical or
+necessarily operating causes (causæ efficientes); just as the dualistic
+theory is called "teleological or vitalistic," because it refers natural
+organisms to causes working for the accomplishment of a given end (causæ
+finales). (p. 67)
+
+The grand difficulty in the way of the mechanical or monistic theory was
+the occurrence of innumerable organisms, apparently at least, indicative
+of design. To get over this difficulty, Haeckel says, some who could not
+believe in a creative and controlling mind adopted the idea of a
+metaphysical ghost called vitality. The grand service rendered by Darwin
+to science is, that his theory enables us to account for the
+appearances of design in nature without assuming final causes, or, a
+mind working for a foreseen and intended end. "All that had appeared
+before Darwin," he says, "failed to secure success, and to meet with
+general acceptance of the doctrine of the mechanical production of
+vegetable and animal organisms. This was accomplished by Darwin's
+theory." (p. 20)
+
+The precise difficulty which Mr. Darwin's doctrine has, according to
+Haeckel, enabled men of science to surmount, is thus clearly stated on
+p. 633. It is, "that organs for a definite end should be produced by
+undesigning or mechanical causes." This difficulty is overcome by the
+doctrine of evolution. "Through the theory of descent, we are for the
+first time able to establish the monistic doctrine of the unity of
+nature, that a mechanic-causal explanation of the most complicated
+organisms, _e. g._ the formation and constitution of the organs of
+sense, have no more difficulty for the common understanding, than the
+mechanical explanation of any physical process, as, for example,
+earthquakes, the direction of the winds, or the currents of the sea. We
+thus arrive at the conviction of the last importance, that all natural
+bodies with which we are acquainted are equally endowed with life
+(gleichmässig belebt sind); that the distinction between living and dead
+matter does not exist. When a stone is thrown into the air and falls by
+certain laws to the ground, or when a solution of salt forms a crystal,
+the result is neither more nor less a mechanical manifestation of life,
+than the flowering of a plant, the generation or sensibility of animals,
+or the feelings or the mental activity of man. In thus establishing the
+monistic theory of nature lies the highest and most comprehensive merit
+of the doctrine of descent, as reformed by Darwin." (p. 21) "As to the
+much vaunted design in nature, it is a reality only for those whose
+views of animal and vegetable life are to the last degree superficial.
+Any one who has gone deeper into the organization and vital activity of
+animals and plants, who has made himself familiar with the action and
+reaction of vital phenomena, and the so-called economy of nature, comes
+of necessity to the conclusion, that design does not exist, any more
+than the vaunted goodness of the Creator" (die vielgerühmte Allgüte des
+Schöpfers). (p. 17)
+
+Professor Huxley, in his review of this work of Haeckel, already quoted,
+says: "I do not like to conclude without reminding the reader of my
+entire concurrence with the general tenor and spirit of the work, and of
+my high estimate of its value." If you take out of Haeckel's book its
+doctrine of Monism, which he himself says means Materialism, it has no
+"tenor or spirit" in it. It is not, however, for us to say how far
+Professor Huxley intended his indorsement to go.
+
+Haeckel says that Darwin's theory of evolution leads inevitably to
+Atheism and Materialism. In this we think he is correct. But we have
+nothing to do with Haeckel's logic or with our own. We make no charge
+against Mr. Darwin. We cite Haeckel merely as a witness to the fact that
+Darwinism involves the denial of final causes; that it excludes all
+intelligent design in the production of the organs of plants and
+animals, and even in the production of the soul and body of man. This
+first of German naturalists would occupy a strange position in the sight
+of all Europe, if, after lauding a book to the skies because it teaches
+a certain doctrine, it should turn out that the book taught no such
+doctrine at all.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[29] _The Science of Nature versus the Science of Man_. By Noah Porter,
+President of Yale College. New York, 1871, p. 29.
+
+[30] _Natürlische Schöpfungsgeschichte_. Von Dr. Ernst Haeckel,
+Professor in der Universität Jena. Zweite Auflage, Berlin, 1873, pp. 8,
+and 9.
+
+
+_The Opponents of Darwinism._
+
+
+_The Duke of Argyll._
+
+When cultivated men undertake to refute a certain system, it is to be
+presumed that they give themselves the trouble to ascertain what that
+system is. As the advocates of Mr. Darwin's theory defend and applaud it
+because it excludes design, and as its opponents make that the main
+ground of their objection to it, there can be no reasonable doubt as to
+its real character. The question is, How are the contrivances in nature
+to be accounted for? One answer is, They are due to the purpose of God.
+Mr. Darwin says, They are due to the gradual and undesigned accumulation
+of slight variations. The Duke's first objection to that doctrine is,
+that the evidence of design in the organs of plants and animals is so
+clear that Mr. Darwin himself cannot avoid using teleological language.
+"He exhausts," he says, "every form of words and of illustration by
+which intention or mental purpose can be described. 'Contrivance,'
+'beautiful contrivance,' 'curious contrivance,' are expressions which
+occur over and over again. Here is one sentence describing a particular
+species (of orchids): 'The labellum is developed _in order_ to attract
+the Lepidoptera; and we shall soon see reason for supposing that the
+nectar is purposely so lodged, that it can be sucked only slowly _in
+order_ to give time for the curious chemical quality of the matter
+setting hard and dry.'"[31] We have already seen that Mr. Darwin's
+answer to this objection is, that it is hard to keep from personifying
+nature, and that these expressions as used by him mean no more than
+chemists mean when they speak of affinities, and one element preferring
+another.
+
+A second objection is, that a variation would not be useful to the
+individual in which it happens to occur, unless other variations should
+occur at the right time and in the right order; and that the concurrence
+of so many accidents as are required to account for the infinite
+diversity of forms in plants and animals, is altogether inconceivable.
+
+A third objection is, that the variations often have no reference to the
+organism of the animal itself but to other organisms. "Take one
+instance," he says, "out of millions. The poison of a deadly snake,--let
+us for a moment consider what that is. It is a secretion of definite
+chemical properties with reference not only--not even mainly--to the
+organism of the animal in which it is developed, but specially to
+another animal which it is intended to destroy." "How," he asks, "will
+the law of growth adjust a poison in one animal with such subtle
+knowledge of the organization of the other, that the deadly virus shall
+in a few minutes curdle the blood, benumb the nerves, and rush in upon
+the citadel of life? There is but one explanation: a Mind having minute
+and perfect knowledge of the structure of both has designed the one to
+be capable of inflicting death upon the other. This mental purpose and
+resolve is the one thing which our intelligence perceives with direct
+and intuitive recognition. The method of creation by which this purpose
+has been carried into effect is utterly unknown."[32]
+
+A fourth objection has reference to beauty. According to Mr. Darwin,
+flowers are not intentionally made beautiful, but those which happen to
+be beautiful attract insects, and by their agency are fertilized and
+survive. Male birds are not intentionally arrayed in bright colors, but
+those which happen to be so arrayed are attractive, and thus become the
+progenitors of their race. Against this explanation the Duke earnestly
+protests. He refers to the gorgeous adorned class of Hummingbirds, of
+which naturalists enumerate no less than four hundred and thirty
+different species, distinguished one from the other, in general, only by
+their plumage. "Now," he asks, "what explanation does the law of natural
+selection give,--I will not say of the origin, but even of the
+continuance of such specific varieties as these? None whatever. A crest
+of topaz is no better in the struggle of existence than a crest of
+sapphire. A frill ending in spangles of the emerald is no better in the
+battle of life than a frill ending in spangles of the ruby. A tail is
+not affected for the purposes of flight, whether its marginal, or its
+central feathers are decorated with white. It is impossible to bring
+such varieties into any physical law known to us. It has relation
+however to a Purpose, which stands in close analogy with our knowledge
+of purpose in the works of men. Mere beauty and mere variety, for their
+own sake, are objects which we ourselves seek, when we can make the
+forces of nature subordinate to the attainment of them. There seems to
+be no conceivable reason why we should doubt or question that these are
+ends and aims also in the forms given to living organisms, when the
+facts correspond with this view and with no other."[33]
+
+It will be observed that all these objections have reference to the
+denial of teleology on the part of Mr. Darwin. If his theory admitted
+that the organisms in nature were due to a divine purpose, the
+objections would be void of all meaning.
+
+There is a fifth objection. According to Darwin's theory organs are
+formed by the slow accumulation of unintended variations, which happen
+to be favorable to the subject of them in the struggle for life. But in
+many cases these organs, instead of being favorable, are injurious or
+cumbersome until fully developed. Take the wing of a bird, for example.
+In its rudimental state, it is useful neither for swimming, walking, nor
+flying. Now, as Darwin says it took millions of years to bring the eye
+to perfection, how long did it take to render a rudimental wing useful?
+It is no sufficient answer to say that these rudimental organs might
+have been suited to the condition in which the animal existed, during
+the formative process. This is perfectly arbitrary. It has no basis of
+fact. There are but three kinds of locomotion that we know of: in the
+water, on the ground, and through the air; for all these purposes a
+half-formed wing would be an impediment.
+
+The Duke devotes almost a whole chapter of his interesting book to the
+consideration of "contrivance in the machinery for flight." The
+conditions to secure regulated movement through the atmosphere are so
+numerous, so complicated, and so conflicting, that the problem never has
+been solved by human ingenuity. In the structure of the bird it is
+solved to perfection. As we are not writing a teleological argument, but
+only producing evidence that Darwinism excludes teleology, we cannot
+follow the details which prove that the wing of the gannet or swift is
+almost as wonderful and beautiful a specimen of contrivance as the eye
+of the eagle.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[31] _Reign of Law_. London, 1867, p. 40.
+
+[32] _Reign of Law_. London, 1867, p. 37.
+
+[33] _Reign of Law_, pp. 247, 248.
+
+
+_Agassiz._
+
+Every one knows that the illustrious Agassiz, over whose recent grave
+the world stands weeping, was from the beginning a pronounced and
+earnest opponent of Mr. Darwin's theory. He wrote as a naturalist, and
+therefore his objections are principally directed against the theory of
+evolution, which he regarded as not only destitute of any scientific
+basis, but as subversive of the best established facts in zoölogy.
+Nevertheless it is evident that his zeal was greatly intensified by his
+apprehension that a theory which obliterates all evidence of the being
+of God from the works of nature, endangered faith in that great doctrine
+itself. The Rev. Dr. Peabody, in the discourse delivered on the occasion
+of Professor Agassiz's funeral, said: "I cannot close this hasty and
+inadequate, yet fervent and hearty tribute, without recalling to your
+memory the reverent spirit in which he pursued his scientific labors.
+Nearly forty years ago, in his first great work on fossil fishes, in
+developing principles of classification, he wrote in quotations, 'An
+invisible thread in all ages runs through this immense diversity,
+exhibiting as a general result that there is a continual progress in
+development ending in man, the four classes of vertebrates presenting
+the intermediate steps, and the invertebrates the constant accessory
+accompaniment. Have we not here the manifestation of a mind as powerful
+as prolific? an act of intelligence as sublime as provident? the marks
+of goodness as infinite as wise? the most palpable demonstration of the
+existence of a personal God, author of all this; ruler of the universe,
+and the dispenser of all good? This at least is what I read in the works
+of creation.' And it was what he ever read, and with profound awe and
+adoration. To this exalted faith he was inflexibly loyal. The laws of
+nature were to him the eternal Word of God.
+
+"His repugnance to Darwinism grew in great part from his apprehension of
+its atheistical tendency,--an apprehension which I confess I cannot
+share; for I forget not that these theories, now in the ascendent, are
+maintained by not a few devout Christian men, and while they appear to
+me unproved and incapable of demonstration, I could admit them without
+parting with one iota of my faith in God and Christ. Yet I cannot but
+sympathize most strongly with him in the spirit in which he resisted
+what seemed to him lese-majesty against the sovereign of the universe.
+Nor was his a theoretical faith. His whole life, in its broad
+philanthropy, in its pervading spirit of service, in its fidelity to
+arduous trusts and duties, and in its simplicity and truthfulness,
+bespoke one who was consciously fulfilling a mission from God to his
+fellow-men."
+
+The words "evolution" and "Darwinism" are so often in this country, but
+not in Europe, used interchangeably, that it is conceivable that Dr.
+Peabody could retain his faith in God, and yet admit the doctrine of
+evolution. But it is not conceivable that any man should adopt the main
+element of Mr. Darwin's theory, viz., the denial of all final causes,
+and the assertion, that since the first creation of matter and life, God
+has left the universe to the control of unintelligent physical causes,
+so that all the phenomena of the plants and animals, all that is in man,
+and all that has ever happened on the earth, is due to physical force,
+and yet retain his faith in Christ. On that theory, there have been no
+supernatural revelation, no miracles; Christ is not risen, and we are
+yet in our sins. It is not thus that this matter is regarded abroad. The
+Christians of Germany say that the only alternative these theories leave
+us, is Heathenism or Christianity; "Heidenthum oder Christenthum, Die
+Frage der Zeit."
+
+
+_Janet._
+
+Janet, a professor of philosophy, is the author of a book on the
+Materialism of Büchner.[34] The greater part of the last chapter of his
+work is devoted to Darwinism. He says, "Dr. Büchner invoked (Darwin's
+book) as a striking confirmation of his doctrine." (p. 154) What
+Büchner's doctrine is has been shown on a previous page. The points of
+coincidence between Darwin's system and his are, that both regard mind
+as a mere function of living matter; and both refer all the organs and
+organisms of living things to the unconscious, unintelligent operation
+of physical causes. Büchner's way of accounting for complicated organs
+was, "that the energy of the elements and forces of matter, which in
+their fated and accidental occurrence must have produced innumerable
+forms, which must needs limit each other mutually, and correspond,
+apparently, the one with the other, as if they were made for that
+purpose. Out of all those forms, they only have survived which were
+adapted, in some manner, to the conditions of the medium in which they
+were placed." (p. 30) This is very clumsy. No wonder Büchner preferred
+Darwin's method. The two systems are, indeed, exactly the same, but Mr.
+Darwin has a much more winning way of presenting it.
+
+Professor Janet does not seem to have much objection to the doctrine of
+evolution in itself; it is the denial of teleology that he regards as
+the fatal element of Mr. Darwin's theory. "According to us," he says,
+"the true stumbling-block of Mr. Darwin's theory, the perilous and
+slippery point, is the passage from artificial to natural selection; it
+is when he wants to establish that a blind and designless nature has
+been able to obtain, by the occurrence of circumstances, the same
+results which man obtains by thoughtful and well calculated industry."
+(p. 174)
+
+Towards the end of his volume he says: "We shall conclude by a general
+observation. Notwithstanding the numerous objections we have raised
+against Mr. Darwin's theory, we do not declare ourselves hostile to a
+system of which zoölogists are the only competent judges. We are neither
+for nor against the transmutation of species, neither for nor against
+the principle of natural selection. The only positive conclusion of our
+debate is this: no principle hitherto known, neither the action of
+media, nor habit, nor natural selection, can account for organic
+adaptations without the intervention of the principle of finality.
+Natural selection, unguided, submitted to the laws of a pure mechanism,
+and exclusively determined by accidents, seems to me, under another
+name, the chance proclaimed by Epicurus, equally barren, equally
+incomprehensible; on the other hand, natural selection guided beforehand
+by a provident will, directed towards a precise end by intentional laws,
+might be the means which nature has selected to pass from one stage of
+being to another, from one form to another, to bring to perfection life
+throughout the universe, and to rise by a continuous process from the
+monad to man. Now, I ask Mr. Darwin himself, what interest has he in
+maintaining that natural selection is not guided--not directed? What
+interest has he in substituting accidental causes for every final cause?
+I cannot see. Let him admit that in natural, as well as in artificial
+selection, there may be a choice and direction; his principle
+immediately becomes much more fruitful than it was before. His
+hypothesis, then, whilst having the advantage of exempting science from
+the necessity of introducing the personal and miraculous intervention of
+God in the creation of each species, yet would be free from the
+banishing out of the universe an all-provident thought, and of
+submitting everything to blind and brute chance." (pp. 198, 199)
+Professor Janet asks far too much of Mr. Darwin. To ask him to give up
+his denial of final causes is like asking the Romanists to give up the
+Pope. That principle is the life and soul of his system.
+
+FOOTNOTE:
+
+[34] _The Materialism of the Present Day: a Critique of Dr. Büchner's
+System_. By Paul Janet, Member of the Institute of France, Professor of
+Philosophy at the Paris Faculté des Lettres. Translated from the French,
+by Gustave Masson, B. A. London and Paris, 1867.
+
+
+_M. Flourens._
+
+M. Flourens, recently dead, was one of the earliest and most pronounced
+opponents of Darwinism. He published in 1864 his "Examen du Livre de M.
+Darwin sur l'Origine des Espèces." His position as Member of the
+Académie Française, and Perpetual Secretary of the Académie des
+Sciences, or Institut de France, vouch for his high rank among the
+French naturalists. His connection with the Jardin des Plantes gave him
+enlarged opportunities for biological experiments. The result of his own
+experience, as well as the experience of other observers, was, as he
+expresses it, his solemn conviction that species are fixed and not
+transmutable. No ingenuity of device could render hybrids fertile. "They
+never establish an intermediate species." It is, therefore, to the
+doctrine of evolution his attention is principally directed.
+Nevertheless, he is no less struck by Darwin's way of excluding all
+intelligence and design in his manner of speaking of nature. On this
+point he quotes the language of Cuvier, who says: "Nature has been
+personified. Living beings have been called the works of nature. The
+general bearing of these creatures to each other has become the laws of
+nature. It is thus while considering Nature as a being endowed with
+intelligence and will, but in its power limited and secondary, that it
+may be said that she watches incessantly over the maintenance of her
+work; that she does nothing in vain, and always acts by the most simple
+means.... It is easy to see how puerile are those who give nature a
+species of individual existence distinct from the Creator, and from the
+law which He has impressed upon the movements and peculiarities of the
+forms given by Him to living things, and which He makes to act upon
+their bodies with a peculiar force and reason." Older writers, says
+Flourens, in speaking of Nature, "gave to her inclinations, intentions,
+and views, and horrors (of a vacuum), and sports," etc. He says that one
+of the principal objects of his book is to show how Mr. Darwin "has
+deluded himself, and perhaps others, by a constant abuse of figurative
+language." "He plays with Nature as he pleases, and makes her do
+whatsoever he wishes." When we remember that Mr. Darwin defines Nature
+to be the aggregate of physical forces, we see how, in attributing
+everything to Nature, he effectually excludes the supernatural.
+
+In his volume of "Lay Sermons, Reviews," etc., Professor Huxley has a
+very severe critique on M. Flourens's book. He says little, however, in
+reference to teleology, except in one paragraph, in which we read: "M.
+Flourens cannot imagine an unconscious selection; it is for him a
+contradiction in terms." Huxley's answer is, "The winds and waves of the
+Bay of Biscay have not much consciousness, and yet they have with great
+care 'selected,' from an infinity of masses of silex, all grains of sand
+below a certain size and have heaped them by themselves over a great
+area.... A frosty night selects the hardy plants in a plantation from
+among the tender ones as effectually as if the intelligence of the
+gardener had been operative in cutting the weaker ones down."[35] If
+this means anything, it means that as the winds and waves of the Bay of
+Biscay can make heaps of sand, so similar unconscious agencies can, if
+you only give them time enough, make an elephant or a man; for this is
+what Mr. Darwin says natural selection has done.
+
+FOOTNOTE:
+
+[35] _Lay Sermons_, p. 347.
+
+
+_Rev. Walter Mitchell, M. A., Vice-President of the Victoria Institute._
+
+The Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, under
+the presidency of the Earl of Shaftesbury, includes among its members
+many of the dignitaries of the Church of England, and a large number of
+distinguished men of different professions and denominations. Its
+principal object is, "To investigate fully and impartially the most
+important questions of philosophy and science, but more especially those
+that bear on the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture, with the view
+of defending these truths against the opposition of Science, falsely so
+called." The Institute holds bi-monthly meetings, at which papers are
+read on some important topic, and then submitted to criticism and
+discussion. These papers, many of which are very elaborate, are
+published in the Transactions of the Institute, together with a full
+report of the discussions to which they gave rise. Six volumes, replete
+with valuable and varied information, have already been published.
+
+Very considerable latitude of opinion is allowed. Hence we find in the
+Transactions, papers for and against evolution,--for and against
+Darwinism. It would be easy to quote extracts, pertinent to our subject,
+more than enough to fill a volume much larger than the present. We must
+content ourselves with a few citations from the discussion on a paper in
+favor of the credibility of Darwinism,[36] and another in favor of the
+doctrine of evolution.[37] In summing up the debates on these two
+topics, the chairman, Rev. Walter Mitchell, presented with great
+clearness and force his reasons for regarding Darwinism as incredible
+and impossible. In his protracted remarks he contrasts the Scriptural
+doctrine, that of the Vestiges of Creation, and that of Darwin on the
+origin of species. He thus states the doctrine of the Bible on the
+subject: "If," he says, "science be another name for real knowledge; if
+science be the pursuit of sound wisdom; if science be the pursuit of
+truth itself; I say that man has no right to reject anything that is
+true because it savors of God. Well, what is this hypothesis--older than
+that of Darwin--which does, and does alone, account for all the observed
+facts, or all that which we can read, recorded in the book of Nature? It
+is, that God created all things very good; that He made every vegetable
+after its own kind; that He made every animal after its own kind; that
+He allowed certain laws of variation, but that He has ordained strict,
+though invisible and invincible barriers, which prevent that variation
+from running riot, and which includes it within strict and well defined
+limits. This is a hypothesis which will account for all that we have
+learnt from the works of Nature. It admits an intelligent Being as the
+Author of all the works of creation, animate as well as inanimate; it
+leaves no mysteries in the animate world unaccounted for. There is one
+thing which the animate, as well as the inanimate world declares to
+man, one thing everywhere plainly recorded, if we will only read it, and
+that is the impress of design, the design of infinite wisdom. Any theory
+which comes in with an attempt to ignore design as manifested in God's
+creation, is a theory, I say, which attempts to dethrone God. This the
+theory of Darwin does endeavor to do. If asked how our old theory
+accounts for such uniformity of design in the midst of such perplexing
+variety as we find in nature, we reply, that this can only be accounted
+for on one admission, that the whole is the work of one Author, built
+according, as it were, to one style; that it represents the unity of one
+mind with the infinite power of adapting all its works in the most
+perfect manner for the uses for which they were created." "Whewell has
+boldly maintained, and he has never been controverted, that all real
+advances in the sciences of physiology and comparative anatomy,--such as
+that made by Harvey in discovering the circulation of the blood,--have
+been made by those who not only believed in the existence of design
+everywhere manifested in the animate world, but were led by that belief
+to make their discoveries."
+
+When discussing the paper of Mr. Henslow on evolution, he says: "In
+speaking of this paper I must commend the exceeding reverent tone in
+which the author has discussed the subject, and I should like to see all
+such subjects discussed in a similar tone. The view which Mr. Henslow
+brings forward, however, does not appear to be a very original one. It
+was the first view ever brought forward on the doctrine of evolution,
+and I was the first one to point out that the whole doctrine was one of
+retrograde character. The whole tone and character of this paper, except
+that which relates to the attributes and moral government of God,[38] is
+nothing more or less than the same view of the doctrine of evolution
+which created such a sensation in this country when that famous book
+came out, 'The Vestiges of Creation.' So far as I can understand the
+arguments of Mr. Darwin, they have simply been an endeavor to eject out
+of the idea of evolution the personal work of the Deity. His whole
+endeavor has been to push the Creator farther and farther back out of
+view. The most laborious part of Darwin's attempt at reasoning,--for it
+is not true reasoning,--the most laborious part of his logic and
+reasoning, is intended to eliminate, as perfectly as any of the
+atheistical authors have endeavored to do, the idea of design. Now,
+setting revelation aside, the manner in which the unknown author of the
+'Vestiges of Creation' treated this subject, satisfactorily showed that
+the doctrine of evolution was not in itself an atheistical doctrine, nor
+did it deny the existence of design. So far as I could understand and
+make out, having carefully read the book at the time it came out and
+afterwards, and having carefully analyzed and compared it and Mr.
+Darwin's book with each other, so far as I could understand it, the
+doctrine of the author of the 'Vestiges of Creation' was simply, that
+God created all things, and that when He created matter He impressed on
+it certain laws; that matter, being evolved according to those laws,
+should produce beings and organs mutually adapted to one another and to
+the world; and that every successive development which should be
+produced was essentially foreseen, foreknown, and predetermined by the
+Deity. His idea, for instance, of the evolution of an eye from a more
+simple organ was that the ultimate eye--man's eye, for instance--was to
+be a perfect optical instrument, and that its perfection depended on the
+previous design by the Creator, that at a certain period it should
+appear in a body quite adapted for its purposes. There is one
+question,--and not the only one, but we must consider it as an important
+question,--whether you can maintain a doctrine of evolution which shall
+not be atheistical, and which shall admit the great argument of design?
+That is one thing; but the next thing is, does such a doctrine as that
+accord either with revelation or with the facts of science? I do not
+believe that it can be made to agree with what we believe to be the
+revealed Word of God, and I do not believe that it has in the least
+degree been proved that the doctrine is consistent with sound science."
+
+As to Mr. Darwin's theory, it is obvious from the passages already
+quoted that he considers its characteristic feature is not evolution,
+nor even natural selection, but the denial of teleology, or of
+intelligent control. Mr. Darwin admits the original creation of one or a
+few forms of life; and Mr. Mitchell, in his comments on Mr. Warington's
+defence of his theory, asks, "Why am I to limit the work of the Creator
+to the simultaneous or successive creations of ten or twelve
+commencements of the animate creation? Why, simply for the purpose of
+evading the evidence of design as manifested in the adaptation of all
+the organs of every animate creature to its wants, which can only be
+done by so incredible an hypothesis as that of Mr. Darwin. I say
+fearlessly, that any hypothesis which requires us to admit that the
+formation of such complex organs as the eye, the ear, the heart, the
+brain, with all their marvellous structures and mechanical adaptations
+to the wants of the creatures possessing them, so perfectly in harmony,
+too, with the laws of inorganic matter, affords no evidence of design;
+that such structures could be built up by gradual chance improvements,
+perpetuated by the law of transmission, and perfected by the destruction
+of creatures less favorably endowed, is so incredible, that I marvel to
+find any thinking man capable of adopting it for a single moment." It is
+useless to multiply quotations. Darwinism is never brought up either
+formally or incidentally, that its exclusion of design in the formation
+of living organisms is not urged as the main objection against the whole
+theory.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[36] _The Credibility of Darwinism_. By George Warington, Esq., F. C.
+S., M. V. I.
+
+[37] _On certain Analogies between the Methods of Deity in Nature and
+Revelation_. By Rev. G. E. Henslow, M. A., F. L. S., M. V. I.
+
+[38] The second part of Mr. Henslow's paper concerns "the methods of the
+Deity as revealed to us in the Bible." The same is substantially true of
+his work, _The Theory of Evolution_.
+
+
+_Principal Dawson._
+
+Dr. Dawson, as we are informed, is regarded as the first palæontologist,
+and among the first geologists, in America. In his "Story of Earth and
+Man,"[39] he passes in review the several geological periods
+recognized by geologists; describes as far as knowable the distribution
+of land and water during each period, and the vegetable and animal
+productions by which they were distinguished. His book from beginning to
+end is anti-Darwinian. In common with other naturalists, his attention
+is directed principally to the doctrine of evolution, which he endeavors
+to prove is utterly untenable. That Mr. Darwin's theory excludes
+teleology is everywhere assumed as an uncontroverted and
+uncontrovertible fact. "The evolutionist doctrine," he says, "is itself
+one of the strangest phenomena of humanity. It existed, and most
+naturally, in the oldest philosophy and poetry, in connection with the
+crudest and most uncritical attempts of the human mind to grasp the
+system of nature; but that in our day a system destitute of any shadow
+of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech,
+and by the arbitrary and artificial coherence of its own parts, should
+be accepted as philosophy, and should find able adherents to string on
+its thread of hypotheses our vast and weighty stores of knowledge, is
+surpassingly strange.... In many respects these speculations are
+important, and worthy the attention of thinking men. They seek to
+revolutionize the religious belief of the world, and if accepted would
+destroy most of the existing theology and philosophy. They indicate
+tendencies among scientific thinkers, which, though probably temporary,
+must, before they disappear, descend to lower strata, and reproduce
+themselves in grosser forms, and with most serious effects on the whole
+structure of society. With one class of minds they constitute a sort of
+religion, which so far satisfies the craving for truth higher than those
+which relate to immediate wants and pleasures. With another and perhaps
+larger class, they are accepted as affording a welcome deliverance from
+all scruples of conscience and fears of a hereafter. In the domain of
+science evolutionism has like tendencies. It reduces the position of
+man, who becomes a descendant of inferior animals, and a mere term in a
+series whose end is unknown. It removes from the study of nature the
+ideas of final cause and purpose; and the evolutionist, instead of
+regarding the world as a work of consummate plan, skill, and adjustment,
+approaches nature as he would a chaos of fallen rocks, which may present
+forms of castles, and grotesque profiles of men and animals, but they
+are all fortuitous and without significance." (pp. 317, 318)
+
+"Taking, then, this broad view of the subject, two great leading
+alternatives are presented to us. Either man is an independent product
+of the will of a Higher Intelligence, acting directly or through the
+laws and materials of his own institution and production, or he has been
+produced by an unconscious evolution from lower things. It is true that
+many evolutionists, either unwilling to offend, or not perceiving the
+logical consequences of their own hypothesis, endeavor to steer a middle
+course, and to maintain that the Creator has proceeded by way of
+evolution. But the bare, hard logic of Spencer, the greatest English
+authority on evolution, leaves no place for this compromise, and shows
+that the theory, carried out to its legitimate consequences, excludes
+the knowledge of a Creator and the possibility of his work. We have,
+therefore, to choose between evolution and creation, bearing in mind,
+however, that there may be a place in nature for evolution, properly
+limited, as well as for other things, and that the idea of creation by
+no means excludes law and second causes." (p. 321)
+
+"It may be said, that evolution may be held as a scientific doctrine in
+connection with a modified belief in creation. The work of actual
+creation may have been limited to a few elementary types, and evolution
+may have done the rest. Evolutionists may still be theists. We have
+already seen that the doctrine, as carried out to its logical
+consequences, excludes creation and theism. It may, however, be shown
+that even in its more modified form, and when held by men who maintain
+that they are not atheists, it is practically atheistic, because
+excluding the idea of plan and design, and resolving all things into the
+action of unintelligent forces. It is necessary to observe this, because
+it is the half-way-evolutionism, which professes to have a creator
+somewhere behind it, that is most popular; though it is, if possible,
+more unphilosophical than that which professes to set out with absolute
+and determined nonentity, or from self-existing stardust containing all
+the possibilities of the universe."
+
+In reference to the objection of evolutionists, that the origin of every
+new species, on the theistic doctrine, supposes "a miracle," an
+intervention of the divine efficiency without the agency of second
+causes, Principal Dawson asks, "What is the actual statement of the
+theory of creation as it may be held by a modern man of science? Simply
+this: that all things have been produced by the Supreme Creative will,
+acting either directly, or through the agency of the forces and material
+of his own production." (p. 340)
+
+He thus sums up his argument against the doctrine of evolution,
+specially in its application to man: "Finally, the evolutionist picture
+wants some of the fairest lineaments of humanity, and cheats us with the
+semblance of man without the reality. Shave and paint your ape as you
+may, clothe him and set him up upon his feet, still he fails greatly of
+the 'human form divine;' and so it is with him morally and spiritually
+as well. We have seen that he wants the instinct of immortality, the
+love of God, the mental and spiritual power of exercising dominion over
+the earth. The very agency by which he is evolved is of itself
+subversive of all these higher properties; the struggle for existence is
+essentially selfish, and, therefore, degrading. Even in the lower
+animals, it is a false assumption that its tendency is to elevate; for
+animals, when driven to the utmost verge of the struggle for life,
+become depauperated and degraded. The dog which spends its life in
+snarling contention with its fellow curs for insufficient food, will not
+be a noble specimen of its race. God does not so treat his creatures.
+There is far more truth to nature in the doctrine which represents Him
+as listening to the young ravens when they cry for food. But as applied
+to man, the theory of the struggle for existence, and survival of the
+fittest, though the most popular phase of evolutionism at present, is
+nothing less than the basest and most horrible of superstitions. It
+makes man not merely carnal but devilish. It takes his lowest appetites
+and propensities, and makes them his God and Creator. His higher
+sentiments and aspirations, his self-denying philanthropy, his
+enthusiasm for the good and true, all the struggles and sufferings of
+heroes and martyrs, not to speak of that self-sacrifice which is the
+foundation of Christianity, are, in the view of the evolutionist, mere
+loss and waste, failure in the struggle of life. What does he give us in
+exchange? An endless pedigree of bestial ancestors, without one gleam of
+high and holy tradition to enliven the procession; and for the future,
+the prospect that the poor mass of protoplasm, which constitutes the sum
+of our being, and which is the sole gain of an indefinite struggle in
+the past, must soon be resolved again into inferior animals or dead
+matter. That men of thought and culture should advocate such a
+philosophy, argues either a strange mental hallucination, or that the
+higher spiritual nature has been wholly quenched within them. It is one
+of the saddest of many sad spectacles which our age presents." (p. 395)
+
+FOOTNOTE:
+
+[39] _The Story of Earth and Man_. By J. W. Dawson, LL. D., F. R. S., F.
+G. S., Principal and Vice-Chancellor of McGill University, Montreal.
+Author of _Archaia, Acadian Geology_, etc. Second edition. London, 1873,
+pp. 397.
+
+
+_Relation of Darwinism to Religion._
+
+The consideration of that subject would lead into the wide field of the
+relation between science and religion. Into that field we lack
+competency and time to enter; a few remarks, however, on the subject
+may not be out of place. Those remarks, we would fain make in a humble
+way irenical. There is need of an Irenicum, for the fact is painfully
+notorious that there is an antagonism between scientific men as a class,
+and religious men as a class. Of course this opposition is neither felt
+nor expressed by all on either side. Nevertheless, whatever may be the
+cause of this antagonism, or whoever are to be blamed for it, there can
+be no doubt that it exists and that it is an evil.
+
+The first cause of the alienation in question is, that the two parties,
+so to speak, adopt different rules of evidence, and thus can hardly
+avoid arriving at different conclusions. To understand this we must
+determine what is meant by science, and by scientific evidence. Science,
+according to its etymology, is simply knowledge. But usage has limited
+its meaning, in the first place, not to the knowledge of facts or
+phenomena, merely, but to their causes and relations. It was said of
+old, "[Greek: hoti] scientiæ fundamentum, [Greek: dioti] fastigium." No
+amount of materials would constitute a building. They must be duly
+arranged so as to make a symmetrical whole. No amount of disconnected
+data can constitute a science. Those data must be systematized in their
+relation to each other and to other things. In the second place, the
+word is becoming more and more restricted to the knowledge of a
+particular class of facts, and of their relations, namely, the facts of
+nature or of the external world. This usage is not universal, nor is it
+fixed. In Germany, especially, the word _Wissenschaft_ is used of all
+kinds of ordered knowledge, whether transcendental or empirical. So we
+are accustomed to speak of mental, moral, social, as well as of natural
+science. Nevertheless, the more restricted use of the word is very
+common and very influential. It is important that this fact should be
+recognized. In common usage, a scientific man is distinguished specially
+from a metaphysician. The one investigates the phenomena of matter, the
+other studies the phenomena of mind, according to the old distinction
+between physics and metaphysics. Science, therefore, is the ordered
+knowledge of the phenomena which we recognize through the senses. A
+scientific fact is a fact perceived by the senses. Scientific evidence
+is evidence addressed to the senses. At one of the meetings of the
+Victoria Institute, a visitor avowed his disbelief in the existence of
+God. When asked, what kind of evidence would satisfy him? he answered,
+Just such evidence as I have of the existence of this tumbler which I
+now hold in my hand. The Rev. Mr. Henslow says, "By science is meant the
+investigation of facts and phenomena recognizable by the senses, and of
+the causes which have brought them into existence."[40] This is the main
+root of the trouble. If science be the knowledge of the facts perceived
+by the senses, and scientific evidence, evidence addressed to the
+senses, then the senses are the only sources of knowledge. Any
+conviction resting on any other ground than the testimony of the senses,
+must be faith. Darwin admits that the contrivances in nature may be
+accounted for by assuming that they are due to design on the part of
+God. But, he says, that would not be science. Haeckel says that to
+science matter is eternal. If any man chooses to say, it was created,
+well and good; but that is a matter of faith, and faith is imagination.
+Ulrici quotes a distinguished German physiologist who believes in
+vital, as distinguished from physical forces; but he holds to
+spontaneous generation, not, as he admits, because it has been proved,
+but because the admission of any higher power than nature is
+unscientific.[41]
+
+It is inevitable that minds addicted to scientific investigation should
+receive a strong bias to undervalue any other kind of evidence except
+that of the senses, _i. e._, scientific evidence. We have seen that
+those who give themselves up to this tendency come to deny God, to deny
+mind, to deny even self. It is true that the great majority of men,
+scientific as well as others, are so much under the control of the laws
+of their nature, that they cannot go to this extreme. The tendency,
+however, of a mind addicted to the consideration of one kind of
+evidence, to become more or less insensible to other kinds of proof, is
+undeniable. Thus even Agassiz, as a zoölogist and simply on zoölogical
+grounds, assumed that there were several zones between the Ganges and
+the Atlantic Ocean, each having its own flora and fauna, and inhabited
+by races of men, the same in kind, but of different origins. When told
+by the comparative philologists that this was impossible, because the
+languages spoken through that wide region, demonstrated that its
+inhabitants must have had a common descent, he could only answer that as
+ducks quack everywhere, he could not see why men should not everywhere
+speak the same language.
+
+A still more striking illustration is furnished by Dr. Lionel Beale, the
+distinguished English physiologist. He has written a book of three
+hundred and eighty-eight pages for the express purpose of proving that
+the phenomena of life, instinct, and intellect cannot be referred to any
+known natural forces. He avows his belief that in nature "mind governs
+matter," and "in the existence of a never-changing, all-seeing,
+power-directing and matter-guiding Omnipotence." He avows his faith in
+miracles, and "those miracles on which Christianity is founded."
+Nevertheless, his faith in all these points is provisional. He says that
+a truly scientific man, "if the maintenance, continuity, and nature of
+life on our planet should at some future time be fully explained without
+supposing the existence of any such supernatural omnipotent influence,
+would be bound to receive the new explanation, and might abandon the
+old conviction."[42] That is, all evidence of the truths of religion not
+founded on nature and perceived by the senses, amounts to nothing.
+
+Now as religion does not rest on the testimony of the senses, that is on
+scientific evidence, the tendency of scientific men is to ignore its
+claims. We speak only of tendency. We rejoice to know or believe that in
+hundreds or thousands of scientific men, this tendency is counteracted
+by their consciousness of manhood--the conviction that the body is not
+the man,--by the intuitions of the reason and the conscience, and by the
+grace of God. No class of men stands deservedly higher in public
+estimation than men of science, who, while remaining faithful to their
+higher nature, have enlarged our knowledge of the wonderful works of
+God.
+
+A second cause of the alienation between science and religion, is the
+failure to make the due distinction between facts and the explanation of
+those facts, or the theories deduced from them. No sound minded man
+disputes any scientific fact. Religious men believe with Agassiz that
+facts are sacred. They are revelations from God. Christians sacrifice to
+them, when duly authenticated, their most cherished convictions. That
+the earth moves, no religious man doubts. When Galileo made that great
+discovery, the Church was right in not yielding at once to the evidence
+of an experiment which it did not understand. But when the fact was
+clearly established, no man sets up his interpretation of the Bible in
+opposition to it. Religious men admit all the facts connected with our
+solar system; all the facts of geology, and of comparative anatomy, and
+of biology. Ought not this to satisfy scientific men? Must we also admit
+their explanations and inferences? If we admit that the human embryo
+passes through various phases, must we admit that man was once a fish,
+then a bird, then a dog, then an ape, and finally what he now is? If we
+admit the similarity of structure in all vertebrates, must we admit the
+evolution of one from another, and all from a primordial germ? It is to
+be remembered that the facts are from God, the explanation from men; and
+the two are often as far apart as Heaven and its antipode.
+
+These human explanations are not only without authority, but they are
+very mutable. They change not only from generation to generation, but
+almost as often as the phases of the moon. It is a fact that the planets
+move. Once it was said that they were moved by spirits, then by
+vortexes, now by self-evolved forces. It is hard that we should be
+called upon to change our faith with every new moon. The same man
+sometimes propounds theories almost as rapidly as the changes of the
+kaleidoscope. The amiable Sir Charles Lyell, England's most
+distinguished geologist, has published ten editions of his "Principles
+of Geology," which so differ as to make it hard to believe that it is
+the work of the same mind. "In all the editions up to the tenth, he
+looked upon geological facts and geological phenomena as proving the
+fixity of species and their special creation in time. In the tenth
+edition, just published, he announces his change of opinion on this
+subject and his conversion to the doctrine of development by law."[43]
+"In the eighth edition of his work," says Dr. Bree, "Sir Charles Lyell,
+the Nestor of geologists, to whom the present generation is more
+indebted than to any other for all that is known of geology in its
+advanced stage, teaches that species have a real existence in nature,
+and that each was endowed at the time of its creation with the
+attributes and organization by which it is now distinguished." The
+change on the part of this eminent geologist, it is to be observed, is a
+mere change of opinion. There was no change of the facts of geology
+between the publication of the eighth and of the tenth edition of his
+work, neither was there any change in his knowledge of those facts. All
+the facts relied upon by evolutionists, have long been familiar to
+scientific men. The whole change is a subjective one. One year the
+veteran geologist thinks the facts teach one thing, another year he
+thinks they teach another. It is now the fact, and it is feared it will
+continue to be a fact, that scientific men give the name of science to
+their explanations as well as to the facts. Nay, they are often, and
+naturally, more zealous for their explanations than they are for the
+facts. The facts are God's, the explanations are their own.
+
+The third cause of the alienation between religion and science, is the
+bearing of scientific men towards the men of culture who do not belong
+to their own class. When we, in such connections, speak of scientific
+men, we do not mean men of science as such, but those only who avow or
+manifest their hostility to religion. There is an assumption of
+superiority, and often a manifestation of contempt. Those who call their
+logic or their conjectures into question, are stigmatized as
+narrow-minded, bigots, old women, Bible worshippers, etc.
+
+Professor Huxley's advice to metaphysicians and theologians is, to let
+science alone. This is his Irenicum. But do he and his associates let
+metaphysics and religion alone? They tell the metaphysician that his
+vocation is gone; there is no such thing as mind, and of course no
+mental laws to be established. Metaphysics are merged into physics.
+Professor Huxley tells the religious world that there is over-whelming
+and crushing evidence (scientific evidence, of course) that no event has
+ever occurred on this earth which was not the effect of natural causes.
+Hence there have been no miracles, and Christ is not risen.[44] He says
+that the doctrine that belief in a personal God is necessary to any
+religion worthy of the name, is a mere matter of opinion. Tyndall,
+Carpenter, and Henry Thompson, teach that prayer is a superstitious
+absurdity; Herbert Spencer, whom they call their "great philosopher,"
+_i. e._, the man who does their thinking, labors to prove that there
+cannot be a personal God, or human soul or self; that moral laws are
+mere "generalizations of utility," or, as Carl Vogt says, that self
+respect, and not the will of God, is the ground and rule of moral
+obligation. If any protest be made against such doctrines, we are told
+that scientific truth cannot be put down by denunciation (or as Vogt
+says, by barking). So doubtless the Pharisees, when our blessed Lord
+called them hypocrites and a generation of vipers, and said: "Ye compass
+sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him
+twofold more the child of hell than yourselves," doubtless thought that
+that was a poor way to refute their theory, that holiness and salvation
+were to be secured by church-membership and church-rites. Nevertheless,
+as those words were the words of Christ, they were a thunderbolt which
+reverberates through all time and space, and still makes Pharisees of
+every name and nation tremble. Huxley's Irenicum will not do. Men who
+are assiduously poisoning the fountains of religion, morality, and
+social order, cannot be let alone.
+
+Haeckel's Irenicum amounts to much the same as that of Professor Huxley.
+He forbids the right to speak on these vital subjects, to all who are
+not thoroughly versed in biology, and who are not entirely emancipated
+from the trammels of their long cherished traditional beliefs.[45] This,
+as the whole context shows, means that a man in order to be entitled to
+be heard on the evolution theory, must be willing to renounce his faith
+not only in the Bible, but in God, in the soul, in a future life, and
+become a monistic materialist.[46]
+
+It is very reasonable that scientific men, in common with lawyers and
+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.
+
+Fifthly. The sudden appearance of new kinds of animals is another fact
+which Palæontologists urge against the doctrine of evolution. According
+to the view of geologists great changes have, at remote periods,
+occurred in the state of the earth. Continents have been submerged and
+the bottom of the sea raised above the surface of the waters.
+Corresponding changes have occurred in the state of the atmosphere
+surrounding the globe, and in the temperature of the earth. Accompanying
+or following these revolutions new classes of plants and animals appear,
+adapted to the new condition of the earth's surface. Whence do they
+come? They have, as Dawson expresses it, neither fathers nor mothers.
+Nothing precedes them from which they could be derived; and nothing of
+the same kind follows them. They live through their appointed period;
+and then, in a multitude of cases, finally disappear, and are in their
+turn followed by new orders or kinds. In other words, the links or
+connecting forms of this assumed regular succession or derivation are
+not to be found. This fact is so patent, that Hugh Miller, when arguing
+against the doctrine of evolution as proposed in the "Vestiges of
+Creation," says, that the record in the rocks seems to have been written
+for the very purpose of proving that such evolution is impossible.
+
+We have the explicit testimony of Agassiz, as a Palæontologist, that the
+facts of geology contradict the theory of the transmutation of species.
+This testimony has been repeatedly given and in various forms. In the
+last production of his pen, he says: "As a Palæontologist I have from
+the beginning stood aloof from this new theory of transmutation, now so
+widely admitted by the scientific world. Its doctrines, in fact,
+contradict what the animal forms buried in the rocky strata of our earth
+tell us of their own introduction and succession upon the surface of the
+globe." "Let us look now at the earliest vertebrates, as known and
+recorded in geological surveys. They should, of course, if there is any
+truth in the transmutation theory, correspond with the lowest in rank or
+standing. What then are the earliest known vertebrates? They are
+Selachians (sharks and their allies) and Ganoids (garpikes and the
+like), the highest of all living fishes, structurally speaking." He
+closes the article from which these quotations are taken with the
+assertion, "that there is no evidence of a direct descent of later from
+earlier species in the geological succession of animals."[53] It will be
+observed that Agassiz is quoted, not as to matters of theory, but as to
+matters of fact. The only answer which evolutionists can make to this
+argument, is the imperfection of the geological record. When asked,
+Where are the immediate predecessors of these new species? they answer,
+They have disappeared, or, have not yet been found. When asked, Where
+are their immediate successors? the answer again is, They have
+disappeared.[54] This is an objection which Mr. Darwin, with his usual
+candor, virtually admits to be unanswerable. We have already seen, that
+he says, "Every one will admit that the geological record is imperfect;
+but very few can believe that it is so very imperfect as my theory
+demands."
+
+Such are some of the grounds on which geologists and palæontologists of
+the highest rank assert that the theory of evolution has not the
+slightest scientific basis; and they support their assertion with an
+amount of evidence of which the above items are a miserable pittance.
+
+Sixthly. There is another consideration of decisive importance. Strauss
+says, there are three things which have been stumbling-blocks in the way
+of science. First, the origin of life; second, the origin of
+consciousness; third, the origin of reason. These are equivalent to the
+gaps which, Principal Dawson says, exist in the theory of evolution. He
+states them thus: 1. That between dead and living matter. 2. That
+between vegetable and animal life. "These are necessarily the converse
+of each other: the one deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes
+and expends." 3. That "between any species of plant or animal, and any
+other species. It was this gap, and this only, which Darwin undertook to
+fill up by his great work on the origin of species, but, notwithstanding
+the immense amount of material thus expended, it yawns as wide as ever,
+since it must be admitted that no case has been ascertained in which an
+individual of one species has transgressed the limits between it and
+another species." 4. "Another gap is between the nature of the animal
+and the self-conscious, reasoning, and moral nature of man." (pp.
+325-328)
+
+First, as to the gap between death and life; this is what Dr. Stirling
+calls the "gulf of all gulfs, which Mr. Huxley's protoplasm is as
+powerless to efface as any other material expedient that has ever been
+suggested."[55] This gulf Mr. Darwin does not attempt to bridge over. He
+admits that life owes its origin to the act of the Creator. This,
+however, the most prominent of the advocates of Darwinism say, is giving
+up the whole controversy. If you admit the intervention of creative
+power at one point, you may as well admit it in any other. If life owes
+its origin to creative power, why not species? If the stupendous miracle
+of creation be admitted, there is no show of reason for denying
+supernatural intervention in the operations of nature. Most Darwinians
+attempt to pass this gulf on the imaginary bridge of spontaneous
+generation. In other words, they say there is no gulf there. The
+molecules of matter, in one combination, may as well exhibit the
+phenomena of life, as in other combinations, any other kind of
+phenomena. The distinguished Sir William Thomson cannot trust himself to
+that bridge. "Dead matter," he says, "cannot become living matter
+without coming under the influence of matter previously alive. This
+seems to me as sure a teaching of science as the law of gravitation....
+I am ready to adopt, as an article of scientific faith, true through all
+space and through all time, that life proceeds from life, and nothing
+but life."[56] He refers the origin of life on this earth to falling
+meteors, which bring with them from other planets the germs of living
+organisms; and from those germs all the plants and animals with which
+our world is now covered have been derived. Principal Dawson thinks that
+this was intended as irony. But the whole tone of the address, and
+specially of the closing portion of it, in which this idea is advanced,
+is far too serious to admit of such an explanation.
+
+No one can read the address referred to without being impressed, and
+even awed, by the immensity and grandeur of the field of knowledge which
+falls legitimately within the domain of science. The perusal of that
+discourse produces a feeling of humility analogous to the sense of
+insignificance which every man experiences when he thinks of himself as
+a speck on the surface of the earth, which itself is but a speck in the
+immensity of the universe. And when a man of mere ordinary culture sees
+Sir William Thomson surveying that field with a mastery of its details
+and familiarity with all the recondite methods of its investigation, he
+feels as nothing in his presence. Yet this great man, whom we cannot
+help regarding with wonder, is so carried away by the spirit of his
+class as to say, "Science is bound, by the everlasting law of honor, to
+face fearlessly every problem which can fairly be brought before it. If
+a probable solution, consistent with the ordinary course of nature, can
+be found, we must not invoke an abnormal act of Creative Power." And,
+therefore, instead of invoking Creative Power, he accounts for the
+origin of life on earth by falling meteors. How he accounts for its
+origin in the places whence the meteors came, he does not say. Yet Sir
+William Thomson believes in Creative Power; and in a subsequent page, we
+shall quote his explicit repudiation of the atheistic element in the
+Darwinian theory.
+
+Strauss quotes Dubois-Reymond, a distinguished naturalist, as teaching
+that the first of these great problems, viz. the origin of life, admits
+of explanation on scientific (i. e., in his sense, materialistic)
+principles; and even the third, viz. the origin of reason; but the
+second, or the origin of consciousness, he says, "is perfectly
+inscrutable." Dubois-Reymond holds that "the most accurate knowledge of
+the essential organism reveals to us only matter in motion; but between
+this material movement and my feeling pain or pleasure, experiencing a
+sweet taste, seeing red, with the conclusion 'therefore I exist,' there
+is a profound gulf; and it 'remains utterly and forever inconceivable
+why to a number of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, etc., it should not be a
+matter of indifference how they lie or how they move; nor, can we in any
+wise tell how consciousness should result from their concurrent action.'
+Whether," adds Strauss, "these _Verba Magistri_ are indeed the last word
+on the subject, time only can tell."[57] But if it is inconceivable, not
+to say absurd, that sense-consciousness should consist in the motion of
+molecules of matter, or be a function of such molecules, it can hardly
+be less absurd to account for thought, conscience, and religious
+feeling and belief on any such hypothesis. It may be said that Mr.
+Darwin is not responsible for these extreme opinions. That is very true.
+Mr. Darwin is not a Monist, for in admitting creation, he admits a
+dualism as between God and the world. Neither is he a Materialist,
+inasmuch as he assumes a supernatural origin for the infinitesimal
+modicum of life and intelligence in the primordial animalcule, from
+which without divine purpose or agency, all living things in the whole
+history of our earth have descended. All the innumerable varieties of
+plants, all the countless forms of animals, with all their instincts and
+faculties, all the varieties of men with their intellectual endowments,
+and their moral and religious nature, have, according to Darwin, been
+evolved by the agency of the blind, unconscious laws of nature. This
+infinitesimal spark of supernaturalism in Mr. Darwin's theory, would
+inevitably have gone out of itself, had it not been rudely and
+contemptuously trodden out by his bolder, and more logical successors.
+
+The grand and fatal objection to Darwinism is this exclusion of design
+in the origin of species, or the production of living organisms. By
+design is meant the intelligent and voluntary selection of an end, and
+the intelligent and voluntary choice, application, and control of means
+appropriate to the accomplishment of that end. That design, therefore,
+implies intelligence, is involved in its very nature. No man can
+perceive this adaptation of means to the accomplishment of a
+preconceived end, without experiencing an irresistible conviction that
+it is the work of mind. No man does doubt it, and no man can doubt it.
+Darwin does not deny it. Haeckel does not deny it. No Darwinian denies
+it. What they do is to deny that there is any design in nature. It is
+merely apparent, as when the wind of the Bay of Biscay, as Huxley says,
+"selects the right kind of sand and spreads it in heaps upon the
+plains." But in thus denying design in nature, these writers array
+against themselves the intuitive perceptions and irresistible
+convictions of all mankind,--a barrier which no man has ever been able
+to surmount. Sir William Thomson, in the address already referred to,
+says: "I feel profoundly convinced that the argument of design has been
+greatly too much lost sight of in recent zoölogical speculations.
+Reaction against the frivolities of teleology, such as are to be found,
+not rarely, in the notes of the learned commentators on 'Paley's Natural
+Theology,' has, I believe, had a temporary effect of turning attention
+from the solid irrefragable argument so well put forward in that
+excellent old book. But overpowering proof of intelligence and
+benevolent design lie all around us, and if ever perplexities, whether
+metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come
+back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through nature the
+influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living beings depend
+upon one ever-acting Creator and Ruler."
+
+It is impossible for even Mr. Darwin, inconsistent as it is with his
+whole theory, to deny all design in the constitution of nature. What is
+his law of heredity? Why should like beget like? Take two germ cells,
+one of a plant, another of an animal; no man by microscope or by
+chemical analysis, or by the magic power of the spectroscope, can detect
+the slightest difference between them, yet the one infallibly develops
+into a plant and the other into an animal. Take the germ of a fish and
+of a bird, and they are equally indistinguishable; yet the one always
+under all conditions develops into a fish and the other into a bird.
+Why is this? There is no physical force, whether light, heat,
+electricity, or anything else, which makes the slightest approximation
+to accounting for that fact. To say, as Stuart Mill would say, that it
+is an ultimate fact, and needs no explanation, is to say that there may
+be an effect without an adequate cause. The venerable R. E. Von Baer,
+the first naturalist in Russia, of whom Agassiz speaks in terms of such
+affectionate veneration in the "Atlantic Monthly" for January, 1874, has
+written a volume dated Dorpat, 1873, and entitled "Zum Streit über den
+Darwinismus." In that volume, as we learn from a German periodical, the
+author says: "The Darwinians lay great stress on heredity; but what is
+the law of heredity but a determination of something future? Is it not
+in its nature in the highest degree teleological? Indeed, is not the
+whole faculty of reproduction intended to introduce a new life-process?
+When a man looks at a dissected insect and examines its strings of eggs,
+and asks, Whence are they? the naturalist of our day has no answer to
+give, but that they were of necessity gradually produced by the changes
+in matter. When it is further asked, Why are they there? is it wrong to
+say, It is _in order that_ when the eggs are mature and fertilized, new
+individuals of the same form should be produced."
+
+It is further to be considered that there are innumerable cases of
+contrivance, or evidence of design in nature, to which the principle of
+natural selection, or the purposeless changes effected by unconscious
+force, cannot apply; as for example, the distinction of sex, with all
+that is therein involved. But passing by such cases, it may be asked,
+what would it avail to get rid of design in the vegetable and animal
+kingdom, while the whole universe is full of it? That this ordered
+Cosmos is not from necessity or chance, is almost a self-evident fact.
+Not one man in a million of those who ever heard of God, either does
+doubt or can doubt it. Besides how are the cosmical relations of light,
+heat, electricity, to the constituent parts of the universe, and
+especially, so far as this earth is concerned, to vegetable and animal
+life, to be accounted for? Is this all chance work? Is it by chance that
+light and heat cause plants to carry on their wonderful operations,
+transmuting the inorganic into the organic, dead matter into living and
+life sustaining matter? Is it without a purpose that water instead of
+contracting, expands at the freezing point?--a fact to which is due that
+the earth north of the tropic is habitable for man or beast. It is no
+answer to this question to say that a few other substances have the same
+peculiarity, when no good end, that we can see, is thereby accomplished.
+No man is so foolish as to deny that his eye was intended to enable him
+to see, because he cannot tell what the spleen was made for. It is,
+however, useless to dwell upon this subject. If a man denies that there
+is design in nature, he can with quite as good reason deny that there is
+any design in any or in all the works ever executed by man.
+
+The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the denial of design in
+nature is virtually the denial of God. Mr. Darwin's theory does deny all
+design in nature, therefore, his theory is virtually atheistical; his
+theory, not he himself. He believes in a Creator. But when that Creator,
+millions on millions of ages ago, did something,--called matter and a
+living germ into existence,--and then abandoned the universe to itself
+to be controlled by chance and necessity, without any purpose on his
+part as to the result, or any intervention or guidance, then He is
+virtually consigned, so far as we are concerned, to non-existence. It
+has already been said that the most extreme of Mr. Darwin's admirers
+adopt and laud his theory, for the special reason that it banishes God
+from the world; that it enables them to account for design without
+referring it to the purpose or agency of God. This is done expressly by
+Büchner, Haeckel, Vogt, and Strauss. The opponents of Darwinism direct
+their objections principally against this element of the doctrine. This,
+as was stated by Rev. Dr. Peabody, was the main ground of the earnest
+opposition of Agassiz to the theory. America's great botanist, Dr. Asa
+Gray, avows himself an evolutionist; but he is not a Darwinian. Of that
+point we have the clearest possible proof. Mr. Darwin, after explicitly
+denying that the variations which have resulted in "the formation of the
+most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were
+intentionally and specially guided," adds: "However much we may wish it,
+we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief 'that variation
+has been led along certain beneficial lines' like a stream 'along
+definite and useful lines of irrigation.'"[58] If Mr. Darwin does not
+agree with Dr. Gray, Dr. Gray does not agree with Mr. Darwin. It is as
+to the exclusion of design from the operations of nature that our
+American, differs from the English, naturalist. This is the vital point.
+The denial of final causes is the formative idea of Darwin's theory, and
+therefore no teleologist can be a Darwinian.
+
+Dr. Gray quotes from another writer the sentence, "It is a singular
+fact, that when we can find how anything is done, our first conclusion
+seems to be that God did not do it;" and then adds, "I agree with the
+writer that this first conclusion is premature and unworthy; I will add,
+deplorable. Through what faults of dogmatism on the one hand, and
+skepticism on the other, it came to be so thought, we need not here
+consider. Let us hope, and I confidently expect, that it is not to last;
+that the religious faith which survived without a shock the notion of
+the fixedness of the earth itself, may equally outlast the notion of the
+absolute fixedness of the species which inhabit it; that in the future,
+even more than in the past, faith in an _order_, which is the basis of
+science, will not--as it cannot reasonably--be dissevered from faith in
+an _Ordainer_, which is the basis of religion."[59] We thank God for
+that sentence. It is the concluding sentence of Dr. Gray's address as
+ex-President of "The American Association for the Advancement of
+Science," delivered August, 1872.
+
+Dr. Gray goes further. He says, "The proposition that the things and
+events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out,
+is doubtless tantamount to atheism." Again, "To us, a fortuitous Cosmos
+is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos.... If Mr.
+Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and
+the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if
+the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers
+phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show
+that such belief is atheistic."[60]
+
+We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism?
+It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin
+himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his
+theory is atheistic; that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr.
+Gray says, tantamount to atheism.
+
+Among the last words of Strauss were these: "We demand for our universe
+the same piety which the devout man of old demanded for his God." "In
+the enormous machine of the universe, amid the incessant whirl and hiss
+of its jagged iron wheels, amid the deafening crash of its ponderous
+stamps and hammers, in the midst of this whole terrific commotion, man,
+a helpless and defenceless creature, finds himself placed, not secure
+for a moment that on an imprudent motion a wheel may not seize and rend
+him, or a hammer crush him to a powder. This sense of abandonment is at
+first something awful."[61]
+
+Among the last words of Paul were these: "I know whom I have believed,
+and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed
+unto Him against that day.... The time of my departure is at hand. I
+have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the
+faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness,
+which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not
+to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing."
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[40] _Science and Scripture not Antagonistic, because Distinct in their
+Spheres of Thought_. A Lecture, by Rev. George Henslow, M. A., F. L. S.,
+F. G. S. London, 1873, p. 1.
+
+[41] _Gott und Natur_, p. 200.
+
+[42] _Protoplasm; or, Matter and Life._ By Lionel S. Beale, M. B., F. R.
+S. Third edition. London & Philadelphia, 1874, p. 345; and the whole
+chapter on Design.
+
+[43] _Fallacies in the Hypothesis of Mr. Darwin_, by C. R. Bree, M. D.,
+F. Z. S. London, 1872, p. 290.
+
+[44] When Professor Huxley says, as quoted above, that he does not deny
+the possibility of miracles, he must use the word miracle in a sense
+peculiar to himself.
+
+[45] _Jenaer Literaturzeitung_, January 3, 1874. In this number there is
+a notice by Doctor Haeckel of two books,--_Descendenzlehre und
+Darwinismus_, von Oscar Schmidt, Leipzig, 1873; and _Die Fortschritte
+des Darwinismus_, von J. W. Spengel, Cöln and Leipzig, 1874; in which he
+says: "Erstens, um in Sachen der Descendenz-Theorie mitreden zu können,
+ein gewisser Grad von tieferer biologischer (sowohl morphologischer als
+physiologischer) Bildung unentbehrlich, den die meistzen von jenen
+Auctoren (the opposers of the theory) nicht besitzen. Zweitens ist für
+ein klares und zutreffendes Urtheil in diesem Sachen eine rücksichtslose
+Hingabe an vernunftgemässe Erkenntniss und eine dadurch bedingte
+Resignation auf uralte, liebgewordene und tief vererbte Vorurtheile
+erforderlich, zu welcher sich die wenigsten entschliesen können."
+
+[46] In his _Natürlische Schöpfungsgeschichte_, Haeckel is still more
+exclusive. When he comes to answer the objections to the evolution, or,
+as he commonly calls it, the descendence theory, he dismisses the
+objections derived from religion, as unworthy of notice, with the remark
+that all Glaube ist Aberglaube; all faith is superstition. The
+objections from _a priori_, or intuitive truths, are disposed of in an
+equally summary manner, by denying that there are any such truths, and
+asserting that all our knowledge is from the senses. The objection that
+so many distinguished naturalists reject the theory, he considers more
+at length. First, many have grown old in another way of thinking and
+cannot be expected to change. Second, many are collectors of facts,
+without studying their relations, or are destitute of the genius for
+generalization. No amount of material makes a building. Others, again,
+are specialists. It is not enough that a man should be versed in one
+department; he must be at home in all: in Botany, Zoölogy, Comparative
+Anatomy, Biology, Geology, and Palæontology. He must be able to survey
+the whole field. Fourthly, and mainly, naturalists are generally
+lamentably deficient in philosophical culture and in a philosophical
+spirit. "The immovable edifice of the true, monistic science, or what is
+the same thing, natural science, can only arise through the most
+intimate interaction and mutual interpenetration of philosophy and
+observation (Philosophie und Empirie)." pp. 638-641. It is only a select
+few, therefore, of learned and philosophical monistic materialists, who
+are entitled to be heard on questions of the highest moment to every
+individual man, and to human society.
+
+[47] This short but significant sentence is omitted in the excellent
+translation of Strauss's book, by Mathilde Blind, republished in New
+York, by Henry Holt & Company, 1873.
+
+[48] _The Fallacies of Darwinism_, by C. R. Bree, M. D., p. 308.
+
+[49] _The Fallacies of Darwinism_, p. 305.
+
+[50] _Bibliotheca Sacra_, 1857, p. 861.
+
+[51] _The Story of Earth and Man_, p. 358.
+
+[52] Dr. Bree, p. 275. We presume geologists differ in the terms which
+they use to designate strata. Agassiz calls the oldest containing
+fossil, the sub-Cambrian. Principal Dawson calls the oldest the
+Laurentian, and places the first vertebrates in the Silurian. This is of
+no moment as to the argument. The important fact is that each species is
+distinct as soon as it appears; and that many have remained to the
+present time.
+
+[53] _Atlantic Monthly_, January, 1874.
+
+[54] We have heard a story of a gentleman who gave an artist a
+commission for a historical painting, and suggested as the subject, the
+Passage of the Israelites over the Red Sea. In due time he was informed
+that his picture was finished, and was shown by the artist a large
+canvas painted red. "What is that?" he asked. "Why," says the artist,
+"that is the Red Sea." "But where are the Israelites?" "Oh, they have
+passed over." "And where are the Egyptians?" "They are under the sea."
+
+[55] _As Regards Protoplasm in Relation to Professor Huxley's Essay an
+the Physical Basis of Life_. By Dr. James H. Stirling. See, also,
+_Physiological Anatomy and Physiology of Man_, by L. S. Beale; also,
+_The Mystery of Life in Reply to Dr. Gull's Attack on the Theory of
+Vitality_. By L. S. Beale, M. D., 1871.
+
+[56] The address delivered by Sir William Thomson, as President of the
+British Association at its meeting in Edinburgh, 1871.
+
+[57] _The Old Faith and the New_. Prefatory Postscript, xxi.
+
+[58] _Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication_. New York,
+1868, vol. ii. pp. 515, 516.
+
+[59] _Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of
+Science_. Cambridge, 1873, p. 20.
+
+[60] The _Atlantic Monthly_ for October, 1860. The three articles in the
+July, August, and October numbers of the _Atlantic_, on this subject,
+have been reprinted with the name of Dr. Asa Gray as their author.
+
+[61] Strauss says that as he has arrived at the conclusion that there is
+no personal God, and no life after death, it would seem to follow that
+the question, Have we still a religion? "must be answered in the
+negative." But as he makes the essence of religion to consist in a sense
+of dependence, and as he felt himself to be helpless in the midst of
+this whirling universe, he had that much religion left.
+
+
+
+
+ADVERTISEMENTS
+
+
+_The Great Theological Work of the Age._
+
+DR. HODGE'S THEOLOGY.
+
+Systematic Theology.
+
+By CHARLES HODGE, D.D., LL.D.,
+
+of Princeton Theological Seminary.
+
+
+_Complete in three volumes 8vo, tinted paper. Price, vols. I. and II._,
+$4.50. _Vol. III._, $5.
+
+In these volumes are comprised the results of the life-long labors and
+investigations of one of the most eminent theologians of the age. The
+work covers the ground usually occupied by treatises on Systematic
+Theology, and adopts the commonly received divisions of the
+subject,--THEOLOGY, Vol. I.; ANTHROPOLOGY, Vol. II.; SOTERIOLOGY AND
+ESCHATOLOGY, Vol. III.
+
+The INTRODUCTION is devoted to the consideration of preliminary matters,
+such as Method, or the principles which should guide the student of
+Theology, and the different theories as to the source and standard of
+our knowledge of divine things, Rationalism, Mysticism, the Roman
+Catholic doctrine of the Rule of Faith, and the Protestant doctrine on
+that subject.
+
+The department of THEOLOGY proper includes the origin of the Idea of
+God, the Being of God, the Anti-Theistic systems of Atheism, Polytheism,
+Materialism, and Pantheism; the Nature of God, the Divine Attributes,
+the Doctrines of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, and of the Holy
+Spirit; the Decrees of God, Creation, Providence, and Miracles.
+
+The department of ANTHROPOLOGY includes the Nature, Origin, and
+Antiquity of Man, his Primitive State and Probation; the Fall; the
+Effect of Adam's Sin upon himself and upon his Posterity; the Nature of
+Sin; the Different Philosophical and Theological Theories on that
+subject.
+
+SOTERIOLOGY includes the Plan or Purpose of God in reference to the
+Salvation of Men; the Person and Work of the Redeemer; his Offices as
+Prophet, Priest, and King, the Work of the Holy Spirit in applying the
+redemption purchased by Christ; Common and Efficacious Grace,
+Regeneration, Faith, Justification, Sanctification, the Law or Rule of
+Life, and the means of Grace.
+
+ESCHATOLOGY includes the State of the Soul after Death; the Second
+Coming of Christ; the Resurrection of the Body; the General Judgment and
+End of the World, and the Doctrine concerning Heaven and Hell.
+
+The plan of the author is to state and vindicate the teachings of the
+Bible on these various subjects, and to examine the antagonistic
+doctrines of different classes of Theologians. His book, therefore, is
+intended to be both didactic and elenchtic.
+
+The various topics are discussed with that close and keen analytical and
+logical power combined with that simplicity, lucidity, and strength of
+style which have already given Dr. HODGE a world-wide reputation as a
+controversialist and writer, and as an investigator of the great
+theological problems of the day.
+
+_Single copies, sent post-paid on receipt of the price._
+
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,
+
+654 Broadway, New York
+
+EDINBURGH REVIEW.--"The BEST History of the Roman Republic."
+
+LONDON TIMES.--"BY FAR THE BEST History of the Decline and Fall of the
+Roman Commonwealth."
+
+
+THE
+
+History of Rome,
+
+FROM THE EARLIEST TIME TO THE PERIOD OF ITS DECLINE.
+
+By Dr. THEODOR MOMMSEN.
+
+Translated, with the author's sanction and additions, by the Rev. W. P.
+DICKSON, Regius Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of
+Glasgow, late Classical Examiner in the University of St. Andrews. With
+an Introduction by Dr. LEONHARD SCHMITZ, and a copious Index of the
+whole four volumes, prepared especially for this edition.
+
+REPRINTED FROM THE REVISED LONDON EDITION
+
+Four Volumes crown 8vo. Price per volume, $2.00.
+
+Dr. MOMMSEN has long been known and appreciated through his researches
+into the languages, laws, and institutions of Ancient Rome and Italy, as
+the most thoroughly versed scholar now living in these departments of
+historical investigation. To a wonderfully exact and exhaustive
+knowledge of these subjects, he unites great powers of generalization, a
+vigorous, spirited, and exceedingly graphic style and keen analytical
+powers, which give this history a degree of interest and a permanent
+value possessed by no other record of the decline and fall of the Roman
+Commonwealth. "Dr. Mommsen's work," as Dr. Schmitz remarks in the
+introduction, "though the production of a man of most profound and
+extensive learning and knowledge of the world, is not as much designed
+for the professional scholar as for intelligent readers of all classes
+who take an interest in the history of by-gone ages, and are inclined
+there to seek information that may guide them safely through the
+perplexing mazes of modern history."
+
+
+CRITICAL NOTICES.
+
+
+     "A work of the very highest merit; its learning is exact and
+     profound; its narrative full of genius and skill; its descriptions
+     of men are admirably vivid. We wish to place on record our opinion
+     that Dr. Mommsen's is by far the best history of the Decline and
+     Fall of the Roman Commonwealth."--_London Times_.
+
+     "Since the days of Niebuhr, no work on Roman History has appeared
+     that combines so much to attract, instruct, and charm the reader.
+     Its style--a rare quality in a German author--is vigorous,
+     spirited, and animated. Professor Mommsen's work can stand a
+     comparison with the noblest productions of modern history."--_Dr.
+     Schmitz._
+
+     "This is the best history of the Roman Republic, taking the work on
+     the whole--the author's complete mastery of his subject, the
+     variety of his gifts and acquirements, his graphic power in the
+     delineation of national and individual character, and the vivid
+     interest which he inspires in every portion of his book. He is
+     without an equal in his own sphere."--_Edinburgh Review_.
+
+     "A book of deepest interest."--_Dean Trench_.
+
+
+ANOTHER GREAT HISTORICAL WORK.
+
+_The History of Greece,_
+
+By Prof. Dr. ERNST CURTIUS.
+
+Translated by ADOLPHUS WILLIAM WARD, M.A., Fellow of St. Peter's
+College, Cambridge, Prof. of History in Owen's College, Manchester.
+
+To be completed in four or five vols., crown 8vo, at $2.50 per volume.
+
+PRINTED UPON TINTED PAPER, UNIFORM WITH MOMMSEN'S HISTORY OF ROME, AND
+THE LIBRARY EDITION OF FROUDE'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
+
+VOLS. I., II., III., AND IV., NOW READY.
+
+
+Curtius' _History of Greece_ is similar in plan and purpose to Mommsen's
+_History of Rome_, with which it deserves to rank in every respect as
+one of the great masterpieces of historical literature. Avoiding the
+minute details which overburden other similar works, it groups together
+in a very picturesque manner all the important events in the history of
+this kingdom, which has exercised such a wonderful influence upon the
+world's civilization. The narrative of Prof. Curtius' work is flowing
+and animated, and the generalizations, although bold, are philosophical
+and sound.
+
+
+CRITICAL NOTICES.
+
+
+     "Professor Curtius' eminent scholarship is a sufficient guarantee
+     for the trustworthiness of his history, while the skill with which
+     he groups his facts, and his effective mode of narrating them,
+     combine to render it no less readable than sound. Professor Curtius
+     everywhere maintains the true dignity and impartiality of history,
+     and it is evident his sympathies are on the side of justice,
+     humanity, and progress."--_London Athenæum_.
+
+     "We can not express our opinion of Dr. Curtius' book better than by
+     saying that it may be fitly ranked with Theodor Mommsen's great
+     work."--_London Spectator_.
+
+     "As an introduction to the study of Grecian history, no previous
+     work is comparable to the present for vivacity and picturesque
+     beauty, while in sound learning and accuracy of statement it is not
+     inferior to the elaborate productions which enrich the literature
+     of the age."--_N. Y. Daily Tribune_.
+
+     "The History of Greece is treated by Dr. Curtius so broadly and
+     freely in the spirit of the nineteenth century, that it becomes in
+     his hands one of the worthiest and most instructive branches of
+     study for all who desire something more than a knowledge of
+     isolated facts for their education. This translation ought to
+     become a regular part of the accepted course of reading for young
+     men at college, and for all who are in training for the free
+     political life of our country."--_N. Y. Evening Post_.
+
+
+_This book sent post-paid, upon receipt of the price, by the
+Publishers,_
+
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,
+
+654 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.
+
+
+PROSPECTUS
+
+OF A
+
+Theological & Philosophical Library
+
+EDITED BY
+
+HENRY B. SMITH, D.D., AND PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D.,
+
+_Professors in the Union Theological Seminary, New York._
+
+The undersigned propose to publish a select and compact Library of
+Text-Books upon all the main departments of Theology and Philosophy,
+adapted to the wants especially of ministers and students in all
+denominations.
+
+Some of the works will be translated from the German and other
+languages; others will be based upon treatises by various authors; some
+will be written for the Library by English or American scholars. The aim
+will be to furnish at least one condensed standard work on each of the
+scientific divisions of Theology and Philosophy, giving the result of
+the best critical investigations, excluding, however, such histories and
+commentaries as extend through many volumes.
+
+This scheme is not presented as final, but as indicating the aim of the
+editors. If sufficient encouragement be given, no pains will be spared
+to make the project complete, and thus to meet a great and acknowledged
+desideratum in the apparatus for study. On all these topics every
+student needs, at least, one good work. To supply this will be the aim
+of our Library.
+
+The various volumes will be published in the best style, on reasonable
+terms, and as rapidly as the nature of the work and the encouragement of
+the public will allow.
+
+The editors will be assisted by eminent scholars of various
+denominations, who will respectively assume the literary responsibility
+for the volumes prepared by themselves within the general plan and aim
+of the library.
+
+
+NOW READY,
+
+IN
+
+The Theological and Philosophical Library.
+
+UEBERWEG'S HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY.
+
+
+VOL. I.--_History of the Ancient and Mediæval Philosophy_. By Dr.
+Friedrich Ueberweg. Translated from the fourth German edition by George
+S. Morris, A.M., with additions by Noah Porter, D.D., LL.D., President
+of Yale College, and a general Introduction by the editor of the
+Philosophical Library. One vol. 8vo, cloth, $3.50.
+
+VOL. II.--_History of Modern Philosophy_. With an Essay on English
+Philosophy, by Dr. NOAH PORTER, President of Yale College; and on
+Italian Philosophy, by Professor V. BOTTA. One vol. 8vo, cloth. $4.00.
+
+_Sent, post-paid, upon receipt of the price by the Publishers,_
+
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,
+
+654 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.
+
+LANGE'S COMMENTARY.
+
+NOW READY:
+
+The Minor Prophets.
+
+_Edited by_ REV. DR. PHILIP SCHAFF, _and including_
+
+
+     HOSEA.--By OTTO SCHMOLLER, Ph. D., Urach, Wurtemberg. Translated,
+     with additions, by JAMES E. MCCURDY.
+
+     JOEL.--By OTTO SCHMOLLER, Ph. D. Translated, with additional Notes
+     and a New Version of the Hebrew Text, by JOHN FORSYTH, D.D., LL.D.
+
+     AMOS.--By OTTO SCHMOLLER, Ph. D. Translated and enlarged by TALBOT
+     W. CHAMBERS, D.D.
+
+     OBADIAH.--By PAUL KLEINERT, of Berlin. Translated, with additions,
+     by GEORGE R. BLISS, D.D.
+
+     JONAH.--By PAUL KLEINERT. Translated and enlarged by CHARLES
+     ELLIOTT, D.D.
+
+     MICAH.--By PAUL KLEINERT. Translated, with additions, by GEORGE R.
+     BLISS, D.D.
+
+     NAHUM, HABAKKUK, AND ZEPHANIAH.--By PAUL KLEINERT. Translated and
+     enlarged by CHARLES ELLIOTT, D.D.
+
+     HAGGAI.--By JAMES F. MCCURDY, Princeton, N. Y.
+
+     ZECHARIAH.--By TALBOT W. CHAMBERS, D.D., New York.
+
+     MALACHI.--By JOSEPH PACKARD, D.D. Alexandria, Va.
+
+
+One vol. royal 8vo, cloth $5.00
+
+
+_The Volumes previously Published are_:
+
+OLD TESTAMENT.--I. GENESIS. II. JOSHUA, JUDGES, and RUTH. III. FIRST and
+SECOND KINGS. IV. PSALMS. V. PROVERBS, SONG OF SOLOMON, ECCLESIASTES.
+VI. JEREMIAH and LAMENTATIONS.
+
+NEW TESTAMENT.--I. MATTHEW. II. MARK and LUKE. III. JOHN. IV. ACTS. V.
+THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. VI. CORINTHIANS. VII. GALATIANS,
+EPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS. VIII. THESSALONIANS, TIMOTHY, TITUS,
+PHILEMON, and HEBREWS. IX. THE EPISTLES GENERAL OF JAMES, PETER, JOHN,
+and JUDE.
+
+Each one vol. 8vo. Price per vol., in half calf, $7.50: in sheep, $6.50:
+in cloth, $5.00.
+
+
+NAMES AND DENOMINATIONS OF CONTRIBUTORS.
+
+W. G. T. SHEDD, D.D., Presbyterian.
+E. A. WASHBURNE, D.D., Episcopal.
+A. C. KENDRICK, D.D., Baptist.
+W. H. GREEN, D.D., Presbyterian.
+J. F. HURST, D.D., Methodist.
+TAYLER LEWIS, LL.D., Dutch Reformed.
+REV. CH. F. SHAFFER, D.D., Lutheran.
+R. D. HITCHCOCK, D.D., Presbyterian.
+E. HARWOOD, D.D., Episcopal.
+H. B. HACKETT, D.D., Baptist.
+JOHN LILLIE, D.D., Presbyterian.
+REV. W. G. SUMNER, Episcopal.
+PROF. CHARLES ELLIOTT, Presbyterian.
+THOS. C. CONANT, D.D., Baptist.
+E. D. YEOMANS, D.D., Presbyterian.
+REV. C. C. STARBUCK, Congregational.
+J. ISIDOR MOMBERT, D.D., Episcopal.
+D. W. POOR, D.D., Presbyterian.
+C. P. WING, D.D., Presbyterian.
+GEORGE E. DAY. D.D., Congregational.
+REV. P. H. STEENSTRA, Episcopal.
+A. GOSMAN, D.D., Presbyterian.
+PRES. CHAS. A. AIKEN, D.D., Presbyt'n.
+M. B. RIDDLE, D.D., Dutch Reformed.
+PROF. WM. WELLS, D.D., Methodist.
+W. H. HORNBLOWER, D.D., Presbyt'n.
+PROF. GEORGE BLISS, Baptist.
+T. W. CHAMBERS, D.D., Reformed.
+
+
+*** Each volume of "LANGE'S COMMENTARY" is complete
+in itself, and can be purchased separately. Sent, post-paid, to any
+address upon receipt of the price ($5 per volume) by the publishers.
+
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,
+
+654 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.
+
+
+Manuals of Political Economy,
+
+_PUBLISHED BY_
+
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.
+
+
+Perry's Elements of Political Economy.
+
+NEW EDITION, REVISED BY THE AUTHOR.
+
+This treatise presents views favorable to the utmost freedom of
+commerce, compatible with legitimate revenue from tariff taxes. It is a
+standard text-book in all our colleges throughout the country. By ARTHUR
+LATHAM PERRY, Professor of Political Economy and History in Williams
+College. 487 _pages, price_ $2.50.
+
+
+     "Your book interests students more than any other I have ever
+     instructed from,"--_Pres. T. D. Woolsey, Yale College._
+
+     "As a manual for general reading and popular instruction, Prof.
+     Perry's book is far superior to any work on the subject before
+     issued in the United States."--_N. Y. Times._
+
+     "We cordially recommend this book to all, of whatever school of
+     political economy, who enjoy candid statement and full and logical
+     discussion."--_N. Y. Nation._
+
+     "There is more common sense in this book than in any of the more
+     elaborate works on the same subject that have preceded it."--_N. Y.
+     Independent._
+
+     "In all the portions of the book which we have read, the author
+     shows himself to be a clear, strong, bold, and generally sound
+     thinker."--_New Englander_.
+
+
+
+Bowen's American Political Economy.
+
+This treatise presents views compatible with the idea that "every
+country has a political economy of its own, suitable to its own physical
+circumstances of position on the globe, and to the character, habits,
+and institutions of the people." By FRANCIS BOWEN, Professor of
+Political Economy and Civil Polity in Harvard College. 495 _pages,
+price_ $2.50
+
+
+     "If our members of Congress would vote themselves a copy of this
+     book, and read it, fewer wild schemes would be concocted by them,
+     and a great saving of time and the people's money would be
+     secured."--_The Philadelphia Age._
+
+     "His arguments are worth considering, and his whole book is of high
+     value to any American to study economical questions."--_Springfield
+     Republican._
+
+     "A solid and well-reasoned treatise.... Mr. Bowen's views are
+     clearly stated and thoroughly reasoned."--_Boston
+     Congregationalist_.
+
+     ... "There are hundreds going wrong to-day whom a careful perusal
+     of this volume would set right."--_N. Y. Daily Tribune_.
+
+
+***_Sent, post-paid, on receipt of price by the publishers._
+
+
+Prices and Styles of the Different Editions
+
+OF
+
+FROUDE'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
+
+The Chelsea Edition.
+
+In half roan, gilt top, per set of twelve vols. 12mo $21.00
+
+Elegance and cheapness are combined in a remarkable degree in this
+edition. It takes its name from the place of Mr. Froude's residence in
+London, also famous as the home of Thomas Carlyle.
+
+
+THE POPULAR EDITION.
+
+In cloth, at the rate of $1.25 per volume. The set (12 vols.), in a neat
+box. $15.00
+
+The Same, in half calf extra 36.00
+
+This edition is printed from the same plates as the other editions, and
+on firm, white paper. It is, without exception, the cheapest set of
+books of its class ever issued in this country.
+
+
+The Library Edition.
+
+In twelve vols. crown 8vo, cloth $30.00 The Same, in half calf extra
+50.00
+
+The Edition is printed on laid and tinted paper, at the Riverside Press,
+and is in every respect worthy a place in the most carefully selected
+library.
+
+
+SHORT STUDIES ON GREAT SUBJECTS.
+
+BY JAMES ANTHONY FROUDE, M.A.,
+
+_"History of England," "The English in Ireland during the Eighteenth
+Century," etc._
+
+POPULAR EDITION. Two vols. 12mo, cloth, $1.50 per vol. The Set  $3.00
+
+CHELSEA EDITION. Two vols. 12mo, half roan, gilt top, $2.00 per volume.
+Per Set  4.00
+
+
+The Complete Works of James Anthony Froude, M.A.
+
+HISTORY OF ENGLAND AND SHORT STUDIES.
+
+Fourteen vols., in a neat Box.
+
+POPULAR EDITION  $18.00 CHELSEA EDITION  25.00
+
+
+_The above works sent, post-paid, by the publishers, on receipt of the
+price_
+
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,
+
+654 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.
+
+Popular and Standard Works
+
+PUBLISHED BY
+
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,
+
+654 Broadway, New York,
+
+IN 1873.
+
+
+1.  BAGEHOT'S (W.) LOMBARD STREET. 12mo                            $1 75
+2.  BIBLE COMMENTARY. Vol. II. 8vo                                  5 00
+3.    "        "      Vol. III. 8vo                                 5 00
+4.  COOK'S (F. C.) EXODUS. 8vo                                      1 50
+5.  DIEULAFAIT'S (L.) DIAMONDS AND PRECIOUS STONES.
+          _Illustrated_. 12mo                                       2 00
+6.  DODGE'S (MRS. MARY MAPES) HANS BRINKER. _Illustrated_. 12mo.    1 50
+7.  FIELD'S (T. W.) INDIAN BIBLIOGRAPHY. 8vo                        5 00
+8.  FISHER'S (DR. G. P.) HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION. 8vo            3 00
+9.  GUYOT'S (PROF. A.) PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY. Large 4to                2 25
+10. HALL'S (F.) MODERN ENGLISH. 12mo                                2 50
+11.   "     "  FALSE PHILOLOGY. 12mo,  boards                       1 25
+12. HOLLAND'S (DR. J. G) ARTHUR BONNICASTLE. _Illustrated_. 12mo.   1 75
+13. HOPKINS' (DR. M.) OUTLINE STUDY OF MAN. 12mo                    1 75
+  THE ILLUSTRATED LIBRARY OF TRAVEL AND ADVENTURE.
+    Each 1 vol. 12mo cloth                                          1 50
+      14. Central Africa.        15. Siam as It Was and Is.
+  THE LIBRARY OF CHOICE FICTION:
+    16. The Burgomaster's Family. 8vo. Cloth, $1.50; paper          1 00
+    17. Wandering Willie. 8vo. Paper                                  50
+    18. Galama. 8vo. Cloth, $1.25; paper                              75
+    19. May. By MRS. OLIPHANT. 8vo. Cloth, $1.50; paper             1 00
+20. LYNDON'S OXLEY. A Novel. 12mo                                   1 50
+21. MEDHURST'S (W. H.) THE FOREIGNER IN FAR CATHAY. 12mo            1 50
+22. PERRY'S (PROF. A. L.) POLITICAL ECONOMY. 11th edition revised.
+        Crown 8vo                                                   2 50
+23. SAXE HOLM'S STORIES. 12mo, extra gilt, $1.75; plain             1 50
+24. STANLEY'S (H. M.) MY KALULU. _Illustrated_. 12mo                2 00
+25. UEBERWEG'S (PROF. F.) HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. Vol. II. 8vo.      4 00
+26. VERNE'S (JULES) FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON. _Illustrated_.
+        Crown 8vo                                                   3 00
+27. VERNE'S (JULES) JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH.
+       _Illustrated_. 12mo                                          2 00
+28. VERY YOUNG COUPLE (A). 12mo                                     1 25
+
+
+***_Any of the above books sent postpaid to any
+address upon receipt of the price by the publishers._
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of What is Darwinism?, by Charles Hodge
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT IS DARWINISM? ***
+
+***** This file should be named 19192-8.txt or 19192-8.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/1/9/1/9/19192/
+
+Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Martin Pettit and
+the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+http://www.pgdp.net (This file was made using scans of
+public domain works from the University of Michigan Digital
+Libraries)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+*** END: FULL LICENSE ***
+
diff --git a/19192-8.zip b/19192-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..db3d047
--- /dev/null
+++ b/19192-8.zip
diff --git a/19192-h.zip b/19192-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ac4682b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/19192-h.zip
diff --git a/19192-h/19192-h.htm b/19192-h/19192-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bcbf42e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/19192-h/19192-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,4831 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
+  <head>
+    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" />
+    <title>
+      The Project Gutenberg eBook of What Is Darwinism? by Charles Hodge
+    </title>
+    <style type="text/css">
+/*<![CDATA[  XML blockout */
+<!--
+    p {  margin-top: .75em;
+         text-align: justify;
+         margin-bottom: .75em;
+         }
+    h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {
+         text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
+         clear: both;
+         }
+    hr { width: 33%;
+	 margin-top: 2em;
+	 margin-bottom: 2em;
+         margin-left: auto;
+         margin-right: auto;
+         clear: both;
+       }
+
+    hr.smler { width: 10%; }
+
+    body{margin-left: 10%;
+         margin-right: 10%;
+        }
+
+    table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}
+
+    .pagenum  { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */
+            /*  visibility: hidden;  */
+                position: absolute;
+                left: 92%;
+                font-size: smaller;
+                text-align: right;
+              } /* page numbers */
+
+    .center   {text-align: center;}
+    .smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}
+
+    .right            {text-align: right;}
+    .left             {text-align: left;}
+    .tbrk	{  margin-top: 2.75em;
+                   text-align: justify;
+                   margin-bottom: .75em;
+                }
+
+    /* index */
+
+    div.index ul li { padding-top: 1em ;text-align: left; }
+
+    div.index ul ul ul, div.index ul li ul li { padding: 0; text-align: left; }
+
+    div.index ul { list-style: none;  margin: 0; }
+
+    div.index ul, div.index ul ul ul li { display: inline; }
+
+    div.index .subitem { display: block; padding-left: 2em; }
+
+    // -->
+    /* XML end  ]]>*/
+    </style>
+  </head>
+<body>
+
+
+<pre>
+
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of What is Darwinism?, by Charles Hodge
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: What is Darwinism?
+
+Author: Charles Hodge
+
+Release Date: September 6, 2006 [EBook #19192]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT IS DARWINISM? ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Martin Pettit and
+the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+http://www.pgdp.net (This file was made using scans of
+public domain works from the University of Michigan Digital
+Libraries)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_i" id="Page_i">[Pg i]</a></span></p>
+<h1>WHAT IS DARWINISM?</h1>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h3>BY</h3>
+
+<h2>CHARLES HODGE,</h2>
+
+<h3>PRINCETON, N. J.</h3>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h3>NEW YORK:<br />SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG, AND COMPANY.<br />1874.</h3>
+
+<hr />
+
+<p class='center'><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_ii" id="Page_ii">[Pg ii]</a></span>
+Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by<br />
+<span class="smcap">Scribner, Armstrong, &amp; Company</span>,<br />
+In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.</p>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p class='center'>RIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGE:<br />
+STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY<br />
+H. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY.</p>
+
+<hr />
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">[Pg iii]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2>CONTENTS.</h2>
+
+<div class="index">
+<ul>
+<li><a href="#WHAT_IS_DARWINISM"><span class="smcap">Importance of the Question</span></a></li>
+<li><span class="smcap">Different Theories as to the Origin of the Universe, and specially of Vegetable and Animal Organisms</span>.
+<ul>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#The_Scriptural_Solution_of_the_Problem_of_the_Universe">1. The Scriptural Theory</a></li>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#The_Pantheistic_Theory">2. The Pantheistic Theory</a></li>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#Epicurean_Theory">3. The Epicurean Theory</a></li>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#Herbert_Spencers_New_Philosophy">4. The Doctrine of Herbert Spencer</a></li>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#Hylozoic_Theory">5. Hylozoic Theory</a></li>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#Theism_in_Unscriptural_Forms">6. Unscriptural Forms of Theism</a></li>
+</ul></li>
+<li><a href="#Mr_Darwins_Theory"><span class="smcap">Darwin's Theory</span></a></li>
+<li><a href="#Natural_Selection"><span class="smcap">Natural Selection</span></a></li>
+<li><a href="#The_Sense_in_which_Mr_Darwin_uses_the_Word_Natural"><span class="smcap">Sense in which Darwin uses the Word Natural</span></a></li>
+<li><a href="#Page_48"><span class="smcap">The Three Elements or Darwinism</span></a></li>
+<li><a href="#Page_49"><span class="smcap">The Exclusion of Design in Nature the Formative Idea of Darwin's Theory</span></a></li>
+<li><a href="#Darwinism_excludes_Teleology"><span class="smcap">Proof of Darwin's Denial of Teleology, from his own Writings</span></a></li>
+<li><span class="smcap">Proof from the Expositions of his Theory by its avowed Advocates</span>.
+<ul>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#Testimony_of_the_Advocates_of_the_Theory">Mr. Russell Wallace</a></li>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#Professor_Huxley">Professor Huxley</a></li>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#Buchner">Dr. B&uuml;chner</a></li>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#Carl_Vogt">Carl Vogt</a></li>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#Haeckel">Prof. Haeckel</a></li>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#Page_147">Strauss</a></li>
+</ul></li>
+<li><span class="smcap">Proof from the Objections urged by the Opponents of Mr. Darwin's Theory</span>.
+<ul>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#The_Opponents_of_Darwinism">Duke of Argyll</a></li>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#Agassiz">Agassiz</a></li>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#Janet">Professor Janet</a></li>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#M_Flourens">M. Flourens</a></li>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#Rev_Walter_Mitchell_M_A_Vice-President_of_the_Victoria_Institute">Rev. Walter Mitchell</a></li>
+	<li class="subitem"><a href="#Principal_Dawson">Principal Dawson</a></li>
+</ul></li>
+<li><a href="#Relation_of_Darwinism_to_Religion"><span class="smcap">Relation of Darwinism to Religion</span></a></li>
+<li><a href="#Page_126"><span class="smcap">Causes of the Antagonism between Science and Religion</span></a></li>
+<li><a href="#Page_141"><span class="smcap">The Evolution Theory contrary to Facts and to Scripture</span></a></li>
+<li><a href="#Page_165"><span class="smcap">Sir William Thomson on Teleology</span></a></li>
+<li><a href="#Page_174"><span class="smcap">Dr. Asa Gray</span></a></li>
+<li><a href="#Page_177"><span class="smcap">Darwinism tantamount to Atheism</span></a></li>
+<li><a href="#ADVERTISEMENTS"><span class="smcap">Advertisements</span></a></li>
+</ul>
+</div>
+
+<hr />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p>
+<h2><a name="WHAT_IS_DARWINISM" id="WHAT_IS_DARWINISM"></a>WHAT IS DARWINISM?</h2>
+
+<p>This is a question which needs an answer. Great confusion and diversity
+of opinion prevail as to the real views of the man whose writings have
+agitated the whole world, scientific and religious. If a man says he is
+a Darwinian, many understand him to avow himself virtually an atheist;
+while another understands him as saying that he adopts some harmless
+form of the doctrine of evolution. This is a great evil.</p>
+
+<p>It is obviously useless to discuss any theory until we are agreed as to
+what that theory is. The question, therefore, What is Darwinism? must
+take precedence of all discussion of its merits.</p>
+
+<p>The great fact of experience is that the universe exists. The great
+problem which has ever pressed upon the human mind is to account for its
+existence. What was its origin? To what causes are the changes we
+witness<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span> around us to be referred? As we are a part of the universe,
+these questions concern ourselves. What are the origin, nature, and
+destiny of man? Professor Huxley is right in saying, "The question of
+questions for mankind&mdash;the problem which underlies all others, and is
+more interesting than any other&mdash;is the ascertainment of the place which
+Man occupies in nature and of his relation to the universe of things.
+Whence our race has come, what are the limits of our power over nature,
+and of nature's power over us, to what goal are we tending, are the
+problems which present themselves anew and with undiminished interest to
+every man born into the world."<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> Mr. Darwin undertakes to answer these
+questions. He proposes a solution of the problem which thus deeply
+concerns every living man. Darwinism is, therefore, a theory of the
+universe, at least so far as the living organisms on this earth are
+concerned. This being the case, it may be well to state, in few words,
+the other prevalent theories on this great subject, that the points of
+agreement and of difference between them and the views of Mr. Darwin may
+be the more clearly seen.</p>
+
+<p class='tbrk'><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="The_Scriptural_Solution_of_the_Problem_of_the_Universe" id="The_Scriptural_Solution_of_the_Problem_of_the_Universe"></a><i>The Scriptural Solution of the Problem of the Universe</i>.</h2>
+
+<p>That solution is stated in words equally simple and sublime: "In the
+beginning God created the heavens and the earth." We have here, first,
+the idea of God. The word God has in the Bible a definite meaning. It
+does not stand for an abstraction, for mere force, for law or ordered
+sequence. God is a spirit, and as we are spirits, we know from
+consciousness that God is, (1.) A Substance; (2.) That He is a person;
+and, therefore, a self-conscious, intelligent, voluntary agent. He can
+say I; we can address Him as Thou; we can speak of Him as He or Him.
+This idea of God pervades the Scriptures. It lies at the foundation of
+natural religion. It is involved in our religious consciousness. It
+enters essentially into our sense of moral obligation. It is inscribed
+ineffaceably, in letters more or less legible, on the heart of every
+human being. The man who is trying to be an atheist is trying to free
+himself from the laws of his being. He might as well try to free himself
+from liability to hunger or thirst.</p>
+
+<p>The God of the Bible, then, is a Spirit, infi<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span>nite, eternal, and
+unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, goodness, and truth.
+As every theory must begin with some postulate, this is the grand
+postulate with which the Bible begins. This is the first point.</p>
+
+<p>The second point concerns the origin of the universe. It is not eternal
+either as to matter or form. It is not independent of God. It is not an
+evolution of his being, or his existence form. He is extramundane as
+well as antemundane. The universe owes its existence to his will.</p>
+
+<p>Thirdly, as to the nature of the universe; it is not a mere phenomenon.
+It is an entity, having real objective existence, or actuality. This
+implies that matter is a substance endowed with certain properties, in
+virtue of which it is capable of acting and of being acted upon. These
+properties being uniform and constant, are physical laws to which, as
+their proximate causes, all the phenomena of nature are to be referred.</p>
+
+<p>Fourthly, although God is extramundane, He is nevertheless everywhere
+present. That presence is not only a presence of essence, but also of
+knowledge and power. He upholds all things. He controls all physical<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span>
+causes, working through them, with them, and without them, as He sees
+fit. As we, in our limited spheres, can use physical causes to
+accomplish our purposes, so God everywhere and always co&ouml;perates with
+them to accomplish his infinitely wise and merciful designs.</p>
+
+<p>Fifthly, man a part of the universe, is, according to the Scriptures, as
+concerns his body, of the earth. So far, he belongs to the animal
+kingdom. As to his soul, he is a child of God, who is declared to be the
+Father of the spirits of all men. God is a spirit, and we are spirits.
+We are, therefore, of the same nature with God. We are God-like; so that
+in knowing ourselves we know God. No man conscious of his manhood can be
+ignorant of his relationship to God as his Father.</p>
+
+<p>The truth of this theory of the universe rests, in the first place, so
+far as it has been correctly stated, on the infallible authority of the
+Word of God. In the second place, it is a satisfactory solution of the
+problem to be solved,&mdash;(1.) It accounts for the origin of the universe.
+(2.) It accounts for all the universe contains, and gives a satisfactory
+explanation of the marvellous contrivances which abound in living
+organisms, of the adaptations of these or<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span>ganisms to conditions external
+to themselves, and for those provisions for the future, which on any
+other assumption are utterly inexplicable. (3.) It is in conflict with
+no truth of reason and with no fact of experience.<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> (4.) The
+Scriptural doctrine accounts for the spiritual nature of man, and meets
+all his spiritual necessities. It gives him an object of adoration,
+love, and confidence. It reveals the Being on whom his<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span> indestructible
+sense of responsibility terminates. The truth of this doctrine,
+therefore, rests not only on the authority of the Scriptures, but on the
+very constitution of our nature. The Bible has little charity for those
+who reject it. It pronounces them to be either derationalized or
+demoralized, or both.</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Evidences of Man's Place in Nature.</i> London, 1864, p. 57.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> The two facts which are commonly urged as inconsistent with
+Theism, are the existence of misery in the world, and the occurrence of
+undeveloped or useless organs, as teeth in the jaws of the whale and
+mamm&aelig; on the breast of a man. As to the former objection, sin, which is
+the only real evil, is accounted for by the voluntary apostasy of man;
+and as to undeveloped organs they are regarded as evidences of the great
+plan of structure which can be traced in the different orders of
+animals. These unused organs were&mdash;says Professor Joseph Le Conte, in
+his interesting volume on Religion and Science, New York, 1874, p.
+54&mdash;regarded as blunders in nature, until it was discovered that use is
+not the only end of design. "By further patient study of nature," he
+says, "came the recognition of another law beside use,&mdash;a law of order
+underlying and conditioning the law of use. Organisms are, indeed,
+contrived for use, but according to a preordained plan of structure,
+which must not be violated." It is of little moment whether this
+explanation be considered satisfactory or not. It would certainly be
+irrational to refuse to believe that the eye was made for the purpose of
+vision, because we cannot tell why a man has mamm&aelig;. A man might as well
+refuse to admit that there is any meaning in all the writings of Plato,
+because there is a sentence in them which he cannot understand.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="The_Pantheistic_Theory" id="The_Pantheistic_Theory"></a><i>The Pantheistic Theory</i>.</h2>
+
+<p>This has been one of the most widely diffused and persistent forms of
+human thought on this whole subject. It has been for thousands of years
+not only the philosophy, but the religion of India, and, to a great
+extent, of China. It underlies all the forms of Greek philosophy. It
+crept into the Church, concealed under the disguise of Scriptural
+terminology, in the form of Neo-Platonism. It was constantly reappearing
+during the Middle Ages, sometimes in a philosophical, and sometimes a
+mystical form. It was revived by Spinoza in the seventeenth century, and
+subsequently became dominant in the philosophy and literature of Europe.
+It is coming up again. Some distinguished naturalists are swinging round
+from one pole to the opposite; from saying there is no God, to teaching
+that everything is God.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span> Sometimes, one and the same book in one half
+teaches materialism, in the other half idealism: the one affirming that
+everything is matter, the other that matter is nothing, but that
+everything is mind, and mind is God.</p>
+
+<p>The leading principles of the Pantheistic theory are,&mdash;(1.) That there
+is an Infinite and Absolute Being. Of this Being nothing can be affirmed
+but actuality. It is denied that it is conscious, intelligent, or
+voluntary. (2.) It is subject to the blind necessity of self-evolution
+or development. (3.) This development being necessary is constant; from
+everlasting to everlasting. According to the Braminical doctrine,
+indeed, there are successive cycles of activity and repose, each cycle
+being measured by countless milliards of centuries. According to the
+moderns, self-evolution being necessary, there can be no repose, so that
+Ohne Welt kein Gott. (4.) The Finite is, therefore, the existence form
+of the Infinite; all that is in the latter for the time being is in the
+former. All that is possible is actual. (5.) The Finite is the Infinite,
+or, to use theistic language, the World is God, in the sense that all
+the world is and contains is the form in which God, at each successive
+moment, exists. There is no<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span> power, save only the power manifested in
+the world; no consciousness, intelligence, or voluntary activity, but in
+finite things, and the aggregate of these is the power, consciousness,
+intelligence, and activity of God. What we call sin is as much a form of
+God's activity as what we call virtue. In other words, there is no such
+thing as free agency in man, no such thing as sin or responsibility.
+When a man dies he sinks into the abyss of being as a drop of water is
+lost in the ocean. (6.) Man is the highest form of God's existence. God
+is incarnate in the human race. Strauss says, that what the Church
+teaches of Christ is not true of any individual man, but is true of
+mankind. Or, as Feuerbach more concisely expresses it, "Man alone is our
+God." The blasphemy of some of the German philosophers on this subject
+is simply unutterable. In India we see the practical operation of this
+system when it takes hold on the people. There the personification of
+the Infinite as evil (the Goddess Kala) is the most popular object of
+worship.</p>
+
+<p class='tbrk'><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Epicurean_Theory" id="Epicurean_Theory"></a><i>Epicurean Theory.</i></h2>
+
+<p>Epicurus assumed the existence of matter, force and motion,&mdash;Stoff und
+Kraft. He held that all space was filled with molecules of matter in a
+state of rapid motion in every direction. These molecules were subject
+to gravity and endowed with properties or forces. One combination of
+molecules gave rise to unorganized matter, another to life, another to
+mind; and from the various combinations, guided by unintelligent
+physical laws, all the wonderful organisms of plants and animals have
+arisen. To these combinations also all the phenomena of life, instinct,
+and intelligence in the world are to be referred. This theory has been
+adopted in our day by a large class of scientific men, especially in
+Germany. The modern advocates of the theory are immeasurably superior to
+the ancient Epicureans in their knowledge of astronomy, botany, zo&ouml;logy,
+and biology; but in their theory of the universe, and in their mode of
+accounting for all the phenomena of life and intelligence, they are
+precisely on the same level. They have not added an idea to the system,
+which has ever been regarded as the opprobrium of human<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span> thought.
+B&uuml;chner, Moleschott, Vogt, hold that matter is eternal and
+indestructible; that matter and force are inseparable: the one cannot
+exist without the other. What, it is asked, is motion without something
+moving? What is electricity without an electrified body? What is
+attraction without molecules attracting each other? What is
+contractibility without muscular fibre, or secretion without a secreting
+gland? One combination of molecules exhibits the phenomena of life,
+another combination exhibits the phenomena of mind. All this was taught
+by the old heathen philosopher more than two thousand years ago. That
+this system denies the existence of God, of mind as a thinking substance
+distinct from matter, and of the possibility of the conscious existence
+of man after death, are not inferences drawn by opponents, but
+conclusions openly avowed by its advocates.</p>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Herbert_Spencers_New_Philosophy" id="Herbert_Spencers_New_Philosophy"></a><i>Herbert Spencer's New Philosophy.</i></h2>
+
+<p>Mr. Darwin calls Spencer our "great philosopher." His is the speculating
+mind of the new school of science. This gives to his opinions special
+interest, although no one but himself is to be held responsible for his
+peculiar views, except so far as others see fit to avow<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> them. Mr.
+Spencer postulates neither mind nor matter. He begins with Force. Force,
+however, is itself perfectly inscrutable. All we know about it is, that
+it is, that it is indestructible, and that it is persistent.</p>
+
+<p>As to the origin of the universe, he says there are three possible
+suppositions: 1st. That it is self-existent. 2d. That it is
+self-created. 3d. That it is created by an external agency.<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> All these
+he examines and rejects. The first is equivalent to Atheism, by which
+Spencer understands the doctrine which makes Space, Matter, and Force
+eternal and the causes of all phenomena. This, he says, assumes the idea
+of self-existence, which is unthinkable. The second theory he makes
+equivalent to Pantheism. "The precipitation of vapor," he says, "into
+cloud, aids us in forming a symbolic conception of a self-evolved
+universe;" but, he adds, "really to conceive self-creation, is to
+conceive potential existence passing into actual existence by some
+inherent necessity, which we cannot do." (p. 32). The Theistic theory,
+he says, is equally untenable. "Whoever agrees that the atheistic
+hypothesis is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span> untenable because it involves the impossible idea of
+self-existence, must perforce admit that the theistic hypothesis is
+untenable if it contains the same impossible idea." (p. 38). The origin
+of the universe is, therefore, a fact which cannot be explained. It must
+have had a cause; and all we know is that its cause is unknowable and
+inscrutable.</p>
+
+<p>When we turn to nature the result is the same. Everything is
+inscrutable. All we know is that there are certain appearances, and that
+where there is appearance there must be something that appears. But what
+that something is, what is the noumenon which underlies the phenomenon,
+it is impossible for us to know. In nature we find two orders of
+phenomena, or appearances; the one objective or external, the other
+subjective in our consciousness. There are an Ego and a non-Ego, a
+subject and object. These are not identical. "It is," he says,
+"rigorously impossible to conceive that our knowledge is a knowledge of
+appearances only, without at the same time conceiving a reality of which
+they are appearances, for appearance without reality is unthinkable."
+(p. 88). So far we can go. There is a reality which is the cause of
+phe<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span>nomena. Further than that, in that direction, our ignorance is
+profound. He proves that space cannot be an entity, an attribute, or a
+category of thought, or a nonentity. The same is true of time, of
+motion, of matter, of electricity, light, magnetism, etc., etc. They all
+resolve themselves into appearances produced by an unknown cause.</p>
+
+<p>As the question, What is matter? is a crucial one, he dwells upon it in
+various parts of his writings. Newton's theory of ultimate atoms;
+Leibnitz's doctrine of monads; and the dynamic theory of Boscovich,
+which makes matter mere centres of force, are all dismissed as
+unthinkable. It is not very clear in what sense that word is to be
+taken. Sometimes it seems to mean, meaningless; at others,
+self-contradictory or absurd; at others, inconceivable, <i>i. e.</i> that of
+which no conception or mental image can be formed; at any rate, it
+implies what is unknowable and untenable. The result is, so far as
+matter is concerned, that we know nothing about it. "Our conception of
+matter," he says, "reduced to its simplest shape, is that of coexistent
+positions that offer resistance, as contrasted with our conception of
+space in which the coexistent positions offer<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span> no resistance." (p. 166).
+Resistance, however, is a form of force; and, therefore, on the
+following page, Spencer says, "that forces standing in certain
+correlations, form the whole contents of our idea of matter."</p>
+
+<p>When we turn from the objective to the subjective, from the external to
+the inward world, the result is still the same. He agrees with Hume in
+saying that the contents of our consciousness is a series of impressions
+and ideas. He dissents, however, from that philosopher, in saying that
+that series is all we know. He admits that impressions necessarily imply
+that there is something that is impressed. He starts the question, What
+is it that thinks? and answers, We do not know. (p. 63). He admits that
+the reality of individual personal minds, the conviction of personal
+existence is universal, and perhaps indestructible. Nevertheless that
+conviction cannot justify itself at the bar of reason; nay, reason is
+found to reject it. (p. 65). Dean Mansel says, that consciousness gives
+us a knowledge of self as a substance and not merely of its varying
+states. This, however, he says, "is absolutely negatived by the laws of
+thought. The fundamental condition to all consciousness, em<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span>phatically
+insisted upon by Mr. Mansel in common with Sir William Hamilton and
+others, is the antithesis of subject and object.... What is the
+corollary from this doctrine, as bearing on the consciousness of self?
+The mental act in which self is known implies, like every other mental
+act, a perceiving subject and a perceived object. If, then, the object
+perceived is self, what is the subject that perceives? Or if it is the
+true self which thinks, what other self can it be that is thought of?
+Clearly, a true cognition of self implies a state in which the knowing
+and the known are one&mdash;in which subject and object are identified; and
+this Mr. Mansel rightly holds to be the annihilation of both. So that
+the personality of which each is conscious, and of which the existence
+is to each a fact beyond all others the most certain, is yet a thing
+which cannot be known at all; knowledge of it is forbidden by the very
+nature of human thought." (pp. 65, 66).</p>
+
+<p>Mr. Spencer does not seem to expect that any man will be shaken in his
+conviction by any such argument as that. When a man is conscious of
+pain, he is not to be puzzled by telling him that the pain is one thing
+(the object perceived) and the self another thing (the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span> perceiving
+subject). He knows that the pain is a state of the self of which he is
+conscious. Consciousness is a form of knowledge; but knowledge of
+necessity supposes an intelligent reality which knows. A philosophy
+which cannot be received until men cease to believe in their own
+existence, must be in extremis.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. Spencer's conclusion is, that the universe&mdash;nature, or the external
+world with all its marvels and perpetual changes,&mdash;the world of
+consciousness with its ever varying states, are impressions or
+phenomena, due to an inscrutable, persistent force.</p>
+
+<p>As to the nature of this primal force or power, he quotes abundantly and
+approvingly from Sir William Hamilton and Mr. Mansel, to prove that it
+is unknowable, inconceivable, unthinkable. He, however, differs from
+those distinguished writers in two points. While admitting that we know
+no more of the first cause than we do of a geometrical figure which is
+at once a circle and a square, yet we do know that it is actual. For
+this conviction we are not dependent on faith. In the second place,
+Hamilton and Mansel taught that we know that the Infinite cannot be a
+person, self-conscious, intelligent, and voluntary; yet<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> we are forced
+by our moral constitution to believe it to be an intelligent person.
+This Mr. Spencer denies. "Let those," he says, "who can, believe that
+there is eternal war between our intellectual faculties and our moral
+obligations. I, for one, admit of no such radical vice in the
+constitution of things." (p. 108). Religion has always erred, he
+asserts, in that while it teaches that the Infinite Being cannot be
+known, it insists on ascribing to it such and such attributes, which of
+course assumes that so far forth it is known. We have no right, he
+contends, to ascribe personality to the "Unknown Reality," or anything
+else, except that it is the cause of all that we perceive or experience.
+There may be a mode of being, as much transcending intelligence and
+will, as these transcend mechanical motion. To show the folly of
+referring to the Unknown the attributes of our own spirits, he makes
+"the grotesque supposition that the tickings and other movements of a
+watch constituted a kind of consciousness; and that a watch possessed of
+such a consciousness, insisted on regarding the watchmaker's actions as
+determined like its own by springs and escapements." (p. 111). The vast
+majority of men, instead of agreeing<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> with Mr. Spencer in this matter,
+will doubtless heartily, each for himself, join the German philosopher
+Jacobi, in saying, "I confess to Anthropomorphism inseparable from the
+conviction that man bears the image of God; and maintain that besides
+this Anthropomorphism, which has always been called Theism, is nothing
+but Atheism or Fetichism."<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p>
+
+<p>Mr. Spencer, therefore, in accounting for the origin of the universe and
+all its phenomena, physical, vital, and mental, rejects Theism, or the
+doctrine of a personal God, who is extramundane as well as antemundane,
+the creator and governor of all things; he rejects Pantheism, which
+makes the finite the existence-form of the Infinite; he rejects Atheism,
+which he understands to be the doctrine of the eternity and
+self-existence of matter and force. He contents himself with saying we
+must acknowledge the reality of an unknown something which is the cause
+of all things,&mdash;the noumenon of all phenomena. "If science and religion
+are to be reconciled, the basis of the reconciliation must be this
+deepest, widest, and most certain of all facts,&mdash;that the Power which
+the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> universe manifests is utterly inscrutable." (p. 46). "The ultimate
+of ultimates is Force." "Matter and motion, as we know them, are
+differently conditioned manifestations of force." "If, to use an
+algebraic illustration, we represent Matter, Motion, and Force, by the
+symbols <i>x</i>, <i>y</i>, <i>z</i>; then we may ascertain the values of <i>x</i> and <i>y</i>
+in terms of <i>z</i>, but the value of <i>z</i> can never be found; <i>z</i> is the
+unknown quantity, which must forever remain unknown, for the obvious
+reason that there is nothing in which its value can be expressed." (pp.
+169, 170).</p>
+
+<p>We have, then, no God but Force. Atheist is everywhere regarded as a
+term of reproach. Every man instinctively recoils from it. Even the
+philosophers of the time of the French Revolution repudiated the charge
+of atheism, because they believed in motion; and motion being
+inscrutable, they believed in an inscrutable something, <i>i. e.</i> in
+Force. We doubt not Mr. Spencer would indignantly reject the imputation
+of atheism; nevertheless, in the judgment of most men, the difference
+between Antitheist and Atheist is a mere matter of orthography.</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>First Principles of a New System of Philosophy.</i> By
+Herbert Spencer. Second edition. New York, 1869, p. 30.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Von den g&ouml;ttlichen Dingen</i>, <i>Werke</i>, III. pp. 422, 425.
+Leipzig, 1816.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Hylozoic_Theory" id="Hylozoic_Theory"></a><i>Hylozoic Theory.</i></h2>
+
+<p>This theory assumes the universe to be eternal. There is nothing extra,
+or antemundane. There is but one substance, and that substance is
+matter. Matter, however, has an active and passive principle. Life and
+rationality are among its attributes or functions. The universe,
+therefore, is a living whole pervaded by a principle not only of life
+but of intelligence. This hylozoic doctrine, some modern scientific men,
+as Professor Tyndall, seem inclined to adopt. They tell us that matter
+is not the dead and degraded thing it is commonly regarded. It is active
+and transcendental. What that means, we do not know. The word
+transcendental is like a parabola, in that there is no knowing where its
+meaning ends. To say that matter is transcendental, is saying there is
+no telling what it is up to. This habit of using words which have no
+definite meaning is very convenient to writers, but very much the
+reverse for readers. Some of the ancient Stoics distinguished between
+the active and passive principles in the world, calling the one mind,
+the other, matter. These however were as intimately united as matter and
+life in a plant or animal.</p>
+
+<p class='tbrk'><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Theism_in_Unscriptural_Forms" id="Theism_in_Unscriptural_Forms"></a><i>Theism in Unscriptural Forms.</i></h2>
+
+<p>There are men who are constrained to admit the being of God, who depart
+from the Scriptural doctrine as to his relation to the world. According
+to some, God created matter and endowed it with certain properties, and
+then left it to itself to work out, without any interference or control
+on his part, all possible results. According to others, He created not
+only matter, but life, or living germs, one or more, from which without
+any divine intervention all living organisms have been developed.
+Others, again, refer not only matter and life, but mind also to the act
+of the Creator; but with creation his agency ceases. He has no more to
+do with the world, than a ship-builder has with the ship he has
+constructed, when it is launched and far off upon the ocean. According
+to all these views a creator is a mere <i>Deus ex machina</i>, an assumption
+to account for the origin of the universe.</p>
+
+<p>Another general view of God's relation to the world goes to the opposite
+extreme. Instead of God doing nothing, He does everything. Second causes
+have no efficiency. The laws of nature are said to be the uniform modes
+of divine operation. Gravitation does not flow from<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span> the nature of
+matter, but is a mode of God's uniform efficiency. What are called
+chemical affinities are not due to anything in different kinds of
+matter, but God always acts in one way in connection with an acid, and
+in another way in connection with an alkali. If a man places a particle
+of salt or sugar on his tongue, the sensation which he experiences is
+not to be referred to the salt or sugar, but to God's agency. When this
+theory is extended, as it generally is by its advocates, from the
+external to the internal world, the universe of matter and mind, with
+all their phenomena, is a constant effect of the omnipresent activity of
+God. The minds of some men, as remarked above, are so constituted that
+they can pass from the theory that God does nothing, to the doctrine
+that He does everything, without seeing the difference. Mr. Russel
+Wallace, the companion and peer of Mr. Darwin, devotes a large part of
+his book on "Natural Selection," to prove that the organs of plants and
+animals are formed by blind physical causes. Toward the close of the
+volume he teaches that there are no such causes. He asks the question,
+What is Matter? and answers, Nothing. We know, he says, nothing but
+force; and as the only force of which we have any<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> immediate knowledge
+is mind-force, the inference is "that the whole universe is not merely
+dependent on, but actually <i>is</i>, the will of higher intelligences, or of
+one Supreme Intelligence."<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> This is a transition from virtual
+materialism to idealistic pantheism. The effect of this admission on the
+part of Mr. Wallace on the theory of natural selection, is what an
+explosion of its boiler would be to a steamer in mid-ocean, which should
+blow out its deck, sides, and bottom. Nothing would remain above water.</p>
+
+<p>The Duke of Argyll seems at times inclined to lapse into the same
+doctrine. "Science," he says, "in the modern doctrine of conservation of
+energy and the convertibility of forces, is already getting a firm hold
+of the idea, that all kinds of force are but forms of manifestations of
+one central force issuing from some one fountain-head of power. Sir John
+Herschel has not hesitated to say, 'that it is but reasonable to regard
+the force of gravitation as the direct or indirect result of a
+consciousness or will existing somewhere.' And even if we cannot
+certainly identify force in all its forms with the direct energies of
+the one Omnipresent and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span> All-pervading Will, it is at least in the
+highest degree unphilosophical to assert the contrary,&mdash;to think or to
+speak, as if the forces of nature were either independent of, or even
+separate from the Creator's power."<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> The Duke, however, in the general
+tenor of his book, does not differ from the common doctrine, except in
+one point. He does not deny the efficiency of physical causes, or
+resolve them all into the efficiency of God; but he teaches that God, in
+this world at least, never acts except through those causes. He applies
+this doctrine even to miracles, which he regards as effects produced by
+second causes of which we are ignorant, that is, by some higher law of
+nature. The Scriptures, however, teach that God is not thus bound; that
+He operates through second causes, with them, or without them, as He
+sees fit. It is a purely arbitrary assumption, that when Christ raised
+the dead, healed the lepers, or gave sight to the blind, any second
+cause intervened between the effect and the efficiency of his will. What
+physical law, or uniformly acting force, operated to make the axe float
+at the command of the prophet? or, in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span> that greatest of all miracles,
+the original creation of the world.</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>The Theory of Natural Selection.</i> By Alfred Russel
+Wallace. London, 1870, p. 368.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> <i>Reign of Law.</i> By the Duke of Argyle. Fifth edition,
+London, 1867, p. 123.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Mr_Darwins_Theory" id="Mr_Darwins_Theory"></a><i>Mr. Darwin's Theory.</i></h2>
+
+<p>We have not forgotten Mr. Darwin. It seemed desirable, in order to
+understand his theory, to see its relation to other theories of the
+universe and its phenomena, with which it is more or less connected. His
+work on the "Origin of Species" does not purport to be philosophical. In
+this aspect it is very different from the cognate works of Mr. Spencer.
+Darwin does not speculate on the origin of the universe, on the nature
+of matter, or of force. He is simply a naturalist, a careful and
+laborious observer; skillful in his descriptions, and singularly candid
+in dealing with the difficulties in the way of his peculiar doctrine. He
+set before himself a single problem, namely, How are the fauna and flora
+of our earth to be accounted for? In the solution of this problem, he
+assumes:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>1. The existence of matter, although he says little on the subject. Its
+existence however, as a real entity, is everywhere taken for granted.</p>
+
+<p>2. He assumes the efficiency of physical<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> causes, showing no disposition
+to resolve them into mind-force, or into the efficiency of the First
+Cause.</p>
+
+<p>3. He assumes also the existence of life in the form of one or more
+primordial germs. He does not adopt the theory of spontaneous
+generation. What life is he does not attempt to explain, further than to
+quote (p. 326), with approbation, the definition of Herbert Spencer, who
+says, "Life depends on, or consists in, the incessant action and
+reaction of various forces,"&mdash;which conveys no very definite idea.</p>
+
+<p>4. To account for the existence of matter and life, Mr. Darwin admits a
+Creator. This is done explicitly and repeatedly. Nothing, however, is
+said of the nature of the Creator and of his relation to the world,
+further than is implied in the meaning of the word.</p>
+
+<p>5. From the primordial germ or germs (Mr. Darwin seems to have settled
+down to the assumption of only one primordial germ), all living
+organisms, vegetable and animal, including man, on our globe, through
+all the stages of its history, have descended.</p>
+
+<p>6. As growth, organization, and reproduction are the functions of
+physical life, as soon as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span> the primordial germ began to live, it began
+to grow, to fashion organs however simple, for its nourishment and
+increase, and for the reproduction, in some way, of living forms like
+itself. How all living things on earth, including the endless variety of
+plants, and all the diversity of animals&mdash;insects, fishes, birds, the
+ichthyosaurus, the mastodon, the mammoth, and man&mdash;have descended from
+the primordial animalcule, he thinks, may be accounted for by the
+operation of the following natural laws, viz.:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>First, the law of Heredity, or that by which like begets like. The
+offspring are like the parent.</p>
+
+<p>Second, the law of Variation, that is, while the offspring are, in all
+essential characteristics, like their immediate progenitor, they
+nevertheless vary more or less within narrow limits, from their parent
+and from each other. Some of these variations are indifferent, some
+deteriorations, some improvements, that is, they are such as enable the
+plant or animal to exercise its functions to greater advantage.</p>
+
+<p>Third, the law of Over Production. All plants and animals tend to
+increase in a geometrical ratio; and therefore tend to overrun<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span>
+enormously the means of support. If all the seeds of a plant, all the
+spawn of a fish, were to arrive at maturity, in a very short time the
+world could not contain them. Hence of necessity arises a struggle for
+life. Only a few of the myriads born can possibly live.</p>
+
+<p>Fourth, here comes in the law of Natural Selection, or the Survival of
+the Fittest. That is, if any individual of a given species of plant or
+animal happens to have a slight deviation from the normal type,
+favorable to its success in the struggle for life, it will survive. This
+variation, by the law of heredity, will be transmitted to its offspring,
+and by them again to theirs. Soon these favored ones gain the
+ascendency, and the less favored perish; and the modification becomes
+established in the species. After a time another and another of such
+favorable variations occur, with like results. Thus very gradually,
+great changes of structure are introduced, and not only species, but
+genera, families, and orders in the vegetable and animal world, are
+produced. Mr. Darwin says he can set no limit to the changes of
+structure, habits, instincts, and intelligence, which these simple laws
+in the course of millions or milliards of centuries may bring into<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span>
+existence. He says, "we cannot comprehend what the figures 60,000,000
+really imply, and during this, or perhaps a longer roll of years, the
+land and waters have everywhere teemed with living creatures, all
+exposed to the struggle for life, and undergoing change." (p. 354). "Mr.
+Croll," he tells us, "estimates that about sixty millions of years have
+elapsed since the Cambrian period, but this, judging from the small
+amount of organic change since the commencement of the glacial period,
+seems a very short time for the many and the great mutations of life,
+which have certainly occurred since the Cambrian formation; and the
+previous one hundred and forty million years can hardly be considered as
+sufficient for the development of the varied forms of life which
+certainly existed toward the close of the Cambrian period." (p. 379).
+Years in this connection have no meaning. We might as well try to give
+the distance of the fixed stars in inches. As astronomers are obliged to
+take the diameter of the earth's orbit as the unit of space, so
+Darwinians are obliged to take a geological cycle as their unit of
+duration.</p>
+
+<p class='tbrk'><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Natural_Selection" id="Natural_Selection"></a><i>Natural Selection.</i></h2>
+
+<p>As Natural Selection which works so slowly is a main element in Mr.
+Darwin's theory, it is necessary to understand distinctly what he means
+by it. On this point he leaves us no room for doubt. On p. 92, he says:
+"This preservation of favorable variations, and the destruction of
+injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or, the Survival of the
+Fittest." "Owing to the struggle (for life) variations, however slight
+and from whatever cause proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable
+to the individuals of a species, in their infinitely complex relations
+to other organic beings and to their physical conditions of life, will
+tend to the preservation of such individuals, and will generally be
+inherited by their offspring. The offspring also will thus have a better
+chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which
+are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called
+this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved,
+by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's
+power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer
+of the Survival of the Fit<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span>test, is more accurate, and sometimes is
+equally convenient." (p. 72). "Slow though the progress of selection may
+be, if feeble man can do so much by artificial selection, I can see no
+limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and infinite complexity of
+the co-adaptations between all organic beings, one with another, and
+with their physical conditions of life, which may be effected in the
+long course of time by nature's power of selection, or the survival of
+the fittest." (p. 125). "It may be objected that if organic beings thus
+tend to rise in the scale, how is it that throughout the world a
+multitude of the lowest forms still exist; and how is it that in each
+great class some forms are far more highly developed than others?... On
+our theory the continuous existence of lowly forms offers no difficulty;
+for natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, does not
+necessarily include progressive development, it only takes advantage of
+such variations as arise and are beneficial to each creature under its
+complex relations of life.... Geology tells us that some of the lowest
+forms, the infusoria and rhizopods, have remained for an enormous period
+in nearly their present state." (p. 145). "The fact of little or no
+modifica<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span>tion having been effected since the glacial period would be of
+some avail against those who believe in an innate and necessary law of
+development, but is powerless against the doctrine of natural selection,
+or the survival of the fittest, which implies only that variations or
+individual differences of a favorable nature occasionally arise in a few
+species and are then preserved." (p. 149)</p>
+
+<p>This process of improvement under the law of natural selection includes
+not only changes in the organic structure of animals, but also in their
+instincts and intelligence. On entering on this part of his subject, Mr.
+Darwin says, "I would premise that I have nothing to do with the origin
+of the primary mental powers, any more than I have with that of life
+itself. We are concerned only with the diversities of instinct and of
+other mental qualities within the same class." (p. 255) He shows that
+even in a state of nature the instincts of animals of the same species
+do in some degree vary, and that they are transmitted by inheritance. A
+mastiff has imparted courage to a greyhound, and a greyhound has
+transmitted to a shepherd-dog a disposition to hunt hares. Among
+sporting dogs, the young of the pointer or retriever<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> have been known to
+point or to retrieve without instruction. "If," he says, "it can be
+shown that instincts do vary ever so little, then I can see no
+difficulty in natural selection preserving and continually accumulating
+variations of instinct to any extent that was profitable. It is thus, as
+I believe, that all the most complex and wonderful instincts have
+arisen." (p. 257) He was rather unguarded in saying that he saw no
+difficulty in accounting for the most wonderful instincts of animals. He
+admits that he has found very great difficulty. He selects three cases
+which he found it specially hard to deal with: that of the cuckoo, that
+of the cell-building bee, and of the slave-making ant. He devotes much
+space and labor in endeavoring to show how the instinct of the bee, for
+example, in the construction of its cell, <i>might</i> have been gradually
+acquired. It is clear, however, that he was not able fully to satisfy
+even his own mind; for he admits that "it will be thought that I have an
+over-weening confidence in the principle of natural selection, when I do
+not admit that such wonderful and well established facts do not
+annihilate the theory." (p. 290) This remark was made with special
+reference to the instincts<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> of the ant, which he finds very hard to
+account for. He adds, "No doubt many instincts of very difficult
+explanation could be opposed to the theory of natural selection: cases
+in which we cannot see how an instinct could possibly have originated;
+cases in which no intermediate gradations are known to exist; cases of
+instinct of such trifling importance that they could hardly have been
+acted upon by natural selection; cases of instincts almost identically
+the same in animals so remote in the scale of nature, that we cannot
+account for their similarity by inheritance from a common progenitor,
+and consequently cannot believe that they were independently acquired
+through natural selection. I will not here enter on those cases, but
+will confine myself to one special difficulty which at first appeared to
+me insuperable, and actually fatal to the whole theory. I allude to
+neuters, or sterile females in insect communities; for these neuters
+often differ widely in instinct and structure from both the males and
+the fertile females, and yet, from being sterile, they cannot propagate
+their kind." (p. 289) He is candid enough to say, in conclusion, "I do
+not pretend that the facts given in this chapter (on instinct)
+strengthen<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> in any great degree my theory; but none of the cases of
+difficulty, to the best of my judgment, annihilate it." (p. 297) When it
+is remembered that his theory is, that slight variations occurring in an
+individual advantageous to it (not to its associates), in the struggle
+for life, is perpetuated by inheritance, it is no wonder that the case
+of sterile ants gave him so much trouble. Accidental sterility is not
+favorable to the individual, and its being made permanent by
+inheritance, is out of the question, for the sterile have no
+descendants. Yet these sterile females are not degenerations, they are
+in general larger and more robust than their associates.</p>
+
+<p>We have thus seen that, according to Mr. Darwin, all the infinite
+variety of structure in plants and animals is due to the law of natural
+selection. "On the principle of natural selection with divergence of
+character," he says, "it does not seem incredible that, from some such
+low and intermediate form, both animals and plants have been developed,
+and if we admit this, we must likewise admit that all the organized
+beings which have ever lived on this earth may be descended from some
+one primordial form." (p. 573) We have seen also<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> that he does not
+confine his theory to organic structure, but applies it to all the
+instincts and all the forms of intelligence manifested by irrational
+creatures. Nor does he stop there; he includes man within the sweep of
+the same law. "In the distant future I see open fields for far more
+important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that
+of the <i>necessary</i> acquirement of each mental power and capacity by
+gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history."
+(p. 577)</p>
+
+<p>The "distant future" was near at hand. In his introduction to his work
+on the "Descent of Man," he says, he had determined not to publish on
+that subject, "as I thought that I should thus only add to the
+prejudices against my views. It seemed to me sufficient to indicate, in
+the first edition of my 'Origin of Species,' that by this work 'light
+would be thrown on the origin of man and his history;' and this implies
+that man must be included with other organic beings in any general
+conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on this earth. Now the
+case wears a wholly different aspect. When a naturalist like Carl Vogt
+(we shall see in what follows what kind<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> of a witness he is) ventures to
+say in his address as President of the National Institution of Geneva
+(1869), 'Personne, en Europe au moins, n'ose plus soutenir la cr&eacute;ation
+ind&eacute;pendante et de toutes pi&eacute;ces, des esp&eacute;ces,'&mdash;it is manifest that at
+least a large number of naturalists must admit that species are the
+modified descendants of other species; and this especially holds good of
+the younger and rising naturalists.... Of the older and honored chiefs
+in natural science, many unfortunately are still opposed to evolution in
+every form." Carl Vogt would not write thus. To him no man is honored
+who does agree with him, and any man who believes in God he execrates.</p>
+
+<p>In 1871, Mr. Darwin ventured on the publication of his "Descent of Man."
+In that work, he endeavors to show that the proximate progenitor of man
+is the ape. He says "there is less difference of structure between the
+two, than between the higher and lower forms of apes themselves." Not
+only so, but he attempts to show that the mental faculties of man are
+derived by slight variations, long continued, from the measure of
+intellect possessed by lower animals. He even says, that there is less
+difference in intelligence between man and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> the higher mammals, than
+there is between the intelligence of the ant and that of the coccus,
+insects of the same class.<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a></p>
+
+<p>In like manner he teaches that man's moral nature has been evolved by
+slow degrees from the social instincts common to many animals. (pp. 68,
+94) The moral element, thus derived, he admits might lead to very
+different lines of conduct. "If men," he says, "were reared under the
+same conditions as hives-bees, there can hardly be a doubt, that our
+unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to
+kill all their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile
+daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (vol. i. p. 70)</p>
+
+<p>"Lower animals, especially the dog, manifest love, reverence, fidelity,
+and obedience; and it is from these elements that the religious
+sentiment in man has been slowly evolved by a process of natural
+selection." (vol. i. p. 65)</p>
+
+<p>The grand conclusion is, "man (body, soul, and spirit) is descended from
+a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably
+arboreal in its habits, and an inhab<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span>itant of the Old World." (vol. ii.
+p. 372) Mr. Darwin adds: "He who denounces these views (as irreligious)
+is bound to explain why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of
+man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the
+laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of
+the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction." (vol. ii. p.
+378)</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTE:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> <i>Descent of Man</i>, etc. By Charles Darwin, M. A., F. R. S.,
+etc. New York, 1871, vol. i. p. 179.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="The_Sense_in_which_Mr_Darwin_uses_the_Word_Natural" id="The_Sense_in_which_Mr_Darwin_uses_the_Word_Natural"></a><i>The Sense in which Mr. Darwin uses the Word "Natural."</i></h2>
+
+<p>We have not yet reached the heart of Mr. Darwin's theory. The main idea
+of his system lies in the word "natural." He uses that word in two
+senses: first, as antithetical to the word artificial. Men can produce
+very marked varieties as to structure and habits of animals. This is
+exemplified in the production of the different breeds of horses, cattle,
+sheep, and dogs; and specially, as Mr. Darwin seems to think, in the
+case of pigeons. Of these, he says, "The diversity of breeds is
+something astonishing." Some have long, and some very short bills; some
+have large feet, some small; some long necks, others long wings and
+tails, while others have singularly short tails; some have thirty,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> and
+even forty, tail-feathers, instead of the normal number of twelve or
+fourteen. They differ as much in instinct as they do in form. Some are
+carriers, some pouters, some tumblers, some trumpeters; and yet all are
+descendants of the Rock Pigeon which is still extant. If, then, he
+argues, man, in a comparatively short time, has by artificial selection
+produced all these varieties, what might be accomplished on the
+boundless scale of nature, during the measureless ages of the geologic
+periods.</p>
+
+<p>Secondly, he uses the word natural as antithetical to supernatural.
+Natural selection is a selection made by natural laws, working without
+intention and design. It is, therefore, opposed not only to artificial
+selection, which is made by the wisdom and skill of man to accomplish a
+given purpose, but also to supernatural selection, which means either a
+selection originally intended by a power higher than nature; or which is
+carried out by such power. In using the expression Natural Selection,
+Mr. Darwin intends to exclude design, or final causes. All the changes
+in structure, instinct, or intelligence, in the plants or animals,
+including man, descended from the primordial germ,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> or animalcule, have
+been brought about by unintelligent physical causes. On this point he
+leaves us in no doubt. He defines nature to be "the aggregate action and
+product of natural laws; and laws are the sequence of events as
+ascertained by us." It had been objected that he often uses teleological
+language, speaking of purpose, intention, contrivance, adaptation, etc.
+In answer to this objection, he says: "It has been said, that I speak of
+natural selection as a power or deity; but who objects to an author
+speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the
+planet?" He admits that in the literal sense of the words, natural
+selection is a false term; but "who ever objected to chemists, speaking
+of the elective affinities of various elements?&mdash;and yet an acid cannot
+strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference
+combines." (p. 93) We have here an affirmation and a negation. It is
+affirmed that natural selection is the operation of natural laws,
+analogous to the action of gravitation and of chemical affinities. It is
+denied that it is a process originally designed, or guided by
+intelligence, such as the activity which foresees an end and consciously
+selects and controls the means of its accomplishment.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> Artificial
+selection, then, is an intelligent process; natural selection is not.</p>
+
+<p>There are in the animal and vegetable worlds innumerable instances of at
+least apparent contrivance, which have excited the admiration of men in
+all ages. There are three ways of accounting for them. The first is the
+Scriptural doctrine, namely, that God is a Spirit, a personal,
+self-conscious, intelligent agent; that He is infinite, eternal, and
+unchangeable in his being and perfections; that He is ever present; that
+this presence is a presence of knowledge and power. In the external
+world there is always and everywhere indisputable evidence of the
+activity of two kinds of force: the one physical, the other mental. The
+physical belongs to matter, and is due to the properties with which it
+has been endowed; the other is the everywhere present and ever acting
+mind of God. To the latter are to be referred all the manifestations of
+design in nature, and the ordering of events in Providence. This
+doctrine does not ignore the efficiency of second causes; it simply
+asserts that God over-rules and controls them. Thus the Psalmist says,
+"I am fearfully and wonderfully made.... My substance was not hid from
+thee, when<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span> I was made in secret, and curiously wrought (or embroidered)
+in the lower parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance yet
+being imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in
+continuance were fashioned, when as yet there were none of them." "He
+who fashioned the eye, shall not He see? He that formed the ear shall
+not He hear?" "God makes the grass to grow, and herbs for the children
+of men." He sends rain, frost, and snow. He controls the winds and the
+waves. He determines the casting of the lot, the flight of an arrow, and
+the falling of a sparrow. This universal and constant control of God is
+not only one of the most patent and pervading doctrines of the Bible,
+but it is one of the fundamental principles of even natural religion.</p>
+
+<p>The second method of accounting for contrivances in nature admits that
+they were foreseen and purposed by God, and that He endowed matter with
+forces which He foresaw and intended should produce such results. But
+here his agency stops. He never interferes to guide the operation of
+physical causes. He does nothing to control the course of nature, or the
+events of history. On this theory it may be said, (1.) That it is
+utterly inconsistent with the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span> Scriptures. (2.) It does not meet the
+religious and moral necessities of our nature. It renders prayer
+irrational and inoperative. It makes it vain for a man in any emergency
+to look to God for help. (3.) It is inconsistent with obvious facts. We
+see around us innumerable evidences of the constant activity of mind.
+This evidence of mind and of its operations, according to Lord Brougham
+and Dr. Whewell, is far more clear than that of the existence of matter
+and of its forces. If one or the other is to be denied, it is the latter
+rather than the former. Paley indeed says, that if the construction of a
+watch be an undeniable evidence of design it would be a still more
+wonderful manifestation of skill, if a watch could be made to produce
+other watches; and, it may be added, not only other watches, but all
+kinds of time-pieces in endless variety. So it has been asked, if man
+can make a telescope, why cannot God make a telescope which produces
+others like itself? This is simply asking, whether matter can be made to
+do the work of mind? The idea involves a contradiction. For a telescope
+to make a telescope, supposes it to select copper and zinc in due
+proportions and fuse them into brass; to fashion that brass<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> into
+inter-entering tubes; to collect and combine the requisite materials for
+the different kinds of glass needed; to melt them, grind, fashion, and
+polish them; adjust their densities and focal distances, etc., etc. A
+man who can believe that brass can do all this, might as well believe in
+God. The most credulous men in the world are unbelievers. The great
+Napoleon could not believe in Providence; but he believed in his star,
+and in lucky and unlucky days.</p>
+
+<p>This banishing God from the world is simply intolerable, and, blessed be
+his name, impossible. An absent God who does nothing is, to us, no God.
+Christ brings God constantly near to us. He said to his disciples,
+"Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap; which have neither
+store-house nor barn; and God feedeth them; how much better are ye than
+the fowls. And which of you by taking thought can add to his stature one
+cubit? Consider the lilies how they grow; they toil not, neither do they
+spin; and yet I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not
+arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothe the grass, which is
+to-day in the field, and to-morrow is cast into the oven; how much<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> more
+will He clothe you, O ye of little faith." "And seek ye not what ye
+shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. For
+all these things do the nations of the world seek after; and your Father
+knoweth that ye have need of these things." It may be said that Christ
+did not teach science. True, but He taught truth; and science, so
+called, when it comes in conflict with truth, is what man is when he
+comes in conflict with God.</p>
+
+<p>The advocates of these extreme opinions protest against being considered
+irreligious. Herbert Spencer says, that his doctrine of an inscrutable,
+unintelligent, unknown force, as the cause of all things, is a much more
+religious doctrine than that of a personal, intelligent, and voluntary
+Being of infinite power and goodness. Matthew Arnold holds that an
+unconscious "power which makes for right," is a higher idea of God than
+the Jehovah of the Bible. Christ says, God is a Spirit. Holbach thought
+that he made a great advance on that definition, when he said, God is
+motion.</p>
+
+<p>The third method of accounting for the contrivances manifested in the
+organs of plants and animals, is that which refers them to the blind
+operation of natural causes. They are<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> not due to the continued
+co&ouml;peration and control of the divine mind, nor to the original purpose
+of God in the constitution of the universe. This is the doctrine of the
+Materialists, and to this doctrine, we are sorry to say, Mr. Darwin,
+although himself a theist, has given in his adhesion. It is on this
+account the Materialists almost deify him.</p>
+
+<p>From what has been said, it appears that Darwinism includes three
+distinct elements. First, evolution; or the assumption that all organic
+forms, vegetable and animal, have been evolved or developed from one, or
+a few, primordial living germs; second, that this evolution has been
+effected by natural selection, or the survival of the fittest; and
+third, and by far the most important and only distinctive element of his
+theory, that this natural selection is without design, being conducted
+by unintelligent physical causes. Neither the first nor the second of
+these elements constitute Darwinism; nor do the two combined. As to the
+first, namely, evolution, Mr. Darwin himself, in the historical sketch
+prefixed to the fifth edition of his "Origin of Species," says, that
+Lamarck, in 1811 and more fully in 1815, "taught that all species,
+including man, are<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span> descended from other species." He refers to some six
+or eight other scientists, as teaching the same doctrine. This idea of
+Evolution was prominently presented and elaborated in the "Vestiges of
+Creation," first published in 1844. Ulrici, Professor in the University
+of Halle, Germany, in his work "Gott und die Natur," says that the
+doctrine of evolution took no hold on the minds of scientific men, but
+was positively rejected by the most eminent physiologists, among whom he
+mentions J. M&uuml;ller, K. Wagner, Bischoff, Hoffmann, and others.<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> The
+Rev. George Henslow, Lecturer on Botany at St. Bartholomew's Hospital,
+London, himself a pronounced evolutionist, says the theories of Lamarck
+and of the "Vestiges of Creation" have given place to that of Mr.
+Darwin; "and there are not wanting many symptoms of decay in the
+acceptance even of his. Not only has he considerably modified his views
+in later editions of the 'Origin of Species,' distinctly expressing the
+opinion that he attributed too great influence to natural selection, but
+even men of science, Owen, Huxley,&mdash;and at least in its application<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> to
+man, Wallace himself,&mdash;are either opposed to it in great measure, or
+else give it but a qualified assent. Thus, it has been the fate of all
+theories of the development of living things to lapse into oblivion.
+<i>Evolution</i> itself, however, will stand the same."<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> We find in the
+"Transactions of the Victoria Institute," a still more decided
+repudiation of Darwinism on the part of Mr. Henslow. He there says: "I
+do not believe in Darwin's theory; and have endeavored to refute it by
+showing its utter impossibility."<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> He defines Evolution by saying,
+"It supposes all animals and plants that exist now, or have ever
+existed, to have been produced through laws of generation from
+pre&euml;xisting animals and plants respectively; that affinity amongst
+organic beings implies, or is due to community of descent; and that the
+degree of affinity between organisms is in proportion to their nearness
+of generation, or, at least, to the persistence of common characters,
+they being the products of originally the same parentage."<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> A man,
+therefore, may be an<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span> evolutionist, without being a Darwinian. It should
+be mentioned that Mr. Henslow expressly excludes man, both as to body
+and soul, from the law of evolution.</p>
+
+<p>Nor is the theory of natural selection the vital principle of Mr.
+Darwin's theory, unless the word natural be taken in a sense
+antithetical to supernatural. In the historical sketch just referred to,
+Mr. Darwin not only says that he had been anticipated in teaching the
+doctrine of Evolution by Lamarck and the author of the "Vestiges of
+Creation;" but that the theory of natural selection, as the means of
+accounting for evolution, was not original with him. He tells us that as
+early as 1813, Dr. W. C. Wells "distinctly recognizes the principle of
+natural selection;" and that Mr. Patrick Matthew, in 1831, "gives
+precisely the same view of the origin of species as that propounded by
+Mr. Wallace and myself." Ideas are like seed: they are often cast forth,
+and not finding a congenial soil produce no fruit. To Mr. Darwin is
+undoubtedly due the elaboration and thoroughly scientific defence of the
+theory of natural selection, and to him is to be referred the deep and
+widespread interest which it has excited.</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> <i>Gott und die Natur</i>. Von D. Hermann Ulrici. Zweite
+Auflage. Leipzig, 1866, p. 394.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> <i>The Theory of Evolution of Living Things and the
+Application of the Principles of Evolution to Religion</i>. By Rev. George
+Henslow, M. A., F. L. S., F. G. S. London, 1873, pp. 27, 28.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> <i>Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, or
+Philosophical Society of Great Britain</i>. Vol. iv. London, 1870, p. 278.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> <i>Evolution and Religion</i>, p. 29.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Darwinism_excludes_Teleology" id="Darwinism_excludes_Teleology"></a><i>Darwinism excludes Teleology.</i></h2>
+
+<p>It is however neither evolution nor natural selection, which give
+Darwinism its peculiar character and importance. It is that Darwin
+rejects all teleology, or the doctrine of final causes. He denies design
+in any of the organisms in the vegetable or animal world. He teaches
+that the eye was formed without any purpose of producing an organ of
+vision.</p>
+
+<p>Although evidence on this point has already been adduced, yet as it is
+often overlooked, at least in this country, so that many men speak
+favorably of Mr. Darwin's theory, who are no more Darwinians than they
+are Mussulmans; and as it is this feature of his system which brings it
+into conflict not only with Christianity, but with the fundamental
+principles of natural religion, it should be clearly established. The
+sources of proof on this point are,&mdash;1st. Mr. Darwin's own writings. 2d.
+The expositions of his theory given by its advocates. 3d. The character
+of the objections urged by its opponents.</p>
+
+<p>The point to be proved is that it is the distinctive doctrine of Mr.
+Darwin, that species owe their origin, not to the original intention<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span> of
+the divine mind; not to special acts of creation calling new forms into
+existence at certain epochs; not to the constant and everywhere
+operative efficiency of God, guiding physical causes in the production
+of intended effects; but to the gradual accumulation of unintended
+variations of structure and instinct, securing some advantage to their
+subjects.</p>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Darwins_own_Testimony" id="Darwins_own_Testimony"></a><i>Darwin's own Testimony.</i></h2>
+
+<p>That such is Mr. Darwin's doctrine we prove from his own writings. And
+the first proof from that source is found in express declarations. When
+an idea pervades a book and constitutes its character, detached passages
+constitute a very small part of the evidence of its being inculcated. In
+the present case, however, such passages are sufficient to satisfy even
+those who have not had occasion to read Mr. Darwin's books. In referring
+to the similarity of structure in animals of the same class, he says,
+"Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity
+of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or the doctrine of
+final causes."<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></p>
+
+<p>On the last page of his work, he says: "It<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span> is interesting to
+contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with
+birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and
+with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these
+elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and
+dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced
+by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being
+growth with reproduction; variability from the indirect and direct
+action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a ratio of
+increase so high as to lead to a struggle for life, and as a consequence
+to natural selection, entailing divergence of character and extinction
+of less improved forms. Thus from the war of nature, from famine and
+death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, the
+production of the higher animals directly follows. There is a grandeur
+in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally
+breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that whilst
+this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity,
+from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
+wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (p. 579)<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>In another of his works, he asks, "Did He (God) ordain that crop and
+tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary, in order that the fancier might
+make his grotesque pouter and fan-tail breeds? Did He cause the frame
+and mental qualities of the dog to vary, in order that a breed might be
+formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull,
+for man's brutal sport? But if we give up the principle in one case; if
+we do not admit that the variations of the primeval dog were
+intentionally guided in order, for instance, that the greyhound, that
+perfect image of symmetry and vigor, might be formed; no shadow of
+reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature
+and the results of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork
+through natural selection of the most perfectly adapted animals in the
+world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided. However
+much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray, in his
+belief 'that variations have been led along certain beneficial lines, as
+a stream is led along useful lines of irrigation.'"<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span>Variations, which by their gradual accumulation give rise to new
+species, genera, families, and orders, are themselves, step by step,
+accidental. Mr. Darwin sometimes says they happen by chance; sometimes
+he says they happen of necessity; at others he says, "We are profoundly
+ignorant of their causes." These are only different ways of saying that
+they are not intentional. When a man lets anything fall from his hands,
+and says it was accidental, he does not mean that it was causeless, he
+only means that it was not intentional. And that is precisely what
+Darwin means when he says that species arise out of accidental
+variations. His whole book is an argument against teleology. The whole
+question is, How are we to account for the innumerable varieties, kinds,
+and genera of plants and animals, including man? Were they intended? or,
+Did they arise from the gradual accumulations of unintentional
+variations? His answer to these questions is plain. On page 245, he
+says: "Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that
+the more complex organs and instincts have been perfected not by means
+superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by innumerable
+slight variations, each good<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span> for the individual possessor.
+Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a>
+insuperably great, cannot be considered real, if we admit the following
+propositions, namely, that all parts of the organizations and instincts
+offer, at least, individual differences; that there is a struggle for
+existence, which leads to the preservation of profitable deviations of
+structure or instinct; and, lastly, that gradations in the state of
+perfection of each organ may have existed, each good of its kind." He
+says, over and over, that if beauty or any variation of structure can be
+shown to be intended, it would "annihilate his theory." His doctrine is
+that such unintended variations, which happen to be useful in the
+struggle for life, are preserved, on the principle of the survival of
+the fittest. He urges the usual objections to teleology derived from
+undeveloped or useless organs, as web-feet in the upland goose and
+frigate-bird, which never swim.</p>
+
+<p>What, however, perhaps more than anything, makes clear his rejection of
+design is the manner in which he deals with the complicated or<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span>gans of
+plants and animals. Why don't he say, they are the product of the divine
+intelligence? If God made them, it makes no difference, so far as the
+question of design is concerned, how He made them: whether at once or by
+a process of evolution. But instead of referring them to the purpose of
+God, he laboriously endeavors to prove that they may be accounted for
+without any design or purpose whatever.</p>
+
+<p>"To suppose," he says, "that the eye with all its inimitable
+contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for
+admitting different degrees of light, and for the correction of
+spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural
+selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (p.
+222) Nevertheless he attempts to explain the process. "It is scarcely
+possible," he says, "to avoid comparing the eye with the telescope. We
+know that this instrument has been perfected by the long continued
+efforts of the highest of human intellects; and we naturally infer that
+the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not
+this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the
+Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must
+compare<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span> the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to
+take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with spaces filled with fluid,
+and with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part
+of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to
+separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at
+different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer
+slowly changing in form. Further, we must suppose that there is a power
+represented by natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, always
+intently watching each slight alteration in the transparent layers, and
+carefully preserving each, which, under varied circumstances, tends to
+produce a distinct image. We must suppose each new state of the
+instrument to be multiplied by the million; each to be preserved until a
+better is produced, and the old ones to be all destroyed. In living
+bodies, variations will cause the slight alterations, generation will
+multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out
+with unerring skill each improvement."<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> (p. 226) "Let this process,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span>"
+he says, "go on for millions of years," and we shall at last have a
+perfect eye.</p>
+
+<p>It would be absurd to say anything disrespectful of such a man as Mr.
+Darwin, and scarcely less absurd to indulge in any mere extravagance of
+language; yet we are expressing our own experience, when we say that we
+regard Mr. Darwin's books the best refutation of Mr. Darwin's theory. He
+constantly shuts us up to the alternative of believing that the eye is a
+work of design or the product of the unintended action of blind physical
+causes. To any ordinarily constituted mind, it is absolutely impossible
+to believe that it is not a work of design. Darwin himself, it is
+evident, dear as his theory is, can hardly believe it. "It is
+indispensable," he says, "to arrive at a just conclusion as to the
+formation of the eye, that the reason should conquer the imagination;
+but I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any
+degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to
+so startling an extent." (p. 225)<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>It will be observed that every step in his account of the formation of
+the eye is an arbitrary assumption. We must first assume a thick layer
+of tissue; then that the tissue is transparent; then that it has
+cavities filled with fluid; that beneath the tissue is a nerve sensitive
+to light; then that the fluid is constantly varying in density and
+thickness; that its surfaces are constantly changing their contour; that
+its different portions are ever shifting their relative distances; that
+every favorable change is seized upon and rendered permanent,&mdash;thus
+after millions of years we may get an eye as perfect as that of an
+eagle. In like manner we may suppose a man to sit down to account for
+the origin and contents of the Bible, assuming as his "working
+hypothesis," that it is not the product of mind either human or divine,
+but that it was made by a type-setting machine worked by steam, and
+picking out type hap-hazard. In this way in a thousand years one
+sentence might be produced, in another thousand a second, and in ten
+thousand more, the two might get together in the right position. Thus in
+the course of "millions of years" the Bible might have been produced,
+with all its historical details, all its elevated<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span> truths, all its
+devout and sublime poetry, and above all with the delineation of the
+character of Christ, the &#953;&#948;&#7953;&#945; &#964;&#8033;&#957; &#953;&#948;&#949;&#8033;&#957;, the ideal of majesty
+and loveliness, before which the whole world, believing and unbelieving,
+perforce bows down in reverence. And when reason has sufficiently
+subdued the imagination to admit all this, then by the same theory we
+may account for all the books in all languages in all the libraries in
+the world. Thus we should have Darwinism applied in the sphere of
+literature. This is the theory which we are told is to sweep away
+Christianity and the Church!</p>
+
+<p>Mr. Darwin gives the same unsatisfactory account of the marvellous
+"contrivances" in the vegetable world. In one species of Orchids, the
+labellum or lower lip is hollowed into a great bucket continually filled
+with water, secreted from two horns which stand above it; when the
+bucket is sufficiently filled, the water flows out through a pipe or
+spout on one side. The bees, which crowd into the flower for sake of the
+nectar, jostle each other, so that some fall into the water; and their
+wings becoming wet they are unable to fly, and are obliged to crawl
+through the spout. In doing this they<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span> come in contact with the pollen,
+which, adhering to their backs, is carried off to other flowers. This
+complicated contrivance by which the female plants are fertilized has,
+according to the theory, been brought about by the slow process of
+natural selection or survival of the fittest.</p>
+
+<p>Still more wonderful is the arrangement in another species of Orchids.
+When the bee begins to gnaw the labellum, he unavoidably touches a
+tapering projection, which, when touched, transmits a vibration which
+ruptures a membrane, which sets free a spring by which a mass of pollen
+is shot, with unerring aim, over the back of the bee, who then departs
+on his errand of fertilization.</p>
+
+<p>A very large class of plants are fertilized by means of insects. These
+flowers are beautiful, not for the sake of beauty,&mdash;for that Mr. Darwin
+says would annihilate his theory,&mdash;but those which happen to be
+beautiful attract insects, and thus become fertilized and perpetuated,
+while the plainer ones are neglected and perish. So with regard to
+birds. The females are generally plain, because those of bright colors
+are so exposed during the period of incubation that they are destroyed
+by their enemies.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span> In like manner male birds are usually adorned with
+brilliant plumage. This is accounted for on the ground that they are
+more attractive, and thus they propagate their race, while the plainer
+ones have few or no descendants. Thus all design is studiously and
+laboriously excluded from every department of nature.</p>
+
+<p>The preceding pages contain only a small part of the evidence furnished
+by Mr. Darwin's own writings, that his doctrine involves the denial of
+all final causes. The whole drift of his books is to prove that all the
+organs of plants and animals, all their instincts and mental endowments,
+may be accounted for by the blind operation of natural causes, without
+any intention, purpose, or co&ouml;peration of God. This is what Professor
+Huxley and others call "the creative idea," to which the widespread
+influence of his writings is to be referred.</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> <i>Origin of Species</i>, p. 517.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> <i>The Variations of Animals and Plants under
+Domestication.</i> By Charles Darwin, F. R. S., etc. New York, 1868, vol.
+ii. pp. 515, 516.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> What can the word "imagination" mean in this sentence, if
+it does not mean "Common Sense?"</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> Mr. Darwin's habit of personifying nature has given, as
+his friend Mr. Wallace says, his readers a good deal of trouble. He
+defines nature to be the aggregate of physical forces; and in the single
+passage quoted, he speaks of Natural Selection "as intently watching"
+"picking out with unerring skill," and "carefully preserving." It is
+true, he tells us this is all to be understood metaphorically.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Testimony_of_the_Advocates_of_the_Theory" id="Testimony_of_the_Advocates_of_the_Theory"></a><i>Testimony of the Advocates of the Theory.</i></h2>
+
+<p>It is time to turn to the exposition of Darwinism by its avowed
+advocates, in proof of the assertion that it excludes all teleology.</p>
+
+<p>The first of these witnesses is Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace, himself a
+distinguished naturalist. Mr. Darwin informs his readers that as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span> early
+as 1844, he had collected his material and worked out his theory, but
+had not published it to the world, although it had been communicated to
+some of his friends. In 1858 he received a memoir from Mr. Wallace, who
+was then studying the natural history of the Malay Archipelago. From
+that memoir he learnt that Mr. Wallace had "arrived at almost exactly
+the same conclusions as I (he himself) have on the origin of species."
+This led to the publishing his book on that subject contemporaneously
+with Mr. Wallace's memoir. There has been no jealousy or rivalry between
+these gentlemen. Mr. Wallace gracefully acknowledges the priority of Mr.
+Darwin's claim, and attributes to him the credit of having elaborated
+and sustained it in a way to secure for it universal attention. These
+facts are mentioned in order to show the competency of Mr. Wallace as a
+witness as to the true character of Darwinism.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. Wallace, in "The Theory of Natural Selection," devotes a chapter to
+the consideration of the objections urged by the Duke of Argyll, in his
+work on the "Reign of Law," against that theory. Those objections are
+principally two: first, that design necessarily implies an<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span> intelligent
+designer; and second, that beauty not being an advantage to its
+possessor in the struggle for life, cannot be accounted for on the
+principle of the survival of the fittest. The Duke, he says, maintains
+that contrivance and beauty indicate "the constant supervision and
+interference of the Creator, and cannot possibly be explained by the
+unassisted action of any combination of laws. Now, Mr. Darwin's work,"
+he adds, "has for its main object to show that all the phenomena of
+living things&mdash;all their wonderful organs and complicated structures,
+their infinite variety of form, size, and color, their intricate and
+involved relations to each other&mdash;may have been produced by the action
+of a few general laws of the simplest kind, laws which are in most cases
+mere statements of admitted facts." (p. 265) Those laws are those with
+which we are familiar: Heredity, Variations, Over Production, Struggle
+for Life, Survival of the Fittest. "It is probable," he says, "that
+these primary facts or laws are but results of the very nature of life,
+and of the essential properties of organized and unorganized matter. Mr.
+Herbert Spencer, in his 'First Principles' and in his 'Biology,' has, I
+think, made us able to understand how this may<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span> be; but at present we
+may accept these simple laws, without going further back, and the
+question then is, Whether the variety, the harmony, the contrivance, and
+the beauty we perceive, can have been produced by the action of these
+laws alone, or whether we are required to believe in the incessant
+interference and direct action of the mind and will of the Creator." (p.
+267)<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> Mr. Wallace says, that the Duke of Argyll maintains that God
+"has personally applied general laws to produce effects which those laws
+are not in themselves capable of producing; that the universe alone with
+all its laws intact, would be a sort of chaos, without variety, without
+harmony, without design, without beauty; that there is not (and
+therefore we may presume that there could not be) any self-developing
+power in the universe. I believe, on the contrary, that the universe is
+so constituted as to be self-regulating; that as long it contains life,
+the forms under which<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span> that life is manifested have an inherent power of
+adjustment to each other and to their surroundings; and that this
+adjustment necessarily leads to the greatest amount of variety and
+beauty and enjoyment, because it does depend on general laws, and not on
+a continual supervision and rearrangement of details." (p. 268) "The
+strange springs and traps and pitfalls found in the flowers of Orchids,
+cannot," he says, "be necessary <i>per se</i>, since exactly the same end is
+gained in ten thousand other flowers which do not possess them. Is it
+not then an extraordinary idea, to imagine the Creator of the universe
+contriving the various complicated parts of these flowers, as a mechanic
+might contrive an ingenious toy or a difficult puzzle? Is it not a more
+worthy conception, that they are the results of those general laws which
+were so co&ouml;rdinated at the first introduction of life upon the earth as
+to result necessarily in the utmost possible development of varied
+forms." (p. 270) "I for one," he says, "cannot believe that the world
+would come to chaos if left to law alone.... If any modification of
+structure could be the result of law, why not all? If some
+self-adaptations should arise, why not others? If any varieties of
+color, why not all<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span> the varieties we see? No attempt is made to explain
+this except by reference to the fact that 'purpose' and 'contrivance'
+are everywhere visible, and by an illogical deduction they could only
+have arisen by the direct action of some mind, because the direct action
+of our minds produce similar 'contrivances;' but it is forgotten that
+adaptation, however produced, must have the appearance of design." (p.
+280)<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> After referring to the fact that florists and breeders can
+produce varieties in plants and animals, so that, "whether they wanted a
+bull-dog to torture another animal, a greyhound to catch a hare, or a
+bloodhound to hunt down their oppressed fellow-creatures, the required
+variations have always appeared," he adds: "To be consistent, our
+opponents must maintain that every one of the variations that have
+rendered possible the changes produced by man, have been determined at
+the right time and place by the Creator. Every race produced by the
+florist or breeder, the dog or the pigeon fancier, the rat-catcher, the
+sporting man, or the slave-hunter, must have been provided for by
+varieties occurring when<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span> wanted; and as these variations were never
+withheld, it would prove that the sanction of an all-wise and all
+powerful Being has been given to that which the highest human minds
+consider to be trivial, mean, or debasing." (p. 290)<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a></p>
+
+<p>The Nebular Hypothesis, as propounded by La Place, proposed to account
+for the origin of the universe, by a process of evolution under the
+control of mere physical forces. That hypothesis has, so far as
+evolution is concerned, been adopted by men who sincerely believe in God
+and in the Bible. But they hold not only that God created matter and
+endowed it with its properties, but that He designed the universe, and
+so controlled the operation of physical laws that they accomplished his
+purpose. So there are Christian men who believe in the evolution of one
+kind of plants and animals out of earlier and simpler forms; but they
+believe that everything was designed by God, and that it is due to his
+purpose and power that all the forms of vegetable and animal life are
+what they are. But this is not the question. What Darwin and the
+ad<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span>vocates of his theory deny, is all design. The organs, even the most
+complicated and wonderful, were not intended. They are said to be due to
+the undirected and unintended operation of physical laws. This is Mr.
+Wallace's argument. He endeavors to show that it is unworthy of God that
+He should be supposed to have contrived the mechanism of the orchids, as
+a mechanist contrives a curious puzzle.</p>
+
+<p>We recently heard Prof. Joseph Henry, in a brief address, say
+substantially: "If I take brass, glass, and other materials, and fuse
+them, the product is a slag. This is what physical laws do. If I take
+those same materials, and form them into a telescope, that is what mind
+does." This is the whole question in a nutshell. That design implies an
+intelligent designer, is a self evident truth. Every man believes it;
+and no man can practically disbelieve it. Even those naturalists who
+theoretically deny it, if they find in a cave so simple a thing as a
+flint arrow-head, are as sure that it was made by a man as they are of
+their own existence. And yet they want us to believe that an eagle's eye
+is the product of blind natural causes. No combination of physical
+forces ever made a ship or a locomotive.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span> It may, indeed, be said that
+they are dead matter, whereas plants and animals live. But what is life
+but one form of the organizing efficiency of God?</p>
+
+<p>Mr. Wallace does not go as far as Mr. Darwin. He recoils from regarding
+man either as to body or soul as the product of mere natural causes. He
+insists that "a superior intelligence is necessary to account for man."
+(p. 359) This of course implies that the agency of no such higher
+intelligence is admitted in the production of plants or of animals lower
+than man.</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> The question is not, as Mr. Wallace says, "How has the
+Creator worked?" but it is, as he himself states, whether the essential
+properties of matter have alone worked out all the wonders of creation;
+or, whether they are to be referred to the mind and will of God. It is
+worthy of remark how Messrs. Darwin and Wallace refer to Mr. Spencer as
+their philosopher. We have seen what Spencer's philosophy is.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> It is, therefore, clear that design is what Mr. Darwin and
+Mr. Wallace repudiate.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> That God permits men in the use of the laws of nature to
+distil alcohol and brew poisons, does not prove that He approves of
+drunkenness or murder.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Professor_Huxley" id="Professor_Huxley"></a><i>Professor Huxley.</i></h2>
+
+<p>The second witness as to the character of Mr. Darwin's theory is
+Professor Huxley. We have some hesitation in including the name of this
+distinguished naturalist among the advocates of Darwinism.<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> On the
+one hand, in his<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span> Essay on the Origin of Species, printed in the
+"Westminster Review," in 1860, and re<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span>printed in his "Lay Sermons,"
+etc., in 1870, he says: "There is no fault to be found with Mr. Darwin's
+method, but it is another thing whether he has fulfilled all the
+conditions imposed by that method. Is it satisfactorily proved that
+species may<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> be originated by selection? that none of the phenomena
+exhibited by species are inconsistent with the origin of species in this
+way? If these questions can be answered in the affirmative, Mr. Darwin's
+view steps out of the rank of hypotheses into that of theories; but so
+long as the evidence at present adduced falls short of enforcing that
+affirmative, so long, to our minds, the new doctrine must be content to
+remain among the former,&mdash;an extremely valuable, and in the highest
+degree probable, doctrine; indeed, the only extant hypothesis which is
+worth anything in a scientific point of view; but still a hypothesis,
+and not yet a theory of species. After much consideration," he adds,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span>
+"and assuredly with no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear
+conviction that, as the evidence now stands, it is not absolutely proven
+that a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by species
+in Nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or
+natural."<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a></p>
+
+<p>Again, in his work on "Man's Place in Nature," he expresses himself much
+to the same effect: "A true physical cause is admitted to be such only
+on one condition, that it shall account for all the phenomena which come
+within the range of its operation. If it is inconsistent with any one
+phenomenon it must be rejected; if it fails to explain any one
+phenomenon it is so far to be suspected, though it may have a perfect
+right to provisional acceptance.... Our acceptance, therefore, of the
+Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link in the
+chain of evidence is wanting; and so long as all the animals and plants
+certainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock are
+fertile, and their progeny are fertile one with another, that link will
+be wanting. For so long selective<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span> breeding will not be proved to be
+competent to all that is required if it produce natural species."<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> In
+immediate connection with the above passage, there is another which
+throws a clear light on Professor Huxley's cosmical views. "The whole
+analogy of natural operations furnish so complete and crushing an
+argument against the intervention of any but what are called secondary
+causes, in the production of all the phenomena of the universe; that, in
+view of the intimate relations of man and the rest of the living world,
+and between the forces exerted by the latter and all other forces, I can
+see no reason for doubting that all are co&ouml;rdinate terms of nature's
+great progression, from formless to formed, from the inorganic to the
+organic, from blind force to conscious intellect and will."<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a></p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span>Ought not this to settle the matter? Are we to give up the Bible and all
+our hopes for the sake of an hypothesis that all living things,
+including man, on the face of the earth, are descended from a primordial
+animalcule, by natural selection, when such a man as Huxley, who (as
+Voltaire said of the prophet Habbakuk) is <i>capable de tout</i>, says that
+it has not been proved that any one species has thus originated?</p>
+
+<p>But on the other hand, while he honestly admits that Darwin's doctrine
+is a mere hypothesis and not a theory, he has nevertheless written at
+least three essays or reviews in its exposition and vindication. He is
+freely referred to on the continent of Europe, at least, as an ardent
+advocate of the doctrine; and he quotes without protest such
+designations of himself. At any rate, as he assures his readers that he
+has no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, as he has devoted much time and
+attention to the subject, and as he is one of the most prom<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span>inent
+naturalists of the age, there can be no question as to his competency as
+a witness as to what Darwinism is.</p>
+
+<p>His testimony that Mr. Darwin's doctrine excludes all teleology, or
+final causes, is explicit. In his review of the "Criticisms on the
+Origin of Species," he says, "that when he first read Mr. Darwin's book,
+that which struck him most forcibly was the conviction that teleology,
+as commonly understood, had received its death-blow at Mr. Darwin's
+hands. For the teleological argument runs thus: An organ is precisely
+fitted to perform a function or purpose; therefore, it was specially
+constructed to perform that function. In Paley's famous illustration,
+the adaptation of all the parts of a watch to the function or purpose of
+showing the time, is held to be evidence that the watch was specially
+contrived to that end; on the ground that the only cause we know of
+competent to produce such an effect as a watch which shall keep time, is
+a contriving intelligence adapting the means directly to that end."<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a>
+This, Mr. Huxley tells us, is precisely what Darwin denies with
+reference to the organs of plants and animals. The eye<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span> was not formed
+for the purpose of seeing, or the ear for hearing. It so happened that a
+nerve became sensitive to light; then in course of time, it happened
+that a transparent tissue came over it; and thus in "millions of years"
+an eye, as we have seen above, happened to be formed. No such organ was
+ever intended or designed by God or man. "An apparatus," says Professor
+Huxley, "thoroughly adapted to a particular purpose, might be the result
+of a method of trial and error worked by unintelligent agents, as well
+as by the application of means appropriate to the end by an intelligent
+agent." "For the notion that every organism has been created as it is
+and launched straight at a purpose, Mr. Darwin substitutes the
+conception of something, which may fairly be termed a method of trial
+and error. Organisms vary incessantly; of these variations the few meet
+with surrounding conditions which suit them, and thrive; the many are
+unsuited, and become extinguished." "For the teleologist an organism
+exists, because it was made for the conditions in which it is found; for
+the Darwinian an organism exists, because, out of many of its kind, it
+is the only one which has been able to persist in the conditions in
+which<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span> it is found." "If we apprehend," Huxley further says, "the spirit
+of the 'Origin of Species' rightly, then, nothing can be more entirely
+and absolutely opposed to teleology, as it is commonly understood, than
+the Darwinian theory." (p. 303)</p>
+
+<p>It has already been stated that Mr. Wallace does not apply the doctrine
+of evolution to man; neither does Mr. Mivart, a distinguished
+naturalist, who is a member of the Latin Church. The manner in which
+Professor Huxley speaks of these gentlemen shows how thoroughly, in his
+judgment, Mr. Darwin banishes God from his works: "Mr. Wallace and Mr.
+Mivart are as stout evolutionists as Mr. Darwin himself; but Mr. Wallace
+denies that man can have been evolved from a lower animal by that
+process of natural selection, which he, with Mr. Darwin, holds to be
+sufficient for the evolution of all animals below man; while Mr. Mivart,
+admitting that natural selection has been one of the conditions of the
+animals below man, maintains that natural selection must, even in their
+case, have been supplemented by some other cause,&mdash;of the nature of
+which, unfortunately, he does not give us any idea. Thus Mr. Mivart is
+less of a Dar<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span>winian than Mr. Wallace, for he has faith in the power of
+natural selection. But he is more of an evolutionist than Mr. Wallace,
+because Mr. Wallace thinks it necessary to call in an intelligent agent,
+a sort of supernatural Sir John Sebright, to produce even the animal
+frame of man; while Mr. Mivart requires no Divine assistance till he
+comes to man's soul."<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a></p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span>In the "Academy" for October, 1869, there is a review by Professor
+Huxley of Dr. Haeckel's "Nat&uuml;rlische Sch&ouml;pfungsgeschichte," in which he
+says: "Professor Haeckel enlarges on the service which the 'Origin of
+Species' has done in favoring what he terms 'the causal or mechanical'
+view of living nature as opposed to the 'teleological or vitalistic'
+view. And no doubt it is quite true the doctrine of evolution is the
+most formidable of all the commoner and coarser forms of teleology.
+Perhaps the most remarkable service to the philosophy of Biology
+rendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of Teleology and
+Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both which his view
+offers.</p>
+
+<p>"The teleology which supposes that the eye,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span> such as we see it in man or
+in the higher vertebrata, was made with the precise structure which it
+exhibits, to make the animal which possesses it to see, has undoubtedly
+received its death-blow. But it is necessary to remember that there is a
+higher teleology, which is not touched by the doctrine of evolution, but
+is actually based on the fundamental proposition of evolution. That
+proposition is, that the whole world, living and not living, is the
+result of the mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of forces
+possessed by the molecules of which the primitive nebulosity of the
+universe was composed. If this be true, it is no less certain that the
+existing world lay potentially in the cosmic vapor; and that a
+sufficient intelligence could, from a knowledge of the properties of
+that vapor, have predicted, say, the state of fauna of Great Britain in
+1869, with as much certainty as one can say what will happen to the
+vapor of the breath on a cold winter's day." This is the doctrine of the
+self-evolution of the universe. We know not what may lie behind this in
+Mr. Huxley's mind; but we are very sure that there is not an idea in the
+above paragraph which Epicurus of old, and B&uuml;chner, Vogt, Haeckel, and
+other "Material<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span>isten von Profession," would not cheerfully adopt. His
+distinction between a higher and lower teleology is of no account in
+this discussion. What is the teleology to which, he says, Mr. Darwin has
+given the death-blow, the extracts given above clearly show. The eye,
+Huxley says, was not made for the purpose of seeing, or the ear for the
+purpose of hearing. "According to teleology," he says, "each organism is
+like a rifle bullet fired straight at a mark; according to Darwin,
+organisms are like grapeshot, of which one hits something and the rest
+fall wide."<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a></p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> Mr. Huxley, if we may judge from what he says of himself,
+is somewhat liable to be misunderstood. He says he was fourteen years
+laboring to resist the charge of Positivism made against the class of
+scientific men to which he belongs. He also tells us in his letter to
+Professor Tyndall, prefixed to his volume of <i>Lay Sermons and
+Addresses</i>, that the "Essay on the Physical Basis of Life," included in
+that volume, was intended as a protest, from the philosophical side,
+against what is commonly called Materialism. It turned out, however,
+that the public regarded it as an argument in favor of Materialism. This
+we think was a very natural, if not an unavoidable mistake, on the part
+of the public. For in that Essay, he says that Protoplasm, or the
+physical basis of life, "is a kind of matter common to all living
+beings, that the powers or faculties of all kinds of living matter,
+diverse as they may be in degree, are substantially of the same kind."
+Protoplasm as far as examined contains the four elements,&mdash;carbon,
+hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. These are lifeless bodies, "but when
+brought together under certain conditions, they give rise to the still
+more complex body Protoplasm; and this protoplasm exhibits the phenomena
+of life." There is no more reason, he teaches, for assuming the
+existence of a mysterious something called vitality to account for vital
+phenomena, than there is for the assumption of something called Aquasity
+to account for the phenomena of water. Life is said to be "the product
+of a certain disposition of material molecules." The matter of life is
+"composed of ordinary matter, differing from it only in the manner in
+which its atoms are aggregated. I take it," he says, "to be demonstrable
+that it is utterly impossible to prove that anything whatever may not be
+the effect of a material and necessary cause, and that human logic is
+equally incompetent to prove that any act is really spontaneous. A
+really spontaneous act is one, which, by the assumption, has no cause;
+and the attempt to prove such a negative as this, is on the face of the
+matter absurd. And while it is thus a philosophical impossibility to
+demonstrate that any given phenomenon is not the effect of a material
+cause, any one who is acquainted with the history of science will admit
+that its progress has, in all ages, meant, and now more than ever means,
+the extension of what we call matter and causation, and the concomitant
+gradual banishment from all regions of human thought of what we call
+spirit and spontaneity."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> It cannot escape the attention of any one that Mr. Darwin,
+Mr. Wallace, Professor Huxley, and all the other advocates or defenders
+of Darwinism, do not pretend to prove anything more than that species
+<i>may</i> be originated by selection, not that there is no other
+satisfactory account of their origin. Mr. Darwin admits that referring
+them to the intention and efficiency of God, accounts for everything,
+but, he says, that is not science.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> <i>Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews</i>. By Thomas Henry
+Huxley, LL. D., F. R. S. London, 1870, p. 323.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> <i>Evidence of Man's Place in Nature</i>. London, 1864, p.
+107.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> Since writing the above paragraph our eye fell on the
+following note on the 89th page of the Duke of Argyle's <i>Reign of Law</i>,
+which it gives us pleasure to quote. It seems that a writer in the
+<i>Spectator</i> had charged Professor Huxley with Atheism. In the number of
+that paper for February 10, 1866, the Professor replies: "I do not know
+that I care very much about popular odium, so there is no great merit in
+saying that if I really saw fit to deny the existence of a God I should
+certainly do so, for the sake of my own intellectual freedom, and be the
+honest atheist you are pleased to say I am. As it happens, however, I
+cannot take this position with honesty, inasmuch as it is, and always
+has been, a favorite tenet, that Atheism is as absurd, logically
+speaking, as Polytheism." In the same paper he says, "The denying the
+possibility of miracles seems to me quite as unjustifiable as
+speculative Atheism." How this can be reconciled with the passages
+quoted above, we are unable to see.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> <i>Lay Sermons</i>, etc., p. 330.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> <i>Contemporary Review</i>, vol. xviii. 1871, p. 444. In this
+same article Mr. Huxley says: "Elijah's great question, Will ye serve
+God or Baal? Choose ye, is uttered audibly enough in the ears of every
+one of us as we come to manhood. Let every man who tries to answer it
+seriously ask himself whether he can be satisfied with the Baal of
+authority, and with all the good things his worshippers are promised in
+this world and the next. If he can, let him, if he be so inclined, amuse
+himself with such scientific implements as authority tells him are safe
+and will not cut his fingers; but let him not imagine that he is, or can
+be, both a true son of the Church and a loyal soldier of science." "And,
+on the other hand, if the blind acceptance of authority appear to him in
+its true colors, as mere private judgment <i>in excelsis</i>, and if he have
+courage to stand alone face to face with the abyss of the Eternal and
+Unknowable, let him be content, once for all, not only to renounce the
+good things promised by 'Infallibility,' but even to bear the bad things
+which it prophesies; content to follow reason and fact in singleness and
+honesty of purpose, wherever they may lead, in the sure faith that a
+hell of honest men will to him be more endurable than a paradise full of
+angelic shams." There can be no doubt that the Apostle Paul believed in
+the infallibility of the Scriptures. Imagine Professor Huxley calling
+St. Paul to his face, a sham! What are all the Huxleys who have ever
+lived or ever can live, to that one Paul in power for good over human
+thought, character, and destiny!
+</p><p>
+Professor Huxley goes on in the next paragraph to say: "Mr. Mivart
+asserts that 'without belief in a personal God there is no religion
+worthy of the name.' This is a matter of opinion. But it may be
+asserted, with less reason to fear contradiction, that the worship of a
+personal God, who, on Mr. Mivart's hypothesis, must have used words
+studiously calculated to deceive his creatures and worshippers, is 'no
+religion worthy of the name.' 'Incredibile est, Deum illis verbis ad
+populum fuisse locutum quibis deciperetur,' is a verdict in which for
+once Jesuit casuistry concurs with the healthy moral sense of all
+mankind." (p. 458). Mr. Huxley calls believers in the Scriptures, and
+(apparently) believers in a personal God, bigots, old ladies of both
+sexes, bibliolators, fools, etc., etc.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> <i>Lay Sermons</i>, etc. p. 331.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Buchner" id="Buchner"></a><i>B&uuml;chner.</i></h2>
+
+<p>Dr. Louis B&uuml;chner, president of the medical association of
+Hessen-Darmstadt, etc., etc., is not only a man of science but a popular
+writer. Perhaps no book of its class, in our day, has been so widely
+circulated as his volume on "Kraft und Stoff," Matter and Force. It has
+been translated into all the languages of Europe. He holds that matter
+and force are inseparable; there cannot be the one without the other;
+both are eternal and imperishable; neither can be either increased or
+diminished;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span> life originated spontaneously by the combination of
+molecules of matter under favorable conditions; all the phenomena of the
+universe, inorganic and organic, whether physical, vital, or mental, are
+due to matter and its forces. Consequently there is no God, no creation,
+no mind distinct from matter, no conscious existence of man after death.
+All this is asserted in the most explicit terms. Dr. B&uuml;chner has
+published a work on Darwinism in two volumes. Darwin's theory, he says,
+"is the most thoroughly naturalistic that can be imagined, and far more
+atheistic than that of his decried predecessor Lamarck, who admitted at
+least a general law of progress and development; whereas, according to
+Darwin, the whole development is due to the gradual summation of
+innumerable minute and accidental operations."<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a></p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTE:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> <i>Sechs Vorlesungen &uuml;ber die Darwinische Theorie</i>. Von
+Ludwig B&uuml;chner. Zweite Auflage, Leipzig, 1848, vol. i. p. 125.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Carl_Vogt" id="Carl_Vogt"></a><i>Carl Vogt.</i></h2>
+
+<p>In his preface to his work on the "Descent of Man," Mr. Darwin quotes
+this author as a high authority. We see him elsewhere referred to as one
+of the first physiologists of Germany. Vogt devotes the concluding
+lecture of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span> the second volume of his work on Man, to the consideration
+of Darwinism. He expresses his opinion of it, after high commendation,
+in the following terms. He says that it cannot be doubted that Darwin's
+"theory turns the Creator&mdash;and his occasional intervention in the
+revolutions of the earth and in the production of species&mdash;without any
+hesitation out of doors, inasmuch as it does not leave the smallest room
+for the agency of such a Being. The first living germ being granted, out
+of it the creation develops itself progressively by natural selection,
+through all the geological periods of our planets, by the simple law of
+descent&mdash;no new species arises by creation and none perishes by divine
+annihilation&mdash;the natural course of things, the process of evolution of
+all organisms and of the earth itself, is of itself sufficient for the
+production of all we see. Thus Man is not a special creation, produced
+in a different way, and distinct from other animals, endowed with an
+individual soul and animated by the breath of God; on the contrary, Man
+is only the highest product of the progressive evolution of animal life
+springing from the group of apes next below him."<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a></p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span>After this no one can be surprised to hear him say, that "the pulpits of
+the orthodox, the confessionals of the priests, the platforms of the
+interior missions, the presidential chairs of the consistories, resound
+with protestations against the assaults made by Materialism and
+Darwinism against the very foundations of society." (p. 286) This he
+calls "Das Wehgeschrei der Moralisten" (the Wail of the Moralists). The
+designation Moralists is a felicitous one, as applied to the opponents
+of Vogt and his associates. It distinguishes them as men who have not
+lost their moral sense; who refuse to limit their faith to what can be
+proved by the five senses; who bow to the authority of the law written
+by the finger of God, on the hearts of men, which neither sophistry nor
+wickedness can effectually erase. All Vogt thinks it necessary to reply
+to these Moralists is, "Lasst sie bellen, bis sie ausgebellt haben" (Let
+them bark till they are tired). "Ende."</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTE:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> <i>Vorlesungen &uuml;ber den Menschen, seine Stellung in der
+Schoepfung und in der Geschichte der Erde</i>. Von Carl Vogt. Giessen,
+1863, vol. ii. p. 260.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Haeckel" id="Haeckel"></a><i>Haeckel.</i></h2>
+
+<p>Dr. Ernst Haeckel, Professor in the University of Jena, is said to stand
+at the head of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span> the living naturalists of Germany. His work on "Natural
+History of Creation" contains a course of lectures delivered to the
+professors, students, and citizens of Jena. It is, therefore, somewhat
+popular in its character. The ability of the writer is manifest on every
+page. The distinctness of his perceptions, precision of language,
+perspicuity of style, and the strength of his convictions, give the
+impression of a man fully master of his subject, who has thought himself
+through, and is perfectly satisfied with the conclusions at which he has
+arrived. At the same time it is the impression of a man who is developed
+only on one side; who never looks within; who takes no cognizance of the
+wonders revealed in consciousness; to whom the intuitions of reason and
+of the conscience, the sense of dependence on a will higher than our
+own&mdash;the sense of obligation and responsibility are of no account,&mdash;in
+short a man to whom the image of God enstamped on the soul of man is
+invisible. This being the case, he that is least in the kingdom of
+heaven is greater than he.</p>
+
+<p>Haeckel admits that the title of his book, "Natural Creation," <i>i. e.</i>
+creation by natural laws, is a contradiction. He distinguishes,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span>
+however, between the creation of substance and the creation of form. Of
+the former he says science knows nothing. To the scientist matter is
+eternal. If any one chooses to assume that it was created by an
+extramundane power, Haeckel says he will not object. But that is a
+matter of faith; and "where faith begins, science ends." The very
+reverse of this is true. Science must begin with faith. It cannot take a
+single step without it. How does Haeckel know that his senses do not
+deceive him? How does he know that he can trust to the operations of his
+intellect? How does he know that things are as they appear? How does he
+know that the universe is not a great phantasmagoria, as so many men
+have regarded it, and man the mere sport of chimeras? He must believe in
+the laws of belief impressed on his nature. Knowledge implies a mind
+that knows, and confidence in the act of knowing implies belief in the
+laws of mind. "An inductive science of nature," says President Porter,
+"presupposes a science of induction, and a science of induction
+presupposes a science of man."<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> Haeckel, however, says faith<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span> is the
+mere product of the poetic imagination; science, of the understanding;
+if its conclusions come into conflict with the creations of the
+imagination, the latter, of course, must give way.<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a></p>
+
+<p>He says, there have ever been two conflicting theories of the universe:
+the one, monistic; the other, dualistic. The one admits of only one
+substance, matter; the other of two, matter and mind. He prefers to call
+the former monism rather than materialism, because the latter term often
+includes the idea of moral materialism, <i>i. e.</i> the doctrine that
+sensual pleasure is the end of life; a doctrine, he says, much more
+frequently held by princely church-men than by men of science. He
+maintains, however, that "all knowable nature is one; that the same
+eternal, immutable (ehernen, brazen) laws are active in the life of
+animals and plants, in the formation of crystals, and the power of
+steam; in the whole sphere of biology, zo&ouml;logy, and botany. We have,
+therefore, the right to hold fast the monistic and mechanical view,
+whether men choose to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span> brand the system as Materialism or not. In this
+sense, all natural science, with the law of causation at its head, is
+thoroughly materialistic." (p. 32)</p>
+
+<p>The monistic theory he calls "mechanical or causal," as distinguished
+from the dualistic theory, which he calls "teleological or vitalistic."
+According to the latter, "the vegetable and animal kingdoms are
+considered as the products of a creative agency, working with a definite
+design. In looking on an organism, the conviction seems unavoidable that
+so skilfully constructed a machine, such a complicated working
+apparatus, as an organism is, could be produced only by an agency
+analogous to, although far more perfect than the agency of man." "This,"
+he says, "supposes the Creator to be an organism analogous to man,
+although infinitely more perfect; who contemplates his formative powers,
+lays the plan of the machine, and then, by the use of appropriate means,
+produces an effect answering to the preconceived plan.... However highly
+the Creator may be exalted, this view involves the ascription to Him of
+human attributes, in virtue of which he can form a plan, and construct
+organisms to correspond with it. That<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span> is the view to which Darwin's
+doctrine is directly opposed, and of which Agassiz is, among
+naturalists, the most important advocate. The famous work of Agassiz,
+'Essay on Classification,' which is in direct opposition to Darwin's,
+and appeared about the same time, has carried out logically to the
+utmost the absurd anthropomorphic doctrine of a Creator." (p. 17)</p>
+
+<p>The monistic theory is called "mechanical and causal," because it
+supposes that all the phenomena of the universe, organic and inorganic,
+vegetable and animal, vital and mental, are due to mechanical or
+necessarily operating causes (caus&aelig; efficientes); just as the dualistic
+theory is called "teleological or vitalistic," because it refers natural
+organisms to causes working for the accomplishment of a given end (caus&aelig;
+finales). (p. 67)</p>
+
+<p>The grand difficulty in the way of the mechanical or monistic theory was
+the occurrence of innumerable organisms, apparently at least, indicative
+of design. To get over this difficulty, Haeckel says, some who could not
+believe in a creative and controlling mind adopted the idea of a
+metaphysical ghost called vitality. The grand service rendered by Darwin
+to science is, that his theory enables us to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span> account for the
+appearances of design in nature without assuming final causes, or, a
+mind working for a foreseen and intended end. "All that had appeared
+before Darwin," he says, "failed to secure success, and to meet with
+general acceptance of the doctrine of the mechanical production of
+vegetable and animal organisms. This was accomplished by Darwin's
+theory." (p. 20)</p>
+
+<p>The precise difficulty which Mr. Darwin's doctrine has, according to
+Haeckel, enabled men of science to surmount, is thus clearly stated on
+p. 633. It is, "that organs for a definite end should be produced by
+undesigning or mechanical causes." This difficulty is overcome by the
+doctrine of evolution. "Through the theory of descent, we are for the
+first time able to establish the monistic doctrine of the unity of
+nature, that a mechanic-causal explanation of the most complicated
+organisms, <i>e. g.</i> the formation and constitution of the organs of
+sense, have no more difficulty for the common understanding, than the
+mechanical explanation of any physical process, as, for example,
+earthquakes, the direction of the winds, or the currents of the sea. We
+thus arrive at the conviction of the last im<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span>portance, that all natural
+bodies with which we are acquainted are equally endowed with life
+(gleichm&auml;ssig belebt sind); that the distinction between living and dead
+matter does not exist. When a stone is thrown into the air and falls by
+certain laws to the ground, or when a solution of salt forms a crystal,
+the result is neither more nor less a mechanical manifestation of life,
+than the flowering of a plant, the generation or sensibility of animals,
+or the feelings or the mental activity of man. In thus establishing the
+monistic theory of nature lies the highest and most comprehensive merit
+of the doctrine of descent, as reformed by Darwin." (p. 21) "As to the
+much vaunted design in nature, it is a reality only for those whose
+views of animal and vegetable life are to the last degree superficial.
+Any one who has gone deeper into the organization and vital activity of
+animals and plants, who has made himself familiar with the action and
+reaction of vital phenomena, and the so-called economy of nature, comes
+of necessity to the conclusion, that design does not exist, any more
+than the vaunted goodness of the Creator" (die vielger&uuml;hmte Allg&uuml;te des
+Sch&ouml;pfers). (p. 17)<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Professor Huxley, in his review of this work of Haeckel, already quoted,
+says: "I do not like to conclude without reminding the reader of my
+entire concurrence with the general tenor and spirit of the work, and of
+my high estimate of its value." If you take out of Haeckel's book its
+doctrine of Monism, which he himself says means Materialism, it has no
+"tenor or spirit" in it. It is not, however, for us to say how far
+Professor Huxley intended his indorsement to go.</p>
+
+<p>Haeckel says that Darwin's theory of evolution leads inevitably to
+Atheism and Materialism. In this we think he is correct. But we have
+nothing to do with Haeckel's logic or with our own. We make no charge
+against Mr. Darwin. We cite Haeckel merely as a witness to the fact that
+Darwinism involves the denial of final causes; that it excludes all
+intelligent design in the production of the organs of plants and
+animals, and even in the production of the soul and body of man. This
+first of German naturalists would occupy a strange position in the sight
+of all Europe, if, after lauding a book to the skies because it teaches
+a certain doctrine, it should turn out that the book taught no such
+doctrine at all.</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> <i>The Science of Nature versus the Science of Man</i>. By Noah
+Porter, President of Yale College. New York, 1871, p. 29.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> <i>Nat&uuml;rlische Sch&ouml;pfungsgeschichte</i>. Von Dr. Ernst Haeckel,
+Professor in der Universit&auml;t Jena. Zweite Auflage, Berlin, 1873, pp. 8,
+and 9.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="The_Opponents_of_Darwinism" id="The_Opponents_of_Darwinism"></a><i>The Opponents of Darwinism.</i></h2>
+
+<h2><i>The Duke of Argyll.</i></h2>
+
+<p>When cultivated men undertake to refute a certain system, it is to be
+presumed that they give themselves the trouble to ascertain what that
+system is. As the advocates of Mr. Darwin's theory defend and applaud it
+because it excludes design, and as its opponents make that the main
+ground of their objection to it, there can be no reasonable doubt as to
+its real character. The question is, How are the contrivances in nature
+to be accounted for? One answer is, They are due to the purpose of God.
+Mr. Darwin says, They are due to the gradual and undesigned accumulation
+of slight variations. The Duke's first objection to that doctrine is,
+that the evidence of design in the organs of plants and animals is so
+clear that Mr. Darwin himself cannot avoid using teleological language.
+"He exhausts," he says, "every form of words and of illustration by
+which intention or mental purpose can be described. 'Contrivance,'
+'beautiful contrivance,' 'curious contrivance,' are expressions which
+occur over and over again. Here is one sentence describing a particular
+species (of orchids): 'The<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span> labellum is developed <i>in order</i> to attract
+the Lepidoptera; and we shall soon see reason for supposing that the
+nectar is purposely so lodged, that it can be sucked only slowly <i>in
+order</i> to give time for the curious chemical quality of the matter
+setting hard and dry.'"<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> We have already seen that Mr. Darwin's
+answer to this objection is, that it is hard to keep from personifying
+nature, and that these expressions as used by him mean no more than
+chemists mean when they speak of affinities, and one element preferring
+another.</p>
+
+<p>A second objection is, that a variation would not be useful to the
+individual in which it happens to occur, unless other variations should
+occur at the right time and in the right order; and that the concurrence
+of so many accidents as are required to account for the infinite
+diversity of forms in plants and animals, is altogether inconceivable.</p>
+
+<p>A third objection is, that the variations often have no reference to the
+organism of the animal itself but to other organisms. "Take one
+instance," he says, "out of millions. The poison of a deadly snake,&mdash;let
+us for a moment consider what that is. It is a secretion<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span> of definite
+chemical properties with reference not only&mdash;not even mainly&mdash;to the
+organism of the animal in which it is developed, but specially to
+another animal which it is intended to destroy." "How," he asks, "will
+the law of growth adjust a poison in one animal with such subtle
+knowledge of the organization of the other, that the deadly virus shall
+in a few minutes curdle the blood, benumb the nerves, and rush in upon
+the citadel of life? There is but one explanation: a Mind having minute
+and perfect knowledge of the structure of both has designed the one to
+be capable of inflicting death upon the other. This mental purpose and
+resolve is the one thing which our intelligence perceives with direct
+and intuitive recognition. The method of creation by which this purpose
+has been carried into effect is utterly unknown."<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a></p>
+
+<p>A fourth objection has reference to beauty. According to Mr. Darwin,
+flowers are not intentionally made beautiful, but those which happen to
+be beautiful attract insects, and by their agency are fertilized and
+survive. Male birds are not intentionally arrayed in bright colors, but
+those which happen to be so ar<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span>rayed are attractive, and thus become the
+progenitors of their race. Against this explanation the Duke earnestly
+protests. He refers to the gorgeous adorned class of Hummingbirds, of
+which naturalists enumerate no less than four hundred and thirty
+different species, distinguished one from the other, in general, only by
+their plumage. "Now," he asks, "what explanation does the law of natural
+selection give,&mdash;I will not say of the origin, but even of the
+continuance of such specific varieties as these? None whatever. A crest
+of topaz is no better in the struggle of existence than a crest of
+sapphire. A frill ending in spangles of the emerald is no better in the
+battle of life than a frill ending in spangles of the ruby. A tail is
+not affected for the purposes of flight, whether its marginal, or its
+central feathers are decorated with white. It is impossible to bring
+such varieties into any physical law known to us. It has relation
+however to a Purpose, which stands in close analogy with our knowledge
+of purpose in the works of men. Mere beauty and mere variety, for their
+own sake, are objects which we ourselves seek, when we can make the
+forces of nature subordinate to the attain<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span>ment of them. There seems to
+be no conceivable reason why we should doubt or question that these are
+ends and aims also in the forms given to living organisms, when the
+facts correspond with this view and with no other."<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a></p>
+
+<p>It will be observed that all these objections have reference to the
+denial of teleology on the part of Mr. Darwin. If his theory admitted
+that the organisms in nature were due to a divine purpose, the
+objections would be void of all meaning.</p>
+
+<p>There is a fifth objection. According to Darwin's theory organs are
+formed by the slow accumulation of unintended variations, which happen
+to be favorable to the subject of them in the struggle for life. But in
+many cases these organs, instead of being favorable, are injurious or
+cumbersome until fully developed. Take the wing of a bird, for example.
+In its rudimental state, it is useful neither for swimming, walking, nor
+flying. Now, as Darwin says it took millions of years to bring the eye
+to perfection, how long did it take to render a rudimental wing useful?
+It is no sufficient answer to say that these rudimental organs might
+have been suited to the condition<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span> in which the animal existed, during
+the formative process. This is perfectly arbitrary. It has no basis of
+fact. There are but three kinds of locomotion that we know of: in the
+water, on the ground, and through the air; for all these purposes a
+half-formed wing would be an impediment.</p>
+
+<p>The Duke devotes almost a whole chapter of his interesting book to the
+consideration of "contrivance in the machinery for flight." The
+conditions to secure regulated movement through the atmosphere are so
+numerous, so complicated, and so conflicting, that the problem never has
+been solved by human ingenuity. In the structure of the bird it is
+solved to perfection. As we are not writing a teleological argument, but
+only producing evidence that Darwinism excludes teleology, we cannot
+follow the details which prove that the wing of the gannet or swift is
+almost as wonderful and beautiful a specimen of contrivance as the eye
+of the eagle.</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> <i>Reign of Law</i>. London, 1867, p. 40.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> <i>Reign of Law</i>. London, 1867, p. 37.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> <i>Reign of Law</i>, pp. 247, 248.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Agassiz" id="Agassiz"></a><i>Agassiz.</i></h2>
+
+<p>Every one knows that the illustrious Agassiz, over whose recent grave
+the world stands weeping, was from the beginning a pronounced<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span> and
+earnest opponent of Mr. Darwin's theory. He wrote as a naturalist, and
+therefore his objections are principally directed against the theory of
+evolution, which he regarded as not only destitute of any scientific
+basis, but as subversive of the best established facts in zo&ouml;logy.
+Nevertheless it is evident that his zeal was greatly intensified by his
+apprehension that a theory which obliterates all evidence of the being
+of God from the works of nature, endangered faith in that great doctrine
+itself. The Rev. Dr. Peabody, in the discourse delivered on the occasion
+of Professor Agassiz's funeral, said: "I cannot close this hasty and
+inadequate, yet fervent and hearty tribute, without recalling to your
+memory the reverent spirit in which he pursued his scientific labors.
+Nearly forty years ago, in his first great work on fossil fishes, in
+developing principles of classification, he wrote in quotations, 'An
+invisible thread in all ages runs through this immense diversity,
+exhibiting as a general result that there is a continual progress in
+development ending in man, the four classes of vertebrates presenting
+the intermediate steps, and the invertebrates the constant accessory
+accompaniment. Have we not here the mani<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span>festation of a mind as powerful
+as prolific? an act of intelligence as sublime as provident? the marks
+of goodness as infinite as wise? the most palpable demonstration of the
+existence of a personal God, author of all this; ruler of the universe,
+and the dispenser of all good? This at least is what I read in the works
+of creation.' And it was what he ever read, and with profound awe and
+adoration. To this exalted faith he was inflexibly loyal. The laws of
+nature were to him the eternal Word of God.</p>
+
+<p>"His repugnance to Darwinism grew in great part from his apprehension of
+its atheistical tendency,&mdash;an apprehension which I confess I cannot
+share; for I forget not that these theories, now in the ascendent, are
+maintained by not a few devout Christian men, and while they appear to
+me unproved and incapable of demonstration, I could admit them without
+parting with one iota of my faith in God and Christ. Yet I cannot but
+sympathize most strongly with him in the spirit in which he resisted
+what seemed to him lese-majesty against the sovereign of the universe.
+Nor was his a theoretical faith. His whole life, in its broad
+philanthropy, in its pervading spirit<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span> of service, in its fidelity to
+arduous trusts and duties, and in its simplicity and truthfulness,
+bespoke one who was consciously fulfilling a mission from God to his
+fellow-men."</p>
+
+<p>The words "evolution" and "Darwinism" are so often in this country, but
+not in Europe, used interchangeably, that it is conceivable that Dr.
+Peabody could retain his faith in God, and yet admit the doctrine of
+evolution. But it is not conceivable that any man should adopt the main
+element of Mr. Darwin's theory, viz., the denial of all final causes,
+and the assertion, that since the first creation of matter and life, God
+has left the universe to the control of unintelligent physical causes,
+so that all the phenomena of the plants and animals, all that is in man,
+and all that has ever happened on the earth, is due to physical force,
+and yet retain his faith in Christ. On that theory, there have been no
+supernatural revelation, no miracles; Christ is not risen, and we are
+yet in our sins. It is not thus that this matter is regarded abroad. The
+Christians of Germany say that the only alternative these theories leave
+us, is Heathenism or Christianity; "Heidenthum oder Christenthum, Die
+Frage der Zeit."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span></p>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Janet" id="Janet"></a><i>Janet.</i></h2>
+
+<p>Janet, a professor of philosophy, is the author of a book on the
+Materialism of B&uuml;chner.<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> The greater part of the last chapter of his
+work is devoted to Darwinism. He says, "Dr. B&uuml;chner invoked (Darwin's
+book) as a striking confirmation of his doctrine." (p. 154) What
+B&uuml;chner's doctrine is has been shown on a previous page. The points of
+coincidence between Darwin's system and his are, that both regard mind
+as a mere function of living matter; and both refer all the organs and
+organisms of living things to the unconscious, unintelligent operation
+of physical causes. B&uuml;chner's way of accounting for complicated organs
+was, "that the energy of the elements and forces of matter, which in
+their fated and accidental occurrence must have produced innumerable
+forms, which must needs limit each other mutually, and correspond,
+apparently, the one with the other, as if they were made for that
+purpose. Out of all those forms, they<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span> only have survived which were
+adapted, in some manner, to the conditions of the medium in which they
+were placed." (p. 30) This is very clumsy. No wonder B&uuml;chner preferred
+Darwin's method. The two systems are, indeed, exactly the same, but Mr.
+Darwin has a much more winning way of presenting it.</p>
+
+<p>Professor Janet does not seem to have much objection to the doctrine of
+evolution in itself; it is the denial of teleology that he regards as
+the fatal element of Mr. Darwin's theory. "According to us," he says,
+"the true stumbling-block of Mr. Darwin's theory, the perilous and
+slippery point, is the passage from artificial to natural selection; it
+is when he wants to establish that a blind and designless nature has
+been able to obtain, by the occurrence of circumstances, the same
+results which man obtains by thoughtful and well calculated industry."
+(p. 174)</p>
+
+<p>Towards the end of his volume he says: "We shall conclude by a general
+observation. Notwithstanding the numerous objections we have raised
+against Mr. Darwin's theory, we do not declare ourselves hostile to a
+system of which zo&ouml;logists are the only competent judges. We are neither
+for nor against the transmu<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span>tation of species, neither for nor against
+the principle of natural selection. The only positive conclusion of our
+debate is this: no principle hitherto known, neither the action of
+media, nor habit, nor natural selection, can account for organic
+adaptations without the intervention of the principle of finality.
+Natural selection, unguided, submitted to the laws of a pure mechanism,
+and exclusively determined by accidents, seems to me, under another
+name, the chance proclaimed by Epicurus, equally barren, equally
+incomprehensible; on the other hand, natural selection guided beforehand
+by a provident will, directed towards a precise end by intentional laws,
+might be the means which nature has selected to pass from one stage of
+being to another, from one form to another, to bring to perfection life
+throughout the universe, and to rise by a continuous process from the
+monad to man. Now, I ask Mr. Darwin himself, what interest has he in
+maintaining that natural selection is not guided&mdash;not directed? What
+interest has he in substituting accidental causes for every final cause?
+I cannot see. Let him admit that in natural, as well as in artificial
+selection, there may be a choice and direction; his principle
+immediately becomes<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span> much more fruitful than it was before. His
+hypothesis, then, whilst having the advantage of exempting science from
+the necessity of introducing the personal and miraculous intervention of
+God in the creation of each species, yet would be free from the
+banishing out of the universe an all-provident thought, and of
+submitting everything to blind and brute chance." (pp. 198, 199)
+Professor Janet asks far too much of Mr. Darwin. To ask him to give up
+his denial of final causes is like asking the Romanists to give up the
+Pope. That principle is the life and soul of his system.</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTE:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> <i>The Materialism of the Present Day: a Critique of Dr.
+B&uuml;chner's System</i>. By Paul Janet, Member of the Institute of France,
+Professor of Philosophy at the Paris Facult&eacute; des Lettres. Translated
+from the French, by Gustave Masson, B. A. London and Paris, 1867.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="M_Flourens" id="M_Flourens"></a><i>M. Flourens.</i></h2>
+
+<p>M. Flourens, recently dead, was one of the earliest and most pronounced
+opponents of Darwinism. He published in 1864 his "Examen du Livre de M.
+Darwin sur l'Origine des Esp&egrave;ces." His position as Member of the
+Acad&eacute;mie Fran&ccedil;aise, and Perpetual Secretary of the Acad&eacute;mie des
+Sciences, or Institut de France, vouch for his high rank among the
+French naturalists. His connection with the Jardin des Plantes gave him
+enlarged opportunities for biological experiments. The result of his own
+experience, as well as the expe<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span>rience of other observers, was, as he
+expresses it, his solemn conviction that species are fixed and not
+transmutable. No ingenuity of device could render hybrids fertile. "They
+never establish an intermediate species." It is, therefore, to the
+doctrine of evolution his attention is principally directed.
+Nevertheless, he is no less struck by Darwin's way of excluding all
+intelligence and design in his manner of speaking of nature. On this
+point he quotes the language of Cuvier, who says: "Nature has been
+personified. Living beings have been called the works of nature. The
+general bearing of these creatures to each other has become the laws of
+nature. It is thus while considering Nature as a being endowed with
+intelligence and will, but in its power limited and secondary, that it
+may be said that she watches incessantly over the maintenance of her
+work; that she does nothing in vain, and always acts by the most simple
+means.... It is easy to see how puerile are those who give nature a
+species of individual existence distinct from the Creator, and from the
+law which He has impressed upon the movements and peculiarities of the
+forms given by Him to living things, and which He makes to act upon
+their<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span> bodies with a peculiar force and reason." Older writers, says
+Flourens, in speaking of Nature, "gave to her inclinations, intentions,
+and views, and horrors (of a vacuum), and sports," etc. He says that one
+of the principal objects of his book is to show how Mr. Darwin "has
+deluded himself, and perhaps others, by a constant abuse of figurative
+language." "He plays with Nature as he pleases, and makes her do
+whatsoever he wishes." When we remember that Mr. Darwin defines Nature
+to be the aggregate of physical forces, we see how, in attributing
+everything to Nature, he effectually excludes the supernatural.</p>
+
+<p>In his volume of "Lay Sermons, Reviews," etc., Professor Huxley has a
+very severe critique on M. Flourens's book. He says little, however, in
+reference to teleology, except in one paragraph, in which we read: "M.
+Flourens cannot imagine an unconscious selection; it is for him a
+contradiction in terms." Huxley's answer is, "The winds and waves of the
+Bay of Biscay have not much consciousness, and yet they have with great
+care 'selected,' from an infinity of masses of silex, all grains of sand
+below a certain size and have heaped them by themselves over a great
+area.... A frosty night selects<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span> the hardy plants in a plantation from
+among the tender ones as effectually as if the intelligence of the
+gardener had been operative in cutting the weaker ones down."<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> If
+this means anything, it means that as the winds and waves of the Bay of
+Biscay can make heaps of sand, so similar unconscious agencies can, if
+you only give them time enough, make an elephant or a man; for this is
+what Mr. Darwin says natural selection has done.</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTE:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> <i>Lay Sermons</i>, p. 347.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Rev_Walter_Mitchell_M_A_Vice-President_of_the_Victoria_Institute" id="Rev_Walter_Mitchell_M_A_Vice-President_of_the_Victoria_Institute"></a><i>Rev. Walter Mitchell, M. A., Vice-President of the Victoria Institute.</i></h2>
+
+<p>The Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, under
+the presidency of the Earl of Shaftesbury, includes among its members
+many of the dignitaries of the Church of England, and a large number of
+distinguished men of different professions and denominations. Its
+principal object is, "To investigate fully and impartially the most
+important questions of philosophy and science, but more especially those
+that bear on the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture, with the view
+of defending these truths against the opposition of Science, falsely so
+called." The<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span> Institute holds bi-monthly meetings, at which papers are
+read on some important topic, and then submitted to criticism and
+discussion. These papers, many of which are very elaborate, are
+published in the Transactions of the Institute, together with a full
+report of the discussions to which they gave rise. Six volumes, replete
+with valuable and varied information, have already been published.</p>
+
+<p>Very considerable latitude of opinion is allowed. Hence we find in the
+Transactions, papers for and against evolution,&mdash;for and against
+Darwinism. It would be easy to quote extracts, pertinent to our subject,
+more than enough to fill a volume much larger than the present. We must
+content ourselves with a few citations from the discussion on a paper in
+favor of the credibility of Darwinism,<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> and another in favor of the
+doctrine of evolution.<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> In summing up the debates on these two
+topics, the chairman, Rev. Walter Mitchell, presented with great
+clearness and force his reasons for regarding Darwinism as incredible
+and impossible. In his protracted remarks he contrasts<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span> the Scriptural
+doctrine, that of the Vestiges of Creation, and that of Darwin on the
+origin of species. He thus states the doctrine of the Bible on the
+subject: "If," he says, "science be another name for real knowledge; if
+science be the pursuit of sound wisdom; if science be the pursuit of
+truth itself; I say that man has no right to reject anything that is
+true because it savors of God. Well, what is this hypothesis&mdash;older than
+that of Darwin&mdash;which does, and does alone, account for all the observed
+facts, or all that which we can read, recorded in the book of Nature? It
+is, that God created all things very good; that He made every vegetable
+after its own kind; that He made every animal after its own kind; that
+He allowed certain laws of variation, but that He has ordained strict,
+though invisible and invincible barriers, which prevent that variation
+from running riot, and which includes it within strict and well defined
+limits. This is a hypothesis which will account for all that we have
+learnt from the works of Nature. It admits an intelligent Being as the
+Author of all the works of creation, animate as well as inanimate; it
+leaves no mysteries in the animate world unaccounted for. There is one
+thing<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span> which the animate, as well as the inanimate world declares to
+man, one thing everywhere plainly recorded, if we will only read it, and
+that is the impress of design, the design of infinite wisdom. Any theory
+which comes in with an attempt to ignore design as manifested in God's
+creation, is a theory, I say, which attempts to dethrone God. This the
+theory of Darwin does endeavor to do. If asked how our old theory
+accounts for such uniformity of design in the midst of such perplexing
+variety as we find in nature, we reply, that this can only be accounted
+for on one admission, that the whole is the work of one Author, built
+according, as it were, to one style; that it represents the unity of one
+mind with the infinite power of adapting all its works in the most
+perfect manner for the uses for which they were created." "Whewell has
+boldly maintained, and he has never been controverted, that all real
+advances in the sciences of physiology and comparative anatomy,&mdash;such as
+that made by Harvey in discovering the circulation of the blood,&mdash;have
+been made by those who not only believed in the existence of design
+everywhere manifested in the animate world, but were led by that belief
+to make their discoveries."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>When discussing the paper of Mr. Henslow on evolution, he says: "In
+speaking of this paper I must commend the exceeding reverent tone in
+which the author has discussed the subject, and I should like to see all
+such subjects discussed in a similar tone. The view which Mr. Henslow
+brings forward, however, does not appear to be a very original one. It
+was the first view ever brought forward on the doctrine of evolution,
+and I was the first one to point out that the whole doctrine was one of
+retrograde character. The whole tone and character of this paper, except
+that which relates to the attributes and moral government of God,<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> is
+nothing more or less than the same view of the doctrine of evolution
+which created such a sensation in this country when that famous book
+came out, 'The Vestiges of Creation.' So far as I can understand the
+arguments of Mr. Darwin, they have simply been an endeavor to eject out
+of the idea of evolution the personal work of the Deity. His whole
+endeavor has been to push the Creator farther and farther back out of
+view. The<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span> most laborious part of Darwin's attempt at reasoning,&mdash;for it
+is not true reasoning,&mdash;the most laborious part of his logic and
+reasoning, is intended to eliminate, as perfectly as any of the
+atheistical authors have endeavored to do, the idea of design. Now,
+setting revelation aside, the manner in which the unknown author of the
+'Vestiges of Creation' treated this subject, satisfactorily showed that
+the doctrine of evolution was not in itself an atheistical doctrine, nor
+did it deny the existence of design. So far as I could understand and
+make out, having carefully read the book at the time it came out and
+afterwards, and having carefully analyzed and compared it and Mr.
+Darwin's book with each other, so far as I could understand it, the
+doctrine of the author of the 'Vestiges of Creation' was simply, that
+God created all things, and that when He created matter He impressed on
+it certain laws; that matter, being evolved according to those laws,
+should produce beings and organs mutually adapted to one another and to
+the world; and that every successive development which should be
+produced was essentially foreseen, foreknown, and predetermined by the
+Deity. His idea, for instance, of the evolution<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span> of an eye from a more
+simple organ was that the ultimate eye&mdash;man's eye, for instance&mdash;was to
+be a perfect optical instrument, and that its perfection depended on the
+previous design by the Creator, that at a certain period it should
+appear in a body quite adapted for its purposes. There is one
+question,&mdash;and not the only one, but we must consider it as an important
+question,&mdash;whether you can maintain a doctrine of evolution which shall
+not be atheistical, and which shall admit the great argument of design?
+That is one thing; but the next thing is, does such a doctrine as that
+accord either with revelation or with the facts of science? I do not
+believe that it can be made to agree with what we believe to be the
+revealed Word of God, and I do not believe that it has in the least
+degree been proved that the doctrine is consistent with sound science."</p>
+
+<p>As to Mr. Darwin's theory, it is obvious from the passages already
+quoted that he considers its characteristic feature is not evolution,
+nor even natural selection, but the denial of teleology, or of
+intelligent control. Mr. Darwin admits the original creation of one or a
+few forms of life; and Mr. Mitchell, in his comments on Mr. Warington's
+defence of his theory,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span> asks, "Why am I to limit the work of the Creator
+to the simultaneous or successive creations of ten or twelve
+commencements of the animate creation? Why, simply for the purpose of
+evading the evidence of design as manifested in the adaptation of all
+the organs of every animate creature to its wants, which can only be
+done by so incredible an hypothesis as that of Mr. Darwin. I say
+fearlessly, that any hypothesis which requires us to admit that the
+formation of such complex organs as the eye, the ear, the heart, the
+brain, with all their marvellous structures and mechanical adaptations
+to the wants of the creatures possessing them, so perfectly in harmony,
+too, with the laws of inorganic matter, affords no evidence of design;
+that such structures could be built up by gradual chance improvements,
+perpetuated by the law of transmission, and perfected by the destruction
+of creatures less favorably endowed, is so incredible, that I marvel to
+find any thinking man capable of adopting it for a single moment." It is
+useless to multiply quotations. Darwinism is never brought up either
+formally or incidentally, that its exclusion of design in the formation
+of living organisms is not urged as the main objection against the whole
+theory.</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> <i>The Credibility of Darwinism</i>. By George Warington, Esq.,
+F. C. S., M. V. I.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> <i>On certain Analogies between the Methods of Deity in
+Nature and Revelation</i>. By Rev. G. E. Henslow, M. A., F. L. S., M. V.
+I.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> The second part of Mr. Henslow's paper concerns "the
+methods of the Deity as revealed to us in the Bible." The same is
+substantially true of his work, <i>The Theory of Evolution</i>.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Principal_Dawson" id="Principal_Dawson"></a><i>Principal Dawson.</i></h2>
+
+<p>Dr. Dawson, as we are informed, is regarded as the first pal&aelig;ontologist,
+and among the first geologists, in America. In his "Story of Earth and
+Man,"<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> he passes in review the several geological periods
+recognized by geologists; describes as far as knowable the distribution
+of land and water during each period, and the vegetable and animal
+productions by which they were distinguished. His book from beginning to
+end is anti-Darwinian. In common with other naturalists, his attention
+is directed principally to the doctrine of evolution, which he endeavors
+to prove is utterly untenable. That Mr. Darwin's theory excludes
+teleology is everywhere assumed as an uncontroverted and
+uncontrovertible fact. "The evolutionist doctrine," he says, "is itself
+one of the strangest phenomena of humanity. It existed, and most
+naturally, in the oldest philosophy and poetry, in connection with the
+crudest and most uncritical attempts of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span> human mind to grasp the
+system of nature; but that in our day a system destitute of any shadow
+of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech,
+and by the arbitrary and artificial coherence of its own parts, should
+be accepted as philosophy, and should find able adherents to string on
+its thread of hypotheses our vast and weighty stores of knowledge, is
+surpassingly strange.... In many respects these speculations are
+important, and worthy the attention of thinking men. They seek to
+revolutionize the religious belief of the world, and if accepted would
+destroy most of the existing theology and philosophy. They indicate
+tendencies among scientific thinkers, which, though probably temporary,
+must, before they disappear, descend to lower strata, and reproduce
+themselves in grosser forms, and with most serious effects on the whole
+structure of society. With one class of minds they constitute a sort of
+religion, which so far satisfies the craving for truth higher than those
+which relate to immediate wants and pleasures. With another and perhaps
+larger class, they are accepted as affording a welcome deliverance from
+all scruples of conscience and fears of a hereafter. In the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span> domain of
+science evolutionism has like tendencies. It reduces the position of
+man, who becomes a descendant of inferior animals, and a mere term in a
+series whose end is unknown. It removes from the study of nature the
+ideas of final cause and purpose; and the evolutionist, instead of
+regarding the world as a work of consummate plan, skill, and adjustment,
+approaches nature as he would a chaos of fallen rocks, which may present
+forms of castles, and grotesque profiles of men and animals, but they
+are all fortuitous and without significance." (pp. 317, 318)</p>
+
+<p>"Taking, then, this broad view of the subject, two great leading
+alternatives are presented to us. Either man is an independent product
+of the will of a Higher Intelligence, acting directly or through the
+laws and materials of his own institution and production, or he has been
+produced by an unconscious evolution from lower things. It is true that
+many evolutionists, either unwilling to offend, or not perceiving the
+logical consequences of their own hypothesis, endeavor to steer a middle
+course, and to maintain that the Creator has proceeded by way of
+evolution. But the bare, hard logic of Spencer, the greatest English<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span>
+authority on evolution, leaves no place for this compromise, and shows
+that the theory, carried out to its legitimate consequences, excludes
+the knowledge of a Creator and the possibility of his work. We have,
+therefore, to choose between evolution and creation, bearing in mind,
+however, that there may be a place in nature for evolution, properly
+limited, as well as for other things, and that the idea of creation by
+no means excludes law and second causes." (p. 321)</p>
+
+<p>"It may be said, that evolution may be held as a scientific doctrine in
+connection with a modified belief in creation. The work of actual
+creation may have been limited to a few elementary types, and evolution
+may have done the rest. Evolutionists may still be theists. We have
+already seen that the doctrine, as carried out to its logical
+consequences, excludes creation and theism. It may, however, be shown
+that even in its more modified form, and when held by men who maintain
+that they are not atheists, it is practically atheistic, because
+excluding the idea of plan and design, and resolving all things into the
+action of unintelligent forces. It is necessary to observe this, because
+it is the half-way-evolutionism,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span> which professes to have a creator
+somewhere behind it, that is most popular; though it is, if possible,
+more unphilosophical than that which professes to set out with absolute
+and determined nonentity, or from self-existing stardust containing all
+the possibilities of the universe."</p>
+
+<p>In reference to the objection of evolutionists, that the origin of every
+new species, on the theistic doctrine, supposes "a miracle," an
+intervention of the divine efficiency without the agency of second
+causes, Principal Dawson asks, "What is the actual statement of the
+theory of creation as it may be held by a modern man of science? Simply
+this: that all things have been produced by the Supreme Creative will,
+acting either directly, or through the agency of the forces and material
+of his own production." (p. 340)</p>
+
+<p>He thus sums up his argument against the doctrine of evolution,
+specially in its application to man: "Finally, the evolutionist picture
+wants some of the fairest lineaments of humanity, and cheats us with the
+semblance of man without the reality. Shave and paint your ape as you
+may, clothe him and set him up upon his feet, still he fails greatly of
+the 'hu<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span>man form divine;' and so it is with him morally and spiritually
+as well. We have seen that he wants the instinct of immortality, the
+love of God, the mental and spiritual power of exercising dominion over
+the earth. The very agency by which he is evolved is of itself
+subversive of all these higher properties; the struggle for existence is
+essentially selfish, and, therefore, degrading. Even in the lower
+animals, it is a false assumption that its tendency is to elevate; for
+animals, when driven to the utmost verge of the struggle for life,
+become depauperated and degraded. The dog which spends its life in
+snarling contention with its fellow curs for insufficient food, will not
+be a noble specimen of its race. God does not so treat his creatures.
+There is far more truth to nature in the doctrine which represents Him
+as listening to the young ravens when they cry for food. But as applied
+to man, the theory of the struggle for existence, and survival of the
+fittest, though the most popular phase of evolutionism at present, is
+nothing less than the basest and most horrible of superstitions. It
+makes man not merely carnal but devilish. It takes his lowest appetites
+and propensities, and makes them his God and Creator. His<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span> higher
+sentiments and aspirations, his self-denying philanthropy, his
+enthusiasm for the good and true, all the struggles and sufferings of
+heroes and martyrs, not to speak of that self-sacrifice which is the
+foundation of Christianity, are, in the view of the evolutionist, mere
+loss and waste, failure in the struggle of life. What does he give us in
+exchange? An endless pedigree of bestial ancestors, without one gleam of
+high and holy tradition to enliven the procession; and for the future,
+the prospect that the poor mass of protoplasm, which constitutes the sum
+of our being, and which is the sole gain of an indefinite struggle in
+the past, must soon be resolved again into inferior animals or dead
+matter. That men of thought and culture should advocate such a
+philosophy, argues either a strange mental hallucination, or that the
+higher spiritual nature has been wholly quenched within them. It is one
+of the saddest of many sad spectacles which our age presents." (p. 395)</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTE:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> <i>The Story of Earth and Man</i>. By J. W. Dawson, LL. D., F.
+R. S., F. G. S., Principal and Vice-Chancellor of McGill University,
+Montreal. Author of <i>Archaia, Acadian Geology</i>, etc. Second edition.
+London, 1873, pp. 397.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<p class='tbrk'>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2><a name="Relation_of_Darwinism_to_Religion" id="Relation_of_Darwinism_to_Religion"></a><i>Relation of Darwinism to Religion.</i></h2>
+
+<p>The consideration of that subject would lead into the wide field of the
+relation between science and religion. Into that field we lack
+com<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span>petency and time to enter; a few remarks, however, on the subject
+may not be out of place. Those remarks, we would fain make in a humble
+way irenical. There is need of an Irenicum, for the fact is painfully
+notorious that there is an antagonism between scientific men as a class,
+and religious men as a class. Of course this opposition is neither felt
+nor expressed by all on either side. Nevertheless, whatever may be the
+cause of this antagonism, or whoever are to be blamed for it, there can
+be no doubt that it exists and that it is an evil.</p>
+
+<p>The first cause of the alienation in question is, that the two parties,
+so to speak, adopt different rules of evidence, and thus can hardly
+avoid arriving at different conclusions. To understand this we must
+determine what is meant by science, and by scientific evidence. Science,
+according to its etymology, is simply knowledge. But usage has limited
+its meaning, in the first place, not to the knowledge of facts or
+phenomena, merely, but to their causes and relations. It was said of
+old, "&#8001;&#964;&#953; scienti&aelig; fundamentum, &#948;&#953;&#8001;&#964;&#953; fastigium." No
+amount of materials would constitute a building. They must be duly
+arranged so as to make a sym<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span>metrical whole. No amount of disconnected
+data can constitute a science. Those data must be systematized in their
+relation to each other and to other things. In the second place, the
+word is becoming more and more restricted to the knowledge of a
+particular class of facts, and of their relations, namely, the facts of
+nature or of the external world. This usage is not universal, nor is it
+fixed. In Germany, especially, the word <i>Wissenschaft</i> is used of all
+kinds of ordered knowledge, whether transcendental or empirical. So we
+are accustomed to speak of mental, moral, social, as well as of natural
+science. Nevertheless, the more restricted use of the word is very
+common and very influential. It is important that this fact should be
+recognized. In common usage, a scientific man is distinguished specially
+from a metaphysician. The one investigates the phenomena of matter, the
+other studies the phenomena of mind, according to the old distinction
+between physics and metaphysics. Science, therefore, is the ordered
+knowledge of the phenomena which we recognize through the senses. A
+scientific fact is a fact perceived by the senses. Scientific evidence
+is evidence addressed to the senses. At one of the meetings of the
+Victoria<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span> Institute, a visitor avowed his disbelief in the existence of
+God. When asked, what kind of evidence would satisfy him? he answered,
+Just such evidence as I have of the existence of this tumbler which I
+now hold in my hand. The Rev. Mr. Henslow says, "By science is meant the
+investigation of facts and phenomena recognizable by the senses, and of
+the causes which have brought them into existence."<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> This is the main
+root of the trouble. If science be the knowledge of the facts perceived
+by the senses, and scientific evidence, evidence addressed to the
+senses, then the senses are the only sources of knowledge. Any
+conviction resting on any other ground than the testimony of the senses,
+must be faith. Darwin admits that the contrivances in nature may be
+accounted for by assuming that they are due to design on the part of
+God. But, he says, that would not be science. Haeckel says that to
+science matter is eternal. If any man chooses to say, it was created,
+well and good; but that is a matter of faith, and faith is imagination.
+Ulrici quotes a distinguished German physiolo<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span>gist who believes in
+vital, as distinguished from physical forces; but he holds to
+spontaneous generation, not, as he admits, because it has been proved,
+but because the admission of any higher power than nature is
+unscientific.<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a></p>
+
+<p>It is inevitable that minds addicted to scientific investigation should
+receive a strong bias to undervalue any other kind of evidence except
+that of the senses, <i>i. e.</i>, scientific evidence. We have seen that
+those who give themselves up to this tendency come to deny God, to deny
+mind, to deny even self. It is true that the great majority of men,
+scientific as well as others, are so much under the control of the laws
+of their nature, that they cannot go to this extreme. The tendency,
+however, of a mind addicted to the consideration of one kind of
+evidence, to become more or less insensible to other kinds of proof, is
+undeniable. Thus even Agassiz, as a zo&ouml;logist and simply on zo&ouml;logical
+grounds, assumed that there were several zones between the Ganges and
+the Atlantic Ocean, each having its own flora and fauna, and inhabited
+by races of men, the same in kind, but of different origins. When told
+by the comparative philologists that this was<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span> impossible, because the
+languages spoken through that wide region, demonstrated that its
+inhabitants must have had a common descent, he could only answer that as
+ducks quack everywhere, he could not see why men should not everywhere
+speak the same language.</p>
+
+<p>A still more striking illustration is furnished by Dr. Lionel Beale, the
+distinguished English physiologist. He has written a book of three
+hundred and eighty-eight pages for the express purpose of proving that
+the phenomena of life, instinct, and intellect cannot be referred to any
+known natural forces. He avows his belief that in nature "mind governs
+matter," and "in the existence of a never-changing, all-seeing,
+power-directing and matter-guiding Omnipotence." He avows his faith in
+miracles, and "those miracles on which Christianity is founded."
+Nevertheless, his faith in all these points is provisional. He says that
+a truly scientific man, "if the maintenance, continuity, and nature of
+life on our planet should at some future time be fully explained without
+supposing the existence of any such supernatural omnipotent influence,
+would be bound to receive the new explana<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span>tion, and might abandon the
+old conviction."<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> That is, all evidence of the truths of religion not
+founded on nature and perceived by the senses, amounts to nothing.</p>
+
+<p>Now as religion does not rest on the testimony of the senses, that is on
+scientific evidence, the tendency of scientific men is to ignore its
+claims. We speak only of tendency. We rejoice to know or believe that in
+hundreds or thousands of scientific men, this tendency is counteracted
+by their consciousness of manhood&mdash;the conviction that the body is not
+the man,&mdash;by the intuitions of the reason and the conscience, and by the
+grace of God. No class of men stands deservedly higher in public
+estimation than men of science, who, while remaining faithful to their
+higher nature, have enlarged our knowledge of the wonderful works of
+God.</p>
+
+<p>A second cause of the alienation between science and religion, is the
+failure to make the due distinction between facts and the explanation of
+those facts, or the theories deduced from them. No sound minded man
+disputes<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span> any scientific fact. Religious men believe with Agassiz that
+facts are sacred. They are revelations from God. Christians sacrifice to
+them, when duly authenticated, their most cherished convictions. That
+the earth moves, no religious man doubts. When Galileo made that great
+discovery, the Church was right in not yielding at once to the evidence
+of an experiment which it did not understand. But when the fact was
+clearly established, no man sets up his interpretation of the Bible in
+opposition to it. Religious men admit all the facts connected with our
+solar system; all the facts of geology, and of comparative anatomy, and
+of biology. Ought not this to satisfy scientific men? Must we also admit
+their explanations and inferences? If we admit that the human embryo
+passes through various phases, must we admit that man was once a fish,
+then a bird, then a dog, then an ape, and finally what he now is? If we
+admit the similarity of structure in all vertebrates, must we admit the
+evolution of one from another, and all from a primordial germ? It is to
+be remembered that the facts are from God, the explanation from men; and
+the two are often as far apart as Heaven and its antipode.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>These human explanations are not only without authority, but they are
+very mutable. They change not only from generation to generation, but
+almost as often as the phases of the moon. It is a fact that the planets
+move. Once it was said that they were moved by spirits, then by
+vortexes, now by self-evolved forces. It is hard that we should be
+called upon to change our faith with every new moon. The same man
+sometimes propounds theories almost as rapidly as the changes of the
+kaleidoscope. The amiable Sir Charles Lyell, England's most
+distinguished geologist, has published ten editions of his "Principles
+of Geology," which so differ as to make it hard to believe that it is
+the work of the same mind. "In all the editions up to the tenth, he
+looked upon geological facts and geological phenomena as proving the
+fixity of species and their special creation in time. In the tenth
+edition, just published, he announces his change of opinion on this
+subject and his conversion to the doctrine of development by law."<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a>
+"In the eighth edition of his work," says Dr. Bree, "Sir Charles Lyell,
+the Nestor of geologists, to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span> whom the present generation is more
+indebted than to any other for all that is known of geology in its
+advanced stage, teaches that species have a real existence in nature,
+and that each was endowed at the time of its creation with the
+attributes and organization by which it is now distinguished." The
+change on the part of this eminent geologist, it is to be observed, is a
+mere change of opinion. There was no change of the facts of geology
+between the publication of the eighth and of the tenth edition of his
+work, neither was there any change in his knowledge of those facts. All
+the facts relied upon by evolutionists, have long been familiar to
+scientific men. The whole change is a subjective one. One year the
+veteran geologist thinks the facts teach one thing, another year he
+thinks they teach another. It is now the fact, and it is feared it will
+continue to be a fact, that scientific men give the name of science to
+their explanations as well as to the facts. Nay, they are often, and
+naturally, more zealous for their explanations than they are for the
+facts. The facts are God's, the explanations are their own.</p>
+
+<p>The third cause of the alienation between religion and science, is the
+bearing of scientific<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span> men towards the men of culture who do not belong
+to their own class. When we, in such connections, speak of scientific
+men, we do not mean men of science as such, but those only who avow or
+manifest their hostility to religion. There is an assumption of
+superiority, and often a manifestation of contempt. Those who call their
+logic or their conjectures into question, are stigmatized as
+narrow-minded, bigots, old women, Bible worshippers, etc.</p>
+
+<p>Professor Huxley's advice to metaphysicians and theologians is, to let
+science alone. This is his Irenicum. But do he and his associates let
+metaphysics and religion alone? They tell the metaphysician that his
+vocation is gone; there is no such thing as mind, and of course no
+mental laws to be established. Metaphysics are merged into physics.
+Professor Huxley tells the religious world that there is over-whelming
+and crushing evidence (scientific evidence, of course) that no event has
+ever occurred on this earth which was not the effect of natural causes.
+Hence there have been no miracles, and Christ is not risen.<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> He says
+that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span> the doctrine that belief in a personal God is necessary to any
+religion worthy of the name, is a mere matter of opinion. Tyndall,
+Carpenter, and Henry Thompson, teach that prayer is a superstitious
+absurdity; Herbert Spencer, whom they call their "great philosopher,"
+<i>i. e.</i>, the man who does their thinking, labors to prove that there
+cannot be a personal God, or human soul or self; that moral laws are
+mere "generalizations of utility," or, as Carl Vogt says, that self
+respect, and not the will of God, is the ground and rule of moral
+obligation. If any protest be made against such doctrines, we are told
+that scientific truth cannot be put down by denunciation (or as Vogt
+says, by barking). So doubtless the Pharisees, when our blessed Lord
+called them hypocrites and a generation of vipers, and said: "Ye compass
+sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him
+twofold more the child of hell than yourselves," doubtless thought that
+that was a poor way to refute their theory, that holiness and salvation
+were to be secured by church-membership and church-rites. Nevertheless,
+as those words were the words of Christ, they were a thunderbolt which
+reverberates through all time and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span> space, and still makes Pharisees of
+every name and nation tremble. Huxley's Irenicum will not do. Men who
+are assiduously poisoning the fountains of religion, morality, and
+social order, cannot be let alone.</p>
+
+<p>Haeckel's Irenicum amounts to much the same as that of Professor Huxley.
+He forbids the right to speak on these vital subjects, to all who are
+not thoroughly versed in biology, and who are not entirely emancipated
+from the trammels of their long cherished traditional beliefs.<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> This,
+as the whole context shows, means that a man in order to be entitled to
+be heard on the evolution theory, must be willing to renounce his faith
+not only in the Bible, but in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span> God, in the soul, in a future life, and
+become a monistic materialist.<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a></p>
+
+<p>It is very reasonable that scientific men, in common with lawyers and
+physicians and other professional men, should feel themselves entitled
+to be heard with special deference on<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span> 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span> God
+which no sophistry of man can weaken. These are barriers which no man
+can pass without plunging into the abyss of outer darkness.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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 antag<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span>onistic 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>1. The first objection to the theory is its <i>prim&acirc; facie</i> 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 be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span>lieve 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,&mdash;monsters the very description of which fill us with
+horror,&mdash;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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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,&mdash;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.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>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 B&uuml;chner, 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 unerkl&auml;rt 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 nat<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span>ural 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.<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a>
+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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span> 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."</p>
+
+<p>Ludwig Weis, M. D., of Darmstadt, says it is at present "the mode" in
+Germany (and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span> 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."</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>There is another significant fact which goes<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span> 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.<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> He
+believes "that all living things have been produced by such law (of
+variation) in time, their<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span> position and uses in the world having been
+preordained by the Creator."<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span> there are no two zo&ouml;logists 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span> not in the resulting group, but in
+the idea or potential element which is the basis of every individual of
+the group."<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> 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&mdash;subject to such
+varieties as we see in the dog, horse, and man&mdash;in which it continued
+during the whole period of its existence.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>First, the fact that such species are known to have existed unchanged,
+through what geologists consider almost immeasurable periods of time.
+Pal&aelig;ontologists tell us that Trilobites abounded from the primordial age
+down to the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span> 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."<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a></p>
+
+<p>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."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span> worms, cuttle-fish, snails,
+jelly-fish, star-fish, oysters, the polyps lived contemporaneously with
+the first known vertebrate animals that ever came into being&mdash;all as
+clearly defined by unmistakable ordinal or special characters as they
+are at the present moment."<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a></p>
+
+<p>The foot of the horse is considered by zo&ouml;logists 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.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>Fourthly. The fact that hybrids cannot be perpetuated, that no device of
+man can produce a new species, is proof that God has fixed<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span> 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.</p>
+
+<p>Fifthly. The sudden appearance of new kinds of animals is another fact
+which Pal&aelig;ontologists urge against the doctrine of evolution. According
+to the view of geologists great changes have, at remote periods,
+occurred in the state of the earth. Continents have been submerged and
+the bottom of the sea raised above<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span> the surface of the waters.
+Corresponding changes have occurred in the state of the atmosphere
+surrounding the globe, and in the temperature of the earth. Accompanying
+or following these revolutions new classes of plants and animals appear,
+adapted to the new condition of the earth's surface. Whence do they
+come? They have, as Dawson expresses it, neither fathers nor mothers.
+Nothing precedes them from which they could be derived; and nothing of
+the same kind follows them. They live through their appointed period;
+and then, in a multitude of cases, finally disappear, and are in their
+turn followed by new orders or kinds. In other words, the links or
+connecting forms of this assumed regular succession or derivation are
+not to be found. This fact is so patent, that Hugh Miller, when arguing
+against the doctrine of evolution as proposed in the "Vestiges of
+Creation," says, that the record in the rocks seems to have been written
+for the very purpose of proving that such evolution is impossible.</p>
+
+<p>We have the explicit testimony of Agassiz, as a Pal&aelig;ontologist, that the
+facts of geology contradict the theory of the transmutation of species.
+This testimony has been repeatedly<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span> given and in various forms. In the
+last production of his pen, he says: "As a Pal&aelig;ontologist I have from
+the beginning stood aloof from this new theory of transmutation, now so
+widely admitted by the scientific world. Its doctrines, in fact,
+contradict what the animal forms buried in the rocky strata of our earth
+tell us of their own introduction and succession upon the surface of the
+globe." "Let us look now at the earliest vertebrates, as known and
+recorded in geological surveys. They should, of course, if there is any
+truth in the transmutation theory, correspond with the lowest in rank or
+standing. What then are the earliest known vertebrates? They are
+Selachians (sharks and their allies) and Ganoids (garpikes and the
+like), the highest of all living fishes, structurally speaking." He
+closes the article from which these quotations are taken with the
+assertion, "that there is no evidence of a direct descent of later from
+earlier species in the geological succession of animals."<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> It will be
+observed that Agassiz is quoted, not as to matters of theory, but as to
+matters of fact. The only answer which evolutionists can make to this
+argument, is the imperfection of the geo<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span>logical record. When asked,
+Where are the immediate predecessors of these new species? they answer,
+They have disappeared, or, have not yet been found. When asked, Where
+are their immediate successors? the answer again is, They have
+disappeared.<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> This is an objection which Mr. Darwin, with his usual
+candor, virtually admits to be unanswerable. We have already seen, that
+he says, "Every one will admit that the geological record is imperfect;
+but very few can believe that it is so very imperfect as my theory
+demands."</p>
+
+<p>Such are some of the grounds on which geologists and pal&aelig;ontologists of
+the highest rank assert that the theory of evolution has not the
+slightest scientific basis; and they support their assertion with an
+amount of evidence of which the above items are a miserable pittance.</p>
+
+<p>Sixthly. There is another consideration of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span> decisive importance. Strauss
+says, there are three things which have been stumbling-blocks in the way
+of science. First, the origin of life; second, the origin of
+consciousness; third, the origin of reason. These are equivalent to the
+gaps which, Principal Dawson says, exist in the theory of evolution. He
+states them thus: 1. That between dead and living matter. 2. That
+between vegetable and animal life. "These are necessarily the converse
+of each other: the one deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes
+and expends." 3. That "between any species of plant or animal, and any
+other species. It was this gap, and this only, which Darwin undertook to
+fill up by his great work on the origin of species, but, notwithstanding
+the immense amount of material thus expended, it yawns as wide as ever,
+since it must be admitted that no case has been ascertained in which an
+individual of one species has transgressed the limits between it and
+another species." 4. "Another gap is between the nature of the animal
+and the self-conscious, reasoning, and moral nature of man." (pp.
+325-328)</p>
+
+<p>First, as to the gap between death and life; this is what Dr. Stirling
+calls the "gulf of all<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span> gulfs, which Mr. Huxley's protoplasm is as
+powerless to efface as any other material expedient that has ever been
+suggested."<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> This gulf Mr. Darwin does not attempt to bridge over. He
+admits that life owes its origin to the act of the Creator. This,
+however, the most prominent of the advocates of Darwinism say, is giving
+up the whole controversy. If you admit the intervention of creative
+power at one point, you may as well admit it in any other. If life owes
+its origin to creative power, why not species? If the stupendous miracle
+of creation be admitted, there is no show of reason for denying
+supernatural intervention in the operations of nature. Most Darwinians
+attempt to pass this gulf on the imaginary bridge of spontaneous
+generation. In other words, they say there is no gulf there. The
+molecules of matter, in one combination, may as well exhibit the
+phenomena of life, as in other combinations, any other kind of
+phenomena. The distinguished Sir William Thomson cannot trust himself to
+that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span> bridge. "Dead matter," he says, "cannot become living matter
+without coming under the influence of matter previously alive. This
+seems to me as sure a teaching of science as the law of gravitation....
+I am ready to adopt, as an article of scientific faith, true through all
+space and through all time, that life proceeds from life, and nothing
+but life."<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> He refers the origin of life on this earth to falling
+meteors, which bring with them from other planets the germs of living
+organisms; and from those germs all the plants and animals with which
+our world is now covered have been derived. Principal Dawson thinks that
+this was intended as irony. But the whole tone of the address, and
+specially of the closing portion of it, in which this idea is advanced,
+is far too serious to admit of such an explanation.</p>
+
+<p>No one can read the address referred to without being impressed, and
+even awed, by the immensity and grandeur of the field of knowledge which
+falls legitimately within the domain of science. The perusal of that
+discourse produces a feeling of humility analogous to the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span> sense of
+insignificance which every man experiences when he thinks of himself as
+a speck on the surface of the earth, which itself is but a speck in the
+immensity of the universe. And when a man of mere ordinary culture sees
+Sir William Thomson surveying that field with a mastery of its details
+and familiarity with all the recondite methods of its investigation, he
+feels as nothing in his presence. Yet this great man, whom we cannot
+help regarding with wonder, is so carried away by the spirit of his
+class as to say, "Science is bound, by the everlasting law of honor, to
+face fearlessly every problem which can fairly be brought before it. If
+a probable solution, consistent with the ordinary course of nature, can
+be found, we must not invoke an abnormal act of Creative Power." And,
+therefore, instead of invoking Creative Power, he accounts for the
+origin of life on earth by falling meteors. How he accounts for its
+origin in the places whence the meteors came, he does not say. Yet Sir
+William Thomson believes in Creative Power; and in a subsequent page, we
+shall quote his explicit repudiation of the atheistic element in the
+Darwinian theory.</p>
+
+<p>Strauss quotes Dubois-Reymond, a distin<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span>guished naturalist, as teaching
+that the first of these great problems, viz. the origin of life, admits
+of explanation on scientific (i. e., in his sense, materialistic)
+principles; and even the third, viz. the origin of reason; but the
+second, or the origin of consciousness, he says, "is perfectly
+inscrutable." Dubois-Reymond holds that "the most accurate knowledge of
+the essential organism reveals to us only matter in motion; but between
+this material movement and my feeling pain or pleasure, experiencing a
+sweet taste, seeing red, with the conclusion 'therefore I exist,' there
+is a profound gulf; and it 'remains utterly and forever inconceivable
+why to a number of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, etc., it should not be a
+matter of indifference how they lie or how they move; nor, can we in any
+wise tell how consciousness should result from their concurrent action.'
+Whether," adds Strauss, "these <i>Verba Magistri</i> are indeed the last word
+on the subject, time only can tell."<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> But if it is inconceivable, not
+to say absurd, that sense-consciousness should consist in the motion of
+molecules of matter, or be a function of such molecules, it can hardly
+be less absurd to account for<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</a></span> thought, conscience, and religious
+feeling and belief on any such hypothesis. It may be said that Mr.
+Darwin is not responsible for these extreme opinions. That is very true.
+Mr. Darwin is not a Monist, for in admitting creation, he admits a
+dualism as between God and the world. Neither is he a Materialist,
+inasmuch as he assumes a supernatural origin for the infinitesimal
+modicum of life and intelligence in the primordial animalcule, from
+which without divine purpose or agency, all living things in the whole
+history of our earth have descended. All the innumerable varieties of
+plants, all the countless forms of animals, with all their instincts and
+faculties, all the varieties of men with their intellectual endowments,
+and their moral and religious nature, have, according to Darwin, been
+evolved by the agency of the blind, unconscious laws of nature. This
+infinitesimal spark of supernaturalism in Mr. Darwin's theory, would
+inevitably have gone out of itself, had it not been rudely and
+contemptuously trodden out by his bolder, and more logical successors.</p>
+
+<p>The grand and fatal objection to Darwinism is this exclusion of design
+in the origin of species, or the production of living organisms.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</a></span> By
+design is meant the intelligent and voluntary selection of an end, and
+the intelligent and voluntary choice, application, and control of means
+appropriate to the accomplishment of that end. That design, therefore,
+implies intelligence, is involved in its very nature. No man can
+perceive this adaptation of means to the accomplishment of a
+preconceived end, without experiencing an irresistible conviction that
+it is the work of mind. No man does doubt it, and no man can doubt it.
+Darwin does not deny it. Haeckel does not deny it. No Darwinian denies
+it. What they do is to deny that there is any design in nature. It is
+merely apparent, as when the wind of the Bay of Biscay, as Huxley says,
+"selects the right kind of sand and spreads it in heaps upon the
+plains." But in thus denying design in nature, these writers array
+against themselves the intuitive perceptions and irresistible
+convictions of all mankind,&mdash;a barrier which no man has ever been able
+to surmount. Sir William Thomson, in the address already referred to,
+says: "I feel profoundly convinced that the argument of design has been
+greatly too much lost sight of in recent zo&ouml;logical speculations.
+Reaction against the frivolities of teleology,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</a></span> such as are to be found,
+not rarely, in the notes of the learned commentators on 'Paley's Natural
+Theology,' has, I believe, had a temporary effect of turning attention
+from the solid irrefragable argument so well put forward in that
+excellent old book. But overpowering proof of intelligence and
+benevolent design lie all around us, and if ever perplexities, whether
+metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come
+back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through nature the
+influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living beings depend
+upon one ever-acting Creator and Ruler."</p>
+
+<p>It is impossible for even Mr. Darwin, inconsistent as it is with his
+whole theory, to deny all design in the constitution of nature. What is
+his law of heredity? Why should like beget like? Take two germ cells,
+one of a plant, another of an animal; no man by microscope or by
+chemical analysis, or by the magic power of the spectroscope, can detect
+the slightest difference between them, yet the one infallibly develops
+into a plant and the other into an animal. Take the germ of a fish and
+of a bird, and they are equally indistinguishable; yet the one always
+under all conditions develops<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</a></span> into a fish and the other into a bird.
+Why is this? There is no physical force, whether light, heat,
+electricity, or anything else, which makes the slightest approximation
+to accounting for that fact. To say, as Stuart Mill would say, that it
+is an ultimate fact, and needs no explanation, is to say that there may
+be an effect without an adequate cause. The venerable R. E. Von Baer,
+the first naturalist in Russia, of whom Agassiz speaks in terms of such
+affectionate veneration in the "Atlantic Monthly" for January, 1874, has
+written a volume dated Dorpat, 1873, and entitled "Zum Streit &uuml;ber den
+Darwinismus." In that volume, as we learn from a German periodical, the
+author says: "The Darwinians lay great stress on heredity; but what is
+the law of heredity but a determination of something future? Is it not
+in its nature in the highest degree teleological? Indeed, is not the
+whole faculty of reproduction intended to introduce a new life-process?
+When a man looks at a dissected insect and examines its strings of eggs,
+and asks, Whence are they? the naturalist of our day has no answer to
+give, but that they were of necessity gradually produced by the changes
+in matter. When it is further asked, Why are<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</a></span> they there? is it wrong to
+say, It is <i>in order that</i> when the eggs are mature and fertilized, new
+individuals of the same form should be produced."</p>
+
+<p>It is further to be considered that there are innumerable cases of
+contrivance, or evidence of design in nature, to which the principle of
+natural selection, or the purposeless changes effected by unconscious
+force, cannot apply; as for example, the distinction of sex, with all
+that is therein involved. But passing by such cases, it may be asked,
+what would it avail to get rid of design in the vegetable and animal
+kingdom, while the whole universe is full of it? That this ordered
+Cosmos is not from necessity or chance, is almost a self-evident fact.
+Not one man in a million of those who ever heard of God, either does
+doubt or can doubt it. Besides how are the cosmical relations of light,
+heat, electricity, to the constituent parts of the universe, and
+especially, so far as this earth is concerned, to vegetable and animal
+life, to be accounted for? Is this all chance work? Is it by chance that
+light and heat cause plants to carry on their wonderful operations,
+transmuting the inorganic into the organic, dead matter into living and
+life sustain<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</a></span>ing matter? Is it without a purpose that water instead of
+contracting, expands at the freezing point?&mdash;a fact to which is due that
+the earth north of the tropic is habitable for man or beast. It is no
+answer to this question to say that a few other substances have the same
+peculiarity, when no good end, that we can see, is thereby accomplished.
+No man is so foolish as to deny that his eye was intended to enable him
+to see, because he cannot tell what the spleen was made for. It is,
+however, useless to dwell upon this subject. If a man denies that there
+is design in nature, he can with quite as good reason deny that there is
+any design in any or in all the works ever executed by man.</p>
+
+<p>The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the denial of design in
+nature is virtually the denial of God. Mr. Darwin's theory does deny all
+design in nature, therefore, his theory is virtually atheistical; his
+theory, not he himself. He believes in a Creator. But when that Creator,
+millions on millions of ages ago, did something,&mdash;called matter and a
+living germ into existence,&mdash;and then abandoned the universe to itself
+to be controlled by chance and necessity, without any purpose on his<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</a></span>
+part as to the result, or any intervention or guidance, then He is
+virtually consigned, so far as we are concerned, to non-existence. It
+has already been said that the most extreme of Mr. Darwin's admirers
+adopt and laud his theory, for the special reason that it banishes God
+from the world; that it enables them to account for design without
+referring it to the purpose or agency of God. This is done expressly by
+B&uuml;chner, Haeckel, Vogt, and Strauss. The opponents of Darwinism direct
+their objections principally against this element of the doctrine. This,
+as was stated by Rev. Dr. Peabody, was the main ground of the earnest
+opposition of Agassiz to the theory. America's great botanist, Dr. Asa
+Gray, avows himself an evolutionist; but he is not a Darwinian. Of that
+point we have the clearest possible proof. Mr. Darwin, after explicitly
+denying that the variations which have resulted in "the formation of the
+most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were
+intentionally and specially guided," adds: "However much we may wish it,
+we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief 'that variation
+has been led along certain beneficial lines' like a stream 'along
+definite<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</a></span> and useful lines of irrigation.'"<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> If Mr. Darwin does not
+agree with Dr. Gray, Dr. Gray does not agree with Mr. Darwin. It is as
+to the exclusion of design from the operations of nature that our
+American, differs from the English, naturalist. This is the vital point.
+The denial of final causes is the formative idea of Darwin's theory, and
+therefore no teleologist can be a Darwinian.</p>
+
+<p>Dr. Gray quotes from another writer the sentence, "It is a singular
+fact, that when we can find how anything is done, our first conclusion
+seems to be that God did not do it;" and then adds, "I agree with the
+writer that this first conclusion is premature and unworthy; I will add,
+deplorable. Through what faults of dogmatism on the one hand, and
+skepticism on the other, it came to be so thought, we need not here
+consider. Let us hope, and I confidently expect, that it is not to last;
+that the religious faith which survived without a shock the notion of
+the fixedness of the earth itself, may equally outlast the notion of the
+absolute fixedness of the species which inhabit it; that in the future,
+even more than in the past, faith<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</a></span> in an <i>order</i>, which is the basis of
+science, will not&mdash;as it cannot reasonably&mdash;be dissevered from faith in
+an <i>Ordainer</i>, which is the basis of religion."<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> We thank God for
+that sentence. It is the concluding sentence of Dr. Gray's address as
+ex-President of "The American Association for the Advancement of
+Science," delivered August, 1872.</p>
+
+<p>Dr. Gray goes further. He says, "The proposition that the things and
+events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out,
+is doubtless tantamount to atheism." Again, "To us, a fortuitous Cosmos
+is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos.... If Mr.
+Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and
+the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if
+the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers
+phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show
+that such belief is atheistic."<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a></p>
+
+<p>We have thus arrived at the answer to our<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</a></span> question, What is Darwinism?
+It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin
+himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his
+theory is atheistic; that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr.
+Gray says, tantamount to atheism.</p>
+
+<p>Among the last words of Strauss were these: "We demand for our universe
+the same piety which the devout man of old demanded for his God." "In
+the enormous machine of the universe, amid the incessant whirl and hiss
+of its jagged iron wheels, amid the deafening crash of its ponderous
+stamps and hammers, in the midst of this whole terrific commotion, man,
+a helpless and defenceless creature, finds himself placed, not secure
+for a moment that on an imprudent motion a wheel may not seize and rend
+him, or a hammer crush him to a powder. This sense of abandonment is at
+first something awful."<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a></p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</a></span>Among the last words of Paul were these: "I know whom I have believed,
+and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed
+unto Him against that day.... The time of my departure is at hand. I
+have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the
+faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness,
+which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not
+to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing."</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> <i>Science and Scripture not Antagonistic, because Distinct
+in their Spheres of Thought</i>. A Lecture, by Rev. George Henslow, M. A.,
+F. L. S., F. G. S. London, 1873, p. 1.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> <i>Gott und Natur</i>, p. 200.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> <i>Protoplasm; or, Matter and Life.</i> By Lionel S. Beale, M.
+B., F. R. S. Third edition. London &amp; Philadelphia, 1874, p. 345; and the
+whole chapter on Design.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> <i>Fallacies in the Hypothesis of Mr. Darwin</i>, by C. R.
+Bree, M. D., F. Z. S. London, 1872, p. 290.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> When Professor Huxley says, as quoted above, that he does
+not deny the possibility of miracles, he must use the word miracle in a
+sense peculiar to himself.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> <i>Jenaer Literaturzeitung</i>, January 3, 1874. In this number
+there is a notice by Doctor Haeckel of two books,&mdash;<i>Descendenzlehre und
+Darwinismus</i>, von Oscar Schmidt, Leipzig, 1873; and <i>Die Fortschritte
+des Darwinismus</i>, von J. W. Spengel, C&ouml;ln and Leipzig, 1874; in which he
+says: "Erstens, um in Sachen der Descendenz-Theorie mitreden zu k&ouml;nnen,
+ein gewisser Grad von tieferer biologischer (sowohl morphologischer als
+physiologischer) Bildung unentbehrlich, den die meistzen von jenen
+Auctoren (the opposers of the theory) nicht besitzen. Zweitens ist f&uuml;r
+ein klares und zutreffendes Urtheil in diesem Sachen eine r&uuml;cksichtslose
+Hingabe an vernunftgem&auml;sse Erkenntniss und eine dadurch bedingte
+Resignation auf uralte, liebgewordene und tief vererbte Vorurtheile
+erforderlich, zu welcher sich die wenigsten entschliesen k&ouml;nnen."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> In his <i>Nat&uuml;rlische Sch&ouml;pfungsgeschichte</i>, Haeckel is
+still more exclusive. When he comes to answer the objections to the
+evolution, or, as he commonly calls it, the descendence theory, he
+dismisses the objections derived from religion, as unworthy of notice,
+with the remark that all Glaube ist Aberglaube; all faith is
+superstition. The objections from <i>a priori</i>, or intuitive truths, are
+disposed of in an equally summary manner, by denying that there are any
+such truths, and asserting that all our knowledge is from the senses.
+The objection that so many distinguished naturalists reject the theory,
+he considers more at length. First, many have grown old in another way
+of thinking and cannot be expected to change. Second, many are
+collectors of facts, without studying their relations, or are destitute
+of the genius for generalization. No amount of material makes a
+building. Others, again, are specialists. It is not enough that a man
+should be versed in one department; he must be at home in all: in
+Botany, Zo&ouml;logy, Comparative Anatomy, Biology, Geology, and
+Pal&aelig;ontology. He must be able to survey the whole field. Fourthly, and
+mainly, naturalists are generally lamentably deficient in philosophical
+culture and in a philosophical spirit. "The immovable edifice of the
+true, monistic science, or what is the same thing, natural science, can
+only arise through the most intimate interaction and mutual
+interpenetration of philosophy and observation (Philosophie und
+Empirie)." pp. 638-641. It is only a select few, therefore, of learned
+and philosophical monistic materialists, who are entitled to be heard on
+questions of the highest moment to every individual man, and to human
+society.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> This short but significant sentence is omitted in the
+excellent translation of Strauss's book, by Mathilde Blind, republished
+in New York, by Henry Holt &amp; Company, 1873.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> <i>The Fallacies of Darwinism</i>, by C. R. Bree, M. D., p.
+308.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> <i>The Fallacies of Darwinism</i>, p. 305.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> <i>Bibliotheca Sacra</i>, 1857, p. 861.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> <i>The Story of Earth and Man</i>, p. 358.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> Dr. Bree, p. 275. We presume geologists differ in the
+terms which they use to designate strata. Agassiz calls the oldest
+containing fossil, the sub-Cambrian. Principal Dawson calls the oldest
+the Laurentian, and places the first vertebrates in the Silurian. This
+is of no moment as to the argument. The important fact is that each
+species is distinct as soon as it appears; and that many have remained
+to the present time.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> <i>Atlantic Monthly</i>, January, 1874.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> We have heard a story of a gentleman who gave an artist a
+commission for a historical painting, and suggested as the subject, the
+Passage of the Israelites over the Red Sea. In due time he was informed
+that his picture was finished, and was shown by the artist a large
+canvas painted red. "What is that?" he asked. "Why," says the artist,
+"that is the Red Sea." "But where are the Israelites?" "Oh, they have
+passed over." "And where are the Egyptians?" "They are under the sea."</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> <i>As Regards Protoplasm in Relation to Professor Huxley's
+Essay an the Physical Basis of Life</i>. By Dr. James H. Stirling. See,
+also, <i>Physiological Anatomy and Physiology of Man</i>, by L. S. Beale;
+also, <i>The Mystery of Life in Reply to Dr. Gull's Attack on the Theory
+of Vitality</i>. By L. S. Beale, M. D., 1871.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> The address delivered by Sir William Thomson, as President
+of the British Association at its meeting in Edinburgh, 1871.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> <i>The Old Faith and the New</i>. Prefatory Postscript, xxi.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> <i>Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication</i>. New
+York, 1868, vol. ii. pp. 515, 516.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> <i>Proceedings of the American Association for the
+Advancement of Science</i>. Cambridge, 1873, p. 20.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> The <i>Atlantic Monthly</i> for October, 1860. The three
+articles in the July, August, and October numbers of the <i>Atlantic</i>, on
+this subject, have been reprinted with the name of Dr. Asa Gray as their
+author.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> Strauss says that as he has arrived at the conclusion that
+there is no personal God, and no life after death, it would seem to
+follow that the question, Have we still a religion? "must be answered in
+the negative." But as he makes the essence of religion to consist in a
+sense of dependence, and as he felt himself to be helpless in the midst
+of this whirling universe, he had that much religion left.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+
+<hr />
+<h2><a name="ADVERTISEMENTS" id="ADVERTISEMENTS"></a>ADVERTISEMENTS</h2>
+
+<hr />
+
+<h2><i>The Great Theological Work of the Age.</i></h2>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<h1>DR. HODGE'S THEOLOGY.</h1>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<h2>Systematic Theology.</h2>
+
+<h3>By CHARLES HODGE, D.D., LL.D.,</h3>
+
+<p class='center'>of Princeton Theological Seminary.</p>
+
+
+<p class='center'><i>Complete in three volumes 8vo, tinted paper. Price, vols. I. and II.</i>,
+$4.50. <i>Vol. III.</i>, $5.</p>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<p>In these volumes are comprised the results of the life-long labors and
+investigations of one of the most eminent theologians of the age. The
+work covers the ground usually occupied by treatises on Systematic
+Theology, and adopts the commonly received divisions of the
+subject,&mdash;THEOLOGY, Vol. I.; ANTHROPOLOGY, Vol. II.; SOTERIOLOGY AND
+ESCHATOLOGY, Vol. III.</p>
+
+<p>The INTRODUCTION is devoted to the consideration of preliminary matters,
+such as Method, or the principles which should guide the student of
+Theology, and the different theories as to the source and standard of
+our knowledge of divine things, Rationalism, Mysticism, the Roman
+Catholic doctrine of the Rule of Faith, and the Protestant doctrine on
+that subject.</p>
+
+<p>The department of THEOLOGY proper includes the origin of the Idea of
+God, the Being of God, the Anti-Theistic systems of Atheism, Polytheism,
+Materialism, and Pantheism; the Nature of God, the Divine Attributes,
+the Doctrines of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, and of the Holy
+Spirit; the Decrees of God, Creation, Providence, and Miracles.</p>
+
+<p>The department of ANTHROPOLOGY includes the Nature, Origin, and
+Antiquity of Man, his Primitive State and Probation; the Fall; the
+Effect of Adam's Sin upon himself and upon his Posterity; the Nature of
+Sin; the Different Philosophical and Theological Theories on that
+subject.</p>
+
+<p>SOTERIOLOGY includes the Plan or Purpose of God in reference to the
+Salvation of Men; the Person and Work of the Redeemer; his Offices as
+Prophet, Priest, and King, the Work of the Holy Spirit in applying the
+redemption purchased by Christ; Common and Efficacious Grace,
+Regeneration, Faith, Justification, Sanctification, the Law or Rule of
+Life, and the means of Grace.</p>
+
+<p>ESCHATOLOGY includes the State of the Soul after Death; the Second
+Coming of Christ; the Resurrection of the Body; the General Judgment and
+End of the World, and the Doctrine concerning Heaven and Hell.</p>
+
+<p>The plan of the author is to state and vindicate the teachings of the
+Bible on these various subjects, and to examine the antagonistic
+doctrines of different classes of Theologians. His book, therefore, is
+intended to be both didactic and elenchtic.</p>
+
+<p>The various topics are discussed with that close and keen analytical and
+logical power combined with that simplicity, lucidity, and strength of
+style which have already given Dr. HODGE a world-wide reputation as a
+controversialist and writer, and as an investigator of the great
+theological problems of the day.</p>
+
+<p><i>Single copies, sent post-paid on receipt of the price.</i></p>
+
+<p class='center'>SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG &amp; CO.,</p>
+
+<p class='right'>654 Broadway, New York</p>
+
+<hr />
+
+<p>EDINBURGH REVIEW.&mdash;"The BEST History of the Roman Republic."</p>
+
+<p>LONDON TIMES.&mdash;"BY FAR THE BEST History of the Decline and Fall of the
+Roman Commonwealth."</p>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<p class='center'>THE</p>
+
+<h1>History of Rome,</h1>
+
+<h4>FROM THE EARLIEST TIME TO THE PERIOD OF ITS DECLINE.</h4>
+
+<h2>By Dr. THEODOR MOMMSEN.</h2>
+
+<p>Translated, with the author's sanction and additions, by the Rev. <span class="smcap">W. P.
+Dickson</span>, Regius Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of
+Glasgow, late Classical Examiner in the University of St. Andrews. With
+an Introduction by Dr. <span class="smcap">Leonhard Schmitz</span>, and a copious Index of the
+whole four volumes, prepared especially for this edition.</p>
+
+<p class='center'>REPRINTED FROM THE REVISED LONDON EDITION</p>
+
+<p class='center'>Four Volumes crown 8vo. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Price per volume, $2.00.</p>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Mommsen</span> has long been known and appreciated through his researches
+into the languages, laws, and institutions of Ancient Rome and Italy, as
+the most thoroughly versed scholar now living in these departments of
+historical investigation. To a wonderfully exact and exhaustive
+knowledge of these subjects, he unites great powers of generalization, a
+vigorous, spirited, and exceedingly graphic style and keen analytical
+powers, which give this history a degree of interest and a permanent
+value possessed by no other record of the decline and fall of the Roman
+Commonwealth. "Dr. Mommsen's work," as Dr. Schmitz remarks in the
+introduction, "though the production of a man of most profound and
+extensive learning and knowledge of the world, is not as much designed
+for the professional scholar as for intelligent readers of all classes
+who take an interest in the history of by-gone ages, and are inclined
+there to seek information that may guide them safely through the
+perplexing mazes of modern history."</p>
+
+<p class='center'>CRITICAL NOTICES.</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>"A work of the very highest merit; its learning is exact and
+profound; its narrative full of genius and skill; its descriptions
+of men are admirably vivid. We wish to place on record our opinion
+that Dr. Mommsen's is by far the best history of the Decline and
+Fall of the Roman Commonwealth."&mdash;<i>London Times</i>.</p>
+
+<p>"Since the days of Niebuhr, no work on Roman History has appeared
+that combines so much to attract, instruct, and charm the reader.
+Its style&mdash;a rare quality in a German author&mdash;is vigorous,
+spirited, and animated. Professor Mommsen's work can stand a
+comparison with the noblest productions of modern history."&mdash;<i>Dr.
+Schmitz.</i></p>
+
+<p>"This is the best history of the Roman Republic, taking the work on
+the whole&mdash;the author's complete mastery of his subject, the
+variety of his gifts and acquirements, his graphic power in the
+delineation of national and individual character, and the vivid
+interest which he inspires in every portion of his book. He is
+without an equal in his own sphere."&mdash;<i>Edinburgh Review</i>.</p>
+
+<p>"A book of deepest interest."&mdash;<i>Dean Trench</i>.</p></blockquote>
+
+<hr />
+
+<h2><i>ANOTHER GREAT HISTORICAL WORK.</i></h2>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<h1>The History of Greece,</h1>
+
+<h2>By Prof. Dr. ERNST CURTIUS.</h2>
+
+<p class='center'>Translated by ADOLPHUS WILLIAM WARD, M.A., Fellow of St. Peter's
+College, Cambridge, Prof. of History in Owen's College, Manchester.</p>
+
+<p><i>To be completed in four or five vols., crown 8vo, at $2.50 per volume.</i></p>
+
+<p class='center'><span class="smcap">Printed Upon Tinted Paper, Uniform With Mommsen's History of Rome, and
+The Library Edition of Froude's History of England</span>.</p>
+
+<p class='center'>VOLS. I., II., III., AND IV., NOW READY.</p>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<p>Curtius' <i>History of Greece</i> is similar in plan and purpose to Mommsen's
+<i>History of Rome</i>, with which it deserves to rank in every respect as
+one of the great masterpieces of historical literature. Avoiding the
+minute details which overburden other similar works, it groups together
+in a very picturesque manner all the important events in the history of
+this kingdom, which has exercised such a wonderful influence upon the
+world's civilization. The narrative of Prof. Curtius' work is flowing
+and animated, and the generalizations, although bold, are philosophical
+and sound.</p>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<p class='center'>CRITICAL NOTICES.</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>"Professor Curtius' eminent scholarship is a sufficient guarantee
+for the trustworthiness of his history, while the skill with which
+he groups his facts, and his effective mode of narrating them,
+combine to render it no less readable than sound. Professor Curtius
+everywhere maintains the true dignity and impartiality of history,
+and it is evident his sympathies are on the side of justice,
+humanity, and progress."&mdash;<i>London Athen&aelig;um</i>.</p>
+
+<p>"We can not express our opinion of Dr. Curtius' book better than by
+saying that it may be fitly ranked with Theodor Mommsen's great
+work."&mdash;<i>London Spectator</i>.</p>
+
+<p>"As an introduction to the study of Grecian history, no previous
+work is comparable to the present for vivacity and picturesque
+beauty, while in sound learning and accuracy of statement it is not
+inferior to the elaborate productions which enrich the literature
+of the age."&mdash;<i>N. Y. Daily Tribune</i>.</p>
+
+<p>"The History of Greece is treated by Dr. Curtius so broadly and
+freely in the spirit of the nineteenth century, that it becomes in
+his hands one of the worthiest and most instructive branches of
+study for all who desire something more than a knowledge of
+isolated facts for their education. This translation ought to
+become a regular part of the accepted course of reading for young
+men at college, and for all who are in training for the free
+political life of our country."&mdash;<i>N. Y. Evening Post</i>.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p><i>This book sent post-paid, upon receipt of the price, by the
+Publishers,</i></p>
+
+<p class='center'>SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG &amp; CO.,</p>
+
+<p class='right'>654 <span class="smcap">Broadway, New York</span>.</p>
+
+<hr />
+
+<h2>PROSPECTUS</h2>
+
+<p class='center'>OF A</p>
+
+<h1>Theological &amp; Philosophical Library</h1>
+
+<p class='center'>EDITED BY</p>
+
+<p class='center'>HENRY B. SMITH, D.D., AND PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D.,</p>
+
+<p class='center'><i>Professors in the Union Theological Seminary, New York.</i></p>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<p>The undersigned propose to publish a select and compact Library of
+Text-Books upon all the main departments of Theology and Philosophy,
+adapted to the wants especially of ministers and students in all
+denominations.</p>
+
+<p>Some of the works will be translated from the German and other
+languages; others will be based upon treatises by various authors; some
+will be written for the Library by English or American scholars. The aim
+will be to furnish at least one condensed standard work on each of the
+scientific divisions of Theology and Philosophy, giving the result of
+the best critical investigations, excluding, however, such histories and
+commentaries as extend through many volumes.</p>
+
+<p>This scheme is not presented as final, but as indicating the aim of the
+editors. If sufficient encouragement be given, no pains will be spared
+to make the project complete, and thus to meet a great and acknowledged
+desideratum in the apparatus for study. On all these topics every
+student needs, at least, one good work. To supply this will be the aim
+of our Library.</p>
+
+<p>The various volumes will be published in the best style, on reasonable
+terms, and as rapidly as the nature of the work and the encouragement of
+the public will allow.</p>
+
+<p>The editors will be assisted by eminent scholars of various
+denominations, who will respectively assume the literary responsibility
+for the volumes prepared by themselves within the general plan and aim
+of the library.</p>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<p class='center'>NOW READY,</p>
+
+<p class='center'>IN</p>
+
+<h2>The Theological and Philosophical Library.</h2>
+
+<h2>UEBERWEG'S HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY.</h2>
+
+<p class='center'><span class="smcap">Vol. I.</span>&mdash;<i>History of the Ancient and Medi&aelig;val Philosophy</i>. By Dr.
+Friedrich Ueberweg. Translated from the fourth German edition by George
+S. Morris, A.M., with additions by Noah Porter, D.D., LL.D., President
+of Yale College, and a general Introduction by the editor of the
+Philosophical Library. One vol. 8vo, cloth, $3.50.</p>
+
+<p class='center'><span class="smcap">Vol. II.</span>&mdash;<i>History of Modern Philosophy</i>. With an Essay on English
+Philosophy, by Dr. <span class="smcap">Noah Porter</span>, President of Yale College; and on
+Italian Philosophy, by Professor <span class="smcap">V. Botta</span>. One vol. 8vo, cloth. $4.00.</p>
+
+<p><i>Sent, post-paid, upon receipt of the price by the Publishers,</i></p>
+
+<p class='center'>SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG &amp; CO.,</p>
+
+<p class='right'>654 <span class="smcap">Broadway, New York</span>.</p>
+
+<hr />
+
+<h1>LANGE'S COMMENTARY.</h1>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<p class='center'>NOW READY:</p>
+
+<h2>The Minor Prophets.</h2>
+
+<p class='center'><i>Edited by</i> <span class="smcap">Rev. Dr.</span> PHILIP SCHAFF, <i>and including</i></p>
+
+<blockquote><p><b>HOSEA.</b>&mdash;By <span class="smcap">Otto Schmoller</span>, Ph. D., Urach, Wurtemberg. Translated,
+with additions, by <span class="smcap">James E. McCurdy</span>.</p>
+
+<p><b>JOEL.</b>&mdash;By <span class="smcap">Otto Schmoller</span>, Ph. D. Translated, with additional Notes
+and a New Version of the Hebrew Text, by <span class="smcap">John Forsyth</span>, D.D., LL.D.</p>
+
+<p><b>AMOS.</b>&mdash;By <span class="smcap">Otto Schmoller</span>, Ph. D. Translated and enlarged by <span class="smcap">Talbot
+W. Chambers</span>, D.D.</p>
+
+<p><b>OBADIAH.</b>&mdash;By <span class="smcap">Paul Kleinert</span>, of Berlin. Translated, with additions,
+by <span class="smcap">George R. Bliss</span>, D.D.</p>
+
+<p><b>JONAH.</b>&mdash;By <span class="smcap">Paul Kleinert</span>. Translated and enlarged by <span class="smcap">Charles
+Elliott</span>, D.D.</p>
+
+<p><b>MICAH.</b>&mdash;By <span class="smcap">Paul Kleinert</span>. Translated, with additions, by <span class="smcap">George R.
+Bliss</span>, D.D.</p>
+
+<p><b>NAHUM, HABAKKUK, AND ZEPHANIAH.</b>&mdash;By <span class="smcap">Paul Kleinert</span>. Translated and
+enlarged by <span class="smcap">Charles Elliott</span>, D.D.</p>
+
+<p><b>HAGGAI.</b>&mdash;By <span class="smcap">James F. McCurdy</span>, Princeton, N. Y.</p>
+
+<p><b>ZECHARIAH.</b>&mdash;By <span class="smcap">Talbot W. Chambers</span>, D.D., New York.</p>
+
+<p><b>MALACHI.</b>&mdash;By <span class="smcap">Joseph Packard</span>, D.D. Alexandria, Va.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p class='center'>One vol. royal 8vo, cloth &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;$5.00</p>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<p class='center'><i>The Volumes previously Published are</i>:</p>
+
+<p><b>OLD TESTAMENT.</b>&mdash;I. GENESIS. II. JOSHUA, JUDGES, and RUTH. III. FIRST and
+SECOND KINGS. IV. PSALMS. V. PROVERBS, SONG OF SOLOMON, ECCLESIASTES.
+VI. JEREMIAH and LAMENTATIONS.</p>
+
+<p><b>NEW TESTAMENT.</b>&mdash;I. MATTHEW. II. MARK and LUKE. III. JOHN. IV. ACTS. V.
+THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. VI. CORINTHIANS. VII. GALATIANS,
+EPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS. VIII. THESSALONIANS, TIMOTHY, TITUS,
+PHILEMON, and HEBREWS. IX. THE EPISTLES GENERAL OF JAMES, PETER, JOHN,
+and JUDE.</p>
+
+<p>Each one vol. 8vo. Price per vol., in half calf, $7.50: in sheep, $6.50:
+in cloth, $5.00.</p>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<p class='center'><b>NAMES AND DENOMINATIONS OF CONTRIBUTORS.</b></p>
+
+<p>W. G. T. SHEDD, D.D., Presbyterian.<br />
+E. A. WASHBURNE, D.D., Episcopal.<br />
+A. C. KENDRICK, D.D., Baptist.<br />
+W. H. GREEN, D.D., Presbyterian.<br />
+J. F. HURST, D.D., Methodist.<br />
+TAYLER LEWIS, LL.D., Dutch Reformed.<br />
+<span class="smcap">Rev.</span> CH. F. SHAFFER, D.D., Lutheran.<br />
+R. D. HITCHCOCK, D.D., Presbyterian.<br />
+E. HARWOOD, D.D., Episcopal.<br />
+H. B. HACKETT, D.D., Baptist.<br />
+JOHN LILLIE, D.D., Presbyterian.<br />
+<span class="smcap">Rev.</span> W. G. SUMNER, Episcopal.<br />
+<span class="smcap">Prof.</span> CHARLES ELLIOTT, Presbyterian.<br />
+THOS. C. CONANT, D.D., Baptist.<br />
+E. D. YEOMANS, D.D., Presbyterian.<br />
+<span class="smcap">Rev.</span> C. C. STARBUCK, Congregational.<br />
+J. ISIDOR MOMBERT, D.D., Episcopal.<br />
+D. W. POOR, D.D., Presbyterian.<br />
+C. P. WING, D.D., Presbyterian.<br />
+GEORGE E. DAY. D.D., Congregational.<br />
+<span class="smcap">Rev.</span> P. H. STEENSTRA, Episcopal.<br />
+A. GOSMAN, D.D., Presbyterian.<br />
+<span class="smcap">Pres.</span> CHAS. A. AIKEN, D.D., Presbyt'n.<br />
+M. B. RIDDLE, D.D., Dutch Reformed.<br />
+<span class="smcap">Prof.</span> WM. WELLS, D.D., Methodist.<br />
+W. H. HORNBLOWER, D.D., Presbyt'n.<br />
+<span class="smcap">Prof.</span> GEORGE BLISS, Baptist.<br />
+T. W. CHAMBERS, D.D., Reformed.</p>
+
+<p><img src="images/hand30-14.png" width='30' height='14' alt="pointing hand" />Each volume of "LANGE'S COMMENTARY" is complete
+in itself, and can be purchased separately. Sent, post-paid, to any
+address upon receipt of the price ($5 per volume) by the publishers.</p>
+
+<p class='center'>SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG &amp; CO.,</p>
+
+<p class='right'>654 <span class="smcap">Broadway, New York</span>.</p>
+
+<hr />
+
+<h2>Manuals of Political Economy,</h2>
+
+<p class='center'><i>PUBLISHED BY</i></p>
+
+<h3><span class="smcap">Scribner, Armstrong &amp; Co.</span></h3>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<h3>Perry's Elements of Political Economy.</h3>
+
+<p class='center'><span class="smcap"> New Edition, Revised by the Author.</span></p>
+
+<p>This treatise presents views favorable to the utmost freedom of
+commerce, compatible with legitimate revenue from tariff taxes. It is a
+standard text-book in all our colleges throughout the country. By <span class="smcap">Arthur
+Latham Perry</span>, Professor of Political Economy and History in Williams
+College. 487 <i>pages, price</i> $2.50.</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>"Your book interests students more than any other I have ever
+instructed from,"&mdash;<i>Pres. T. D. Woolsey, Yale College.</i></p>
+
+<p>"As a manual for general reading and popular instruction, Prof.
+Perry's book is far superior to any work on the subject before
+issued in the United States."&mdash;<i>N. Y. Times.</i></p>
+
+<p>"We cordially recommend this book to all, of whatever school of
+political economy, who enjoy candid statement and full and logical
+discussion."&mdash;<i>N. Y. Nation.</i></p>
+
+<p>"There is more common sense in this book than in any of the more
+elaborate works on the same subject that have preceded it."&mdash;<i>N. Y.
+Independent.</i></p>
+
+<p>"In all the portions of the book which we have read, the author
+shows himself to be a clear, strong, bold, and generally sound
+thinker."&mdash;<i>New Englander</i>.</p></blockquote>
+
+<h3>Bowen's American Political Economy.</h3>
+
+<p>This treatise presents views compatible with the idea that "every
+country has a political economy of its own, suitable to its own physical
+circumstances of position on the globe, and to the character, habits,
+and institutions of the people." By <span class="smcap">Francis Bowen</span>, Professor of
+Political Economy and Civil Polity in Harvard College. 495 <i>pages,
+price</i> $2.50</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>"If our members of Congress would vote themselves a copy of this
+book, and read it, fewer wild schemes would be concocted by them,
+and a great saving of time and the people's money would be
+secured."&mdash;<i>The Philadelphia Age.</i></p>
+
+<p>"His arguments are worth considering, and his whole book is of high
+value to any American to study economical questions."&mdash;<i>Springfield
+Republican.</i></p>
+
+<p>"A solid and well-reasoned treatise.... Mr. Bowen's views are
+clearly stated and thoroughly reasoned."&mdash;<i>Boston
+Congregationalist</i>.</p>
+
+<p>... "There are hundreds going wrong to-day whom a careful perusal
+of this volume would set right."&mdash;<i>N. Y. Daily Tribune</i>.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p><img src="images/hand30-14.png" width='30' height='14' alt="pointing hand" /><i>Sent, post-paid, on receipt of price by the
+publishers.</i></p>
+
+<hr />
+
+<p class='center'><i>Prices and Styles of the Different Editions</i></p>
+
+<p class='center'>OF</p>
+
+<p class='center'>FROUDE'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND.</p>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<h3><span class="smcap">The Chelsea Edition.</span></h3>
+
+<p class='center'>In half roan, gilt top, per set of twelve vols. 12mo &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;$21.00</p>
+
+<p>Elegance and cheapness are combined in a remarkable degree in this
+edition. It takes its name from the place of Mr. Froude's residence in
+London, also famous as the home of Thomas Carlyle.</p>
+
+<h3><span class="smcap">The Popular Edition.</span></h3>
+
+<p class='center'>In cloth, at the rate of $1.25 per volume. The set (12 vols.), in a neat
+box. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; $15.00</p>
+
+<p class='center'>The Same, in half calf extra  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;36.00</p>
+
+<p>This edition is printed from the same plates as the other editions, and
+on firm, white paper. It is, without exception, the cheapest set of
+books of its class ever issued in this country.</p>
+
+<h3><span class="smcap">The Library Edition.</span></h3>
+
+<p class='center'>In twelve vols. crown 8vo, cloth $30.00 The Same, in half calf extra &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
+50.00</p>
+
+<p>The Edition is printed on laid and tinted paper, at the Riverside Press,
+and is in every respect worthy a place in the most carefully selected
+library.</p>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<h3><i>SHORT STUDIES ON GREAT SUBJECTS.</i></h3>
+
+<p class='center'><span class="smcap">By James Anthony Froude, M.A.</span>,<br />
+<i>"History of England," "The English in Ireland during the Eighteenth Century," etc.</i></p>
+
+<p class='center'>POPULAR EDITION. Two vols. 12mo, cloth, $1.50 per vol. The Set   &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; $3.00</p>
+
+<p class='center'>CHELSEA EDITION. Two vols. 12mo, half roan, gilt top, $2.00 per volume. Per Set   &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4.00</p>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<h3><i>The Complete Works of James Anthony Froude, M.A.</i></h3>
+
+<p class='center'>HISTORY OF ENGLAND AND SHORT STUDIES.<br />Fourteen vols., in a neat Box.</p>
+
+<p class='center'>POPULAR EDITION  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; $18.00</p>
+
+<p class='center'>CHELSEA EDITION  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 25.00</p>
+
+<p class='center'><i>The above works sent, post-paid, by the publishers, on receipt of the
+price</i></p>
+
+<p class='center'>SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG &amp; CO.,</p>
+
+<p class='right'><span class="smcap">654 Broadway, New York.</span></p>
+
+<hr />
+
+<h1>Popular and Standard Works</h1>
+
+<p class='center'>PUBLISHED BY</p>
+
+<h2>SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG &amp; CO.,</h2>
+
+<h3><i>654 Broadway, New York,</i></h3>
+
+<h3>IN 1873.</h3>
+
+<hr class='smler' />
+
+<table border='0' cellspacing='0' cellpadding='5' summary='Popular and Standard Works'>
+  <tr>
+    <td>1. <b>BAGEHOT'S (W.)</b> LOMBARD STREET. 12mo</td>
+    <td class='right'>$1&nbsp;75</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>2. <b>BIBLE COMMENTARY</b>. Vol. II. 8vo</td>
+    <td class='right'>5&nbsp;00</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>3. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  "  &nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;      "   &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;    Vol. III. 8vo</td>
+    <td class='right'>5&nbsp;00</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>4. <b>COOK'S (F. C.)</b> EXODUS. 8vo</td>
+    <td class='right'>1&nbsp;50</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>5. <b>DIEULAFAIT'S (L.)</b> DIAMONDS AND PRECIOUS STONES. <i>Illustrated</i>. 12mo</td>
+    <td class='right'>2&nbsp;00</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>6. <b>DODGE'S (MRS. MARY MAPES)</b> HANS BRINKER. <i>Illustrated</i>. 12mo.</td>
+    <td class='right'>1&nbsp;50</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>7. <b>FIELD'S (T. W.)</b> INDIAN BIBLIOGRAPHY. 8vo</td>
+    <td class='right'>5&nbsp;00</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>8. <b>FISHER'S (DR. G. P.)</b> HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION. 8vo</td>
+    <td class='right'>3&nbsp;00</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>9. <b>GUYOT'S (PROF. A.)</b> PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY. Large 4to</td>
+    <td class='right'>2&nbsp;25</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>10. <b>HALL'S (F.)</b> MODERN ENGLISH. 12mo</td>
+    <td class='right'>2&nbsp;50</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>11. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  "  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;    "  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; FALSE PHILOLOGY. 12mo,  boards</td>
+    <td class='right'>1&nbsp;25</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>12. <b>HOLLAND'S (DR. J. G)</b> ARTHUR BONNICASTLE. <i>Illustrated</i>. 12mo</td>
+    <td class='right'>1&nbsp;75</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>13. <b>HOPKINS' (DR. M.)</b> OUTLINE STUDY OF MAN. 12mo</td>
+    <td class='right'>1&nbsp;75</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <b>THE ILLUSTRATED LIBRARY OF TRAVEL AND ADVENTURE.</b></td>
+    <td class='right'>&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp;  &nbsp;  &nbsp; Each 1 vol. 12mo cloth</td>
+    <td class='right'>1&nbsp;50</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td class='center'> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 14. <b>Central Africa.</b> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 15. <b>Siam as It Was and Is.</b></td>
+    <td class='right'>&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <b>THE LIBRARY OF CHOICE FICTION:</b></td>
+    <td class='right'>&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp;  &nbsp;  &nbsp; 16. <b>The Burgomaster's Family.</b> 8vo. Cloth, $1.50; paper</td>
+    <td class='right'>1&nbsp;00</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp;  &nbsp;  &nbsp; 17. <b>Wandering Willie.</b> 8vo. Paper</td>
+    <td class='right'>50</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp;  &nbsp;  &nbsp; 18. <b>Galama.</b> 8vo. Cloth, $1.25; paper</td>
+    <td class='right'>75</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp;  &nbsp;  &nbsp; 19. <b>May.</b> By <span class="smcap">Mrs. Oliphant</span>. 8vo. Cloth, $1.50; paper</td>
+    <td class='right'>1&nbsp;00</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>20. <b>LYNDON'S</b> OXLEY. A Novel. 12mo</td>
+    <td class='right'>1&nbsp;50</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>21. <b>MEDHURST'S (W. H.)</b> THE FOREIGNER IN FAR CATHAY. 12mo</td>
+    <td class='right'>1&nbsp;50</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>22. <b>PERRY'S (PROF. A. L.)</b> POLITICAL ECONOMY. <i>11th edition revised.</i> Crown 8vo</td>
+    <td class='right'>2&nbsp;50</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>23. <b>SAXE HOLM'S</b> STORIES. 12mo, extra gilt, $1.75; plain</td>
+    <td class='right'>1&nbsp;50</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>24. <b>STANLEY'S (H. M.)</b> MY KALULU. <i>Illustrated</i>. 12mo</td>
+    <td class='right'>2&nbsp;00</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>25. <b>UEBERWEG'S (PROF. F.)</b> HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. Vol. II. 8vo</td>
+    <td class='right'>4&nbsp;00</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>26. <b>VERNE'S (JULES)</b> FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON. <i>Illustrated</i>. Crown 8vo</td>
+    <td class='right'>3&nbsp;00</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>27. <b>VERNE'S (JULES)</b> JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH. <i>Illustrated</i>. 12mo</td>
+    <td class='right'>2&nbsp;00</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>28. <b>VERY YOUNG COUPLE (A).</b> 12mo</td>
+    <td class='right'>1&nbsp;25</td>
+  </tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><sup>*</sup>*<sup>*</sup> <i>Any of the above books sent postpaid to any
+address upon receipt of the price by the publishers.</i></p>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<pre>
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of What is Darwinism?, by Charles Hodge
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT IS DARWINISM? ***
+
+***** This file should be named 19192-h.htm or 19192-h.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/1/9/1/9/19192/
+
+Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Martin Pettit and
+the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+http://www.pgdp.net (This file was made using scans of
+public domain works from the University of Michigan Digital
+Libraries)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+*** END: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+</body>
+</html>
+
diff --git a/19192-h/images/hand30-14.png b/19192-h/images/hand30-14.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5582eb7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/19192-h/images/hand30-14.png
diff --git a/19192.txt b/19192.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4cce97d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/19192.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,4593 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of What is Darwinism?, by Charles Hodge
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: What is Darwinism?
+
+Author: Charles Hodge
+
+Release Date: September 6, 2006 [EBook #19192]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT IS DARWINISM? ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Martin Pettit and
+the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+http://www.pgdp.net (This file was made using scans of
+public domain works from the University of Michigan Digital
+Libraries)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+WHAT IS DARWINISM?
+
+BY
+CHARLES HODGE,
+PRINCETON, N. J.
+
+NEW YORK:
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG, AND COMPANY.
+1874.
+
+
+Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG, & COMPANY,
+In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
+
+
+RIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGE:
+STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY
+H. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY.
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS.
+
+
+                                                           PAGE
+IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION                                    1
+
+DIFFERENT THEORIES AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE,
+AND SPECIALLY OF VEGETABLE AND ANIMAL ORGANISMS.
+  1. The Scriptural Theory                                    3
+  2. The Pantheistic Theory                                   7
+  3. The Epicurean Theory                                    10
+  4. The Doctrine of Herbert Spencer                         11
+  5. Hylozoic Theory                                         21
+  6. Unscriptural Forms of Theism                            22
+
+DARWIN'S THEORY                                              26
+
+NATURAL SELECTION                                            31
+
+SENSE IN WHICH DARWIN USES THE WORD NATURAL                  40
+
+THE THREE ELEMENTS OR DARWINISM                              48
+
+THE EXCLUSION OF DESIGN IN NATURE THE FORMATIVE IDEA
+OF DARWIN'S THEORY                                           49
+
+PROOF OF DARWIN'S DENIAL OF TELEOLOGY, FROM HIS OWN
+WRITINGS                                                     53
+
+PROOF FROM THE EXPOSITIONS OF HIS THEORY BY ITS AVOWED
+ADVOCATES.
+  Mr. Russell Wallace                                        64
+  Professor Huxley                                           72
+  Dr. Buechner                                                84
+  Carl Vogt                                                  85
+  Prof. Haeckel                                              87
+  Strauss                                                   147
+
+PROOF FROM THE OBJECTIONS URGED BY THE OPPONENTS OF
+MR. DARWIN'S THEORY.
+  Duke of Argyll                                             96
+  Agassiz                                                   101
+  Professor Janet                                           105
+  M. Flourens                                               108
+  Rev. Walter Mitchell                                      111
+  Principal Dawson                                          119
+
+RELATION OF DARWINISM TO RELIGION                           125
+
+CAUSES OF THE ANTAGONISM BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION       126
+
+THE EVOLUTION THEORY CONTRARY TO FACTS AND TO SCRIPTURE     141
+
+SIR WILLIAM THOMSON ON TELEOLOGY                            165
+
+DR. ASA GRAY                                                174
+
+DARWINISM TANTAMOUNT TO ATHEISM                             177
+
+
+
+
+WHAT IS DARWINISM?
+
+
+This is a question which needs an answer. Great confusion and diversity
+of opinion prevail as to the real views of the man whose writings have
+agitated the whole world, scientific and religious. If a man says he is
+a Darwinian, many understand him to avow himself virtually an atheist;
+while another understands him as saying that he adopts some harmless
+form of the doctrine of evolution. This is a great evil.
+
+It is obviously useless to discuss any theory until we are agreed as to
+what that theory is. The question, therefore, What is Darwinism? must
+take precedence of all discussion of its merits.
+
+The great fact of experience is that the universe exists. The great
+problem which has ever pressed upon the human mind is to account for its
+existence. What was its origin? To what causes are the changes we
+witness around us to be referred? As we are a part of the universe,
+these questions concern ourselves. What are the origin, nature, and
+destiny of man? Professor Huxley is right in saying, "The question of
+questions for mankind--the problem which underlies all others, and is
+more interesting than any other--is the ascertainment of the place which
+Man occupies in nature and of his relation to the universe of things.
+Whence our race has come, what are the limits of our power over nature,
+and of nature's power over us, to what goal are we tending, are the
+problems which present themselves anew and with undiminished interest to
+every man born into the world."[1] Mr. Darwin undertakes to answer these
+questions. He proposes a solution of the problem which thus deeply
+concerns every living man. Darwinism is, therefore, a theory of the
+universe, at least so far as the living organisms on this earth are
+concerned. This being the case, it may be well to state, in few words,
+the other prevalent theories on this great subject, that the points of
+agreement and of difference between them and the views of Mr. Darwin may
+be the more clearly seen.
+
+
+_The Scriptural Solution of the Problem of the Universe_.
+
+That solution is stated in words equally simple and sublime: "In the
+beginning God created the heavens and the earth." We have here, first,
+the idea of God. The word God has in the Bible a definite meaning. It
+does not stand for an abstraction, for mere force, for law or ordered
+sequence. God is a spirit, and as we are spirits, we know from
+consciousness that God is, (1.) A Substance; (2.) That He is a person;
+and, therefore, a self-conscious, intelligent, voluntary agent. He can
+say I; we can address Him as Thou; we can speak of Him as He or Him.
+This idea of God pervades the Scriptures. It lies at the foundation of
+natural religion. It is involved in our religious consciousness. It
+enters essentially into our sense of moral obligation. It is inscribed
+ineffaceably, in letters more or less legible, on the heart of every
+human being. The man who is trying to be an atheist is trying to free
+himself from the laws of his being. He might as well try to free himself
+from liability to hunger or thirst.
+
+The God of the Bible, then, is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and
+unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, goodness, and truth.
+As every theory must begin with some postulate, this is the grand
+postulate with which the Bible begins. This is the first point.
+
+The second point concerns the origin of the universe. It is not eternal
+either as to matter or form. It is not independent of God. It is not an
+evolution of his being, or his existence form. He is extramundane as
+well as antemundane. The universe owes its existence to his will.
+
+Thirdly, as to the nature of the universe; it is not a mere phenomenon.
+It is an entity, having real objective existence, or actuality. This
+implies that matter is a substance endowed with certain properties, in
+virtue of which it is capable of acting and of being acted upon. These
+properties being uniform and constant, are physical laws to which, as
+their proximate causes, all the phenomena of nature are to be referred.
+
+Fourthly, although God is extramundane, He is nevertheless everywhere
+present. That presence is not only a presence of essence, but also of
+knowledge and power. He upholds all things. He controls all physical
+causes, working through them, with them, and without them, as He sees
+fit. As we, in our limited spheres, can use physical causes to
+accomplish our purposes, so God everywhere and always cooeperates with
+them to accomplish his infinitely wise and merciful designs.
+
+Fifthly, man a part of the universe, is, according to the Scriptures, as
+concerns his body, of the earth. So far, he belongs to the animal
+kingdom. As to his soul, he is a child of God, who is declared to be the
+Father of the spirits of all men. God is a spirit, and we are spirits.
+We are, therefore, of the same nature with God. We are God-like; so that
+in knowing ourselves we know God. No man conscious of his manhood can be
+ignorant of his relationship to God as his Father.
+
+The truth of this theory of the universe rests, in the first place, so
+far as it has been correctly stated, on the infallible authority of the
+Word of God. In the second place, it is a satisfactory solution of the
+problem to be solved,--(1.) It accounts for the origin of the universe.
+(2.) It accounts for all the universe contains, and gives a satisfactory
+explanation of the marvellous contrivances which abound in living
+organisms, of the adaptations of these organisms to conditions external
+to themselves, and for those provisions for the future, which on any
+other assumption are utterly inexplicable. (3.) It is in conflict with
+no truth of reason and with no fact of experience.[2] (4.) The
+Scriptural doctrine accounts for the spiritual nature of man, and meets
+all his spiritual necessities. It gives him an object of adoration,
+love, and confidence. It reveals the Being on whom his indestructible
+sense of responsibility terminates. The truth of this doctrine,
+therefore, rests not only on the authority of the Scriptures, but on the
+very constitution of our nature. The Bible has little charity for those
+who reject it. It pronounces them to be either derationalized or
+demoralized, or both.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[1] _Evidences of Man's Place in Nature._ London, 1864, p. 57.
+
+[2] The two facts which are commonly urged as inconsistent with Theism,
+are the existence of misery in the world, and the occurrence of
+undeveloped or useless organs, as teeth in the jaws of the whale and
+mammae on the breast of a man. As to the former objection, sin, which is
+the only real evil, is accounted for by the voluntary apostasy of man;
+and as to undeveloped organs they are regarded as evidences of the great
+plan of structure which can be traced in the different orders of
+animals. These unused organs were--says Professor Joseph Le Conte, in
+his interesting volume on Religion and Science, New York, 1874, p.
+54--regarded as blunders in nature, until it was discovered that use is
+not the only end of design. "By further patient study of nature," he
+says, "came the recognition of another law beside use,--a law of order
+underlying and conditioning the law of use. Organisms are, indeed,
+contrived for use, but according to a preordained plan of structure,
+which must not be violated." It is of little moment whether this
+explanation be considered satisfactory or not. It would certainly be
+irrational to refuse to believe that the eye was made for the purpose of
+vision, because we cannot tell why a man has mammae. A man might as well
+refuse to admit that there is any meaning in all the writings of Plato,
+because there is a sentence in them which he cannot understand.
+
+
+_The Pantheistic Theory_.
+
+This has been one of the most widely diffused and persistent forms of
+human thought on this whole subject. It has been for thousands of years
+not only the philosophy, but the religion of India, and, to a great
+extent, of China. It underlies all the forms of Greek philosophy. It
+crept into the Church, concealed under the disguise of Scriptural
+terminology, in the form of Neo-Platonism. It was constantly reappearing
+during the Middle Ages, sometimes in a philosophical, and sometimes a
+mystical form. It was revived by Spinoza in the seventeenth century, and
+subsequently became dominant in the philosophy and literature of Europe.
+It is coming up again. Some distinguished naturalists are swinging round
+from one pole to the opposite; from saying there is no God, to teaching
+that everything is God. Sometimes, one and the same book in one half
+teaches materialism, in the other half idealism: the one affirming that
+everything is matter, the other that matter is nothing, but that
+everything is mind, and mind is God.
+
+The leading principles of the Pantheistic theory are,--(1.) That there
+is an Infinite and Absolute Being. Of this Being nothing can be affirmed
+but actuality. It is denied that it is conscious, intelligent, or
+voluntary. (2.) It is subject to the blind necessity of self-evolution
+or development. (3.) This development being necessary is constant; from
+everlasting to everlasting. According to the Braminical doctrine,
+indeed, there are successive cycles of activity and repose, each cycle
+being measured by countless milliards of centuries. According to the
+moderns, self-evolution being necessary, there can be no repose, so that
+Ohne Welt kein Gott. (4.) The Finite is, therefore, the existence form
+of the Infinite; all that is in the latter for the time being is in the
+former. All that is possible is actual. (5.) The Finite is the Infinite,
+or, to use theistic language, the World is God, in the sense that all
+the world is and contains is the form in which God, at each successive
+moment, exists. There is no power, save only the power manifested in
+the world; no consciousness, intelligence, or voluntary activity, but in
+finite things, and the aggregate of these is the power, consciousness,
+intelligence, and activity of God. What we call sin is as much a form of
+God's activity as what we call virtue. In other words, there is no such
+thing as free agency in man, no such thing as sin or responsibility.
+When a man dies he sinks into the abyss of being as a drop of water is
+lost in the ocean. (6.) Man is the highest form of God's existence. God
+is incarnate in the human race. Strauss says, that what the Church
+teaches of Christ is not true of any individual man, but is true of
+mankind. Or, as Feuerbach more concisely expresses it, "Man alone is our
+God." The blasphemy of some of the German philosophers on this subject
+is simply unutterable. In India we see the practical operation of this
+system when it takes hold on the people. There the personification of
+the Infinite as evil (the Goddess Kala) is the most popular object of
+worship.
+
+
+_Epicurean Theory._
+
+Epicurus assumed the existence of matter, force and motion,--Stoff und
+Kraft. He held that all space was filled with molecules of matter in a
+state of rapid motion in every direction. These molecules were subject
+to gravity and endowed with properties or forces. One combination of
+molecules gave rise to unorganized matter, another to life, another to
+mind; and from the various combinations, guided by unintelligent
+physical laws, all the wonderful organisms of plants and animals have
+arisen. To these combinations also all the phenomena of life, instinct,
+and intelligence in the world are to be referred. This theory has been
+adopted in our day by a large class of scientific men, especially in
+Germany. The modern advocates of the theory are immeasurably superior to
+the ancient Epicureans in their knowledge of astronomy, botany, zooelogy,
+and biology; but in their theory of the universe, and in their mode of
+accounting for all the phenomena of life and intelligence, they are
+precisely on the same level. They have not added an idea to the system,
+which has ever been regarded as the opprobrium of human thought.
+Buechner, Moleschott, Vogt, hold that matter is eternal and
+indestructible; that matter and force are inseparable: the one cannot
+exist without the other. What, it is asked, is motion without something
+moving? What is electricity without an electrified body? What is
+attraction without molecules attracting each other? What is
+contractibility without muscular fibre, or secretion without a secreting
+gland? One combination of molecules exhibits the phenomena of life,
+another combination exhibits the phenomena of mind. All this was taught
+by the old heathen philosopher more than two thousand years ago. That
+this system denies the existence of God, of mind as a thinking substance
+distinct from matter, and of the possibility of the conscious existence
+of man after death, are not inferences drawn by opponents, but
+conclusions openly avowed by its advocates.
+
+
+_Herbert Spencer's New Philosophy._
+
+Mr. Darwin calls Spencer our "great philosopher." His is the speculating
+mind of the new school of science. This gives to his opinions special
+interest, although no one but himself is to be held responsible for his
+peculiar views, except so far as others see fit to avow them. Mr.
+Spencer postulates neither mind nor matter. He begins with Force. Force,
+however, is itself perfectly inscrutable. All we know about it is, that
+it is, that it is indestructible, and that it is persistent.
+
+As to the origin of the universe, he says there are three possible
+suppositions: 1st. That it is self-existent. 2d. That it is
+self-created. 3d. That it is created by an external agency.[3] All these
+he examines and rejects. The first is equivalent to Atheism, by which
+Spencer understands the doctrine which makes Space, Matter, and Force
+eternal and the causes of all phenomena. This, he says, assumes the idea
+of self-existence, which is unthinkable. The second theory he makes
+equivalent to Pantheism. "The precipitation of vapor," he says, "into
+cloud, aids us in forming a symbolic conception of a self-evolved
+universe;" but, he adds, "really to conceive self-creation, is to
+conceive potential existence passing into actual existence by some
+inherent necessity, which we cannot do." (p. 32). The Theistic theory,
+he says, is equally untenable. "Whoever agrees that the atheistic
+hypothesis is untenable because it involves the impossible idea of
+self-existence, must perforce admit that the theistic hypothesis is
+untenable if it contains the same impossible idea." (p. 38). The origin
+of the universe is, therefore, a fact which cannot be explained. It must
+have had a cause; and all we know is that its cause is unknowable and
+inscrutable.
+
+When we turn to nature the result is the same. Everything is
+inscrutable. All we know is that there are certain appearances, and that
+where there is appearance there must be something that appears. But what
+that something is, what is the noumenon which underlies the phenomenon,
+it is impossible for us to know. In nature we find two orders of
+phenomena, or appearances; the one objective or external, the other
+subjective in our consciousness. There are an Ego and a non-Ego, a
+subject and object. These are not identical. "It is," he says,
+"rigorously impossible to conceive that our knowledge is a knowledge of
+appearances only, without at the same time conceiving a reality of which
+they are appearances, for appearance without reality is unthinkable."
+(p. 88). So far we can go. There is a reality which is the cause of
+phenomena. Further than that, in that direction, our ignorance is
+profound. He proves that space cannot be an entity, an attribute, or a
+category of thought, or a nonentity. The same is true of time, of
+motion, of matter, of electricity, light, magnetism, etc., etc. They all
+resolve themselves into appearances produced by an unknown cause.
+
+As the question, What is matter? is a crucial one, he dwells upon it in
+various parts of his writings. Newton's theory of ultimate atoms;
+Leibnitz's doctrine of monads; and the dynamic theory of Boscovich,
+which makes matter mere centres of force, are all dismissed as
+unthinkable. It is not very clear in what sense that word is to be
+taken. Sometimes it seems to mean, meaningless; at others,
+self-contradictory or absurd; at others, inconceivable, _i. e._ that of
+which no conception or mental image can be formed; at any rate, it
+implies what is unknowable and untenable. The result is, so far as
+matter is concerned, that we know nothing about it. "Our conception of
+matter," he says, "reduced to its simplest shape, is that of coexistent
+positions that offer resistance, as contrasted with our conception of
+space in which the coexistent positions offer no resistance." (p. 166).
+Resistance, however, is a form of force; and, therefore, on the
+following page, Spencer says, "that forces standing in certain
+correlations, form the whole contents of our idea of matter."
+
+When we turn from the objective to the subjective, from the external to
+the inward world, the result is still the same. He agrees with Hume in
+saying that the contents of our consciousness is a series of impressions
+and ideas. He dissents, however, from that philosopher, in saying that
+that series is all we know. He admits that impressions necessarily imply
+that there is something that is impressed. He starts the question, What
+is it that thinks? and answers, We do not know. (p. 63). He admits that
+the reality of individual personal minds, the conviction of personal
+existence is universal, and perhaps indestructible. Nevertheless that
+conviction cannot justify itself at the bar of reason; nay, reason is
+found to reject it. (p. 65). Dean Mansel says, that consciousness gives
+us a knowledge of self as a substance and not merely of its varying
+states. This, however, he says, "is absolutely negatived by the laws of
+thought. The fundamental condition to all consciousness, emphatically
+insisted upon by Mr. Mansel in common with Sir William Hamilton and
+others, is the antithesis of subject and object.... What is the
+corollary from this doctrine, as bearing on the consciousness of self?
+The mental act in which self is known implies, like every other mental
+act, a perceiving subject and a perceived object. If, then, the object
+perceived is self, what is the subject that perceives? Or if it is the
+true self which thinks, what other self can it be that is thought of?
+Clearly, a true cognition of self implies a state in which the knowing
+and the known are one--in which subject and object are identified; and
+this Mr. Mansel rightly holds to be the annihilation of both. So that
+the personality of which each is conscious, and of which the existence
+is to each a fact beyond all others the most certain, is yet a thing
+which cannot be known at all; knowledge of it is forbidden by the very
+nature of human thought." (pp. 65, 66).
+
+Mr. Spencer does not seem to expect that any man will be shaken in his
+conviction by any such argument as that. When a man is conscious of
+pain, he is not to be puzzled by telling him that the pain is one thing
+(the object perceived) and the self another thing (the perceiving
+subject). He knows that the pain is a state of the self of which he is
+conscious. Consciousness is a form of knowledge; but knowledge of
+necessity supposes an intelligent reality which knows. A philosophy
+which cannot be received until men cease to believe in their own
+existence, must be in extremis.
+
+Mr. Spencer's conclusion is, that the universe--nature, or the external
+world with all its marvels and perpetual changes,--the world of
+consciousness with its ever varying states, are impressions or
+phenomena, due to an inscrutable, persistent force.
+
+As to the nature of this primal force or power, he quotes abundantly and
+approvingly from Sir William Hamilton and Mr. Mansel, to prove that it
+is unknowable, inconceivable, unthinkable. He, however, differs from
+those distinguished writers in two points. While admitting that we know
+no more of the first cause than we do of a geometrical figure which is
+at once a circle and a square, yet we do know that it is actual. For
+this conviction we are not dependent on faith. In the second place,
+Hamilton and Mansel taught that we know that the Infinite cannot be a
+person, self-conscious, intelligent, and voluntary; yet we are forced
+by our moral constitution to believe it to be an intelligent person.
+This Mr. Spencer denies. "Let those," he says, "who can, believe that
+there is eternal war between our intellectual faculties and our moral
+obligations. I, for one, admit of no such radical vice in the
+constitution of things." (p. 108). Religion has always erred, he
+asserts, in that while it teaches that the Infinite Being cannot be
+known, it insists on ascribing to it such and such attributes, which of
+course assumes that so far forth it is known. We have no right, he
+contends, to ascribe personality to the "Unknown Reality," or anything
+else, except that it is the cause of all that we perceive or experience.
+There may be a mode of being, as much transcending intelligence and
+will, as these transcend mechanical motion. To show the folly of
+referring to the Unknown the attributes of our own spirits, he makes
+"the grotesque supposition that the tickings and other movements of a
+watch constituted a kind of consciousness; and that a watch possessed of
+such a consciousness, insisted on regarding the watchmaker's actions as
+determined like its own by springs and escapements." (p. 111). The vast
+majority of men, instead of agreeing with Mr. Spencer in this matter,
+will doubtless heartily, each for himself, join the German philosopher
+Jacobi, in saying, "I confess to Anthropomorphism inseparable from the
+conviction that man bears the image of God; and maintain that besides
+this Anthropomorphism, which has always been called Theism, is nothing
+but Atheism or Fetichism."[4]
+
+Mr. Spencer, therefore, in accounting for the origin of the universe and
+all its phenomena, physical, vital, and mental, rejects Theism, or the
+doctrine of a personal God, who is extramundane as well as antemundane,
+the creator and governor of all things; he rejects Pantheism, which
+makes the finite the existence-form of the Infinite; he rejects Atheism,
+which he understands to be the doctrine of the eternity and
+self-existence of matter and force. He contents himself with saying we
+must acknowledge the reality of an unknown something which is the cause
+of all things,--the noumenon of all phenomena. "If science and religion
+are to be reconciled, the basis of the reconciliation must be this
+deepest, widest, and most certain of all facts,--that the Power which
+the universe manifests is utterly inscrutable." (p. 46). "The ultimate
+of ultimates is Force." "Matter and motion, as we know them, are
+differently conditioned manifestations of force." "If, to use an
+algebraic illustration, we represent Matter, Motion, and Force, by the
+symbols _x_, _y_, _z_; then we may ascertain the values of _x_ and _y_
+in terms of _z_, but the value of _z_ can never be found; _z_ is the
+unknown quantity, which must forever remain unknown, for the obvious
+reason that there is nothing in which its value can be expressed." (pp.
+169, 170).
+
+We have, then, no God but Force. Atheist is everywhere regarded as a
+term of reproach. Every man instinctively recoils from it. Even the
+philosophers of the time of the French Revolution repudiated the charge
+of atheism, because they believed in motion; and motion being
+inscrutable, they believed in an inscrutable something, _i. e._ in
+Force. We doubt not Mr. Spencer would indignantly reject the imputation
+of atheism; nevertheless, in the judgment of most men, the difference
+between Antitheist and Atheist is a mere matter of orthography.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[3] _First Principles of a New System of Philosophy._ By Herbert
+Spencer. Second edition. New York, 1869, p. 30.
+
+[4] _Von den goettlichen Dingen_, _Werke_, III. pp. 422, 425. Leipzig,
+1816.
+
+
+_Hylozoic Theory._
+
+This theory assumes the universe to be eternal. There is nothing extra,
+or antemundane. There is but one substance, and that substance is
+matter. Matter, however, has an active and passive principle. Life and
+rationality are among its attributes or functions. The universe,
+therefore, is a living whole pervaded by a principle not only of life
+but of intelligence. This hylozoic doctrine, some modern scientific men,
+as Professor Tyndall, seem inclined to adopt. They tell us that matter
+is not the dead and degraded thing it is commonly regarded. It is active
+and transcendental. What that means, we do not know. The word
+transcendental is like a parabola, in that there is no knowing where its
+meaning ends. To say that matter is transcendental, is saying there is
+no telling what it is up to. This habit of using words which have no
+definite meaning is very convenient to writers, but very much the
+reverse for readers. Some of the ancient Stoics distinguished between
+the active and passive principles in the world, calling the one mind,
+the other, matter. These however were as intimately united as matter and
+life in a plant or animal.
+
+
+_Theism in Unscriptural Forms._
+
+There are men who are constrained to admit the being of God, who depart
+from the Scriptural doctrine as to his relation to the world. According
+to some, God created matter and endowed it with certain properties, and
+then left it to itself to work out, without any interference or control
+on his part, all possible results. According to others, He created not
+only matter, but life, or living germs, one or more, from which without
+any divine intervention all living organisms have been developed.
+Others, again, refer not only matter and life, but mind also to the act
+of the Creator; but with creation his agency ceases. He has no more to
+do with the world, than a ship-builder has with the ship he has
+constructed, when it is launched and far off upon the ocean. According
+to all these views a creator is a mere _Deus ex machina_, an assumption
+to account for the origin of the universe.
+
+Another general view of God's relation to the world goes to the opposite
+extreme. Instead of God doing nothing, He does everything. Second causes
+have no efficiency. The laws of nature are said to be the uniform modes
+of divine operation. Gravitation does not flow from the nature of
+matter, but is a mode of God's uniform efficiency. What are called
+chemical affinities are not due to anything in different kinds of
+matter, but God always acts in one way in connection with an acid, and
+in another way in connection with an alkali. If a man places a particle
+of salt or sugar on his tongue, the sensation which he experiences is
+not to be referred to the salt or sugar, but to God's agency. When this
+theory is extended, as it generally is by its advocates, from the
+external to the internal world, the universe of matter and mind, with
+all their phenomena, is a constant effect of the omnipresent activity of
+God. The minds of some men, as remarked above, are so constituted that
+they can pass from the theory that God does nothing, to the doctrine
+that He does everything, without seeing the difference. Mr. Russel
+Wallace, the companion and peer of Mr. Darwin, devotes a large part of
+his book on "Natural Selection," to prove that the organs of plants and
+animals are formed by blind physical causes. Toward the close of the
+volume he teaches that there are no such causes. He asks the question,
+What is Matter? and answers, Nothing. We know, he says, nothing but
+force; and as the only force of which we have any immediate knowledge
+is mind-force, the inference is "that the whole universe is not merely
+dependent on, but actually _is_, the will of higher intelligences, or of
+one Supreme Intelligence."[5] This is a transition from virtual
+materialism to idealistic pantheism. The effect of this admission on the
+part of Mr. Wallace on the theory of natural selection, is what an
+explosion of its boiler would be to a steamer in mid-ocean, which should
+blow out its deck, sides, and bottom. Nothing would remain above water.
+
+The Duke of Argyll seems at times inclined to lapse into the same
+doctrine. "Science," he says, "in the modern doctrine of conservation of
+energy and the convertibility of forces, is already getting a firm hold
+of the idea, that all kinds of force are but forms of manifestations of
+one central force issuing from some one fountain-head of power. Sir John
+Herschel has not hesitated to say, 'that it is but reasonable to regard
+the force of gravitation as the direct or indirect result of a
+consciousness or will existing somewhere.' And even if we cannot
+certainly identify force in all its forms with the direct energies of
+the one Omnipresent and All-pervading Will, it is at least in the
+highest degree unphilosophical to assert the contrary,--to think or to
+speak, as if the forces of nature were either independent of, or even
+separate from the Creator's power."[6] The Duke, however, in the general
+tenor of his book, does not differ from the common doctrine, except in
+one point. He does not deny the efficiency of physical causes, or
+resolve them all into the efficiency of God; but he teaches that God, in
+this world at least, never acts except through those causes. He applies
+this doctrine even to miracles, which he regards as effects produced by
+second causes of which we are ignorant, that is, by some higher law of
+nature. The Scriptures, however, teach that God is not thus bound; that
+He operates through second causes, with them, or without them, as He
+sees fit. It is a purely arbitrary assumption, that when Christ raised
+the dead, healed the lepers, or gave sight to the blind, any second
+cause intervened between the effect and the efficiency of his will. What
+physical law, or uniformly acting force, operated to make the axe float
+at the command of the prophet? or, in that greatest of all miracles,
+the original creation of the world.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[5] _The Theory of Natural Selection._ By Alfred Russel Wallace. London,
+1870, p. 368.
+
+[6] _Reign of Law._ By the Duke of Argyle. Fifth edition, London, 1867,
+p. 123.
+
+
+_Mr. Darwin's Theory._
+
+We have not forgotten Mr. Darwin. It seemed desirable, in order to
+understand his theory, to see its relation to other theories of the
+universe and its phenomena, with which it is more or less connected. His
+work on the "Origin of Species" does not purport to be philosophical. In
+this aspect it is very different from the cognate works of Mr. Spencer.
+Darwin does not speculate on the origin of the universe, on the nature
+of matter, or of force. He is simply a naturalist, a careful and
+laborious observer; skillful in his descriptions, and singularly candid
+in dealing with the difficulties in the way of his peculiar doctrine. He
+set before himself a single problem, namely, How are the fauna and flora
+of our earth to be accounted for? In the solution of this problem, he
+assumes:--
+
+1. The existence of matter, although he says little on the subject. Its
+existence however, as a real entity, is everywhere taken for granted.
+
+2. He assumes the efficiency of physical causes, showing no disposition
+to resolve them into mind-force, or into the efficiency of the First
+Cause.
+
+3. He assumes also the existence of life in the form of one or more
+primordial germs. He does not adopt the theory of spontaneous
+generation. What life is he does not attempt to explain, further than to
+quote (p. 326), with approbation, the definition of Herbert Spencer, who
+says, "Life depends on, or consists in, the incessant action and
+reaction of various forces,"--which conveys no very definite idea.
+
+4. To account for the existence of matter and life, Mr. Darwin admits a
+Creator. This is done explicitly and repeatedly. Nothing, however, is
+said of the nature of the Creator and of his relation to the world,
+further than is implied in the meaning of the word.
+
+5. From the primordial germ or germs (Mr. Darwin seems to have settled
+down to the assumption of only one primordial germ), all living
+organisms, vegetable and animal, including man, on our globe, through
+all the stages of its history, have descended.
+
+6. As growth, organization, and reproduction are the functions of
+physical life, as soon as the primordial germ began to live, it began
+to grow, to fashion organs however simple, for its nourishment and
+increase, and for the reproduction, in some way, of living forms like
+itself. How all living things on earth, including the endless variety of
+plants, and all the diversity of animals--insects, fishes, birds, the
+ichthyosaurus, the mastodon, the mammoth, and man--have descended from
+the primordial animalcule, he thinks, may be accounted for by the
+operation of the following natural laws, viz.:--
+
+First, the law of Heredity, or that by which like begets like. The
+offspring are like the parent.
+
+Second, the law of Variation, that is, while the offspring are, in all
+essential characteristics, like their immediate progenitor, they
+nevertheless vary more or less within narrow limits, from their parent
+and from each other. Some of these variations are indifferent, some
+deteriorations, some improvements, that is, they are such as enable the
+plant or animal to exercise its functions to greater advantage.
+
+Third, the law of Over Production. All plants and animals tend to
+increase in a geometrical ratio; and therefore tend to overrun
+enormously the means of support. If all the seeds of a plant, all the
+spawn of a fish, were to arrive at maturity, in a very short time the
+world could not contain them. Hence of necessity arises a struggle for
+life. Only a few of the myriads born can possibly live.
+
+Fourth, here comes in the law of Natural Selection, or the Survival of
+the Fittest. That is, if any individual of a given species of plant or
+animal happens to have a slight deviation from the normal type,
+favorable to its success in the struggle for life, it will survive. This
+variation, by the law of heredity, will be transmitted to its offspring,
+and by them again to theirs. Soon these favored ones gain the
+ascendency, and the less favored perish; and the modification becomes
+established in the species. After a time another and another of such
+favorable variations occur, with like results. Thus very gradually,
+great changes of structure are introduced, and not only species, but
+genera, families, and orders in the vegetable and animal world, are
+produced. Mr. Darwin says he can set no limit to the changes of
+structure, habits, instincts, and intelligence, which these simple laws
+in the course of millions or milliards of centuries may bring into
+existence. He says, "we cannot comprehend what the figures 60,000,000
+really imply, and during this, or perhaps a longer roll of years, the
+land and waters have everywhere teemed with living creatures, all
+exposed to the struggle for life, and undergoing change." (p. 354). "Mr.
+Croll," he tells us, "estimates that about sixty millions of years have
+elapsed since the Cambrian period, but this, judging from the small
+amount of organic change since the commencement of the glacial period,
+seems a very short time for the many and the great mutations of life,
+which have certainly occurred since the Cambrian formation; and the
+previous one hundred and forty million years can hardly be considered as
+sufficient for the development of the varied forms of life which
+certainly existed toward the close of the Cambrian period." (p. 379).
+Years in this connection have no meaning. We might as well try to give
+the distance of the fixed stars in inches. As astronomers are obliged to
+take the diameter of the earth's orbit as the unit of space, so
+Darwinians are obliged to take a geological cycle as their unit of
+duration.
+
+
+_Natural Selection._
+
+As Natural Selection which works so slowly is a main element in Mr.
+Darwin's theory, it is necessary to understand distinctly what he means
+by it. On this point he leaves us no room for doubt. On p. 92, he says:
+"This preservation of favorable variations, and the destruction of
+injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or, the Survival of the
+Fittest." "Owing to the struggle (for life) variations, however slight
+and from whatever cause proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable
+to the individuals of a species, in their infinitely complex relations
+to other organic beings and to their physical conditions of life, will
+tend to the preservation of such individuals, and will generally be
+inherited by their offspring. The offspring also will thus have a better
+chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which
+are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called
+this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved,
+by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's
+power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer
+of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and sometimes is
+equally convenient." (p. 72). "Slow though the progress of selection may
+be, if feeble man can do so much by artificial selection, I can see no
+limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and infinite complexity of
+the co-adaptations between all organic beings, one with another, and
+with their physical conditions of life, which may be effected in the
+long course of time by nature's power of selection, or the survival of
+the fittest." (p. 125). "It may be objected that if organic beings thus
+tend to rise in the scale, how is it that throughout the world a
+multitude of the lowest forms still exist; and how is it that in each
+great class some forms are far more highly developed than others?... On
+our theory the continuous existence of lowly forms offers no difficulty;
+for natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, does not
+necessarily include progressive development, it only takes advantage of
+such variations as arise and are beneficial to each creature under its
+complex relations of life.... Geology tells us that some of the lowest
+forms, the infusoria and rhizopods, have remained for an enormous period
+in nearly their present state." (p. 145). "The fact of little or no
+modification having been effected since the glacial period would be of
+some avail against those who believe in an innate and necessary law of
+development, but is powerless against the doctrine of natural selection,
+or the survival of the fittest, which implies only that variations or
+individual differences of a favorable nature occasionally arise in a few
+species and are then preserved." (p. 149)
+
+This process of improvement under the law of natural selection includes
+not only changes in the organic structure of animals, but also in their
+instincts and intelligence. On entering on this part of his subject, Mr.
+Darwin says, "I would premise that I have nothing to do with the origin
+of the primary mental powers, any more than I have with that of life
+itself. We are concerned only with the diversities of instinct and of
+other mental qualities within the same class." (p. 255) He shows that
+even in a state of nature the instincts of animals of the same species
+do in some degree vary, and that they are transmitted by inheritance. A
+mastiff has imparted courage to a greyhound, and a greyhound has
+transmitted to a shepherd-dog a disposition to hunt hares. Among
+sporting dogs, the young of the pointer or retriever have been known to
+point or to retrieve without instruction. "If," he says, "it can be
+shown that instincts do vary ever so little, then I can see no
+difficulty in natural selection preserving and continually accumulating
+variations of instinct to any extent that was profitable. It is thus, as
+I believe, that all the most complex and wonderful instincts have
+arisen." (p. 257) He was rather unguarded in saying that he saw no
+difficulty in accounting for the most wonderful instincts of animals. He
+admits that he has found very great difficulty. He selects three cases
+which he found it specially hard to deal with: that of the cuckoo, that
+of the cell-building bee, and of the slave-making ant. He devotes much
+space and labor in endeavoring to show how the instinct of the bee, for
+example, in the construction of its cell, _might_ have been gradually
+acquired. It is clear, however, that he was not able fully to satisfy
+even his own mind; for he admits that "it will be thought that I have an
+over-weening confidence in the principle of natural selection, when I do
+not admit that such wonderful and well established facts do not
+annihilate the theory." (p. 290) This remark was made with special
+reference to the instincts of the ant, which he finds very hard to
+account for. He adds, "No doubt many instincts of very difficult
+explanation could be opposed to the theory of natural selection: cases
+in which we cannot see how an instinct could possibly have originated;
+cases in which no intermediate gradations are known to exist; cases of
+instinct of such trifling importance that they could hardly have been
+acted upon by natural selection; cases of instincts almost identically
+the same in animals so remote in the scale of nature, that we cannot
+account for their similarity by inheritance from a common progenitor,
+and consequently cannot believe that they were independently acquired
+through natural selection. I will not here enter on those cases, but
+will confine myself to one special difficulty which at first appeared to
+me insuperable, and actually fatal to the whole theory. I allude to
+neuters, or sterile females in insect communities; for these neuters
+often differ widely in instinct and structure from both the males and
+the fertile females, and yet, from being sterile, they cannot propagate
+their kind." (p. 289) He is candid enough to say, in conclusion, "I do
+not pretend that the facts given in this chapter (on instinct)
+strengthen in any great degree my theory; but none of the cases of
+difficulty, to the best of my judgment, annihilate it." (p. 297) When it
+is remembered that his theory is, that slight variations occurring in an
+individual advantageous to it (not to its associates), in the struggle
+for life, is perpetuated by inheritance, it is no wonder that the case
+of sterile ants gave him so much trouble. Accidental sterility is not
+favorable to the individual, and its being made permanent by
+inheritance, is out of the question, for the sterile have no
+descendants. Yet these sterile females are not degenerations, they are
+in general larger and more robust than their associates.
+
+We have thus seen that, according to Mr. Darwin, all the infinite
+variety of structure in plants and animals is due to the law of natural
+selection. "On the principle of natural selection with divergence of
+character," he says, "it does not seem incredible that, from some such
+low and intermediate form, both animals and plants have been developed,
+and if we admit this, we must likewise admit that all the organized
+beings which have ever lived on this earth may be descended from some
+one primordial form." (p. 573) We have seen also that he does not
+confine his theory to organic structure, but applies it to all the
+instincts and all the forms of intelligence manifested by irrational
+creatures. Nor does he stop there; he includes man within the sweep of
+the same law. "In the distant future I see open fields for far more
+important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that
+of the _necessary_ acquirement of each mental power and capacity by
+gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history."
+(p. 577)
+
+The "distant future" was near at hand. In his introduction to his work
+on the "Descent of Man," he says, he had determined not to publish on
+that subject, "as I thought that I should thus only add to the
+prejudices against my views. It seemed to me sufficient to indicate, in
+the first edition of my 'Origin of Species,' that by this work 'light
+would be thrown on the origin of man and his history;' and this implies
+that man must be included with other organic beings in any general
+conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on this earth. Now the
+case wears a wholly different aspect. When a naturalist like Carl Vogt
+(we shall see in what follows what kind of a witness he is) ventures to
+say in his address as President of the National Institution of Geneva
+(1869), 'Personne, en Europe au moins, n'ose plus soutenir la creation
+independante et de toutes pieces, des especes,'--it is manifest that at
+least a large number of naturalists must admit that species are the
+modified descendants of other species; and this especially holds good of
+the younger and rising naturalists.... Of the older and honored chiefs
+in natural science, many unfortunately are still opposed to evolution in
+every form." Carl Vogt would not write thus. To him no man is honored
+who does agree with him, and any man who believes in God he execrates.
+
+In 1871, Mr. Darwin ventured on the publication of his "Descent of Man."
+In that work, he endeavors to show that the proximate progenitor of man
+is the ape. He says "there is less difference of structure between the
+two, than between the higher and lower forms of apes themselves." Not
+only so, but he attempts to show that the mental faculties of man are
+derived by slight variations, long continued, from the measure of
+intellect possessed by lower animals. He even says, that there is less
+difference in intelligence between man and the higher mammals, than
+there is between the intelligence of the ant and that of the coccus,
+insects of the same class.[7]
+
+In like manner he teaches that man's moral nature has been evolved by
+slow degrees from the social instincts common to many animals. (pp. 68,
+94) The moral element, thus derived, he admits might lead to very
+different lines of conduct. "If men," he says, "were reared under the
+same conditions as hives-bees, there can hardly be a doubt, that our
+unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to
+kill all their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile
+daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (vol. i. p. 70)
+
+"Lower animals, especially the dog, manifest love, reverence, fidelity,
+and obedience; and it is from these elements that the religious
+sentiment in man has been slowly evolved by a process of natural
+selection." (vol. i. p. 65)
+
+The grand conclusion is, "man (body, soul, and spirit) is descended from
+a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably
+arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World." (vol. ii.
+p. 372) Mr. Darwin adds: "He who denounces these views (as irreligious)
+is bound to explain why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of
+man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the
+laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of
+the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction." (vol. ii. p.
+378)
+
+FOOTNOTE:
+
+[7] _Descent of Man_, etc. By Charles Darwin, M. A., F. R. S., etc. New
+York, 1871, vol. i. p. 179.
+
+
+_The Sense in which Mr. Darwin uses the Word "Natural."_
+
+We have not yet reached the heart of Mr. Darwin's theory. The main idea
+of his system lies in the word "natural." He uses that word in two
+senses: first, as antithetical to the word artificial. Men can produce
+very marked varieties as to structure and habits of animals. This is
+exemplified in the production of the different breeds of horses, cattle,
+sheep, and dogs; and specially, as Mr. Darwin seems to think, in the
+case of pigeons. Of these, he says, "The diversity of breeds is
+something astonishing." Some have long, and some very short bills; some
+have large feet, some small; some long necks, others long wings and
+tails, while others have singularly short tails; some have thirty, and
+even forty, tail-feathers, instead of the normal number of twelve or
+fourteen. They differ as much in instinct as they do in form. Some are
+carriers, some pouters, some tumblers, some trumpeters; and yet all are
+descendants of the Rock Pigeon which is still extant. If, then, he
+argues, man, in a comparatively short time, has by artificial selection
+produced all these varieties, what might be accomplished on the
+boundless scale of nature, during the measureless ages of the geologic
+periods.
+
+Secondly, he uses the word natural as antithetical to supernatural.
+Natural selection is a selection made by natural laws, working without
+intention and design. It is, therefore, opposed not only to artificial
+selection, which is made by the wisdom and skill of man to accomplish a
+given purpose, but also to supernatural selection, which means either a
+selection originally intended by a power higher than nature; or which is
+carried out by such power. In using the expression Natural Selection,
+Mr. Darwin intends to exclude design, or final causes. All the changes
+in structure, instinct, or intelligence, in the plants or animals,
+including man, descended from the primordial germ, or animalcule, have
+been brought about by unintelligent physical causes. On this point he
+leaves us in no doubt. He defines nature to be "the aggregate action and
+product of natural laws; and laws are the sequence of events as
+ascertained by us." It had been objected that he often uses teleological
+language, speaking of purpose, intention, contrivance, adaptation, etc.
+In answer to this objection, he says: "It has been said, that I speak of
+natural selection as a power or deity; but who objects to an author
+speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the
+planet?" He admits that in the literal sense of the words, natural
+selection is a false term; but "who ever objected to chemists, speaking
+of the elective affinities of various elements?--and yet an acid cannot
+strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference
+combines." (p. 93) We have here an affirmation and a negation. It is
+affirmed that natural selection is the operation of natural laws,
+analogous to the action of gravitation and of chemical affinities. It is
+denied that it is a process originally designed, or guided by
+intelligence, such as the activity which foresees an end and consciously
+selects and controls the means of its accomplishment. Artificial
+selection, then, is an intelligent process; natural selection is not.
+
+There are in the animal and vegetable worlds innumerable instances of at
+least apparent contrivance, which have excited the admiration of men in
+all ages. There are three ways of accounting for them. The first is the
+Scriptural doctrine, namely, that God is a Spirit, a personal,
+self-conscious, intelligent agent; that He is infinite, eternal, and
+unchangeable in his being and perfections; that He is ever present; that
+this presence is a presence of knowledge and power. In the external
+world there is always and everywhere indisputable evidence of the
+activity of two kinds of force: the one physical, the other mental. The
+physical belongs to matter, and is due to the properties with which it
+has been endowed; the other is the everywhere present and ever acting
+mind of God. To the latter are to be referred all the manifestations of
+design in nature, and the ordering of events in Providence. This
+doctrine does not ignore the efficiency of second causes; it simply
+asserts that God over-rules and controls them. Thus the Psalmist says,
+"I am fearfully and wonderfully made.... My substance was not hid from
+thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought (or embroidered)
+in the lower parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance yet
+being imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in
+continuance were fashioned, when as yet there were none of them." "He
+who fashioned the eye, shall not He see? He that formed the ear shall
+not He hear?" "God makes the grass to grow, and herbs for the children
+of men." He sends rain, frost, and snow. He controls the winds and the
+waves. He determines the casting of the lot, the flight of an arrow, and
+the falling of a sparrow. This universal and constant control of God is
+not only one of the most patent and pervading doctrines of the Bible,
+but it is one of the fundamental principles of even natural religion.
+
+The second method of accounting for contrivances in nature admits that
+they were foreseen and purposed by God, and that He endowed matter with
+forces which He foresaw and intended should produce such results. But
+here his agency stops. He never interferes to guide the operation of
+physical causes. He does nothing to control the course of nature, or the
+events of history. On this theory it may be said, (1.) That it is
+utterly inconsistent with the Scriptures. (2.) It does not meet the
+religious and moral necessities of our nature. It renders prayer
+irrational and inoperative. It makes it vain for a man in any emergency
+to look to God for help. (3.) It is inconsistent with obvious facts. We
+see around us innumerable evidences of the constant activity of mind.
+This evidence of mind and of its operations, according to Lord Brougham
+and Dr. Whewell, is far more clear than that of the existence of matter
+and of its forces. If one or the other is to be denied, it is the latter
+rather than the former. Paley indeed says, that if the construction of a
+watch be an undeniable evidence of design it would be a still more
+wonderful manifestation of skill, if a watch could be made to produce
+other watches; and, it may be added, not only other watches, but all
+kinds of time-pieces in endless variety. So it has been asked, if man
+can make a telescope, why cannot God make a telescope which produces
+others like itself? This is simply asking, whether matter can be made to
+do the work of mind? The idea involves a contradiction. For a telescope
+to make a telescope, supposes it to select copper and zinc in due
+proportions and fuse them into brass; to fashion that brass into
+inter-entering tubes; to collect and combine the requisite materials for
+the different kinds of glass needed; to melt them, grind, fashion, and
+polish them; adjust their densities and focal distances, etc., etc. A
+man who can believe that brass can do all this, might as well believe in
+God. The most credulous men in the world are unbelievers. The great
+Napoleon could not believe in Providence; but he believed in his star,
+and in lucky and unlucky days.
+
+This banishing God from the world is simply intolerable, and, blessed be
+his name, impossible. An absent God who does nothing is, to us, no God.
+Christ brings God constantly near to us. He said to his disciples,
+"Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap; which have neither
+store-house nor barn; and God feedeth them; how much better are ye than
+the fowls. And which of you by taking thought can add to his stature one
+cubit? Consider the lilies how they grow; they toil not, neither do they
+spin; and yet I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not
+arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothe the grass, which is
+to-day in the field, and to-morrow is cast into the oven; how much more
+will He clothe you, O ye of little faith." "And seek ye not what ye
+shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. For
+all these things do the nations of the world seek after; and your Father
+knoweth that ye have need of these things." It may be said that Christ
+did not teach science. True, but He taught truth; and science, so
+called, when it comes in conflict with truth, is what man is when he
+comes in conflict with God.
+
+The advocates of these extreme opinions protest against being considered
+irreligious. Herbert Spencer says, that his doctrine of an inscrutable,
+unintelligent, unknown force, as the cause of all things, is a much more
+religious doctrine than that of a personal, intelligent, and voluntary
+Being of infinite power and goodness. Matthew Arnold holds that an
+unconscious "power which makes for right," is a higher idea of God than
+the Jehovah of the Bible. Christ says, God is a Spirit. Holbach thought
+that he made a great advance on that definition, when he said, God is
+motion.
+
+The third method of accounting for the contrivances manifested in the
+organs of plants and animals, is that which refers them to the blind
+operation of natural causes. They are not due to the continued
+cooeperation and control of the divine mind, nor to the original purpose
+of God in the constitution of the universe. This is the doctrine of the
+Materialists, and to this doctrine, we are sorry to say, Mr. Darwin,
+although himself a theist, has given in his adhesion. It is on this
+account the Materialists almost deify him.
+
+From what has been said, it appears that Darwinism includes three
+distinct elements. First, evolution; or the assumption that all organic
+forms, vegetable and animal, have been evolved or developed from one, or
+a few, primordial living germs; second, that this evolution has been
+effected by natural selection, or the survival of the fittest; and
+third, and by far the most important and only distinctive element of his
+theory, that this natural selection is without design, being conducted
+by unintelligent physical causes. Neither the first nor the second of
+these elements constitute Darwinism; nor do the two combined. As to the
+first, namely, evolution, Mr. Darwin himself, in the historical sketch
+prefixed to the fifth edition of his "Origin of Species," says, that
+Lamarck, in 1811 and more fully in 1815, "taught that all species,
+including man, are descended from other species." He refers to some six
+or eight other scientists, as teaching the same doctrine. This idea of
+Evolution was prominently presented and elaborated in the "Vestiges of
+Creation," first published in 1844. Ulrici, Professor in the University
+of Halle, Germany, in his work "Gott und die Natur," says that the
+doctrine of evolution took no hold on the minds of scientific men, but
+was positively rejected by the most eminent physiologists, among whom he
+mentions J. Mueller, K. Wagner, Bischoff, Hoffmann, and others.[8] The
+Rev. George Henslow, Lecturer on Botany at St. Bartholomew's Hospital,
+London, himself a pronounced evolutionist, says the theories of Lamarck
+and of the "Vestiges of Creation" have given place to that of Mr.
+Darwin; "and there are not wanting many symptoms of decay in the
+acceptance even of his. Not only has he considerably modified his views
+in later editions of the 'Origin of Species,' distinctly expressing the
+opinion that he attributed too great influence to natural selection, but
+even men of science, Owen, Huxley,--and at least in its application to
+man, Wallace himself,--are either opposed to it in great measure, or
+else give it but a qualified assent. Thus, it has been the fate of all
+theories of the development of living things to lapse into oblivion.
+_Evolution_ itself, however, will stand the same."[9] We find in the
+"Transactions of the Victoria Institute," a still more decided
+repudiation of Darwinism on the part of Mr. Henslow. He there says: "I
+do not believe in Darwin's theory; and have endeavored to refute it by
+showing its utter impossibility."[10] He defines Evolution by saying,
+"It supposes all animals and plants that exist now, or have ever
+existed, to have been produced through laws of generation from
+preexisting animals and plants respectively; that affinity amongst
+organic beings implies, or is due to community of descent; and that the
+degree of affinity between organisms is in proportion to their nearness
+of generation, or, at least, to the persistence of common characters,
+they being the products of originally the same parentage."[11] A man,
+therefore, may be an evolutionist, without being a Darwinian. It should
+be mentioned that Mr. Henslow expressly excludes man, both as to body
+and soul, from the law of evolution.
+
+Nor is the theory of natural selection the vital principle of Mr.
+Darwin's theory, unless the word natural be taken in a sense
+antithetical to supernatural. In the historical sketch just referred to,
+Mr. Darwin not only says that he had been anticipated in teaching the
+doctrine of Evolution by Lamarck and the author of the "Vestiges of
+Creation;" but that the theory of natural selection, as the means of
+accounting for evolution, was not original with him. He tells us that as
+early as 1813, Dr. W. C. Wells "distinctly recognizes the principle of
+natural selection;" and that Mr. Patrick Matthew, in 1831, "gives
+precisely the same view of the origin of species as that propounded by
+Mr. Wallace and myself." Ideas are like seed: they are often cast forth,
+and not finding a congenial soil produce no fruit. To Mr. Darwin is
+undoubtedly due the elaboration and thoroughly scientific defence of the
+theory of natural selection, and to him is to be referred the deep and
+widespread interest which it has excited.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[8] _Gott und die Natur_. Von D. Hermann Ulrici. Zweite Auflage.
+Leipzig, 1866, p. 394.
+
+[9] _The Theory of Evolution of Living Things and the Application of the
+Principles of Evolution to Religion_. By Rev. George Henslow, M. A., F.
+L. S., F. G. S. London, 1873, pp. 27, 28.
+
+[10] _Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, or
+Philosophical Society of Great Britain_. Vol. iv. London, 1870, p. 278.
+
+[11] _Evolution and Religion_, p. 29.
+
+
+_Darwinism excludes Teleology._
+
+It is however neither evolution nor natural selection, which give
+Darwinism its peculiar character and importance. It is that Darwin
+rejects all teleology, or the doctrine of final causes. He denies design
+in any of the organisms in the vegetable or animal world. He teaches
+that the eye was formed without any purpose of producing an organ of
+vision.
+
+Although evidence on this point has already been adduced, yet as it is
+often overlooked, at least in this country, so that many men speak
+favorably of Mr. Darwin's theory, who are no more Darwinians than they
+are Mussulmans; and as it is this feature of his system which brings it
+into conflict not only with Christianity, but with the fundamental
+principles of natural religion, it should be clearly established. The
+sources of proof on this point are,--1st. Mr. Darwin's own writings. 2d.
+The expositions of his theory given by its advocates. 3d. The character
+of the objections urged by its opponents.
+
+The point to be proved is that it is the distinctive doctrine of Mr.
+Darwin, that species owe their origin, not to the original intention of
+the divine mind; not to special acts of creation calling new forms into
+existence at certain epochs; not to the constant and everywhere
+operative efficiency of God, guiding physical causes in the production
+of intended effects; but to the gradual accumulation of unintended
+variations of structure and instinct, securing some advantage to their
+subjects.
+
+
+_Darwin's own Testimony._
+
+That such is Mr. Darwin's doctrine we prove from his own writings. And
+the first proof from that source is found in express declarations. When
+an idea pervades a book and constitutes its character, detached passages
+constitute a very small part of the evidence of its being inculcated. In
+the present case, however, such passages are sufficient to satisfy even
+those who have not had occasion to read Mr. Darwin's books. In referring
+to the similarity of structure in animals of the same class, he says,
+"Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity
+of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or the doctrine of
+final causes."[12]
+
+On the last page of his work, he says: "It is interesting to
+contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with
+birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and
+with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these
+elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and
+dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced
+by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being
+growth with reproduction; variability from the indirect and direct
+action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a ratio of
+increase so high as to lead to a struggle for life, and as a consequence
+to natural selection, entailing divergence of character and extinction
+of less improved forms. Thus from the war of nature, from famine and
+death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, the
+production of the higher animals directly follows. There is a grandeur
+in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally
+breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that whilst
+this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity,
+from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
+wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (p. 579)
+
+In another of his works, he asks, "Did He (God) ordain that crop and
+tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary, in order that the fancier might
+make his grotesque pouter and fan-tail breeds? Did He cause the frame
+and mental qualities of the dog to vary, in order that a breed might be
+formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull,
+for man's brutal sport? But if we give up the principle in one case; if
+we do not admit that the variations of the primeval dog were
+intentionally guided in order, for instance, that the greyhound, that
+perfect image of symmetry and vigor, might be formed; no shadow of
+reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature
+and the results of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork
+through natural selection of the most perfectly adapted animals in the
+world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided. However
+much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray, in his
+belief 'that variations have been led along certain beneficial lines, as
+a stream is led along useful lines of irrigation.'"[13]
+
+Variations, which by their gradual accumulation give rise to new
+species, genera, families, and orders, are themselves, step by step,
+accidental. Mr. Darwin sometimes says they happen by chance; sometimes
+he says they happen of necessity; at others he says, "We are profoundly
+ignorant of their causes." These are only different ways of saying that
+they are not intentional. When a man lets anything fall from his hands,
+and says it was accidental, he does not mean that it was causeless, he
+only means that it was not intentional. And that is precisely what
+Darwin means when he says that species arise out of accidental
+variations. His whole book is an argument against teleology. The whole
+question is, How are we to account for the innumerable varieties, kinds,
+and genera of plants and animals, including man? Were they intended? or,
+Did they arise from the gradual accumulations of unintentional
+variations? His answer to these questions is plain. On page 245, he
+says: "Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that
+the more complex organs and instincts have been perfected not by means
+superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by innumerable
+slight variations, each good for the individual possessor.
+Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination[14]
+insuperably great, cannot be considered real, if we admit the following
+propositions, namely, that all parts of the organizations and instincts
+offer, at least, individual differences; that there is a struggle for
+existence, which leads to the preservation of profitable deviations of
+structure or instinct; and, lastly, that gradations in the state of
+perfection of each organ may have existed, each good of its kind." He
+says, over and over, that if beauty or any variation of structure can be
+shown to be intended, it would "annihilate his theory." His doctrine is
+that such unintended variations, which happen to be useful in the
+struggle for life, are preserved, on the principle of the survival of
+the fittest. He urges the usual objections to teleology derived from
+undeveloped or useless organs, as web-feet in the upland goose and
+frigate-bird, which never swim.
+
+What, however, perhaps more than anything, makes clear his rejection of
+design is the manner in which he deals with the complicated organs of
+plants and animals. Why don't he say, they are the product of the divine
+intelligence? If God made them, it makes no difference, so far as the
+question of design is concerned, how He made them: whether at once or by
+a process of evolution. But instead of referring them to the purpose of
+God, he laboriously endeavors to prove that they may be accounted for
+without any design or purpose whatever.
+
+"To suppose," he says, "that the eye with all its inimitable
+contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for
+admitting different degrees of light, and for the correction of
+spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural
+selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (p.
+222) Nevertheless he attempts to explain the process. "It is scarcely
+possible," he says, "to avoid comparing the eye with the telescope. We
+know that this instrument has been perfected by the long continued
+efforts of the highest of human intellects; and we naturally infer that
+the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not
+this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the
+Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must
+compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to
+take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with spaces filled with fluid,
+and with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part
+of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to
+separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at
+different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer
+slowly changing in form. Further, we must suppose that there is a power
+represented by natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, always
+intently watching each slight alteration in the transparent layers, and
+carefully preserving each, which, under varied circumstances, tends to
+produce a distinct image. We must suppose each new state of the
+instrument to be multiplied by the million; each to be preserved until a
+better is produced, and the old ones to be all destroyed. In living
+bodies, variations will cause the slight alterations, generation will
+multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out
+with unerring skill each improvement."[15] (p. 226) "Let this process,"
+he says, "go on for millions of years," and we shall at last have a
+perfect eye.
+
+It would be absurd to say anything disrespectful of such a man as Mr.
+Darwin, and scarcely less absurd to indulge in any mere extravagance of
+language; yet we are expressing our own experience, when we say that we
+regard Mr. Darwin's books the best refutation of Mr. Darwin's theory. He
+constantly shuts us up to the alternative of believing that the eye is a
+work of design or the product of the unintended action of blind physical
+causes. To any ordinarily constituted mind, it is absolutely impossible
+to believe that it is not a work of design. Darwin himself, it is
+evident, dear as his theory is, can hardly believe it. "It is
+indispensable," he says, "to arrive at a just conclusion as to the
+formation of the eye, that the reason should conquer the imagination;
+but I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any
+degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to
+so startling an extent." (p. 225)
+
+It will be observed that every step in his account of the formation of
+the eye is an arbitrary assumption. We must first assume a thick layer
+of tissue; then that the tissue is transparent; then that it has
+cavities filled with fluid; that beneath the tissue is a nerve sensitive
+to light; then that the fluid is constantly varying in density and
+thickness; that its surfaces are constantly changing their contour; that
+its different portions are ever shifting their relative distances; that
+every favorable change is seized upon and rendered permanent,--thus
+after millions of years we may get an eye as perfect as that of an
+eagle. In like manner we may suppose a man to sit down to account for
+the origin and contents of the Bible, assuming as his "working
+hypothesis," that it is not the product of mind either human or divine,
+but that it was made by a type-setting machine worked by steam, and
+picking out type hap-hazard. In this way in a thousand years one
+sentence might be produced, in another thousand a second, and in ten
+thousand more, the two might get together in the right position. Thus in
+the course of "millions of years" the Bible might have been produced,
+with all its historical details, all its elevated truths, all its
+devout and sublime poetry, and above all with the delineation of the
+character of Christ, the [Greek: idea ton ideon], the ideal of majesty
+and loveliness, before which the whole world, believing and unbelieving,
+perforce bows down in reverence. And when reason has sufficiently
+subdued the imagination to admit all this, then by the same theory we
+may account for all the books in all languages in all the libraries in
+the world. Thus we should have Darwinism applied in the sphere of
+literature. This is the theory which we are told is to sweep away
+Christianity and the Church!
+
+Mr. Darwin gives the same unsatisfactory account of the marvellous
+"contrivances" in the vegetable world. In one species of Orchids, the
+labellum or lower lip is hollowed into a great bucket continually filled
+with water, secreted from two horns which stand above it; when the
+bucket is sufficiently filled, the water flows out through a pipe or
+spout on one side. The bees, which crowd into the flower for sake of the
+nectar, jostle each other, so that some fall into the water; and their
+wings becoming wet they are unable to fly, and are obliged to crawl
+through the spout. In doing this they come in contact with the pollen,
+which, adhering to their backs, is carried off to other flowers. This
+complicated contrivance by which the female plants are fertilized has,
+according to the theory, been brought about by the slow process of
+natural selection or survival of the fittest.
+
+Still more wonderful is the arrangement in another species of Orchids.
+When the bee begins to gnaw the labellum, he unavoidably touches a
+tapering projection, which, when touched, transmits a vibration which
+ruptures a membrane, which sets free a spring by which a mass of pollen
+is shot, with unerring aim, over the back of the bee, who then departs
+on his errand of fertilization.
+
+A very large class of plants are fertilized by means of insects. These
+flowers are beautiful, not for the sake of beauty,--for that Mr. Darwin
+says would annihilate his theory,--but those which happen to be
+beautiful attract insects, and thus become fertilized and perpetuated,
+while the plainer ones are neglected and perish. So with regard to
+birds. The females are generally plain, because those of bright colors
+are so exposed during the period of incubation that they are destroyed
+by their enemies. In like manner male birds are usually adorned with
+brilliant plumage. This is accounted for on the ground that they are
+more attractive, and thus they propagate their race, while the plainer
+ones have few or no descendants. Thus all design is studiously and
+laboriously excluded from every department of nature.
+
+The preceding pages contain only a small part of the evidence furnished
+by Mr. Darwin's own writings, that his doctrine involves the denial of
+all final causes. The whole drift of his books is to prove that all the
+organs of plants and animals, all their instincts and mental endowments,
+may be accounted for by the blind operation of natural causes, without
+any intention, purpose, or cooeperation of God. This is what Professor
+Huxley and others call "the creative idea," to which the widespread
+influence of his writings is to be referred.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[12] _Origin of Species_, p. 517.
+
+[13] _The Variations of Animals and Plants under Domestication._ By
+Charles Darwin, F. R. S., etc. New York, 1868, vol. ii. pp. 515, 516.
+
+[14] What can the word "imagination" mean in this sentence, if it does
+not mean "Common Sense?"
+
+[15] Mr. Darwin's habit of personifying nature has given, as his friend
+Mr. Wallace says, his readers a good deal of trouble. He defines nature
+to be the aggregate of physical forces; and in the single passage
+quoted, he speaks of Natural Selection "as intently watching" "picking
+out with unerring skill," and "carefully preserving." It is true, he
+tells us this is all to be understood metaphorically.
+
+
+_Testimony of the Advocates of the Theory._
+
+It is time to turn to the exposition of Darwinism by its avowed
+advocates, in proof of the assertion that it excludes all teleology.
+
+The first of these witnesses is Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace, himself a
+distinguished naturalist. Mr. Darwin informs his readers that as early
+as 1844, he had collected his material and worked out his theory, but
+had not published it to the world, although it had been communicated to
+some of his friends. In 1858 he received a memoir from Mr. Wallace, who
+was then studying the natural history of the Malay Archipelago. From
+that memoir he learnt that Mr. Wallace had "arrived at almost exactly
+the same conclusions as I (he himself) have on the origin of species."
+This led to the publishing his book on that subject contemporaneously
+with Mr. Wallace's memoir. There has been no jealousy or rivalry between
+these gentlemen. Mr. Wallace gracefully acknowledges the priority of Mr.
+Darwin's claim, and attributes to him the credit of having elaborated
+and sustained it in a way to secure for it universal attention. These
+facts are mentioned in order to show the competency of Mr. Wallace as a
+witness as to the true character of Darwinism.
+
+Mr. Wallace, in "The Theory of Natural Selection," devotes a chapter to
+the consideration of the objections urged by the Duke of Argyll, in his
+work on the "Reign of Law," against that theory. Those objections are
+principally two: first, that design necessarily implies an intelligent
+designer; and second, that beauty not being an advantage to its
+possessor in the struggle for life, cannot be accounted for on the
+principle of the survival of the fittest. The Duke, he says, maintains
+that contrivance and beauty indicate "the constant supervision and
+interference of the Creator, and cannot possibly be explained by the
+unassisted action of any combination of laws. Now, Mr. Darwin's work,"
+he adds, "has for its main object to show that all the phenomena of
+living things--all their wonderful organs and complicated structures,
+their infinite variety of form, size, and color, their intricate and
+involved relations to each other--may have been produced by the action
+of a few general laws of the simplest kind, laws which are in most cases
+mere statements of admitted facts." (p. 265) Those laws are those with
+which we are familiar: Heredity, Variations, Over Production, Struggle
+for Life, Survival of the Fittest. "It is probable," he says, "that
+these primary facts or laws are but results of the very nature of life,
+and of the essential properties of organized and unorganized matter. Mr.
+Herbert Spencer, in his 'First Principles' and in his 'Biology,' has, I
+think, made us able to understand how this may be; but at present we
+may accept these simple laws, without going further back, and the
+question then is, Whether the variety, the harmony, the contrivance, and
+the beauty we perceive, can have been produced by the action of these
+laws alone, or whether we are required to believe in the incessant
+interference and direct action of the mind and will of the Creator." (p.
+267)[16] Mr. Wallace says, that the Duke of Argyll maintains that God
+"has personally applied general laws to produce effects which those laws
+are not in themselves capable of producing; that the universe alone with
+all its laws intact, would be a sort of chaos, without variety, without
+harmony, without design, without beauty; that there is not (and
+therefore we may presume that there could not be) any self-developing
+power in the universe. I believe, on the contrary, that the universe is
+so constituted as to be self-regulating; that as long it contains life,
+the forms under which that life is manifested have an inherent power of
+adjustment to each other and to their surroundings; and that this
+adjustment necessarily leads to the greatest amount of variety and
+beauty and enjoyment, because it does depend on general laws, and not on
+a continual supervision and rearrangement of details." (p. 268) "The
+strange springs and traps and pitfalls found in the flowers of Orchids,
+cannot," he says, "be necessary _per se_, since exactly the same end is
+gained in ten thousand other flowers which do not possess them. Is it
+not then an extraordinary idea, to imagine the Creator of the universe
+contriving the various complicated parts of these flowers, as a mechanic
+might contrive an ingenious toy or a difficult puzzle? Is it not a more
+worthy conception, that they are the results of those general laws which
+were so cooerdinated at the first introduction of life upon the earth as
+to result necessarily in the utmost possible development of varied
+forms." (p. 270) "I for one," he says, "cannot believe that the world
+would come to chaos if left to law alone.... If any modification of
+structure could be the result of law, why not all? If some
+self-adaptations should arise, why not others? If any varieties of
+color, why not all the varieties we see? No attempt is made to explain
+this except by reference to the fact that 'purpose' and 'contrivance'
+are everywhere visible, and by an illogical deduction they could only
+have arisen by the direct action of some mind, because the direct action
+of our minds produce similar 'contrivances;' but it is forgotten that
+adaptation, however produced, must have the appearance of design." (p.
+280)[17] After referring to the fact that florists and breeders can
+produce varieties in plants and animals, so that, "whether they wanted a
+bull-dog to torture another animal, a greyhound to catch a hare, or a
+bloodhound to hunt down their oppressed fellow-creatures, the required
+variations have always appeared," he adds: "To be consistent, our
+opponents must maintain that every one of the variations that have
+rendered possible the changes produced by man, have been determined at
+the right time and place by the Creator. Every race produced by the
+florist or breeder, the dog or the pigeon fancier, the rat-catcher, the
+sporting man, or the slave-hunter, must have been provided for by
+varieties occurring when wanted; and as these variations were never
+withheld, it would prove that the sanction of an all-wise and all
+powerful Being has been given to that which the highest human minds
+consider to be trivial, mean, or debasing." (p. 290)[18]
+
+The Nebular Hypothesis, as propounded by La Place, proposed to account
+for the origin of the universe, by a process of evolution under the
+control of mere physical forces. That hypothesis has, so far as
+evolution is concerned, been adopted by men who sincerely believe in God
+and in the Bible. But they hold not only that God created matter and
+endowed it with its properties, but that He designed the universe, and
+so controlled the operation of physical laws that they accomplished his
+purpose. So there are Christian men who believe in the evolution of one
+kind of plants and animals out of earlier and simpler forms; but they
+believe that everything was designed by God, and that it is due to his
+purpose and power that all the forms of vegetable and animal life are
+what they are. But this is not the question. What Darwin and the
+advocates of his theory deny, is all design. The organs, even the most
+complicated and wonderful, were not intended. They are said to be due to
+the undirected and unintended operation of physical laws. This is Mr.
+Wallace's argument. He endeavors to show that it is unworthy of God that
+He should be supposed to have contrived the mechanism of the orchids, as
+a mechanist contrives a curious puzzle.
+
+We recently heard Prof. Joseph Henry, in a brief address, say
+substantially: "If I take brass, glass, and other materials, and fuse
+them, the product is a slag. This is what physical laws do. If I take
+those same materials, and form them into a telescope, that is what mind
+does." This is the whole question in a nutshell. That design implies an
+intelligent designer, is a self evident truth. Every man believes it;
+and no man can practically disbelieve it. Even those naturalists who
+theoretically deny it, if they find in a cave so simple a thing as a
+flint arrow-head, are as sure that it was made by a man as they are of
+their own existence. And yet they want us to believe that an eagle's eye
+is the product of blind natural causes. No combination of physical
+forces ever made a ship or a locomotive. It may, indeed, be said that
+they are dead matter, whereas plants and animals live. But what is life
+but one form of the organizing efficiency of God?
+
+Mr. Wallace does not go as far as Mr. Darwin. He recoils from regarding
+man either as to body or soul as the product of mere natural causes. He
+insists that "a superior intelligence is necessary to account for man."
+(p. 359) This of course implies that the agency of no such higher
+intelligence is admitted in the production of plants or of animals lower
+than man.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[16] The question is not, as Mr. Wallace says, "How has the Creator
+worked?" but it is, as he himself states, whether the essential
+properties of matter have alone worked out all the wonders of creation;
+or, whether they are to be referred to the mind and will of God. It is
+worthy of remark how Messrs. Darwin and Wallace refer to Mr. Spencer as
+their philosopher. We have seen what Spencer's philosophy is.
+
+[17] It is, therefore, clear that design is what Mr. Darwin and Mr.
+Wallace repudiate.
+
+[18] That God permits men in the use of the laws of nature to distil
+alcohol and brew poisons, does not prove that He approves of drunkenness
+or murder.
+
+
+_Professor Huxley._
+
+The second witness as to the character of Mr. Darwin's theory is
+Professor Huxley. We have some hesitation in including the name of this
+distinguished naturalist among the advocates of Darwinism.[19] On the
+one hand, in his Essay on the Origin of Species, printed in the
+"Westminster Review," in 1860, and reprinted in his "Lay Sermons,"
+etc., in 1870, he says: "There is no fault to be found with Mr. Darwin's
+method, but it is another thing whether he has fulfilled all the
+conditions imposed by that method. Is it satisfactorily proved that
+species may[20] be originated by selection? that none of the phenomena
+exhibited by species are inconsistent with the origin of species in this
+way? If these questions can be answered in the affirmative, Mr. Darwin's
+view steps out of the rank of hypotheses into that of theories; but so
+long as the evidence at present adduced falls short of enforcing that
+affirmative, so long, to our minds, the new doctrine must be content to
+remain among the former,--an extremely valuable, and in the highest
+degree probable, doctrine; indeed, the only extant hypothesis which is
+worth anything in a scientific point of view; but still a hypothesis,
+and not yet a theory of species. After much consideration," he adds,
+"and assuredly with no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear
+conviction that, as the evidence now stands, it is not absolutely proven
+that a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by species
+in Nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or
+natural."[21]
+
+Again, in his work on "Man's Place in Nature," he expresses himself much
+to the same effect: "A true physical cause is admitted to be such only
+on one condition, that it shall account for all the phenomena which come
+within the range of its operation. If it is inconsistent with any one
+phenomenon it must be rejected; if it fails to explain any one
+phenomenon it is so far to be suspected, though it may have a perfect
+right to provisional acceptance.... Our acceptance, therefore, of the
+Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link in the
+chain of evidence is wanting; and so long as all the animals and plants
+certainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock are
+fertile, and their progeny are fertile one with another, that link will
+be wanting. For so long selective breeding will not be proved to be
+competent to all that is required if it produce natural species."[22] In
+immediate connection with the above passage, there is another which
+throws a clear light on Professor Huxley's cosmical views. "The whole
+analogy of natural operations furnish so complete and crushing an
+argument against the intervention of any but what are called secondary
+causes, in the production of all the phenomena of the universe; that, in
+view of the intimate relations of man and the rest of the living world,
+and between the forces exerted by the latter and all other forces, I can
+see no reason for doubting that all are cooerdinate terms of nature's
+great progression, from formless to formed, from the inorganic to the
+organic, from blind force to conscious intellect and will."[23]
+
+Ought not this to settle the matter? Are we to give up the Bible and all
+our hopes for the sake of an hypothesis that all living things,
+including man, on the face of the earth, are descended from a primordial
+animalcule, by natural selection, when such a man as Huxley, who (as
+Voltaire said of the prophet Habbakuk) is _capable de tout_, says that
+it has not been proved that any one species has thus originated?
+
+But on the other hand, while he honestly admits that Darwin's doctrine
+is a mere hypothesis and not a theory, he has nevertheless written at
+least three essays or reviews in its exposition and vindication. He is
+freely referred to on the continent of Europe, at least, as an ardent
+advocate of the doctrine; and he quotes without protest such
+designations of himself. At any rate, as he assures his readers that he
+has no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, as he has devoted much time and
+attention to the subject, and as he is one of the most prominent
+naturalists of the age, there can be no question as to his competency as
+a witness as to what Darwinism is.
+
+His testimony that Mr. Darwin's doctrine excludes all teleology, or
+final causes, is explicit. In his review of the "Criticisms on the
+Origin of Species," he says, "that when he first read Mr. Darwin's book,
+that which struck him most forcibly was the conviction that teleology,
+as commonly understood, had received its death-blow at Mr. Darwin's
+hands. For the teleological argument runs thus: An organ is precisely
+fitted to perform a function or purpose; therefore, it was specially
+constructed to perform that function. In Paley's famous illustration,
+the adaptation of all the parts of a watch to the function or purpose of
+showing the time, is held to be evidence that the watch was specially
+contrived to that end; on the ground that the only cause we know of
+competent to produce such an effect as a watch which shall keep time, is
+a contriving intelligence adapting the means directly to that end."[24]
+This, Mr. Huxley tells us, is precisely what Darwin denies with
+reference to the organs of plants and animals. The eye was not formed
+for the purpose of seeing, or the ear for hearing. It so happened that a
+nerve became sensitive to light; then in course of time, it happened
+that a transparent tissue came over it; and thus in "millions of years"
+an eye, as we have seen above, happened to be formed. No such organ was
+ever intended or designed by God or man. "An apparatus," says Professor
+Huxley, "thoroughly adapted to a particular purpose, might be the result
+of a method of trial and error worked by unintelligent agents, as well
+as by the application of means appropriate to the end by an intelligent
+agent." "For the notion that every organism has been created as it is
+and launched straight at a purpose, Mr. Darwin substitutes the
+conception of something, which may fairly be termed a method of trial
+and error. Organisms vary incessantly; of these variations the few meet
+with surrounding conditions which suit them, and thrive; the many are
+unsuited, and become extinguished." "For the teleologist an organism
+exists, because it was made for the conditions in which it is found; for
+the Darwinian an organism exists, because, out of many of its kind, it
+is the only one which has been able to persist in the conditions in
+which it is found." "If we apprehend," Huxley further says, "the spirit
+of the 'Origin of Species' rightly, then, nothing can be more entirely
+and absolutely opposed to teleology, as it is commonly understood, than
+the Darwinian theory." (p. 303)
+
+It has already been stated that Mr. Wallace does not apply the doctrine
+of evolution to man; neither does Mr. Mivart, a distinguished
+naturalist, who is a member of the Latin Church. The manner in which
+Professor Huxley speaks of these gentlemen shows how thoroughly, in his
+judgment, Mr. Darwin banishes God from his works: "Mr. Wallace and Mr.
+Mivart are as stout evolutionists as Mr. Darwin himself; but Mr. Wallace
+denies that man can have been evolved from a lower animal by that
+process of natural selection, which he, with Mr. Darwin, holds to be
+sufficient for the evolution of all animals below man; while Mr. Mivart,
+admitting that natural selection has been one of the conditions of the
+animals below man, maintains that natural selection must, even in their
+case, have been supplemented by some other cause,--of the nature of
+which, unfortunately, he does not give us any idea. Thus Mr. Mivart is
+less of a Darwinian than Mr. Wallace, for he has faith in the power of
+natural selection. But he is more of an evolutionist than Mr. Wallace,
+because Mr. Wallace thinks it necessary to call in an intelligent agent,
+a sort of supernatural Sir John Sebright, to produce even the animal
+frame of man; while Mr. Mivart requires no Divine assistance till he
+comes to man's soul."[25]
+
+In the "Academy" for October, 1869, there is a review by Professor
+Huxley of Dr. Haeckel's "Natuerlische Schoepfungsgeschichte," in which he
+says: "Professor Haeckel enlarges on the service which the 'Origin of
+Species' has done in favoring what he terms 'the causal or mechanical'
+view of living nature as opposed to the 'teleological or vitalistic'
+view. And no doubt it is quite true the doctrine of evolution is the
+most formidable of all the commoner and coarser forms of teleology.
+Perhaps the most remarkable service to the philosophy of Biology
+rendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of Teleology and
+Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both which his view
+offers.
+
+"The teleology which supposes that the eye, such as we see it in man or
+in the higher vertebrata, was made with the precise structure which it
+exhibits, to make the animal which possesses it to see, has undoubtedly
+received its death-blow. But it is necessary to remember that there is a
+higher teleology, which is not touched by the doctrine of evolution, but
+is actually based on the fundamental proposition of evolution. That
+proposition is, that the whole world, living and not living, is the
+result of the mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of forces
+possessed by the molecules of which the primitive nebulosity of the
+universe was composed. If this be true, it is no less certain that the
+existing world lay potentially in the cosmic vapor; and that a
+sufficient intelligence could, from a knowledge of the properties of
+that vapor, have predicted, say, the state of fauna of Great Britain in
+1869, with as much certainty as one can say what will happen to the
+vapor of the breath on a cold winter's day." This is the doctrine of the
+self-evolution of the universe. We know not what may lie behind this in
+Mr. Huxley's mind; but we are very sure that there is not an idea in the
+above paragraph which Epicurus of old, and Buechner, Vogt, Haeckel, and
+other "Materialisten von Profession," would not cheerfully adopt. His
+distinction between a higher and lower teleology is of no account in
+this discussion. What is the teleology to which, he says, Mr. Darwin has
+given the death-blow, the extracts given above clearly show. The eye,
+Huxley says, was not made for the purpose of seeing, or the ear for the
+purpose of hearing. "According to teleology," he says, "each organism is
+like a rifle bullet fired straight at a mark; according to Darwin,
+organisms are like grapeshot, of which one hits something and the rest
+fall wide."[26]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[19] Mr. Huxley, if we may judge from what he says of himself, is
+somewhat liable to be misunderstood. He says he was fourteen years
+laboring to resist the charge of Positivism made against the class of
+scientific men to which he belongs. He also tells us in his letter to
+Professor Tyndall, prefixed to his volume of _Lay Sermons and
+Addresses_, that the "Essay on the Physical Basis of Life," included in
+that volume, was intended as a protest, from the philosophical side,
+against what is commonly called Materialism. It turned out, however,
+that the public regarded it as an argument in favor of Materialism. This
+we think was a very natural, if not an unavoidable mistake, on the part
+of the public. For in that Essay, he says that Protoplasm, or the
+physical basis of life, "is a kind of matter common to all living
+beings, that the powers or faculties of all kinds of living matter,
+diverse as they may be in degree, are substantially of the same kind."
+Protoplasm as far as examined contains the four elements,--carbon,
+hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. These are lifeless bodies, "but when
+brought together under certain conditions, they give rise to the still
+more complex body Protoplasm; and this protoplasm exhibits the phenomena
+of life." There is no more reason, he teaches, for assuming the
+existence of a mysterious something called vitality to account for vital
+phenomena, than there is for the assumption of something called Aquasity
+to account for the phenomena of water. Life is said to be "the product
+of a certain disposition of material molecules." The matter of life is
+"composed of ordinary matter, differing from it only in the manner in
+which its atoms are aggregated. I take it," he says, "to be demonstrable
+that it is utterly impossible to prove that anything whatever may not be
+the effect of a material and necessary cause, and that human logic is
+equally incompetent to prove that any act is really spontaneous. A
+really spontaneous act is one, which, by the assumption, has no cause;
+and the attempt to prove such a negative as this, is on the face of the
+matter absurd. And while it is thus a philosophical impossibility to
+demonstrate that any given phenomenon is not the effect of a material
+cause, any one who is acquainted with the history of science will admit
+that its progress has, in all ages, meant, and now more than ever means,
+the extension of what we call matter and causation, and the concomitant
+gradual banishment from all regions of human thought of what we call
+spirit and spontaneity."
+
+[20] It cannot escape the attention of any one that Mr. Darwin, Mr.
+Wallace, Professor Huxley, and all the other advocates or defenders of
+Darwinism, do not pretend to prove anything more than that species _may_
+be originated by selection, not that there is no other satisfactory
+account of their origin. Mr. Darwin admits that referring them to the
+intention and efficiency of God, accounts for everything, but, he says,
+that is not science.
+
+[21] _Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews_. By Thomas Henry Huxley, LL.
+D., F. R. S. London, 1870, p. 323.
+
+[22] _Evidence of Man's Place in Nature_. London, 1864, p. 107.
+
+[23] Since writing the above paragraph our eye fell on the following
+note on the 89th page of the Duke of Argyle's _Reign of Law_, which it
+gives us pleasure to quote. It seems that a writer in the _Spectator_
+had charged Professor Huxley with Atheism. In the number of that paper
+for February 10, 1866, the Professor replies: "I do not know that I care
+very much about popular odium, so there is no great merit in saying that
+if I really saw fit to deny the existence of a God I should certainly do
+so, for the sake of my own intellectual freedom, and be the honest
+atheist you are pleased to say I am. As it happens, however, I cannot
+take this position with honesty, inasmuch as it is, and always has been,
+a favorite tenet, that Atheism is as absurd, logically speaking, as
+Polytheism." In the same paper he says, "The denying the possibility of
+miracles seems to me quite as unjustifiable as speculative Atheism." How
+this can be reconciled with the passages quoted above, we are unable to
+see.
+
+[24] _Lay Sermons_, etc., p. 330.
+
+[25] _Contemporary Review_, vol. xviii. 1871, p. 444. In this same
+article Mr. Huxley says: "Elijah's great question, Will ye serve God or
+Baal? Choose ye, is uttered audibly enough in the ears of every one of
+us as we come to manhood. Let every man who tries to answer it seriously
+ask himself whether he can be satisfied with the Baal of authority, and
+with all the good things his worshippers are promised in this world and
+the next. If he can, let him, if he be so inclined, amuse himself with
+such scientific implements as authority tells him are safe and will not
+cut his fingers; but let him not imagine that he is, or can be, both a
+true son of the Church and a loyal soldier of science." "And, on the
+other hand, if the blind acceptance of authority appear to him in its
+true colors, as mere private judgment _in excelsis_, and if he have
+courage to stand alone face to face with the abyss of the Eternal and
+Unknowable, let him be content, once for all, not only to renounce the
+good things promised by 'Infallibility,' but even to bear the bad things
+which it prophesies; content to follow reason and fact in singleness and
+honesty of purpose, wherever they may lead, in the sure faith that a
+hell of honest men will to him be more endurable than a paradise full of
+angelic shams." There can be no doubt that the Apostle Paul believed in
+the infallibility of the Scriptures. Imagine Professor Huxley calling
+St. Paul to his face, a sham! What are all the Huxleys who have ever
+lived or ever can live, to that one Paul in power for good over human
+thought, character, and destiny!
+
+Professor Huxley goes on in the next paragraph to say: "Mr. Mivart
+asserts that 'without belief in a personal God there is no religion
+worthy of the name.' This is a matter of opinion. But it may be
+asserted, with less reason to fear contradiction, that the worship of a
+personal God, who, on Mr. Mivart's hypothesis, must have used words
+studiously calculated to deceive his creatures and worshippers, is 'no
+religion worthy of the name.' 'Incredibile est, Deum illis verbis ad
+populum fuisse locutum quibis deciperetur,' is a verdict in which for
+once Jesuit casuistry concurs with the healthy moral sense of all
+mankind." (p. 458). Mr. Huxley calls believers in the Scriptures, and
+(apparently) believers in a personal God, bigots, old ladies of both
+sexes, bibliolators, fools, etc., etc.
+
+[26] _Lay Sermons_, etc. p. 331.
+
+
+_Buechner._
+
+Dr. Louis Buechner, president of the medical association of
+Hessen-Darmstadt, etc., etc., is not only a man of science but a popular
+writer. Perhaps no book of its class, in our day, has been so widely
+circulated as his volume on "Kraft und Stoff," Matter and Force. It has
+been translated into all the languages of Europe. He holds that matter
+and force are inseparable; there cannot be the one without the other;
+both are eternal and imperishable; neither can be either increased or
+diminished; life originated spontaneously by the combination of
+molecules of matter under favorable conditions; all the phenomena of the
+universe, inorganic and organic, whether physical, vital, or mental, are
+due to matter and its forces. Consequently there is no God, no creation,
+no mind distinct from matter, no conscious existence of man after death.
+All this is asserted in the most explicit terms. Dr. Buechner has
+published a work on Darwinism in two volumes. Darwin's theory, he says,
+"is the most thoroughly naturalistic that can be imagined, and far more
+atheistic than that of his decried predecessor Lamarck, who admitted at
+least a general law of progress and development; whereas, according to
+Darwin, the whole development is due to the gradual summation of
+innumerable minute and accidental operations."[27]
+
+FOOTNOTE:
+
+[27] _Sechs Vorlesungen ueber die Darwinische Theorie_. Von Ludwig
+Buechner. Zweite Auflage, Leipzig, 1848, vol. i. p. 125.
+
+
+_Carl Vogt._
+
+In his preface to his work on the "Descent of Man," Mr. Darwin quotes
+this author as a high authority. We see him elsewhere referred to as one
+of the first physiologists of Germany. Vogt devotes the concluding
+lecture of the second volume of his work on Man, to the consideration
+of Darwinism. He expresses his opinion of it, after high commendation,
+in the following terms. He says that it cannot be doubted that Darwin's
+"theory turns the Creator--and his occasional intervention in the
+revolutions of the earth and in the production of species--without any
+hesitation out of doors, inasmuch as it does not leave the smallest room
+for the agency of such a Being. The first living germ being granted, out
+of it the creation develops itself progressively by natural selection,
+through all the geological periods of our planets, by the simple law of
+descent--no new species arises by creation and none perishes by divine
+annihilation--the natural course of things, the process of evolution of
+all organisms and of the earth itself, is of itself sufficient for the
+production of all we see. Thus Man is not a special creation, produced
+in a different way, and distinct from other animals, endowed with an
+individual soul and animated by the breath of God; on the contrary, Man
+is only the highest product of the progressive evolution of animal life
+springing from the group of apes next below him."[28]
+
+After this no one can be surprised to hear him say, that "the pulpits of
+the orthodox, the confessionals of the priests, the platforms of the
+interior missions, the presidential chairs of the consistories, resound
+with protestations against the assaults made by Materialism and
+Darwinism against the very foundations of society." (p. 286) This he
+calls "Das Wehgeschrei der Moralisten" (the Wail of the Moralists). The
+designation Moralists is a felicitous one, as applied to the opponents
+of Vogt and his associates. It distinguishes them as men who have not
+lost their moral sense; who refuse to limit their faith to what can be
+proved by the five senses; who bow to the authority of the law written
+by the finger of God, on the hearts of men, which neither sophistry nor
+wickedness can effectually erase. All Vogt thinks it necessary to reply
+to these Moralists is, "Lasst sie bellen, bis sie ausgebellt haben" (Let
+them bark till they are tired). "Ende."
+
+FOOTNOTE:
+
+[28] _Vorlesungen ueber den Menschen, seine Stellung in der Schoepfung
+und in der Geschichte der Erde_. Von Carl Vogt. Giessen, 1863, vol. ii.
+p. 260.
+
+
+_Haeckel._
+
+Dr. Ernst Haeckel, Professor in the University of Jena, is said to stand
+at the head of the living naturalists of Germany. His work on "Natural
+History of Creation" contains a course of lectures delivered to the
+professors, students, and citizens of Jena. It is, therefore, somewhat
+popular in its character. The ability of the writer is manifest on every
+page. The distinctness of his perceptions, precision of language,
+perspicuity of style, and the strength of his convictions, give the
+impression of a man fully master of his subject, who has thought himself
+through, and is perfectly satisfied with the conclusions at which he has
+arrived. At the same time it is the impression of a man who is developed
+only on one side; who never looks within; who takes no cognizance of the
+wonders revealed in consciousness; to whom the intuitions of reason and
+of the conscience, the sense of dependence on a will higher than our
+own--the sense of obligation and responsibility are of no account,--in
+short a man to whom the image of God enstamped on the soul of man is
+invisible. This being the case, he that is least in the kingdom of
+heaven is greater than he.
+
+Haeckel admits that the title of his book, "Natural Creation," _i. e._
+creation by natural laws, is a contradiction. He distinguishes,
+however, between the creation of substance and the creation of form. Of
+the former he says science knows nothing. To the scientist matter is
+eternal. If any one chooses to assume that it was created by an
+extramundane power, Haeckel says he will not object. But that is a
+matter of faith; and "where faith begins, science ends." The very
+reverse of this is true. Science must begin with faith. It cannot take a
+single step without it. How does Haeckel know that his senses do not
+deceive him? How does he know that he can trust to the operations of his
+intellect? How does he know that things are as they appear? How does he
+know that the universe is not a great phantasmagoria, as so many men
+have regarded it, and man the mere sport of chimeras? He must believe in
+the laws of belief impressed on his nature. Knowledge implies a mind
+that knows, and confidence in the act of knowing implies belief in the
+laws of mind. "An inductive science of nature," says President Porter,
+"presupposes a science of induction, and a science of induction
+presupposes a science of man."[29] Haeckel, however, says faith is the
+mere product of the poetic imagination; science, of the understanding;
+if its conclusions come into conflict with the creations of the
+imagination, the latter, of course, must give way.[30]
+
+He says, there have ever been two conflicting theories of the universe:
+the one, monistic; the other, dualistic. The one admits of only one
+substance, matter; the other of two, matter and mind. He prefers to call
+the former monism rather than materialism, because the latter term often
+includes the idea of moral materialism, _i. e._ the doctrine that
+sensual pleasure is the end of life; a doctrine, he says, much more
+frequently held by princely church-men than by men of science. He
+maintains, however, that "all knowable nature is one; that the same
+eternal, immutable (ehernen, brazen) laws are active in the life of
+animals and plants, in the formation of crystals, and the power of
+steam; in the whole sphere of biology, zooelogy, and botany. We have,
+therefore, the right to hold fast the monistic and mechanical view,
+whether men choose to brand the system as Materialism or not. In this
+sense, all natural science, with the law of causation at its head, is
+thoroughly materialistic." (p. 32)
+
+The monistic theory he calls "mechanical or causal," as distinguished
+from the dualistic theory, which he calls "teleological or vitalistic."
+According to the latter, "the vegetable and animal kingdoms are
+considered as the products of a creative agency, working with a definite
+design. In looking on an organism, the conviction seems unavoidable that
+so skilfully constructed a machine, such a complicated working
+apparatus, as an organism is, could be produced only by an agency
+analogous to, although far more perfect than the agency of man." "This,"
+he says, "supposes the Creator to be an organism analogous to man,
+although infinitely more perfect; who contemplates his formative powers,
+lays the plan of the machine, and then, by the use of appropriate means,
+produces an effect answering to the preconceived plan.... However highly
+the Creator may be exalted, this view involves the ascription to Him of
+human attributes, in virtue of which he can form a plan, and construct
+organisms to correspond with it. That is the view to which Darwin's
+doctrine is directly opposed, and of which Agassiz is, among
+naturalists, the most important advocate. The famous work of Agassiz,
+'Essay on Classification,' which is in direct opposition to Darwin's,
+and appeared about the same time, has carried out logically to the
+utmost the absurd anthropomorphic doctrine of a Creator." (p. 17)
+
+The monistic theory is called "mechanical and causal," because it
+supposes that all the phenomena of the universe, organic and inorganic,
+vegetable and animal, vital and mental, are due to mechanical or
+necessarily operating causes (causae efficientes); just as the dualistic
+theory is called "teleological or vitalistic," because it refers natural
+organisms to causes working for the accomplishment of a given end (causae
+finales). (p. 67)
+
+The grand difficulty in the way of the mechanical or monistic theory was
+the occurrence of innumerable organisms, apparently at least, indicative
+of design. To get over this difficulty, Haeckel says, some who could not
+believe in a creative and controlling mind adopted the idea of a
+metaphysical ghost called vitality. The grand service rendered by Darwin
+to science is, that his theory enables us to account for the
+appearances of design in nature without assuming final causes, or, a
+mind working for a foreseen and intended end. "All that had appeared
+before Darwin," he says, "failed to secure success, and to meet with
+general acceptance of the doctrine of the mechanical production of
+vegetable and animal organisms. This was accomplished by Darwin's
+theory." (p. 20)
+
+The precise difficulty which Mr. Darwin's doctrine has, according to
+Haeckel, enabled men of science to surmount, is thus clearly stated on
+p. 633. It is, "that organs for a definite end should be produced by
+undesigning or mechanical causes." This difficulty is overcome by the
+doctrine of evolution. "Through the theory of descent, we are for the
+first time able to establish the monistic doctrine of the unity of
+nature, that a mechanic-causal explanation of the most complicated
+organisms, _e. g._ the formation and constitution of the organs of
+sense, have no more difficulty for the common understanding, than the
+mechanical explanation of any physical process, as, for example,
+earthquakes, the direction of the winds, or the currents of the sea. We
+thus arrive at the conviction of the last importance, that all natural
+bodies with which we are acquainted are equally endowed with life
+(gleichmaessig belebt sind); that the distinction between living and dead
+matter does not exist. When a stone is thrown into the air and falls by
+certain laws to the ground, or when a solution of salt forms a crystal,
+the result is neither more nor less a mechanical manifestation of life,
+than the flowering of a plant, the generation or sensibility of animals,
+or the feelings or the mental activity of man. In thus establishing the
+monistic theory of nature lies the highest and most comprehensive merit
+of the doctrine of descent, as reformed by Darwin." (p. 21) "As to the
+much vaunted design in nature, it is a reality only for those whose
+views of animal and vegetable life are to the last degree superficial.
+Any one who has gone deeper into the organization and vital activity of
+animals and plants, who has made himself familiar with the action and
+reaction of vital phenomena, and the so-called economy of nature, comes
+of necessity to the conclusion, that design does not exist, any more
+than the vaunted goodness of the Creator" (die vielgeruehmte Allguete des
+Schoepfers). (p. 17)
+
+Professor Huxley, in his review of this work of Haeckel, already quoted,
+says: "I do not like to conclude without reminding the reader of my
+entire concurrence with the general tenor and spirit of the work, and of
+my high estimate of its value." If you take out of Haeckel's book its
+doctrine of Monism, which he himself says means Materialism, it has no
+"tenor or spirit" in it. It is not, however, for us to say how far
+Professor Huxley intended his indorsement to go.
+
+Haeckel says that Darwin's theory of evolution leads inevitably to
+Atheism and Materialism. In this we think he is correct. But we have
+nothing to do with Haeckel's logic or with our own. We make no charge
+against Mr. Darwin. We cite Haeckel merely as a witness to the fact that
+Darwinism involves the denial of final causes; that it excludes all
+intelligent design in the production of the organs of plants and
+animals, and even in the production of the soul and body of man. This
+first of German naturalists would occupy a strange position in the sight
+of all Europe, if, after lauding a book to the skies because it teaches
+a certain doctrine, it should turn out that the book taught no such
+doctrine at all.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[29] _The Science of Nature versus the Science of Man_. By Noah Porter,
+President of Yale College. New York, 1871, p. 29.
+
+[30] _Natuerlische Schoepfungsgeschichte_. Von Dr. Ernst Haeckel,
+Professor in der Universitaet Jena. Zweite Auflage, Berlin, 1873, pp. 8,
+and 9.
+
+
+_The Opponents of Darwinism._
+
+
+_The Duke of Argyll._
+
+When cultivated men undertake to refute a certain system, it is to be
+presumed that they give themselves the trouble to ascertain what that
+system is. As the advocates of Mr. Darwin's theory defend and applaud it
+because it excludes design, and as its opponents make that the main
+ground of their objection to it, there can be no reasonable doubt as to
+its real character. The question is, How are the contrivances in nature
+to be accounted for? One answer is, They are due to the purpose of God.
+Mr. Darwin says, They are due to the gradual and undesigned accumulation
+of slight variations. The Duke's first objection to that doctrine is,
+that the evidence of design in the organs of plants and animals is so
+clear that Mr. Darwin himself cannot avoid using teleological language.
+"He exhausts," he says, "every form of words and of illustration by
+which intention or mental purpose can be described. 'Contrivance,'
+'beautiful contrivance,' 'curious contrivance,' are expressions which
+occur over and over again. Here is one sentence describing a particular
+species (of orchids): 'The labellum is developed _in order_ to attract
+the Lepidoptera; and we shall soon see reason for supposing that the
+nectar is purposely so lodged, that it can be sucked only slowly _in
+order_ to give time for the curious chemical quality of the matter
+setting hard and dry.'"[31] We have already seen that Mr. Darwin's
+answer to this objection is, that it is hard to keep from personifying
+nature, and that these expressions as used by him mean no more than
+chemists mean when they speak of affinities, and one element preferring
+another.
+
+A second objection is, that a variation would not be useful to the
+individual in which it happens to occur, unless other variations should
+occur at the right time and in the right order; and that the concurrence
+of so many accidents as are required to account for the infinite
+diversity of forms in plants and animals, is altogether inconceivable.
+
+A third objection is, that the variations often have no reference to the
+organism of the animal itself but to other organisms. "Take one
+instance," he says, "out of millions. The poison of a deadly snake,--let
+us for a moment consider what that is. It is a secretion of definite
+chemical properties with reference not only--not even mainly--to the
+organism of the animal in which it is developed, but specially to
+another animal which it is intended to destroy." "How," he asks, "will
+the law of growth adjust a poison in one animal with such subtle
+knowledge of the organization of the other, that the deadly virus shall
+in a few minutes curdle the blood, benumb the nerves, and rush in upon
+the citadel of life? There is but one explanation: a Mind having minute
+and perfect knowledge of the structure of both has designed the one to
+be capable of inflicting death upon the other. This mental purpose and
+resolve is the one thing which our intelligence perceives with direct
+and intuitive recognition. The method of creation by which this purpose
+has been carried into effect is utterly unknown."[32]
+
+A fourth objection has reference to beauty. According to Mr. Darwin,
+flowers are not intentionally made beautiful, but those which happen to
+be beautiful attract insects, and by their agency are fertilized and
+survive. Male birds are not intentionally arrayed in bright colors, but
+those which happen to be so arrayed are attractive, and thus become the
+progenitors of their race. Against this explanation the Duke earnestly
+protests. He refers to the gorgeous adorned class of Hummingbirds, of
+which naturalists enumerate no less than four hundred and thirty
+different species, distinguished one from the other, in general, only by
+their plumage. "Now," he asks, "what explanation does the law of natural
+selection give,--I will not say of the origin, but even of the
+continuance of such specific varieties as these? None whatever. A crest
+of topaz is no better in the struggle of existence than a crest of
+sapphire. A frill ending in spangles of the emerald is no better in the
+battle of life than a frill ending in spangles of the ruby. A tail is
+not affected for the purposes of flight, whether its marginal, or its
+central feathers are decorated with white. It is impossible to bring
+such varieties into any physical law known to us. It has relation
+however to a Purpose, which stands in close analogy with our knowledge
+of purpose in the works of men. Mere beauty and mere variety, for their
+own sake, are objects which we ourselves seek, when we can make the
+forces of nature subordinate to the attainment of them. There seems to
+be no conceivable reason why we should doubt or question that these are
+ends and aims also in the forms given to living organisms, when the
+facts correspond with this view and with no other."[33]
+
+It will be observed that all these objections have reference to the
+denial of teleology on the part of Mr. Darwin. If his theory admitted
+that the organisms in nature were due to a divine purpose, the
+objections would be void of all meaning.
+
+There is a fifth objection. According to Darwin's theory organs are
+formed by the slow accumulation of unintended variations, which happen
+to be favorable to the subject of them in the struggle for life. But in
+many cases these organs, instead of being favorable, are injurious or
+cumbersome until fully developed. Take the wing of a bird, for example.
+In its rudimental state, it is useful neither for swimming, walking, nor
+flying. Now, as Darwin says it took millions of years to bring the eye
+to perfection, how long did it take to render a rudimental wing useful?
+It is no sufficient answer to say that these rudimental organs might
+have been suited to the condition in which the animal existed, during
+the formative process. This is perfectly arbitrary. It has no basis of
+fact. There are but three kinds of locomotion that we know of: in the
+water, on the ground, and through the air; for all these purposes a
+half-formed wing would be an impediment.
+
+The Duke devotes almost a whole chapter of his interesting book to the
+consideration of "contrivance in the machinery for flight." The
+conditions to secure regulated movement through the atmosphere are so
+numerous, so complicated, and so conflicting, that the problem never has
+been solved by human ingenuity. In the structure of the bird it is
+solved to perfection. As we are not writing a teleological argument, but
+only producing evidence that Darwinism excludes teleology, we cannot
+follow the details which prove that the wing of the gannet or swift is
+almost as wonderful and beautiful a specimen of contrivance as the eye
+of the eagle.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[31] _Reign of Law_. London, 1867, p. 40.
+
+[32] _Reign of Law_. London, 1867, p. 37.
+
+[33] _Reign of Law_, pp. 247, 248.
+
+
+_Agassiz._
+
+Every one knows that the illustrious Agassiz, over whose recent grave
+the world stands weeping, was from the beginning a pronounced and
+earnest opponent of Mr. Darwin's theory. He wrote as a naturalist, and
+therefore his objections are principally directed against the theory of
+evolution, which he regarded as not only destitute of any scientific
+basis, but as subversive of the best established facts in zooelogy.
+Nevertheless it is evident that his zeal was greatly intensified by his
+apprehension that a theory which obliterates all evidence of the being
+of God from the works of nature, endangered faith in that great doctrine
+itself. The Rev. Dr. Peabody, in the discourse delivered on the occasion
+of Professor Agassiz's funeral, said: "I cannot close this hasty and
+inadequate, yet fervent and hearty tribute, without recalling to your
+memory the reverent spirit in which he pursued his scientific labors.
+Nearly forty years ago, in his first great work on fossil fishes, in
+developing principles of classification, he wrote in quotations, 'An
+invisible thread in all ages runs through this immense diversity,
+exhibiting as a general result that there is a continual progress in
+development ending in man, the four classes of vertebrates presenting
+the intermediate steps, and the invertebrates the constant accessory
+accompaniment. Have we not here the manifestation of a mind as powerful
+as prolific? an act of intelligence as sublime as provident? the marks
+of goodness as infinite as wise? the most palpable demonstration of the
+existence of a personal God, author of all this; ruler of the universe,
+and the dispenser of all good? This at least is what I read in the works
+of creation.' And it was what he ever read, and with profound awe and
+adoration. To this exalted faith he was inflexibly loyal. The laws of
+nature were to him the eternal Word of God.
+
+"His repugnance to Darwinism grew in great part from his apprehension of
+its atheistical tendency,--an apprehension which I confess I cannot
+share; for I forget not that these theories, now in the ascendent, are
+maintained by not a few devout Christian men, and while they appear to
+me unproved and incapable of demonstration, I could admit them without
+parting with one iota of my faith in God and Christ. Yet I cannot but
+sympathize most strongly with him in the spirit in which he resisted
+what seemed to him lese-majesty against the sovereign of the universe.
+Nor was his a theoretical faith. His whole life, in its broad
+philanthropy, in its pervading spirit of service, in its fidelity to
+arduous trusts and duties, and in its simplicity and truthfulness,
+bespoke one who was consciously fulfilling a mission from God to his
+fellow-men."
+
+The words "evolution" and "Darwinism" are so often in this country, but
+not in Europe, used interchangeably, that it is conceivable that Dr.
+Peabody could retain his faith in God, and yet admit the doctrine of
+evolution. But it is not conceivable that any man should adopt the main
+element of Mr. Darwin's theory, viz., the denial of all final causes,
+and the assertion, that since the first creation of matter and life, God
+has left the universe to the control of unintelligent physical causes,
+so that all the phenomena of the plants and animals, all that is in man,
+and all that has ever happened on the earth, is due to physical force,
+and yet retain his faith in Christ. On that theory, there have been no
+supernatural revelation, no miracles; Christ is not risen, and we are
+yet in our sins. It is not thus that this matter is regarded abroad. The
+Christians of Germany say that the only alternative these theories leave
+us, is Heathenism or Christianity; "Heidenthum oder Christenthum, Die
+Frage der Zeit."
+
+
+_Janet._
+
+Janet, a professor of philosophy, is the author of a book on the
+Materialism of Buechner.[34] The greater part of the last chapter of his
+work is devoted to Darwinism. He says, "Dr. Buechner invoked (Darwin's
+book) as a striking confirmation of his doctrine." (p. 154) What
+Buechner's doctrine is has been shown on a previous page. The points of
+coincidence between Darwin's system and his are, that both regard mind
+as a mere function of living matter; and both refer all the organs and
+organisms of living things to the unconscious, unintelligent operation
+of physical causes. Buechner's way of accounting for complicated organs
+was, "that the energy of the elements and forces of matter, which in
+their fated and accidental occurrence must have produced innumerable
+forms, which must needs limit each other mutually, and correspond,
+apparently, the one with the other, as if they were made for that
+purpose. Out of all those forms, they only have survived which were
+adapted, in some manner, to the conditions of the medium in which they
+were placed." (p. 30) This is very clumsy. No wonder Buechner preferred
+Darwin's method. The two systems are, indeed, exactly the same, but Mr.
+Darwin has a much more winning way of presenting it.
+
+Professor Janet does not seem to have much objection to the doctrine of
+evolution in itself; it is the denial of teleology that he regards as
+the fatal element of Mr. Darwin's theory. "According to us," he says,
+"the true stumbling-block of Mr. Darwin's theory, the perilous and
+slippery point, is the passage from artificial to natural selection; it
+is when he wants to establish that a blind and designless nature has
+been able to obtain, by the occurrence of circumstances, the same
+results which man obtains by thoughtful and well calculated industry."
+(p. 174)
+
+Towards the end of his volume he says: "We shall conclude by a general
+observation. Notwithstanding the numerous objections we have raised
+against Mr. Darwin's theory, we do not declare ourselves hostile to a
+system of which zooelogists are the only competent judges. We are neither
+for nor against the transmutation of species, neither for nor against
+the principle of natural selection. The only positive conclusion of our
+debate is this: no principle hitherto known, neither the action of
+media, nor habit, nor natural selection, can account for organic
+adaptations without the intervention of the principle of finality.
+Natural selection, unguided, submitted to the laws of a pure mechanism,
+and exclusively determined by accidents, seems to me, under another
+name, the chance proclaimed by Epicurus, equally barren, equally
+incomprehensible; on the other hand, natural selection guided beforehand
+by a provident will, directed towards a precise end by intentional laws,
+might be the means which nature has selected to pass from one stage of
+being to another, from one form to another, to bring to perfection life
+throughout the universe, and to rise by a continuous process from the
+monad to man. Now, I ask Mr. Darwin himself, what interest has he in
+maintaining that natural selection is not guided--not directed? What
+interest has he in substituting accidental causes for every final cause?
+I cannot see. Let him admit that in natural, as well as in artificial
+selection, there may be a choice and direction; his principle
+immediately becomes much more fruitful than it was before. His
+hypothesis, then, whilst having the advantage of exempting science from
+the necessity of introducing the personal and miraculous intervention of
+God in the creation of each species, yet would be free from the
+banishing out of the universe an all-provident thought, and of
+submitting everything to blind and brute chance." (pp. 198, 199)
+Professor Janet asks far too much of Mr. Darwin. To ask him to give up
+his denial of final causes is like asking the Romanists to give up the
+Pope. That principle is the life and soul of his system.
+
+FOOTNOTE:
+
+[34] _The Materialism of the Present Day: a Critique of Dr. Buechner's
+System_. By Paul Janet, Member of the Institute of France, Professor of
+Philosophy at the Paris Faculte des Lettres. Translated from the French,
+by Gustave Masson, B. A. London and Paris, 1867.
+
+
+_M. Flourens._
+
+M. Flourens, recently dead, was one of the earliest and most pronounced
+opponents of Darwinism. He published in 1864 his "Examen du Livre de M.
+Darwin sur l'Origine des Especes." His position as Member of the
+Academie Francaise, and Perpetual Secretary of the Academie des
+Sciences, or Institut de France, vouch for his high rank among the
+French naturalists. His connection with the Jardin des Plantes gave him
+enlarged opportunities for biological experiments. The result of his own
+experience, as well as the experience of other observers, was, as he
+expresses it, his solemn conviction that species are fixed and not
+transmutable. No ingenuity of device could render hybrids fertile. "They
+never establish an intermediate species." It is, therefore, to the
+doctrine of evolution his attention is principally directed.
+Nevertheless, he is no less struck by Darwin's way of excluding all
+intelligence and design in his manner of speaking of nature. On this
+point he quotes the language of Cuvier, who says: "Nature has been
+personified. Living beings have been called the works of nature. The
+general bearing of these creatures to each other has become the laws of
+nature. It is thus while considering Nature as a being endowed with
+intelligence and will, but in its power limited and secondary, that it
+may be said that she watches incessantly over the maintenance of her
+work; that she does nothing in vain, and always acts by the most simple
+means.... It is easy to see how puerile are those who give nature a
+species of individual existence distinct from the Creator, and from the
+law which He has impressed upon the movements and peculiarities of the
+forms given by Him to living things, and which He makes to act upon
+their bodies with a peculiar force and reason." Older writers, says
+Flourens, in speaking of Nature, "gave to her inclinations, intentions,
+and views, and horrors (of a vacuum), and sports," etc. He says that one
+of the principal objects of his book is to show how Mr. Darwin "has
+deluded himself, and perhaps others, by a constant abuse of figurative
+language." "He plays with Nature as he pleases, and makes her do
+whatsoever he wishes." When we remember that Mr. Darwin defines Nature
+to be the aggregate of physical forces, we see how, in attributing
+everything to Nature, he effectually excludes the supernatural.
+
+In his volume of "Lay Sermons, Reviews," etc., Professor Huxley has a
+very severe critique on M. Flourens's book. He says little, however, in
+reference to teleology, except in one paragraph, in which we read: "M.
+Flourens cannot imagine an unconscious selection; it is for him a
+contradiction in terms." Huxley's answer is, "The winds and waves of the
+Bay of Biscay have not much consciousness, and yet they have with great
+care 'selected,' from an infinity of masses of silex, all grains of sand
+below a certain size and have heaped them by themselves over a great
+area.... A frosty night selects the hardy plants in a plantation from
+among the tender ones as effectually as if the intelligence of the
+gardener had been operative in cutting the weaker ones down."[35] If
+this means anything, it means that as the winds and waves of the Bay of
+Biscay can make heaps of sand, so similar unconscious agencies can, if
+you only give them time enough, make an elephant or a man; for this is
+what Mr. Darwin says natural selection has done.
+
+FOOTNOTE:
+
+[35] _Lay Sermons_, p. 347.
+
+
+_Rev. Walter Mitchell, M. A., Vice-President of the Victoria Institute._
+
+The Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, under
+the presidency of the Earl of Shaftesbury, includes among its members
+many of the dignitaries of the Church of England, and a large number of
+distinguished men of different professions and denominations. Its
+principal object is, "To investigate fully and impartially the most
+important questions of philosophy and science, but more especially those
+that bear on the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture, with the view
+of defending these truths against the opposition of Science, falsely so
+called." The Institute holds bi-monthly meetings, at which papers are
+read on some important topic, and then submitted to criticism and
+discussion. These papers, many of which are very elaborate, are
+published in the Transactions of the Institute, together with a full
+report of the discussions to which they gave rise. Six volumes, replete
+with valuable and varied information, have already been published.
+
+Very considerable latitude of opinion is allowed. Hence we find in the
+Transactions, papers for and against evolution,--for and against
+Darwinism. It would be easy to quote extracts, pertinent to our subject,
+more than enough to fill a volume much larger than the present. We must
+content ourselves with a few citations from the discussion on a paper in
+favor of the credibility of Darwinism,[36] and another in favor of the
+doctrine of evolution.[37] In summing up the debates on these two
+topics, the chairman, Rev. Walter Mitchell, presented with great
+clearness and force his reasons for regarding Darwinism as incredible
+and impossible. In his protracted remarks he contrasts the Scriptural
+doctrine, that of the Vestiges of Creation, and that of Darwin on the
+origin of species. He thus states the doctrine of the Bible on the
+subject: "If," he says, "science be another name for real knowledge; if
+science be the pursuit of sound wisdom; if science be the pursuit of
+truth itself; I say that man has no right to reject anything that is
+true because it savors of God. Well, what is this hypothesis--older than
+that of Darwin--which does, and does alone, account for all the observed
+facts, or all that which we can read, recorded in the book of Nature? It
+is, that God created all things very good; that He made every vegetable
+after its own kind; that He made every animal after its own kind; that
+He allowed certain laws of variation, but that He has ordained strict,
+though invisible and invincible barriers, which prevent that variation
+from running riot, and which includes it within strict and well defined
+limits. This is a hypothesis which will account for all that we have
+learnt from the works of Nature. It admits an intelligent Being as the
+Author of all the works of creation, animate as well as inanimate; it
+leaves no mysteries in the animate world unaccounted for. There is one
+thing which the animate, as well as the inanimate world declares to
+man, one thing everywhere plainly recorded, if we will only read it, and
+that is the impress of design, the design of infinite wisdom. Any theory
+which comes in with an attempt to ignore design as manifested in God's
+creation, is a theory, I say, which attempts to dethrone God. This the
+theory of Darwin does endeavor to do. If asked how our old theory
+accounts for such uniformity of design in the midst of such perplexing
+variety as we find in nature, we reply, that this can only be accounted
+for on one admission, that the whole is the work of one Author, built
+according, as it were, to one style; that it represents the unity of one
+mind with the infinite power of adapting all its works in the most
+perfect manner for the uses for which they were created." "Whewell has
+boldly maintained, and he has never been controverted, that all real
+advances in the sciences of physiology and comparative anatomy,--such as
+that made by Harvey in discovering the circulation of the blood,--have
+been made by those who not only believed in the existence of design
+everywhere manifested in the animate world, but were led by that belief
+to make their discoveries."
+
+When discussing the paper of Mr. Henslow on evolution, he says: "In
+speaking of this paper I must commend the exceeding reverent tone in
+which the author has discussed the subject, and I should like to see all
+such subjects discussed in a similar tone. The view which Mr. Henslow
+brings forward, however, does not appear to be a very original one. It
+was the first view ever brought forward on the doctrine of evolution,
+and I was the first one to point out that the whole doctrine was one of
+retrograde character. The whole tone and character of this paper, except
+that which relates to the attributes and moral government of God,[38] is
+nothing more or less than the same view of the doctrine of evolution
+which created such a sensation in this country when that famous book
+came out, 'The Vestiges of Creation.' So far as I can understand the
+arguments of Mr. Darwin, they have simply been an endeavor to eject out
+of the idea of evolution the personal work of the Deity. His whole
+endeavor has been to push the Creator farther and farther back out of
+view. The most laborious part of Darwin's attempt at reasoning,--for it
+is not true reasoning,--the most laborious part of his logic and
+reasoning, is intended to eliminate, as perfectly as any of the
+atheistical authors have endeavored to do, the idea of design. Now,
+setting revelation aside, the manner in which the unknown author of the
+'Vestiges of Creation' treated this subject, satisfactorily showed that
+the doctrine of evolution was not in itself an atheistical doctrine, nor
+did it deny the existence of design. So far as I could understand and
+make out, having carefully read the book at the time it came out and
+afterwards, and having carefully analyzed and compared it and Mr.
+Darwin's book with each other, so far as I could understand it, the
+doctrine of the author of the 'Vestiges of Creation' was simply, that
+God created all things, and that when He created matter He impressed on
+it certain laws; that matter, being evolved according to those laws,
+should produce beings and organs mutually adapted to one another and to
+the world; and that every successive development which should be
+produced was essentially foreseen, foreknown, and predetermined by the
+Deity. His idea, for instance, of the evolution of an eye from a more
+simple organ was that the ultimate eye--man's eye, for instance--was to
+be a perfect optical instrument, and that its perfection depended on the
+previous design by the Creator, that at a certain period it should
+appear in a body quite adapted for its purposes. There is one
+question,--and not the only one, but we must consider it as an important
+question,--whether you can maintain a doctrine of evolution which shall
+not be atheistical, and which shall admit the great argument of design?
+That is one thing; but the next thing is, does such a doctrine as that
+accord either with revelation or with the facts of science? I do not
+believe that it can be made to agree with what we believe to be the
+revealed Word of God, and I do not believe that it has in the least
+degree been proved that the doctrine is consistent with sound science."
+
+As to Mr. Darwin's theory, it is obvious from the passages already
+quoted that he considers its characteristic feature is not evolution,
+nor even natural selection, but the denial of teleology, or of
+intelligent control. Mr. Darwin admits the original creation of one or a
+few forms of life; and Mr. Mitchell, in his comments on Mr. Warington's
+defence of his theory, asks, "Why am I to limit the work of the Creator
+to the simultaneous or successive creations of ten or twelve
+commencements of the animate creation? Why, simply for the purpose of
+evading the evidence of design as manifested in the adaptation of all
+the organs of every animate creature to its wants, which can only be
+done by so incredible an hypothesis as that of Mr. Darwin. I say
+fearlessly, that any hypothesis which requires us to admit that the
+formation of such complex organs as the eye, the ear, the heart, the
+brain, with all their marvellous structures and mechanical adaptations
+to the wants of the creatures possessing them, so perfectly in harmony,
+too, with the laws of inorganic matter, affords no evidence of design;
+that such structures could be built up by gradual chance improvements,
+perpetuated by the law of transmission, and perfected by the destruction
+of creatures less favorably endowed, is so incredible, that I marvel to
+find any thinking man capable of adopting it for a single moment." It is
+useless to multiply quotations. Darwinism is never brought up either
+formally or incidentally, that its exclusion of design in the formation
+of living organisms is not urged as the main objection against the whole
+theory.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[36] _The Credibility of Darwinism_. By George Warington, Esq., F. C.
+S., M. V. I.
+
+[37] _On certain Analogies between the Methods of Deity in Nature and
+Revelation_. By Rev. G. E. Henslow, M. A., F. L. S., M. V. I.
+
+[38] The second part of Mr. Henslow's paper concerns "the methods of the
+Deity as revealed to us in the Bible." The same is substantially true of
+his work, _The Theory of Evolution_.
+
+
+_Principal Dawson._
+
+Dr. Dawson, as we are informed, is regarded as the first palaeontologist,
+and among the first geologists, in America. In his "Story of Earth and
+Man,"[39] he passes in review the several geological periods
+recognized by geologists; describes as far as knowable the distribution
+of land and water during each period, and the vegetable and animal
+productions by which they were distinguished. His book from beginning to
+end is anti-Darwinian. In common with other naturalists, his attention
+is directed principally to the doctrine of evolution, which he endeavors
+to prove is utterly untenable. That Mr. Darwin's theory excludes
+teleology is everywhere assumed as an uncontroverted and
+uncontrovertible fact. "The evolutionist doctrine," he says, "is itself
+one of the strangest phenomena of humanity. It existed, and most
+naturally, in the oldest philosophy and poetry, in connection with the
+crudest and most uncritical attempts of the human mind to grasp the
+system of nature; but that in our day a system destitute of any shadow
+of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech,
+and by the arbitrary and artificial coherence of its own parts, should
+be accepted as philosophy, and should find able adherents to string on
+its thread of hypotheses our vast and weighty stores of knowledge, is
+surpassingly strange.... In many respects these speculations are
+important, and worthy the attention of thinking men. They seek to
+revolutionize the religious belief of the world, and if accepted would
+destroy most of the existing theology and philosophy. They indicate
+tendencies among scientific thinkers, which, though probably temporary,
+must, before they disappear, descend to lower strata, and reproduce
+themselves in grosser forms, and with most serious effects on the whole
+structure of society. With one class of minds they constitute a sort of
+religion, which so far satisfies the craving for truth higher than those
+which relate to immediate wants and pleasures. With another and perhaps
+larger class, they are accepted as affording a welcome deliverance from
+all scruples of conscience and fears of a hereafter. In the domain of
+science evolutionism has like tendencies. It reduces the position of
+man, who becomes a descendant of inferior animals, and a mere term in a
+series whose end is unknown. It removes from the study of nature the
+ideas of final cause and purpose; and the evolutionist, instead of
+regarding the world as a work of consummate plan, skill, and adjustment,
+approaches nature as he would a chaos of fallen rocks, which may present
+forms of castles, and grotesque profiles of men and animals, but they
+are all fortuitous and without significance." (pp. 317, 318)
+
+"Taking, then, this broad view of the subject, two great leading
+alternatives are presented to us. Either man is an independent product
+of the will of a Higher Intelligence, acting directly or through the
+laws and materials of his own institution and production, or he has been
+produced by an unconscious evolution from lower things. It is true that
+many evolutionists, either unwilling to offend, or not perceiving the
+logical consequences of their own hypothesis, endeavor to steer a middle
+course, and to maintain that the Creator has proceeded by way of
+evolution. But the bare, hard logic of Spencer, the greatest English
+authority on evolution, leaves no place for this compromise, and shows
+that the theory, carried out to its legitimate consequences, excludes
+the knowledge of a Creator and the possibility of his work. We have,
+therefore, to choose between evolution and creation, bearing in mind,
+however, that there may be a place in nature for evolution, properly
+limited, as well as for other things, and that the idea of creation by
+no means excludes law and second causes." (p. 321)
+
+"It may be said, that evolution may be held as a scientific doctrine in
+connection with a modified belief in creation. The work of actual
+creation may have been limited to a few elementary types, and evolution
+may have done the rest. Evolutionists may still be theists. We have
+already seen that the doctrine, as carried out to its logical
+consequences, excludes creation and theism. It may, however, be shown
+that even in its more modified form, and when held by men who maintain
+that they are not atheists, it is practically atheistic, because
+excluding the idea of plan and design, and resolving all things into the
+action of unintelligent forces. It is necessary to observe this, because
+it is the half-way-evolutionism, which professes to have a creator
+somewhere behind it, that is most popular; though it is, if possible,
+more unphilosophical than that which professes to set out with absolute
+and determined nonentity, or from self-existing stardust containing all
+the possibilities of the universe."
+
+In reference to the objection of evolutionists, that the origin of every
+new species, on the theistic doctrine, supposes "a miracle," an
+intervention of the divine efficiency without the agency of second
+causes, Principal Dawson asks, "What is the actual statement of the
+theory of creation as it may be held by a modern man of science? Simply
+this: that all things have been produced by the Supreme Creative will,
+acting either directly, or through the agency of the forces and material
+of his own production." (p. 340)
+
+He thus sums up his argument against the doctrine of evolution,
+specially in its application to man: "Finally, the evolutionist picture
+wants some of the fairest lineaments of humanity, and cheats us with the
+semblance of man without the reality. Shave and paint your ape as you
+may, clothe him and set him up upon his feet, still he fails greatly of
+the 'human form divine;' and so it is with him morally and spiritually
+as well. We have seen that he wants the instinct of immortality, the
+love of God, the mental and spiritual power of exercising dominion over
+the earth. The very agency by which he is evolved is of itself
+subversive of all these higher properties; the struggle for existence is
+essentially selfish, and, therefore, degrading. Even in the lower
+animals, it is a false assumption that its tendency is to elevate; for
+animals, when driven to the utmost verge of the struggle for life,
+become depauperated and degraded. The dog which spends its life in
+snarling contention with its fellow curs for insufficient food, will not
+be a noble specimen of its race. God does not so treat his creatures.
+There is far more truth to nature in the doctrine which represents Him
+as listening to the young ravens when they cry for food. But as applied
+to man, the theory of the struggle for existence, and survival of the
+fittest, though the most popular phase of evolutionism at present, is
+nothing less than the basest and most horrible of superstitions. It
+makes man not merely carnal but devilish. It takes his lowest appetites
+and propensities, and makes them his God and Creator. His higher
+sentiments and aspirations, his self-denying philanthropy, his
+enthusiasm for the good and true, all the struggles and sufferings of
+heroes and martyrs, not to speak of that self-sacrifice which is the
+foundation of Christianity, are, in the view of the evolutionist, mere
+loss and waste, failure in the struggle of life. What does he give us in
+exchange? An endless pedigree of bestial ancestors, without one gleam of
+high and holy tradition to enliven the procession; and for the future,
+the prospect that the poor mass of protoplasm, which constitutes the sum
+of our being, and which is the sole gain of an indefinite struggle in
+the past, must soon be resolved again into inferior animals or dead
+matter. That men of thought and culture should advocate such a
+philosophy, argues either a strange mental hallucination, or that the
+higher spiritual nature has been wholly quenched within them. It is one
+of the saddest of many sad spectacles which our age presents." (p. 395)
+
+FOOTNOTE:
+
+[39] _The Story of Earth and Man_. By J. W. Dawson, LL. D., F. R. S., F.
+G. S., Principal and Vice-Chancellor of McGill University, Montreal.
+Author of _Archaia, Acadian Geology_, etc. Second edition. London, 1873,
+pp. 397.
+
+
+_Relation of Darwinism to Religion._
+
+The consideration of that subject would lead into the wide field of the
+relation between science and religion. Into that field we lack
+competency and time to enter; a few remarks, however, on the subject
+may not be out of place. Those remarks, we would fain make in a humble
+way irenical. There is need of an Irenicum, for the fact is painfully
+notorious that there is an antagonism between scientific men as a class,
+and religious men as a class. Of course this opposition is neither felt
+nor expressed by all on either side. Nevertheless, whatever may be the
+cause of this antagonism, or whoever are to be blamed for it, there can
+be no doubt that it exists and that it is an evil.
+
+The first cause of the alienation in question is, that the two parties,
+so to speak, adopt different rules of evidence, and thus can hardly
+avoid arriving at different conclusions. To understand this we must
+determine what is meant by science, and by scientific evidence. Science,
+according to its etymology, is simply knowledge. But usage has limited
+its meaning, in the first place, not to the knowledge of facts or
+phenomena, merely, but to their causes and relations. It was said of
+old, "[Greek: hoti] scientiae fundamentum, [Greek: dioti] fastigium." No
+amount of materials would constitute a building. They must be duly
+arranged so as to make a symmetrical whole. No amount of disconnected
+data can constitute a science. Those data must be systematized in their
+relation to each other and to other things. In the second place, the
+word is becoming more and more restricted to the knowledge of a
+particular class of facts, and of their relations, namely, the facts of
+nature or of the external world. This usage is not universal, nor is it
+fixed. In Germany, especially, the word _Wissenschaft_ is used of all
+kinds of ordered knowledge, whether transcendental or empirical. So we
+are accustomed to speak of mental, moral, social, as well as of natural
+science. Nevertheless, the more restricted use of the word is very
+common and very influential. It is important that this fact should be
+recognized. In common usage, a scientific man is distinguished specially
+from a metaphysician. The one investigates the phenomena of matter, the
+other studies the phenomena of mind, according to the old distinction
+between physics and metaphysics. Science, therefore, is the ordered
+knowledge of the phenomena which we recognize through the senses. A
+scientific fact is a fact perceived by the senses. Scientific evidence
+is evidence addressed to the senses. At one of the meetings of the
+Victoria Institute, a visitor avowed his disbelief in the existence of
+God. When asked, what kind of evidence would satisfy him? he answered,
+Just such evidence as I have of the existence of this tumbler which I
+now hold in my hand. The Rev. Mr. Henslow says, "By science is meant the
+investigation of facts and phenomena recognizable by the senses, and of
+the causes which have brought them into existence."[40] This is the main
+root of the trouble. If science be the knowledge of the facts perceived
+by the senses, and scientific evidence, evidence addressed to the
+senses, then the senses are the only sources of knowledge. Any
+conviction resting on any other ground than the testimony of the senses,
+must be faith. Darwin admits that the contrivances in nature may be
+accounted for by assuming that they are due to design on the part of
+God. But, he says, that would not be science. Haeckel says that to
+science matter is eternal. If any man chooses to say, it was created,
+well and good; but that is a matter of faith, and faith is imagination.
+Ulrici quotes a distinguished German physiologist who believes in
+vital, as distinguished from physical forces; but he holds to
+spontaneous generation, not, as he admits, because it has been proved,
+but because the admission of any higher power than nature is
+unscientific.[41]
+
+It is inevitable that minds addicted to scientific investigation should
+receive a strong bias to undervalue any other kind of evidence except
+that of the senses, _i. e._, scientific evidence. We have seen that
+those who give themselves up to this tendency come to deny God, to deny
+mind, to deny even self. It is true that the great majority of men,
+scientific as well as others, are so much under the control of the laws
+of their nature, that they cannot go to this extreme. The tendency,
+however, of a mind addicted to the consideration of one kind of
+evidence, to become more or less insensible to other kinds of proof, is
+undeniable. Thus even Agassiz, as a zooelogist and simply on zooelogical
+grounds, assumed that there were several zones between the Ganges and
+the Atlantic Ocean, each having its own flora and fauna, and inhabited
+by races of men, the same in kind, but of different origins. When told
+by the comparative philologists that this was impossible, because the
+languages spoken through that wide region, demonstrated that its
+inhabitants must have had a common descent, he could only answer that as
+ducks quack everywhere, he could not see why men should not everywhere
+speak the same language.
+
+A still more striking illustration is furnished by Dr. Lionel Beale, the
+distinguished English physiologist. He has written a book of three
+hundred and eighty-eight pages for the express purpose of proving that
+the phenomena of life, instinct, and intellect cannot be referred to any
+known natural forces. He avows his belief that in nature "mind governs
+matter," and "in the existence of a never-changing, all-seeing,
+power-directing and matter-guiding Omnipotence." He avows his faith in
+miracles, and "those miracles on which Christianity is founded."
+Nevertheless, his faith in all these points is provisional. He says that
+a truly scientific man, "if the maintenance, continuity, and nature of
+life on our planet should at some future time be fully explained without
+supposing the existence of any such supernatural omnipotent influence,
+would be bound to receive the new explanation, and might abandon the
+old conviction."[42] That is, all evidence of the truths of religion not
+founded on nature and perceived by the senses, amounts to nothing.
+
+Now as religion does not rest on the testimony of the senses, that is on
+scientific evidence, the tendency of scientific men is to ignore its
+claims. We speak only of tendency. We rejoice to know or believe that in
+hundreds or thousands of scientific men, this tendency is counteracted
+by their consciousness of manhood--the conviction that the body is not
+the man,--by the intuitions of the reason and the conscience, and by the
+grace of God. No class of men stands deservedly higher in public
+estimation than men of science, who, while remaining faithful to their
+higher nature, have enlarged our knowledge of the wonderful works of
+God.
+
+A second cause of the alienation between science and religion, is the
+failure to make the due distinction between facts and the explanation of
+those facts, or the theories deduced from them. No sound minded man
+disputes any scientific fact. Religious men believe with Agassiz that
+facts are sacred. They are revelations from God. Christians sacrifice to
+them, when duly authenticated, their most cherished convictions. That
+the earth moves, no religious man doubts. When Galileo made that great
+discovery, the Church was right in not yielding at once to the evidence
+of an experiment which it did not understand. But when the fact was
+clearly established, no man sets up his interpretation of the Bible in
+opposition to it. Religious men admit all the facts connected with our
+solar system; all the facts of geology, and of comparative anatomy, and
+of biology. Ought not this to satisfy scientific men? Must we also admit
+their explanations and inferences? If we admit that the human embryo
+passes through various phases, must we admit that man was once a fish,
+then a bird, then a dog, then an ape, and finally what he now is? If we
+admit the similarity of structure in all vertebrates, must we admit the
+evolution of one from another, and all from a primordial germ? It is to
+be remembered that the facts are from God, the explanation from men; and
+the two are often as far apart as Heaven and its antipode.
+
+These human explanations are not only without authority, but they are
+very mutable. They change not only from generation to generation, but
+almost as often as the phases of the moon. It is a fact that the planets
+move. Once it was said that they were moved by spirits, then by
+vortexes, now by self-evolved forces. It is hard that we should be
+called upon to change our faith with every new moon. The same man
+sometimes propounds theories almost as rapidly as the changes of the
+kaleidoscope. The amiable Sir Charles Lyell, England's most
+distinguished geologist, has published ten editions of his "Principles
+of Geology," which so differ as to make it hard to believe that it is
+the work of the same mind. "In all the editions up to the tenth, he
+looked upon geological facts and geological phenomena as proving the
+fixity of species and their special creation in time. In the tenth
+edition, just published, he announces his change of opinion on this
+subject and his conversion to the doctrine of development by law."[43]
+"In the eighth edition of his work," says Dr. Bree, "Sir Charles Lyell,
+the Nestor of geologists, to whom the present generation is more
+indebted than to any other for all that is known of geology in its
+advanced stage, teaches that species have a real existence in nature,
+and that each was endowed at the time of its creation with the
+attributes and organization by which it is now distinguished." The
+change on the part of this eminent geologist, it is to be observed, is a
+mere change of opinion. There was no change of the facts of geology
+between the publication of the eighth and of the tenth edition of his
+work, neither was there any change in his knowledge of those facts. All
+the facts relied upon by evolutionists, have long been familiar to
+scientific men. The whole change is a subjective one. One year the
+veteran geologist thinks the facts teach one thing, another year he
+thinks they teach another. It is now the fact, and it is feared it will
+continue to be a fact, that scientific men give the name of science to
+their explanations as well as to the facts. Nay, they are often, and
+naturally, more zealous for their explanations than they are for the
+facts. The facts are God's, the explanations are their own.
+
+The third cause of the alienation between religion and science, is the
+bearing of scientific men towards the men of culture who do not belong
+to their own class. When we, in such connections, speak of scientific
+men, we do not mean men of science as such, but those only who avow or
+manifest their hostility to religion. There is an assumption of
+superiority, and often a manifestation of contempt. Those who call their
+logic or their conjectures into question, are stigmatized as
+narrow-minded, bigots, old women, Bible worshippers, etc.
+
+Professor Huxley's advice to metaphysicians and theologians is, to let
+science alone. This is his Irenicum. But do he and his associates let
+metaphysics and religion alone? They tell the metaphysician that his
+vocation is gone; there is no such thing as mind, and of course no
+mental laws to be established. Metaphysics are merged into physics.
+Professor Huxley tells the religious world that there is over-whelming
+and crushing evidence (scientific evidence, of course) that no event has
+ever occurred on this earth which was not the effect of natural causes.
+Hence there have been no miracles, and Christ is not risen.[44] He says
+that the doctrine that belief in a personal God is necessary to any
+religion worthy of the name, is a mere matter of opinion. Tyndall,
+Carpenter, and Henry Thompson, teach that prayer is a superstitious
+absurdity; Herbert Spencer, whom they call their "great philosopher,"
+_i. e._, the man who does their thinking, labors to prove that there
+cannot be a personal God, or human soul or self; that moral laws are
+mere "generalizations of utility," or, as Carl Vogt says, that self
+respect, and not the will of God, is the ground and rule of moral
+obligation. If any protest be made against such doctrines, we are told
+that scientific truth cannot be put down by denunciation (or as Vogt
+says, by barking). So doubtless the Pharisees, when our blessed Lord
+called them hypocrites and a generation of vipers, and said: "Ye compass
+sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him
+twofold more the child of hell than yourselves," doubtless thought that
+that was a poor way to refute their theory, that holiness and salvation
+were to be secured by church-membership and church-rites. Nevertheless,
+as those words were the words of Christ, they were a thunderbolt which
+reverberates through all time and space, and still makes Pharisees of
+every name and nation tremble. Huxley's Irenicum will not do. Men who
+are assiduously poisoning the fountains of religion, morality, and
+social order, cannot be let alone.
+
+Haeckel's Irenicum amounts to much the same as that of Professor Huxley.
+He forbids the right to speak on these vital subjects, to all who are
+not thoroughly versed in biology, and who are not entirely emancipated
+from the trammels of their long cherished traditional beliefs.[45] This,
+as the whole context shows, means that a man in order to be entitled to
+be heard on the evolution theory, must be willing to renounce his faith
+not only in the Bible, but in God, in the soul, in a future life, and
+become a monistic materialist.[46]
+
+It is very reasonable that scientific men, in common with lawyers and
+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 _prima 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 Buechner, 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 unerklaert 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 zooelogists 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.
+Palaeontologists 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 zooelogists 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.
+
+Fifthly. The sudden appearance of new kinds of animals is another fact
+which Palaeontologists urge against the doctrine of evolution. According
+to the view of geologists great changes have, at remote periods,
+occurred in the state of the earth. Continents have been submerged and
+the bottom of the sea raised above the surface of the waters.
+Corresponding changes have occurred in the state of the atmosphere
+surrounding the globe, and in the temperature of the earth. Accompanying
+or following these revolutions new classes of plants and animals appear,
+adapted to the new condition of the earth's surface. Whence do they
+come? They have, as Dawson expresses it, neither fathers nor mothers.
+Nothing precedes them from which they could be derived; and nothing of
+the same kind follows them. They live through their appointed period;
+and then, in a multitude of cases, finally disappear, and are in their
+turn followed by new orders or kinds. In other words, the links or
+connecting forms of this assumed regular succession or derivation are
+not to be found. This fact is so patent, that Hugh Miller, when arguing
+against the doctrine of evolution as proposed in the "Vestiges of
+Creation," says, that the record in the rocks seems to have been written
+for the very purpose of proving that such evolution is impossible.
+
+We have the explicit testimony of Agassiz, as a Palaeontologist, that the
+facts of geology contradict the theory of the transmutation of species.
+This testimony has been repeatedly given and in various forms. In the
+last production of his pen, he says: "As a Palaeontologist I have from
+the beginning stood aloof from this new theory of transmutation, now so
+widely admitted by the scientific world. Its doctrines, in fact,
+contradict what the animal forms buried in the rocky strata of our earth
+tell us of their own introduction and succession upon the surface of the
+globe." "Let us look now at the earliest vertebrates, as known and
+recorded in geological surveys. They should, of course, if there is any
+truth in the transmutation theory, correspond with the lowest in rank or
+standing. What then are the earliest known vertebrates? They are
+Selachians (sharks and their allies) and Ganoids (garpikes and the
+like), the highest of all living fishes, structurally speaking." He
+closes the article from which these quotations are taken with the
+assertion, "that there is no evidence of a direct descent of later from
+earlier species in the geological succession of animals."[53] It will be
+observed that Agassiz is quoted, not as to matters of theory, but as to
+matters of fact. The only answer which evolutionists can make to this
+argument, is the imperfection of the geological record. When asked,
+Where are the immediate predecessors of these new species? they answer,
+They have disappeared, or, have not yet been found. When asked, Where
+are their immediate successors? the answer again is, They have
+disappeared.[54] This is an objection which Mr. Darwin, with his usual
+candor, virtually admits to be unanswerable. We have already seen, that
+he says, "Every one will admit that the geological record is imperfect;
+but very few can believe that it is so very imperfect as my theory
+demands."
+
+Such are some of the grounds on which geologists and palaeontologists of
+the highest rank assert that the theory of evolution has not the
+slightest scientific basis; and they support their assertion with an
+amount of evidence of which the above items are a miserable pittance.
+
+Sixthly. There is another consideration of decisive importance. Strauss
+says, there are three things which have been stumbling-blocks in the way
+of science. First, the origin of life; second, the origin of
+consciousness; third, the origin of reason. These are equivalent to the
+gaps which, Principal Dawson says, exist in the theory of evolution. He
+states them thus: 1. That between dead and living matter. 2. That
+between vegetable and animal life. "These are necessarily the converse
+of each other: the one deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes
+and expends." 3. That "between any species of plant or animal, and any
+other species. It was this gap, and this only, which Darwin undertook to
+fill up by his great work on the origin of species, but, notwithstanding
+the immense amount of material thus expended, it yawns as wide as ever,
+since it must be admitted that no case has been ascertained in which an
+individual of one species has transgressed the limits between it and
+another species." 4. "Another gap is between the nature of the animal
+and the self-conscious, reasoning, and moral nature of man." (pp.
+325-328)
+
+First, as to the gap between death and life; this is what Dr. Stirling
+calls the "gulf of all gulfs, which Mr. Huxley's protoplasm is as
+powerless to efface as any other material expedient that has ever been
+suggested."[55] This gulf Mr. Darwin does not attempt to bridge over. He
+admits that life owes its origin to the act of the Creator. This,
+however, the most prominent of the advocates of Darwinism say, is giving
+up the whole controversy. If you admit the intervention of creative
+power at one point, you may as well admit it in any other. If life owes
+its origin to creative power, why not species? If the stupendous miracle
+of creation be admitted, there is no show of reason for denying
+supernatural intervention in the operations of nature. Most Darwinians
+attempt to pass this gulf on the imaginary bridge of spontaneous
+generation. In other words, they say there is no gulf there. The
+molecules of matter, in one combination, may as well exhibit the
+phenomena of life, as in other combinations, any other kind of
+phenomena. The distinguished Sir William Thomson cannot trust himself to
+that bridge. "Dead matter," he says, "cannot become living matter
+without coming under the influence of matter previously alive. This
+seems to me as sure a teaching of science as the law of gravitation....
+I am ready to adopt, as an article of scientific faith, true through all
+space and through all time, that life proceeds from life, and nothing
+but life."[56] He refers the origin of life on this earth to falling
+meteors, which bring with them from other planets the germs of living
+organisms; and from those germs all the plants and animals with which
+our world is now covered have been derived. Principal Dawson thinks that
+this was intended as irony. But the whole tone of the address, and
+specially of the closing portion of it, in which this idea is advanced,
+is far too serious to admit of such an explanation.
+
+No one can read the address referred to without being impressed, and
+even awed, by the immensity and grandeur of the field of knowledge which
+falls legitimately within the domain of science. The perusal of that
+discourse produces a feeling of humility analogous to the sense of
+insignificance which every man experiences when he thinks of himself as
+a speck on the surface of the earth, which itself is but a speck in the
+immensity of the universe. And when a man of mere ordinary culture sees
+Sir William Thomson surveying that field with a mastery of its details
+and familiarity with all the recondite methods of its investigation, he
+feels as nothing in his presence. Yet this great man, whom we cannot
+help regarding with wonder, is so carried away by the spirit of his
+class as to say, "Science is bound, by the everlasting law of honor, to
+face fearlessly every problem which can fairly be brought before it. If
+a probable solution, consistent with the ordinary course of nature, can
+be found, we must not invoke an abnormal act of Creative Power." And,
+therefore, instead of invoking Creative Power, he accounts for the
+origin of life on earth by falling meteors. How he accounts for its
+origin in the places whence the meteors came, he does not say. Yet Sir
+William Thomson believes in Creative Power; and in a subsequent page, we
+shall quote his explicit repudiation of the atheistic element in the
+Darwinian theory.
+
+Strauss quotes Dubois-Reymond, a distinguished naturalist, as teaching
+that the first of these great problems, viz. the origin of life, admits
+of explanation on scientific (i. e., in his sense, materialistic)
+principles; and even the third, viz. the origin of reason; but the
+second, or the origin of consciousness, he says, "is perfectly
+inscrutable." Dubois-Reymond holds that "the most accurate knowledge of
+the essential organism reveals to us only matter in motion; but between
+this material movement and my feeling pain or pleasure, experiencing a
+sweet taste, seeing red, with the conclusion 'therefore I exist,' there
+is a profound gulf; and it 'remains utterly and forever inconceivable
+why to a number of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, etc., it should not be a
+matter of indifference how they lie or how they move; nor, can we in any
+wise tell how consciousness should result from their concurrent action.'
+Whether," adds Strauss, "these _Verba Magistri_ are indeed the last word
+on the subject, time only can tell."[57] But if it is inconceivable, not
+to say absurd, that sense-consciousness should consist in the motion of
+molecules of matter, or be a function of such molecules, it can hardly
+be less absurd to account for thought, conscience, and religious
+feeling and belief on any such hypothesis. It may be said that Mr.
+Darwin is not responsible for these extreme opinions. That is very true.
+Mr. Darwin is not a Monist, for in admitting creation, he admits a
+dualism as between God and the world. Neither is he a Materialist,
+inasmuch as he assumes a supernatural origin for the infinitesimal
+modicum of life and intelligence in the primordial animalcule, from
+which without divine purpose or agency, all living things in the whole
+history of our earth have descended. All the innumerable varieties of
+plants, all the countless forms of animals, with all their instincts and
+faculties, all the varieties of men with their intellectual endowments,
+and their moral and religious nature, have, according to Darwin, been
+evolved by the agency of the blind, unconscious laws of nature. This
+infinitesimal spark of supernaturalism in Mr. Darwin's theory, would
+inevitably have gone out of itself, had it not been rudely and
+contemptuously trodden out by his bolder, and more logical successors.
+
+The grand and fatal objection to Darwinism is this exclusion of design
+in the origin of species, or the production of living organisms. By
+design is meant the intelligent and voluntary selection of an end, and
+the intelligent and voluntary choice, application, and control of means
+appropriate to the accomplishment of that end. That design, therefore,
+implies intelligence, is involved in its very nature. No man can
+perceive this adaptation of means to the accomplishment of a
+preconceived end, without experiencing an irresistible conviction that
+it is the work of mind. No man does doubt it, and no man can doubt it.
+Darwin does not deny it. Haeckel does not deny it. No Darwinian denies
+it. What they do is to deny that there is any design in nature. It is
+merely apparent, as when the wind of the Bay of Biscay, as Huxley says,
+"selects the right kind of sand and spreads it in heaps upon the
+plains." But in thus denying design in nature, these writers array
+against themselves the intuitive perceptions and irresistible
+convictions of all mankind,--a barrier which no man has ever been able
+to surmount. Sir William Thomson, in the address already referred to,
+says: "I feel profoundly convinced that the argument of design has been
+greatly too much lost sight of in recent zooelogical speculations.
+Reaction against the frivolities of teleology, such as are to be found,
+not rarely, in the notes of the learned commentators on 'Paley's Natural
+Theology,' has, I believe, had a temporary effect of turning attention
+from the solid irrefragable argument so well put forward in that
+excellent old book. But overpowering proof of intelligence and
+benevolent design lie all around us, and if ever perplexities, whether
+metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come
+back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through nature the
+influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living beings depend
+upon one ever-acting Creator and Ruler."
+
+It is impossible for even Mr. Darwin, inconsistent as it is with his
+whole theory, to deny all design in the constitution of nature. What is
+his law of heredity? Why should like beget like? Take two germ cells,
+one of a plant, another of an animal; no man by microscope or by
+chemical analysis, or by the magic power of the spectroscope, can detect
+the slightest difference between them, yet the one infallibly develops
+into a plant and the other into an animal. Take the germ of a fish and
+of a bird, and they are equally indistinguishable; yet the one always
+under all conditions develops into a fish and the other into a bird.
+Why is this? There is no physical force, whether light, heat,
+electricity, or anything else, which makes the slightest approximation
+to accounting for that fact. To say, as Stuart Mill would say, that it
+is an ultimate fact, and needs no explanation, is to say that there may
+be an effect without an adequate cause. The venerable R. E. Von Baer,
+the first naturalist in Russia, of whom Agassiz speaks in terms of such
+affectionate veneration in the "Atlantic Monthly" for January, 1874, has
+written a volume dated Dorpat, 1873, and entitled "Zum Streit ueber den
+Darwinismus." In that volume, as we learn from a German periodical, the
+author says: "The Darwinians lay great stress on heredity; but what is
+the law of heredity but a determination of something future? Is it not
+in its nature in the highest degree teleological? Indeed, is not the
+whole faculty of reproduction intended to introduce a new life-process?
+When a man looks at a dissected insect and examines its strings of eggs,
+and asks, Whence are they? the naturalist of our day has no answer to
+give, but that they were of necessity gradually produced by the changes
+in matter. When it is further asked, Why are they there? is it wrong to
+say, It is _in order that_ when the eggs are mature and fertilized, new
+individuals of the same form should be produced."
+
+It is further to be considered that there are innumerable cases of
+contrivance, or evidence of design in nature, to which the principle of
+natural selection, or the purposeless changes effected by unconscious
+force, cannot apply; as for example, the distinction of sex, with all
+that is therein involved. But passing by such cases, it may be asked,
+what would it avail to get rid of design in the vegetable and animal
+kingdom, while the whole universe is full of it? That this ordered
+Cosmos is not from necessity or chance, is almost a self-evident fact.
+Not one man in a million of those who ever heard of God, either does
+doubt or can doubt it. Besides how are the cosmical relations of light,
+heat, electricity, to the constituent parts of the universe, and
+especially, so far as this earth is concerned, to vegetable and animal
+life, to be accounted for? Is this all chance work? Is it by chance that
+light and heat cause plants to carry on their wonderful operations,
+transmuting the inorganic into the organic, dead matter into living and
+life sustaining matter? Is it without a purpose that water instead of
+contracting, expands at the freezing point?--a fact to which is due that
+the earth north of the tropic is habitable for man or beast. It is no
+answer to this question to say that a few other substances have the same
+peculiarity, when no good end, that we can see, is thereby accomplished.
+No man is so foolish as to deny that his eye was intended to enable him
+to see, because he cannot tell what the spleen was made for. It is,
+however, useless to dwell upon this subject. If a man denies that there
+is design in nature, he can with quite as good reason deny that there is
+any design in any or in all the works ever executed by man.
+
+The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the denial of design in
+nature is virtually the denial of God. Mr. Darwin's theory does deny all
+design in nature, therefore, his theory is virtually atheistical; his
+theory, not he himself. He believes in a Creator. But when that Creator,
+millions on millions of ages ago, did something,--called matter and a
+living germ into existence,--and then abandoned the universe to itself
+to be controlled by chance and necessity, without any purpose on his
+part as to the result, or any intervention or guidance, then He is
+virtually consigned, so far as we are concerned, to non-existence. It
+has already been said that the most extreme of Mr. Darwin's admirers
+adopt and laud his theory, for the special reason that it banishes God
+from the world; that it enables them to account for design without
+referring it to the purpose or agency of God. This is done expressly by
+Buechner, Haeckel, Vogt, and Strauss. The opponents of Darwinism direct
+their objections principally against this element of the doctrine. This,
+as was stated by Rev. Dr. Peabody, was the main ground of the earnest
+opposition of Agassiz to the theory. America's great botanist, Dr. Asa
+Gray, avows himself an evolutionist; but he is not a Darwinian. Of that
+point we have the clearest possible proof. Mr. Darwin, after explicitly
+denying that the variations which have resulted in "the formation of the
+most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were
+intentionally and specially guided," adds: "However much we may wish it,
+we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief 'that variation
+has been led along certain beneficial lines' like a stream 'along
+definite and useful lines of irrigation.'"[58] If Mr. Darwin does not
+agree with Dr. Gray, Dr. Gray does not agree with Mr. Darwin. It is as
+to the exclusion of design from the operations of nature that our
+American, differs from the English, naturalist. This is the vital point.
+The denial of final causes is the formative idea of Darwin's theory, and
+therefore no teleologist can be a Darwinian.
+
+Dr. Gray quotes from another writer the sentence, "It is a singular
+fact, that when we can find how anything is done, our first conclusion
+seems to be that God did not do it;" and then adds, "I agree with the
+writer that this first conclusion is premature and unworthy; I will add,
+deplorable. Through what faults of dogmatism on the one hand, and
+skepticism on the other, it came to be so thought, we need not here
+consider. Let us hope, and I confidently expect, that it is not to last;
+that the religious faith which survived without a shock the notion of
+the fixedness of the earth itself, may equally outlast the notion of the
+absolute fixedness of the species which inhabit it; that in the future,
+even more than in the past, faith in an _order_, which is the basis of
+science, will not--as it cannot reasonably--be dissevered from faith in
+an _Ordainer_, which is the basis of religion."[59] We thank God for
+that sentence. It is the concluding sentence of Dr. Gray's address as
+ex-President of "The American Association for the Advancement of
+Science," delivered August, 1872.
+
+Dr. Gray goes further. He says, "The proposition that the things and
+events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out,
+is doubtless tantamount to atheism." Again, "To us, a fortuitous Cosmos
+is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos.... If Mr.
+Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and
+the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if
+the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers
+phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show
+that such belief is atheistic."[60]
+
+We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism?
+It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin
+himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his
+theory is atheistic; that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr.
+Gray says, tantamount to atheism.
+
+Among the last words of Strauss were these: "We demand for our universe
+the same piety which the devout man of old demanded for his God." "In
+the enormous machine of the universe, amid the incessant whirl and hiss
+of its jagged iron wheels, amid the deafening crash of its ponderous
+stamps and hammers, in the midst of this whole terrific commotion, man,
+a helpless and defenceless creature, finds himself placed, not secure
+for a moment that on an imprudent motion a wheel may not seize and rend
+him, or a hammer crush him to a powder. This sense of abandonment is at
+first something awful."[61]
+
+Among the last words of Paul were these: "I know whom I have believed,
+and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed
+unto Him against that day.... The time of my departure is at hand. I
+have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the
+faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness,
+which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not
+to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing."
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[40] _Science and Scripture not Antagonistic, because Distinct in their
+Spheres of Thought_. A Lecture, by Rev. George Henslow, M. A., F. L. S.,
+F. G. S. London, 1873, p. 1.
+
+[41] _Gott und Natur_, p. 200.
+
+[42] _Protoplasm; or, Matter and Life._ By Lionel S. Beale, M. B., F. R.
+S. Third edition. London & Philadelphia, 1874, p. 345; and the whole
+chapter on Design.
+
+[43] _Fallacies in the Hypothesis of Mr. Darwin_, by C. R. Bree, M. D.,
+F. Z. S. London, 1872, p. 290.
+
+[44] When Professor Huxley says, as quoted above, that he does not deny
+the possibility of miracles, he must use the word miracle in a sense
+peculiar to himself.
+
+[45] _Jenaer Literaturzeitung_, January 3, 1874. In this number there is
+a notice by Doctor Haeckel of two books,--_Descendenzlehre und
+Darwinismus_, von Oscar Schmidt, Leipzig, 1873; and _Die Fortschritte
+des Darwinismus_, von J. W. Spengel, Coeln and Leipzig, 1874; in which he
+says: "Erstens, um in Sachen der Descendenz-Theorie mitreden zu koennen,
+ein gewisser Grad von tieferer biologischer (sowohl morphologischer als
+physiologischer) Bildung unentbehrlich, den die meistzen von jenen
+Auctoren (the opposers of the theory) nicht besitzen. Zweitens ist fuer
+ein klares und zutreffendes Urtheil in diesem Sachen eine ruecksichtslose
+Hingabe an vernunftgemaesse Erkenntniss und eine dadurch bedingte
+Resignation auf uralte, liebgewordene und tief vererbte Vorurtheile
+erforderlich, zu welcher sich die wenigsten entschliesen koennen."
+
+[46] In his _Natuerlische Schoepfungsgeschichte_, Haeckel is still more
+exclusive. When he comes to answer the objections to the evolution, or,
+as he commonly calls it, the descendence theory, he dismisses the
+objections derived from religion, as unworthy of notice, with the remark
+that all Glaube ist Aberglaube; all faith is superstition. The
+objections from _a priori_, or intuitive truths, are disposed of in an
+equally summary manner, by denying that there are any such truths, and
+asserting that all our knowledge is from the senses. The objection that
+so many distinguished naturalists reject the theory, he considers more
+at length. First, many have grown old in another way of thinking and
+cannot be expected to change. Second, many are collectors of facts,
+without studying their relations, or are destitute of the genius for
+generalization. No amount of material makes a building. Others, again,
+are specialists. It is not enough that a man should be versed in one
+department; he must be at home in all: in Botany, Zooelogy, Comparative
+Anatomy, Biology, Geology, and Palaeontology. He must be able to survey
+the whole field. Fourthly, and mainly, naturalists are generally
+lamentably deficient in philosophical culture and in a philosophical
+spirit. "The immovable edifice of the true, monistic science, or what is
+the same thing, natural science, can only arise through the most
+intimate interaction and mutual interpenetration of philosophy and
+observation (Philosophie und Empirie)." pp. 638-641. It is only a select
+few, therefore, of learned and philosophical monistic materialists, who
+are entitled to be heard on questions of the highest moment to every
+individual man, and to human society.
+
+[47] This short but significant sentence is omitted in the excellent
+translation of Strauss's book, by Mathilde Blind, republished in New
+York, by Henry Holt & Company, 1873.
+
+[48] _The Fallacies of Darwinism_, by C. R. Bree, M. D., p. 308.
+
+[49] _The Fallacies of Darwinism_, p. 305.
+
+[50] _Bibliotheca Sacra_, 1857, p. 861.
+
+[51] _The Story of Earth and Man_, p. 358.
+
+[52] Dr. Bree, p. 275. We presume geologists differ in the terms which
+they use to designate strata. Agassiz calls the oldest containing
+fossil, the sub-Cambrian. Principal Dawson calls the oldest the
+Laurentian, and places the first vertebrates in the Silurian. This is of
+no moment as to the argument. The important fact is that each species is
+distinct as soon as it appears; and that many have remained to the
+present time.
+
+[53] _Atlantic Monthly_, January, 1874.
+
+[54] We have heard a story of a gentleman who gave an artist a
+commission for a historical painting, and suggested as the subject, the
+Passage of the Israelites over the Red Sea. In due time he was informed
+that his picture was finished, and was shown by the artist a large
+canvas painted red. "What is that?" he asked. "Why," says the artist,
+"that is the Red Sea." "But where are the Israelites?" "Oh, they have
+passed over." "And where are the Egyptians?" "They are under the sea."
+
+[55] _As Regards Protoplasm in Relation to Professor Huxley's Essay an
+the Physical Basis of Life_. By Dr. James H. Stirling. See, also,
+_Physiological Anatomy and Physiology of Man_, by L. S. Beale; also,
+_The Mystery of Life in Reply to Dr. Gull's Attack on the Theory of
+Vitality_. By L. S. Beale, M. D., 1871.
+
+[56] The address delivered by Sir William Thomson, as President of the
+British Association at its meeting in Edinburgh, 1871.
+
+[57] _The Old Faith and the New_. Prefatory Postscript, xxi.
+
+[58] _Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication_. New York,
+1868, vol. ii. pp. 515, 516.
+
+[59] _Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of
+Science_. Cambridge, 1873, p. 20.
+
+[60] The _Atlantic Monthly_ for October, 1860. The three articles in the
+July, August, and October numbers of the _Atlantic_, on this subject,
+have been reprinted with the name of Dr. Asa Gray as their author.
+
+[61] Strauss says that as he has arrived at the conclusion that there is
+no personal God, and no life after death, it would seem to follow that
+the question, Have we still a religion? "must be answered in the
+negative." But as he makes the essence of religion to consist in a sense
+of dependence, and as he felt himself to be helpless in the midst of
+this whirling universe, he had that much religion left.
+
+
+
+
+ADVERTISEMENTS
+
+
+_The Great Theological Work of the Age._
+
+DR. HODGE'S THEOLOGY.
+
+Systematic Theology.
+
+By CHARLES HODGE, D.D., LL.D.,
+
+of Princeton Theological Seminary.
+
+
+_Complete in three volumes 8vo, tinted paper. Price, vols. I. and II._,
+$4.50. _Vol. III._, $5.
+
+In these volumes are comprised the results of the life-long labors and
+investigations of one of the most eminent theologians of the age. The
+work covers the ground usually occupied by treatises on Systematic
+Theology, and adopts the commonly received divisions of the
+subject,--THEOLOGY, Vol. I.; ANTHROPOLOGY, Vol. II.; SOTERIOLOGY AND
+ESCHATOLOGY, Vol. III.
+
+The INTRODUCTION is devoted to the consideration of preliminary matters,
+such as Method, or the principles which should guide the student of
+Theology, and the different theories as to the source and standard of
+our knowledge of divine things, Rationalism, Mysticism, the Roman
+Catholic doctrine of the Rule of Faith, and the Protestant doctrine on
+that subject.
+
+The department of THEOLOGY proper includes the origin of the Idea of
+God, the Being of God, the Anti-Theistic systems of Atheism, Polytheism,
+Materialism, and Pantheism; the Nature of God, the Divine Attributes,
+the Doctrines of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, and of the Holy
+Spirit; the Decrees of God, Creation, Providence, and Miracles.
+
+The department of ANTHROPOLOGY includes the Nature, Origin, and
+Antiquity of Man, his Primitive State and Probation; the Fall; the
+Effect of Adam's Sin upon himself and upon his Posterity; the Nature of
+Sin; the Different Philosophical and Theological Theories on that
+subject.
+
+SOTERIOLOGY includes the Plan or Purpose of God in reference to the
+Salvation of Men; the Person and Work of the Redeemer; his Offices as
+Prophet, Priest, and King, the Work of the Holy Spirit in applying the
+redemption purchased by Christ; Common and Efficacious Grace,
+Regeneration, Faith, Justification, Sanctification, the Law or Rule of
+Life, and the means of Grace.
+
+ESCHATOLOGY includes the State of the Soul after Death; the Second
+Coming of Christ; the Resurrection of the Body; the General Judgment and
+End of the World, and the Doctrine concerning Heaven and Hell.
+
+The plan of the author is to state and vindicate the teachings of the
+Bible on these various subjects, and to examine the antagonistic
+doctrines of different classes of Theologians. His book, therefore, is
+intended to be both didactic and elenchtic.
+
+The various topics are discussed with that close and keen analytical and
+logical power combined with that simplicity, lucidity, and strength of
+style which have already given Dr. HODGE a world-wide reputation as a
+controversialist and writer, and as an investigator of the great
+theological problems of the day.
+
+_Single copies, sent post-paid on receipt of the price._
+
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,
+
+654 Broadway, New York
+
+EDINBURGH REVIEW.--"The BEST History of the Roman Republic."
+
+LONDON TIMES.--"BY FAR THE BEST History of the Decline and Fall of the
+Roman Commonwealth."
+
+
+THE
+
+History of Rome,
+
+FROM THE EARLIEST TIME TO THE PERIOD OF ITS DECLINE.
+
+By Dr. THEODOR MOMMSEN.
+
+Translated, with the author's sanction and additions, by the Rev. W. P.
+DICKSON, Regius Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of
+Glasgow, late Classical Examiner in the University of St. Andrews. With
+an Introduction by Dr. LEONHARD SCHMITZ, and a copious Index of the
+whole four volumes, prepared especially for this edition.
+
+REPRINTED FROM THE REVISED LONDON EDITION
+
+Four Volumes crown 8vo. Price per volume, $2.00.
+
+Dr. MOMMSEN has long been known and appreciated through his researches
+into the languages, laws, and institutions of Ancient Rome and Italy, as
+the most thoroughly versed scholar now living in these departments of
+historical investigation. To a wonderfully exact and exhaustive
+knowledge of these subjects, he unites great powers of generalization, a
+vigorous, spirited, and exceedingly graphic style and keen analytical
+powers, which give this history a degree of interest and a permanent
+value possessed by no other record of the decline and fall of the Roman
+Commonwealth. "Dr. Mommsen's work," as Dr. Schmitz remarks in the
+introduction, "though the production of a man of most profound and
+extensive learning and knowledge of the world, is not as much designed
+for the professional scholar as for intelligent readers of all classes
+who take an interest in the history of by-gone ages, and are inclined
+there to seek information that may guide them safely through the
+perplexing mazes of modern history."
+
+
+CRITICAL NOTICES.
+
+
+     "A work of the very highest merit; its learning is exact and
+     profound; its narrative full of genius and skill; its descriptions
+     of men are admirably vivid. We wish to place on record our opinion
+     that Dr. Mommsen's is by far the best history of the Decline and
+     Fall of the Roman Commonwealth."--_London Times_.
+
+     "Since the days of Niebuhr, no work on Roman History has appeared
+     that combines so much to attract, instruct, and charm the reader.
+     Its style--a rare quality in a German author--is vigorous,
+     spirited, and animated. Professor Mommsen's work can stand a
+     comparison with the noblest productions of modern history."--_Dr.
+     Schmitz._
+
+     "This is the best history of the Roman Republic, taking the work on
+     the whole--the author's complete mastery of his subject, the
+     variety of his gifts and acquirements, his graphic power in the
+     delineation of national and individual character, and the vivid
+     interest which he inspires in every portion of his book. He is
+     without an equal in his own sphere."--_Edinburgh Review_.
+
+     "A book of deepest interest."--_Dean Trench_.
+
+
+ANOTHER GREAT HISTORICAL WORK.
+
+_The History of Greece,_
+
+By Prof. Dr. ERNST CURTIUS.
+
+Translated by ADOLPHUS WILLIAM WARD, M.A., Fellow of St. Peter's
+College, Cambridge, Prof. of History in Owen's College, Manchester.
+
+To be completed in four or five vols., crown 8vo, at $2.50 per volume.
+
+PRINTED UPON TINTED PAPER, UNIFORM WITH MOMMSEN'S HISTORY OF ROME, AND
+THE LIBRARY EDITION OF FROUDE'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
+
+VOLS. I., II., III., AND IV., NOW READY.
+
+
+Curtius' _History of Greece_ is similar in plan and purpose to Mommsen's
+_History of Rome_, with which it deserves to rank in every respect as
+one of the great masterpieces of historical literature. Avoiding the
+minute details which overburden other similar works, it groups together
+in a very picturesque manner all the important events in the history of
+this kingdom, which has exercised such a wonderful influence upon the
+world's civilization. The narrative of Prof. Curtius' work is flowing
+and animated, and the generalizations, although bold, are philosophical
+and sound.
+
+
+CRITICAL NOTICES.
+
+
+     "Professor Curtius' eminent scholarship is a sufficient guarantee
+     for the trustworthiness of his history, while the skill with which
+     he groups his facts, and his effective mode of narrating them,
+     combine to render it no less readable than sound. Professor Curtius
+     everywhere maintains the true dignity and impartiality of history,
+     and it is evident his sympathies are on the side of justice,
+     humanity, and progress."--_London Athenaeum_.
+
+     "We can not express our opinion of Dr. Curtius' book better than by
+     saying that it may be fitly ranked with Theodor Mommsen's great
+     work."--_London Spectator_.
+
+     "As an introduction to the study of Grecian history, no previous
+     work is comparable to the present for vivacity and picturesque
+     beauty, while in sound learning and accuracy of statement it is not
+     inferior to the elaborate productions which enrich the literature
+     of the age."--_N. Y. Daily Tribune_.
+
+     "The History of Greece is treated by Dr. Curtius so broadly and
+     freely in the spirit of the nineteenth century, that it becomes in
+     his hands one of the worthiest and most instructive branches of
+     study for all who desire something more than a knowledge of
+     isolated facts for their education. This translation ought to
+     become a regular part of the accepted course of reading for young
+     men at college, and for all who are in training for the free
+     political life of our country."--_N. Y. Evening Post_.
+
+
+_This book sent post-paid, upon receipt of the price, by the
+Publishers,_
+
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,
+
+654 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.
+
+
+PROSPECTUS
+
+OF A
+
+Theological & Philosophical Library
+
+EDITED BY
+
+HENRY B. SMITH, D.D., AND PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D.,
+
+_Professors in the Union Theological Seminary, New York._
+
+The undersigned propose to publish a select and compact Library of
+Text-Books upon all the main departments of Theology and Philosophy,
+adapted to the wants especially of ministers and students in all
+denominations.
+
+Some of the works will be translated from the German and other
+languages; others will be based upon treatises by various authors; some
+will be written for the Library by English or American scholars. The aim
+will be to furnish at least one condensed standard work on each of the
+scientific divisions of Theology and Philosophy, giving the result of
+the best critical investigations, excluding, however, such histories and
+commentaries as extend through many volumes.
+
+This scheme is not presented as final, but as indicating the aim of the
+editors. If sufficient encouragement be given, no pains will be spared
+to make the project complete, and thus to meet a great and acknowledged
+desideratum in the apparatus for study. On all these topics every
+student needs, at least, one good work. To supply this will be the aim
+of our Library.
+
+The various volumes will be published in the best style, on reasonable
+terms, and as rapidly as the nature of the work and the encouragement of
+the public will allow.
+
+The editors will be assisted by eminent scholars of various
+denominations, who will respectively assume the literary responsibility
+for the volumes prepared by themselves within the general plan and aim
+of the library.
+
+
+NOW READY,
+
+IN
+
+The Theological and Philosophical Library.
+
+UEBERWEG'S HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY.
+
+
+VOL. I.--_History of the Ancient and Mediaeval Philosophy_. By Dr.
+Friedrich Ueberweg. Translated from the fourth German edition by George
+S. Morris, A.M., with additions by Noah Porter, D.D., LL.D., President
+of Yale College, and a general Introduction by the editor of the
+Philosophical Library. One vol. 8vo, cloth, $3.50.
+
+VOL. II.--_History of Modern Philosophy_. With an Essay on English
+Philosophy, by Dr. NOAH PORTER, President of Yale College; and on
+Italian Philosophy, by Professor V. BOTTA. One vol. 8vo, cloth. $4.00.
+
+_Sent, post-paid, upon receipt of the price by the Publishers,_
+
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,
+
+654 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.
+
+LANGE'S COMMENTARY.
+
+NOW READY:
+
+The Minor Prophets.
+
+_Edited by_ REV. DR. PHILIP SCHAFF, _and including_
+
+
+     HOSEA.--By OTTO SCHMOLLER, Ph. D., Urach, Wurtemberg. Translated,
+     with additions, by JAMES E. MCCURDY.
+
+     JOEL.--By OTTO SCHMOLLER, Ph. D. Translated, with additional Notes
+     and a New Version of the Hebrew Text, by JOHN FORSYTH, D.D., LL.D.
+
+     AMOS.--By OTTO SCHMOLLER, Ph. D. Translated and enlarged by TALBOT
+     W. CHAMBERS, D.D.
+
+     OBADIAH.--By PAUL KLEINERT, of Berlin. Translated, with additions,
+     by GEORGE R. BLISS, D.D.
+
+     JONAH.--By PAUL KLEINERT. Translated and enlarged by CHARLES
+     ELLIOTT, D.D.
+
+     MICAH.--By PAUL KLEINERT. Translated, with additions, by GEORGE R.
+     BLISS, D.D.
+
+     NAHUM, HABAKKUK, AND ZEPHANIAH.--By PAUL KLEINERT. Translated and
+     enlarged by CHARLES ELLIOTT, D.D.
+
+     HAGGAI.--By JAMES F. MCCURDY, Princeton, N. Y.
+
+     ZECHARIAH.--By TALBOT W. CHAMBERS, D.D., New York.
+
+     MALACHI.--By JOSEPH PACKARD, D.D. Alexandria, Va.
+
+
+One vol. royal 8vo, cloth $5.00
+
+
+_The Volumes previously Published are_:
+
+OLD TESTAMENT.--I. GENESIS. II. JOSHUA, JUDGES, and RUTH. III. FIRST and
+SECOND KINGS. IV. PSALMS. V. PROVERBS, SONG OF SOLOMON, ECCLESIASTES.
+VI. JEREMIAH and LAMENTATIONS.
+
+NEW TESTAMENT.--I. MATTHEW. II. MARK and LUKE. III. JOHN. IV. ACTS. V.
+THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. VI. CORINTHIANS. VII. GALATIANS,
+EPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS. VIII. THESSALONIANS, TIMOTHY, TITUS,
+PHILEMON, and HEBREWS. IX. THE EPISTLES GENERAL OF JAMES, PETER, JOHN,
+and JUDE.
+
+Each one vol. 8vo. Price per vol., in half calf, $7.50: in sheep, $6.50:
+in cloth, $5.00.
+
+
+NAMES AND DENOMINATIONS OF CONTRIBUTORS.
+
+W. G. T. SHEDD, D.D., Presbyterian.
+E. A. WASHBURNE, D.D., Episcopal.
+A. C. KENDRICK, D.D., Baptist.
+W. H. GREEN, D.D., Presbyterian.
+J. F. HURST, D.D., Methodist.
+TAYLER LEWIS, LL.D., Dutch Reformed.
+REV. CH. F. SHAFFER, D.D., Lutheran.
+R. D. HITCHCOCK, D.D., Presbyterian.
+E. HARWOOD, D.D., Episcopal.
+H. B. HACKETT, D.D., Baptist.
+JOHN LILLIE, D.D., Presbyterian.
+REV. W. G. SUMNER, Episcopal.
+PROF. CHARLES ELLIOTT, Presbyterian.
+THOS. C. CONANT, D.D., Baptist.
+E. D. YEOMANS, D.D., Presbyterian.
+REV. C. C. STARBUCK, Congregational.
+J. ISIDOR MOMBERT, D.D., Episcopal.
+D. W. POOR, D.D., Presbyterian.
+C. P. WING, D.D., Presbyterian.
+GEORGE E. DAY. D.D., Congregational.
+REV. P. H. STEENSTRA, Episcopal.
+A. GOSMAN, D.D., Presbyterian.
+PRES. CHAS. A. AIKEN, D.D., Presbyt'n.
+M. B. RIDDLE, D.D., Dutch Reformed.
+PROF. WM. WELLS, D.D., Methodist.
+W. H. HORNBLOWER, D.D., Presbyt'n.
+PROF. GEORGE BLISS, Baptist.
+T. W. CHAMBERS, D.D., Reformed.
+
+
+*** Each volume of "LANGE'S COMMENTARY" is complete
+in itself, and can be purchased separately. Sent, post-paid, to any
+address upon receipt of the price ($5 per volume) by the publishers.
+
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,
+
+654 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.
+
+
+Manuals of Political Economy,
+
+_PUBLISHED BY_
+
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.
+
+
+Perry's Elements of Political Economy.
+
+NEW EDITION, REVISED BY THE AUTHOR.
+
+This treatise presents views favorable to the utmost freedom of
+commerce, compatible with legitimate revenue from tariff taxes. It is a
+standard text-book in all our colleges throughout the country. By ARTHUR
+LATHAM PERRY, Professor of Political Economy and History in Williams
+College. 487 _pages, price_ $2.50.
+
+
+     "Your book interests students more than any other I have ever
+     instructed from,"--_Pres. T. D. Woolsey, Yale College._
+
+     "As a manual for general reading and popular instruction, Prof.
+     Perry's book is far superior to any work on the subject before
+     issued in the United States."--_N. Y. Times._
+
+     "We cordially recommend this book to all, of whatever school of
+     political economy, who enjoy candid statement and full and logical
+     discussion."--_N. Y. Nation._
+
+     "There is more common sense in this book than in any of the more
+     elaborate works on the same subject that have preceded it."--_N. Y.
+     Independent._
+
+     "In all the portions of the book which we have read, the author
+     shows himself to be a clear, strong, bold, and generally sound
+     thinker."--_New Englander_.
+
+
+
+Bowen's American Political Economy.
+
+This treatise presents views compatible with the idea that "every
+country has a political economy of its own, suitable to its own physical
+circumstances of position on the globe, and to the character, habits,
+and institutions of the people." By FRANCIS BOWEN, Professor of
+Political Economy and Civil Polity in Harvard College. 495 _pages,
+price_ $2.50
+
+
+     "If our members of Congress would vote themselves a copy of this
+     book, and read it, fewer wild schemes would be concocted by them,
+     and a great saving of time and the people's money would be
+     secured."--_The Philadelphia Age._
+
+     "His arguments are worth considering, and his whole book is of high
+     value to any American to study economical questions."--_Springfield
+     Republican._
+
+     "A solid and well-reasoned treatise.... Mr. Bowen's views are
+     clearly stated and thoroughly reasoned."--_Boston
+     Congregationalist_.
+
+     ... "There are hundreds going wrong to-day whom a careful perusal
+     of this volume would set right."--_N. Y. Daily Tribune_.
+
+
+***_Sent, post-paid, on receipt of price by the publishers._
+
+
+Prices and Styles of the Different Editions
+
+OF
+
+FROUDE'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
+
+The Chelsea Edition.
+
+In half roan, gilt top, per set of twelve vols. 12mo $21.00
+
+Elegance and cheapness are combined in a remarkable degree in this
+edition. It takes its name from the place of Mr. Froude's residence in
+London, also famous as the home of Thomas Carlyle.
+
+
+THE POPULAR EDITION.
+
+In cloth, at the rate of $1.25 per volume. The set (12 vols.), in a neat
+box. $15.00
+
+The Same, in half calf extra 36.00
+
+This edition is printed from the same plates as the other editions, and
+on firm, white paper. It is, without exception, the cheapest set of
+books of its class ever issued in this country.
+
+
+The Library Edition.
+
+In twelve vols. crown 8vo, cloth $30.00 The Same, in half calf extra
+50.00
+
+The Edition is printed on laid and tinted paper, at the Riverside Press,
+and is in every respect worthy a place in the most carefully selected
+library.
+
+
+SHORT STUDIES ON GREAT SUBJECTS.
+
+BY JAMES ANTHONY FROUDE, M.A.,
+
+_"History of England," "The English in Ireland during the Eighteenth
+Century," etc._
+
+POPULAR EDITION. Two vols. 12mo, cloth, $1.50 per vol. The Set  $3.00
+
+CHELSEA EDITION. Two vols. 12mo, half roan, gilt top, $2.00 per volume.
+Per Set  4.00
+
+
+The Complete Works of James Anthony Froude, M.A.
+
+HISTORY OF ENGLAND AND SHORT STUDIES.
+
+Fourteen vols., in a neat Box.
+
+POPULAR EDITION  $18.00 CHELSEA EDITION  25.00
+
+
+_The above works sent, post-paid, by the publishers, on receipt of the
+price_
+
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,
+
+654 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.
+
+Popular and Standard Works
+
+PUBLISHED BY
+
+SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO.,
+
+654 Broadway, New York,
+
+IN 1873.
+
+
+1.  BAGEHOT'S (W.) LOMBARD STREET. 12mo                            $1 75
+2.  BIBLE COMMENTARY. Vol. II. 8vo                                  5 00
+3.    "        "      Vol. III. 8vo                                 5 00
+4.  COOK'S (F. C.) EXODUS. 8vo                                      1 50
+5.  DIEULAFAIT'S (L.) DIAMONDS AND PRECIOUS STONES.
+          _Illustrated_. 12mo                                       2 00
+6.  DODGE'S (MRS. MARY MAPES) HANS BRINKER. _Illustrated_. 12mo.    1 50
+7.  FIELD'S (T. W.) INDIAN BIBLIOGRAPHY. 8vo                        5 00
+8.  FISHER'S (DR. G. P.) HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION. 8vo            3 00
+9.  GUYOT'S (PROF. A.) PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY. Large 4to                2 25
+10. HALL'S (F.) MODERN ENGLISH. 12mo                                2 50
+11.   "     "  FALSE PHILOLOGY. 12mo,  boards                       1 25
+12. HOLLAND'S (DR. J. G) ARTHUR BONNICASTLE. _Illustrated_. 12mo.   1 75
+13. HOPKINS' (DR. M.) OUTLINE STUDY OF MAN. 12mo                    1 75
+  THE ILLUSTRATED LIBRARY OF TRAVEL AND ADVENTURE.
+    Each 1 vol. 12mo cloth                                          1 50
+      14. Central Africa.        15. Siam as It Was and Is.
+  THE LIBRARY OF CHOICE FICTION:
+    16. The Burgomaster's Family. 8vo. Cloth, $1.50; paper          1 00
+    17. Wandering Willie. 8vo. Paper                                  50
+    18. Galama. 8vo. Cloth, $1.25; paper                              75
+    19. May. By MRS. OLIPHANT. 8vo. Cloth, $1.50; paper             1 00
+20. LYNDON'S OXLEY. A Novel. 12mo                                   1 50
+21. MEDHURST'S (W. H.) THE FOREIGNER IN FAR CATHAY. 12mo            1 50
+22. PERRY'S (PROF. A. L.) POLITICAL ECONOMY. 11th edition revised.
+        Crown 8vo                                                   2 50
+23. SAXE HOLM'S STORIES. 12mo, extra gilt, $1.75; plain             1 50
+24. STANLEY'S (H. M.) MY KALULU. _Illustrated_. 12mo                2 00
+25. UEBERWEG'S (PROF. F.) HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. Vol. II. 8vo.      4 00
+26. VERNE'S (JULES) FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON. _Illustrated_.
+        Crown 8vo                                                   3 00
+27. VERNE'S (JULES) JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH.
+       _Illustrated_. 12mo                                          2 00
+28. VERY YOUNG COUPLE (A). 12mo                                     1 25
+
+
+***_Any of the above books sent postpaid to any
+address upon receipt of the price by the publishers._
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of What is Darwinism?, by Charles Hodge
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT IS DARWINISM? ***
+
+***** This file should be named 19192.txt or 19192.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/1/9/1/9/19192/
+
+Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Martin Pettit and
+the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+http://www.pgdp.net (This file was made using scans of
+public domain works from the University of Michigan Digital
+Libraries)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+*** END: FULL LICENSE ***
+
diff --git a/19192.zip b/19192.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ac13f46
--- /dev/null
+++ b/19192.zip
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8c1a7a7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #19192 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19192)