diff options
Diffstat (limited to '42466-8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 42466-8.txt | 4550 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 4550 deletions
diff --git a/42466-8.txt b/42466-8.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 81d7706..0000000 --- a/42466-8.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4550 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Facts and fancies in modern science, by -John William Dawson - -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: Facts and fancies in modern science - Studies of the relations of science to prevalent - speculations and religious belief - -Author: John William Dawson - -Release Date: April 3, 2013 [EBook #42466] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FACTS, FANCIES IN MODERN SCIENCE *** - - - - -Produced by Albert László, JoAnn Greenwood, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - - - - - - - - - - FACTS AND FANCIES - - IN - - MODERN SCIENCE: - - STUDIES OF THE RELATIONS OF SCIENCE TO - PREVALENT SPECULATIONS AND - RELIGIOUS BELIEF. - - _BEING THE LECTURES ON THE SAMUEL A. CROZER FOUNDATION - IN CONNECTION WITH THE CROZER THEOLOGICAL - SEMINARY, FOR 1881._ - - BY - J. W. DAWSON, LL.D., F.R.S. ETC. - - PHILADELPHIA: - AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, - 1420 CHESTNUT STREET. - - - - - Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1882, by the - AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, - In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. - - - WESTCOTT & THOMSON, - _Stereotypers and Electrotypers, Philada_. - - - - -PREFACE. - - -The object before the mind of the author in preparing these Lectures -was to present a distinct and rational view of the present relation of -scientific thought to the religious beliefs of men, and especially to -the Christian revelation. - -The attempt to make science, or speculations based on science, -supersede religion is one of the prevalent fancies of our time, and -pervades much of the popular literature of the day. That such attempts -can succeed the author does not believe. They have hitherto given -birth only to such abortions as Positivism, Nihilism, and Pessimism. - -There is, however, a necessary relation and parallelism of all truths, -physical and spiritual; and it is useful to clear away the apparent -antagonisms which proceed from partial and imperfect views, and to -point out the harmony which exists between the natural and the -spiritual--between what man can learn from the physical creation, and -what has been revealed to him by the Spirit of God. To do this with as -much fairness as possible, and with due regard to the present state of -knowledge and to the most important difficulties that are likely to be -met with by honest inquirers, is the purpose of the following pages. - -It is proper to add that, in order to give completeness to the -discussion, it has been necessary to introduce, in some of the -lectures, topics previously treated of by the author, in a similar -manner, in publications bearing his name. - - J. W. D. - - APRIL, 1882. - - - - -CONTENTS. - - - PAGE - LECTURE I. - GENERAL RELATIONS OF SCIENCE AND AGNOSTIC SPECULATION 9 - - - LECTURE II. - THE SCIENCE OF LIFE AND MONISTIC EVOLUTION 47 - - - LECTURE III. - EVOLUTION AS TESTED BY THE RECORDS OF THE ROCKS 103 - - - LECTURE IV. - THE ORIGIN AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN 137 - - - LECTURE V. - NATURE AS A MANIFESTATION OF MIND 175 - - - LECTURE VI. - SCIENCE AND REVELATION 219 - - - - -LECTURE I. - -GENERAL RELATIONS OF SCIENCE AND AGNOSTIC SPECULATION. - - -The infidelity and the contempt for sacred and spiritual things which -pervade so much of our modern literature are largely attributable to -the prevalence of that form of philosophy which may be designated as -Agnostic Evolution, and this in its turn is popularly regarded as a -result of the pursuit of physical and natural science. The last -conclusion is obviously only in part, if at all, correct, since it is -well known that atheistic philosophical speculations were pursued, -quite as boldly and ably as now, long before the rise of modern -science. Still, it must be admitted that scientific discoveries and -principles have been largely employed in our time to give form and -consistency to ideas otherwise very dim and shadowy, and thus to -rehabilitate for our benefit the philosophical dreams of antiquity in -a more substantial shape. In this respect the natural sciences--or, -rather, the facts and laws with which they are conversant--merely -share the fate of other things. Nothing, however indifferent in -itself, can come into human hands without acquiring thereby an -ethical, social, political, or even religious, significance. An ounce -of lead or a dynamite cartridge may be in itself a thing altogether -destitute of any higher significance than that depending on physical -properties; but let it pass into the power of man, and at once -infinite possibilities of good and of evil cluster round it according -to the use to which it may be applied. This depends on essential -powers and attributes of man himself, of which he can no more be -deprived than matter can be denuded of its inherent properties; and if -the evils arising from misuse of these powers trouble us, we may at -least console ourselves with the reflection that the possibility of -such evils shows man to be a free agent, and not an automaton. - -All this is eminently applicable to science in its relation to -agnostic speculations. The material of the physical and natural -sciences consists of facts ascertained by the evidence of our senses, -and for which we depend on the truthfulness of those senses and the -stability of external nature. Science proceeds, by comparison of -these facts and by inductive reasoning, to arrange them under certain -general expressions or laws. So far all is merely physical, and need -have no connection with our origin or destiny or relation to higher -powers. But we ourselves are a part of the nature which we study; and -we cannot study it without more or less thinking our own thoughts into -it. Thus we naturally begin to inquire as to origins and first causes, -and as to the source of the energy and order which we perceive; and to -these questions the human mind demands some answer, either actual or -speculative. But here we enter into the domain of religious thought, -or that which relates to a power or powers beyond and above nature. -Whatever forms our thoughts on such subjects may take, these depend, -not directly on the facts of science, but on the reaction of our minds -on these facts. They are truly anthropomorphic. It has been well said -that it is as idle to inquire as to the origin of such religious ideas -as to inquire as to the origin of hunger and thirst. Given the man, -they must necessarily exist. Now, whatever form these philosophical or -religious ideas may take--whether that of Agnosticism or Pantheism or -Theism--science, properly so called, has no right to be either praised -or blamed. Its material may be used, but the structure is the work of -the artificer himself. - -It is well, however, to carry with us the truth that this border-land -between science and religion is one which men cannot be prevented from -entering; but what they may find therein depends very much on -themselves. Under wise guidance it may prove to us an Eden, the very -gate of heaven, and we may acquire in it larger and more harmonious -views of both the seen and the unseen, of science and of religion. -But, on the other hand, it may be found to be a battle-field or a -bedlam, a place of confused cries and incoherent ravings, and strewn -with the wrecks of human hopes and aspirations. - -There can be no question that the more unpleasant aspect of the matter -is somewhat prevalent in our time, and that we should, if possible, -understand the causes of the conflict and the confusion that prevail, -and the way out of them. To do this it will be necessary first to -notice some of the incidental or extraneous causes of difficulty and -strife, and then to inquire more in detail as to the actual bearing -of the scientific knowledge of nature on Agnosticism. - -One fruitful cause of difficulty in the relations of science and -religion is to be found in the narrowness and incapacity of -well-meaning Christians who unnecessarily bring the doctrines of -natural and revealed religion into conflict, by misunderstanding the -one or the other, or by attaching obsolete scientific ideas to Holy -Scripture, and identifying them with it in points where it is quite -non-committal. Much mischief is also done by a prevalent habit of -speaking of all, or nearly all, the votaries of science as if they -were irreligious. - -A second cause is to be found in the extravagant speculations indulged -in by the adherents of certain philosophical systems. Such -speculations often far overpass the limits of actual scientific -knowledge, and are yet paraded before the ignorant as if they were -legitimate results of science, and so become irretrievably confounded -with it in the popular mind. - -A third influence, more closely connected with science itself, arises -from the rapidity of the progress of discovery and of the practical -applications of scientific facts and principles. This has unsettled -the minds of men, and has given them the idea that nothing is beyond -their reach. There is thus a vague notion that science has overcome so -many difficulties, and explained so many mysteries, that it may -ultimately satisfy all the wants of man and leave no scope for -religious belief. Those who know the limitations of our knowledge of -material things may not share this delusion; but there is reason to -fear that many, even of scientific men, are carried away by it, and it -widely affects the minds of general readers. - -Again, science has in the course of its growth become divided into a -great number of small specialties, each pursued ardently by its own -votaries. This is beneficial in one respect; for much more can be -gained by men digging downward, each on his own vein of valuable ore, -than by all merely scraping the surface. But the specialist, as he -descends fathom after fathom into his mine, however rich and rare the -gems and metals he may discover, becomes more and more removed from -the ordinary ways of men, and more and more regardless of the products -of other veins as valuable as his own. The specialist, however -profound he may become in the knowledge of his own limited subject, is -on that very account less fitted to guide his fellow-men in the -pursuit of general truth. When he ventures to the boundaries between -his own and other domains of truth, or when he conceives the idea that -his own little mine is the sole deposit of all that requires to be -known, he sometimes makes grave mistakes; and these pass current for a -time as the dicta of high scientific authority. - -Lastly, the lowest influence of all is that which sometimes regulates -what may be termed the commercial side of science. Here the demand is -very apt to control the supply. New facts and legitimate conclusions -cannot be produced with sufficient rapidity to satisfy the popular -craving, or they are not sufficiently exciting to compete with other -attractions. Science has then to enter the domain of imagination, and -the last new generalization--showy and specious, but perhaps baseless -as the plot of the last new novel--brings grist to the mill of the -"scientist" and his publisher. - -Only one permanent and final remedy is possible for these evils, and -that is a higher moral tone and more thorough scientific education on -the part of the general public. Until this can be secured, true -science is sure to be surrounded with a mental haze of vague -hypotheses clothed in ill-defined language, and which is mistaken by -the multitude for science itself. Yet true science should not be held -responsible for this, except in so far as its material is used to -constitute the substance of the pseudo-gnosis which surrounds it. -Science is in this relation the honest householder whose goods may be -taken by thieves and applied to bad uses, or the careful amasser of -wealth which may be dissipated by spendthrifts. - -It may be said that if these statements are true, the ordinary reader -is helpless. How can he separate the true from the false? Must he -resign himself to the condition of one who either believes on mere -authority or refuses to believe anything? or must he adopt the -attitude of the Pyrrhonist who thinks that anything may be either true -or false? But it is true, nevertheless, that common sense may suffice -to deliver us from much of the pseudo-science of our time, and to -enable us to understand how little reason there is for the conflicts -promoted by mere speculation between science and other departments of -legitimate thought and inquiry. - -In illustrating this, we may in the present lecture consider that form -of sceptical philosophy which in our time is the most prevalent, and -which has the most specious air of dependence on science. This is the -system of Agnosticism combined with evolution of which Mr. Herbert -Spencer is the most conspicuous advocate in the English-speaking -world. This philosophy deals with two subjects--the cause or origin of -the universe and of things therein, and the method of the progress of -all from the beginning until now. Spencer sees nothing in the first of -these but mere force or energy, nothing in the second but a -spontaneous evolution. All beyond these is not only unknown, but -unknowable. The theological and philosophical shortcomings of this -doctrine have been laid bare by a multitude of critics, and I do not -propose to consider it in these relations so much as in relation to -science, which has much to say with respect to both force and -evolution. - -An agnostic is literally one who does not know; and, were the word -used in its true and literal sense, Agnosticism would of necessity be -opposed to science, since science is knowledge and quite incompatible -with the want of it. But the modern agnostic does not pretend to be -ignorant of the facts and principles of science. What he professes not -to know is the existence of any power above and beyond material -nature. He goes a little farther, however, than mere absence of -knowledge. He holds that of God nothing can be known; or he may put it -a little more strongly, in the phrase of his peculiar philosophy, by -saying that the existence of a God or of creation by divine power is -"unthinkable." It is in this that he differs from the old-fashioned -and now extinct atheist, who bluntly denied the existence of a God. -The modern agnostic assumes an attitude of greater humility and -disclaims the actual denial of God. Yet he practically goes farther, -in asserting the impossibility of knowing the existence of a Divine -Being; and in taking this farther step Agnosticism does more to -degrade the human reason and to cut it off from all communion with -anything beyond mere matter and force, than does any other form of -philosophy, ancient or modern. - -Yet in this Agnosticism there is in one point an approximation to -truth. If there is a God, he cannot be known directly and fully, and -his plans and procedure must always be more or less incomprehensible. -The writer of the book of Job puts this as plainly as any modern -agnostic in the passage beginning "Canst thou by searching find out -God?"--literally, "Canst thou sound the depths of God?"--and a still -higher authority informs us that "no man hath seen God"--that is, -known him as we know material things. In short, absolutely and -essentially God is incomprehensible; but this is no new discovery, and -the mistake of the agnostic lies in failing to perceive that the same -difficulty stands in the way of our perfectly knowing anything -whatever. We say that we know things when we mean that we know them in -their properties, relations, or effects. In this sense the knowledge -of God is perfectly possible. It is impossible only in that other -sense of the word "know"--if it can have such a sense--in which we are -required to know things in their absolute essence and thoroughly. Thus -the term "agnostic" contains an initial fallacy in itself; and this -philosophy, like many others, rests, in the first instance, on a mere -jugglery of words. The real question is, "Is there a God who manifests -himself to us mediately and practically?" and this is a question which -we cannot afford to set aside by a mere play on the meanings of the -verb "to know." - -If, however, any man takes this position and professes to be incapable -of knowing whether or not there is any power above and behind -material things, it will be necessary to begin with the very elements -of knowledge, and to inquire if there is anything whatever that he -really knows and believes. - -Let us ask him if he can subscribe to the simple creed expressed in -the words "I am, I feel, I think." Should he deny these propositions, -then there is no basis left on which to argue. Should he admit this -much of belief, he has abandoned somewhat of his agnostic position; -for it would be easy to show that in even uttering the pronoun "I" he -has committed himself to the belief in the unknowable. What is the -_ego_ which he admits? Is it the material organism or any one of its -organs or parts? or is it something distinct, of which the organism is -merely the garment, or outward manifestation? or is the organism -itself anything more than a bundle of appearances partially known and -scarcely understood by that which calls itself "I"? Who knows? And if -our own personality is thus inscrutable, if we can conceive of it -neither as identical with the whole or any part of the organism nor as -existing independently of the organism, we should begin our -Agnosticism here, and decline to utter the pronoun "I" as implying -what we cannot know. Still, as a matter of faith, we must hold fast to -the proposition "I exist" as the only standpoint for science, -philosophy, or common life. If we are asked for evidence of this -faith, we can appeal only to our consciousness of effects which imply -the existence of the _ego_, which we thus have to admit or suppose -before we can begin to prove even its existence. - -This fact of the mystery of our own existence is full of material for -thought. It is in itself startling--even appalling. We feel that it is -a solemn, a dreadful, thing to exist, and to exist in that limitless -space and that eternal time which we can no more understand than we -can our own constitution, though our belief in their existence is -inevitable. Nor can we divest ourselves of anxious thoughts as to the -source, tendencies, and end of our own being. Here, in short, we -already reach the threshold of that dread unknown future and its -possibilities, the realization of which by hope, fear, and imagination -constitutes, perhaps, our first introduction to the unseen world as -distinguished from the present world of sense. The agnostic may smile -if he pleases at religion as a puerile fancy, but he knows, like other -men, that the mere consciousness of existence necessarily links -itself with a future--nay, unending--existence, and that any being -with this consciousness of futurity must have at least a religion of -hope and fear. In this we find an intelligible reason for the -universality of religious ideas in relation to a future life. Even -where this leads to beliefs that may be called superstitious, it is -more reasonable than Agnosticism; for it is surely natural that a -being inscrutable by himself should be led to believe in the existence -of other things equally inscrutable, but apparently related to -himself. - -But the thinking "I" dwells in the midst of what we term external -objects. In a certain sense it treats the parts of its own bodily -organism as if they were things external to it, speaking of "my hand," -"my head," as if they were its property. But there are things -practically infinite beyond the organism itself. We call them objects -or things, but they are only appearances; and we know only their -relations to ourselves and to each other. Their essence, if they have -any, is inscrutable. We say that the appearances indicate matter and -energy, but what these are essentially we know not. We reduce matter -to atoms, but it is impossible for us to have any conception of an -atom or of the supposed ether, whether itself in some sense atomic or -not, including such atoms. Our attempts to form rational conceptions -of atoms resolve themselves into complex conjectures as to vortices of -ethers and the like, of which no one pretends to have any distinct -mental picture; yet on this basis of the incomprehensible rests all -our physical science, the first truths in which are really matters of -pure faith in the existence of that which we cannot understand. Yet -all men would scoff at the agnostic who on this account should express -unbelief in physical science. - -Let us observe here, further, that since the mysterious and -inscrutable "I" is surrounded with an equally mysterious and -inscrutable universe, and since the _ego_ and the external world are -linked together by indissoluble relations, we are introduced to -certain alternatives as to origins. Either the universe or "nature" is -a mere phantom conjured up by the _ego_, or the _ego_ is a product of -the universe, or both are the result of some equally mysterious power -beyond us and the material world. Neither of these suppositions is -absurd or unthinkable; and, whichever of them we adopt, we are again -introduced to what may be termed a religion as well as a philosophy. -On one view, man becomes a god to himself; on another, nature becomes -his god; on the third, a Supreme Being, the Creator of both. All three -religions exist in the world in a vast variety of forms, and it is -questionable if any human being does not more or less give credence to -one or the other. - -Scientific men, even when they think proper to call themselves -idealists, must reject the first of the above alternatives, since they -cannot doubt the objective existence of external nature, and they know -that its existence dates from a time anterior to our possible -existence as human beings. They may hold to either of the others; and, -practically, the minds of students of science are divided between the -idea of a spontaneous evolution of all things from self-existent -matter and force, and that of the creation of all by a self-existent, -omnipotent, and all-wise Creator. From certain points of view, it may -be of no consequence whether a scientific man holds one or other of -these views. Self-existent force or power, capable of spontaneous -inception of change, and of orderly and infallible development -according to laws of its own imposition or enactment, which is -demanded on the one hypothesis, scarcely differs from the conception -of an intelligent Creator demanded on the other, while it is, to say -the least, equally incomprehensible. It is, besides, objectionable to -science, on the ground that it requires us to assume properties in -matter and energy quite at variance with the results of experience. -The remarkable alternative presented by Tyndall in his Belfast Address -well expresses this: "Either let us open our doors freely to the -conception of creative acts, or, abandoning them, let us radically -change our notions of matter." The expression "creative acts" here is -a loose and not very accurate one for the operation of creative power. -The radical change in "our notions of matter" involves an entire -reversal of all that science knows of its essential properties. This -being understood, the sentence is a fair expression of the dilemma in -which the agnostic and the materialist find themselves. - -Between the two hypotheses above stated there is, however, one -material and vital difference, depending on the nature of man himself. -The universe does not consist merely of insensate matter and force and -automatic vitality; there happens to be in it the rational and -consciously responsible being man. To attribute to him an origin from -mere matter and force is not merely to attach to them a fictitious -power and significance: it is also to reject the rational probability -that the original cause must be at least equal to the effects -produced, and to deprive ourselves of all communion and sympathy with -nature. Further, wherever the "presence and potency" of human reason -resides, there seems no reason to prevent our searching for and -finding it in the only way in which we can know anything, in its -properties and effects. The dogma of Agnosticism, it is true, refuses -to permit this search after God, but it does so with as little reason -as any of those self-constituted authorities that demand belief -without questioning. Nay, it has the offensive peculiarity that in the -very terms in which it issues its prohibition it contradicts itself. -The same oracle which asserts that "the power which the universe -manifests to us is wholly inscrutable" affirms also that "we must -inevitably commit ourselves to the hypothesis of a first cause." Thus -we are told that a power which is "manifest" is also "inscrutable," -and that we must "commit ourselves" to a belief in a "first cause" -which on the hypothesis cannot be known to exist. This may be -philosophy of a certain sort, but it certainly should not claim -kinship with science. - -Perhaps it may be well here to place in comparison with each other the -doctrine of the agnostic philosophy as expounded by Herbert Spencer, -and that of Paul of Tarsus--an older, but certainly a not less acute, -thinker--and we may refer to their utterances respecting the origin of -the universe. - -Spencer says: "The verbally intelligent suppositions respecting the -origin of the universe are three: (1) It is self-existent; (2) It is -self-created; (3) It is created by an external agency." On these it -may be remarked that the second is scarcely even "verbally -intelligent;" it seems to be a contradiction in terms. The third -admits of an important modification, which was manifest to Spinosa if -not to Spencer--namely, that the Creator may--nay, must--be not merely -"external," but within the universe as well. If there is a God, he -must be _in_ the universe as a pervading power, and in every part of -it, and must not be shut out from his own work. This mistaken -conception of God as building himself out of his own universe and -acting on it by external force is both irrational and unscientific, -being, for example, quite at variance with the analogy of force and -life. Rightly understood, therefore, Spencer's alternatives resolve -themselves into two--either the universe is self-existent, or it is -the work of a self-existent Creator pervading all things with his -power. Of these, Spencer prefers the first. Paul, on the other hand, -referring to the mental condition of the civilized heathens of his -time, affirms that rationally they could believe only in the -hypothesis of creation. He says of God: "His invisible things, even -his eternal power and divinity, can be perceived (by the reason), -being understood by the things that are made." Let us look at these -rival propositions. Is the universe self-existent, or does it show -evidence of creative power and divinity? - -The doctrine that the universe is self-existent may be understood in -different ways. It may mean either an endless succession of such -changes as we now see in progress, or an eternity of successive cycles -proceeding through the course of geological ages and ever returning -into themselves. The first is directly contrary to known facts in the -geological history of the earth, and cannot be maintained by any one. -The second would imply that the known geological history is merely a -part of one great cycle of an endless series, and of which an infinite -number have already passed away. It is evident that this infinite -succession of cycles is quite as incomprehensible as any other -infinite succession of things or events. But, waiving this objection, -we have the alternative either that all the successive cycles are -exactly alike--which could not be, in accordance with evolution, nor -with the analogy of other natural cycles--or there must have been a -progression in the successive cycles. But this last supposition would -involve an uncaused beginning somewhere, and this of such a character -as to determine all the successive cycles and their progress; which -would again be contrary to the hypothesis of self-existence. It is -useless, however, to follow such questions farther, since it is -evident that this hypothesis accounts for nothing and would involve us -in absolute confusion. - -Let us turn now to Paul's statement. This has the merit, in the first -place, of expressing a known fact--namely, that men do infer power and -divinity from nature. But is this a mere superstition, or have they -reason for it? If the universe be considered as a vast machine -exceeding all our powers of calculation in its magnitude and -complexity, it seems in the last degree absurd to deny that it -presents evidence of "power." Dr. Carpenter, in a recent lecture, -illustrates the position of the agnostic in this respect by supposing -him to examine the machinery of a great mill, and, having found that -this is all set in motion by a huge iron shaft proceeding from a brick -wall, to suppose that this shaft is self-acting, and that there is no -cause of motion beyond. But when we consider the variety and the -intricacy of nature, the unity and the harmony of its parts, and the -adaptation of these to an incalculable number of uses, we find -something more than power. There is a fitting together of things in a -manner not only above our imitation, but above our comprehension. To -refer this to mere chance or to innate tendencies or potencies of -things we feel to be but an empty form of words; consequently, we are -forced to admit superhuman contrivance in nature, or what Paul terms -"divinity." Further, since the history of the universe goes back -farther than we can calculate, and as we can know nothing beyond the -First Cause, we infer that the Power and Divinity which we have -ascertained in nature must be "eternal." Again, since the creative -power must at some point in past time have spontaneously begun to act, -we regard it as a "living" power, which is the term elsewhere used by -Paul in expressing the idea of "personality" as held by theologians. -Lastly, if everything that we know thus testifies to an eternal power -and divinity, to maintain that we can know nothing of this First Cause -must be simply nonsense, unless we are content to fall back on -absolute nihilism, and hold that we know nothing whatever, either -relatively or absolutely; but in this case not only is science -dethroned, but reason herself is driven from her seat, and there is -nothing left for us to discuss. Paul's idea is thus perfectly clear -and consistent, and it is not difficult to see that common sense must -accept this doctrine of an Eternal Living Power and Divinity in -preference to the hypothesis of Spencer. - -So far we have considered the general bearing of agnostic and theistic -theories on our relations to nature; but if we are to test these -theories fully by scientific considerations, we must look a little -more into details. The existences experimentally or inductively known -to science may be grouped under three heads--matter, energy, and law; -and each of these has an independent testimony to give with reference -to its origin and its connection with a higher creative power. - -Matter, it is true, occupies a somewhat equivocal place in the -agnostic philosophy. According to Spencer, it is "built up or -extracted from experiences of force," and it is only by force that it -"demonstrates itself to us as existing." This is true; but that which -"demonstrates itself to us as existing" must exist, in whatever way -the demonstration is made, and Spencer does not, in consequence of the -lack of direct evidence, extend his Agnosticism to matter, though he -might quite consistently do so. In any case, science postulates the -existence of matter. Further, science is obliged to conceive of matter -as composed of atoms, and of atoms of different kinds; for atoms -differ in weight and in chemical properties, and these differences are -to us ultimate, for they cannot be changed. Thus science and practical -life are tied down to certain predetermined properties of matter. We -may, it is true, in future be able to reduce the number of kinds of -matter, by finding that some bodies believed to be simple are really -compound; but this does not affect the question in hand. As to the -origin of the diverse properties of atoms, only two suppositions seem -possible: either in some past period they agreed to differ and to -divide themselves into different kinds suitable in quantity and -properties to make up the universe, or else matter in its various -kinds has been skilfully manufactured by a creative power. - -But there is a scientific way in which matter may be resolved into -force. An iron knife passed through a powerful magnetic current is -felt to be resisted, as if passing through a solid substance, and this -resistance is produced merely by magnetic attraction. Why may it not -be so with resistance in general? To give effect to such a -supposition, and to reconcile it with the facts of chemistry and of -physics, it is necessary to suppose that the atoms of matter are -merely minute vortices or whirlwinds set up in an ethereal medium, -which in itself, and when at rest, does not possess any of the -properties of matter. That such an ethereal medium exists we have -reason to believe from the propagation of light and heat through -space, though we know little, except negatively, of its properties. -Admitting, however, its existence, the setting up in it of the various -kinds of vortices constituting the atoms of different kinds of matter -is just as much in need of a creative power to initiate it as the -creation of matter out of nothing would be. Besides this, we now have -to account for the existence of the ether itself; and here we have the -disadvantage that this substance possesses none of the properties of -ordinary matter except mere extension; that, in so far as we know, it -is continuous, and not molecular; and that, while of the most -inconceivable tenuity, it transmits vibrations in a manner similar to -that of a body of the extremest solidity. It would seem, also, to be -indefinite in extent and beyond the control of the ordinary natural -forces. In short, ether is as incomprehensible as Deity; and if we -suppose it to have instituted spontaneously the different kinds of -matter, we have really constituted it a god, which is what, in a loose -way, some ancient mythologies actually did. We may, however, truly say -that this modern scientific conception of the practically infinite and -all-pervading ether, the primary seat of force, brings us nearer than -ever before to some realization of the Spiritual Creator. - -But to ether both science and Agnosticism must superadd energy--the -entirely immaterial something which moves ether itself. The rather -crude scientific notion that certain forces are "modes of motion" -perhaps blinds us somewhat to the mystery of energy. Even if we knew -no other form of force than heat, which moves masses of matter or -atoms, it would be in many respects an inscrutable thing. But as -traversing the subtle ether in such forms as radiant heat, light, -chemical force, and electricity, energy becomes still more mysterious. -Perhaps it is even more so in what seems to be one of its primitive -forms--that of gravitation, where it connects distant bodies -apparently without any intervening medium. Facts of this kind appear -to bring us still nearer to the conception of an all-pervading -immaterial creative power. - -But perhaps what may be termed the determinations of force exhibit -this still more clearly, as a very familiar instance may show. Our -sun--one of a countless number of similar suns--is to us the great -centre of light and heat, sustaining all processes, whether merely -physical or vital, on our planet. It was a grand conception of certain -old religions to make the sun the emblem of God, though sun-worship -was a substitution of the creature for the Creator, and would have -been dispelled by modern discovery. But our sun is not merely one of -countless suns, some of them of greater magnitude, but it is only a -temporary depository of a limited quantity of energy, ever dissipating -itself into space, calculable as to its amount and duration, and known -to depend for its existence on gravitative force. We may imagine the -beginning of such a luminary in the collision of great masses of -matter rushing together under the influence of gravitation, and -causing by their impact a conflagration capable of enduring for -millions of years. Yet our imagining such a rude process for the -kindling of the sun will go a very little way in accounting for all -the mechanism of the solar system and things therein. Further, it -raises new questions as to the original condition of matter. If it was -originally in one mass, whence came the incalculable power by which it -was rent into innumerable suns and systems? If it was once universally -diffused in boundless space, when and how was the force of gravity -turned on, and what determined its action in such a way as to -construct the existing universe? This is only one of the simplest and -baldest possible views of the intricate determinations of force -displayed in the universe, yet it may suffice to indicate the -necessity of a living and determining First Cause. - -The fact that all the manifestations of force are regulated by law by -no means favors the agnostic view. The laws of nature are merely -mental generalizations of our own, and, so far as they go, show a -remarkable harmony between our mental nature and that manifested in -the universe. They are not themselves powers capable of producing -effects, but merely express what we can ascertain of uniformity of -action in nature. The law of gravitation, for example, gives no clew -to the origin of that force, but merely expresses its constant mode of -action, in whatever way that may have been determined at first. Nor -are natural laws decrees of necessity. They might have been -otherwise--nay, many of them may be otherwise in parts of the universe -inaccessible to us, or they may change in process of time; for the -period over which our knowledge extends may be to the plans of the -Creator like the lifetime of some minute insect which might imagine -human arrangements of no great permanence to be of eternal duration. - -Unless the laws of nature were constant, in so far as our experience -extends, we could have no certain basis either for science or for -practical life. All would be capricious and uncertain, and we could -calculate on nothing. Law thus adapts the universe to be the residence -of rational beings, and nothing else could. Viewed in this way, we see -that natural laws must be, in their relation to a Creator, voluntary -limitations of his power in certain directions for the benefit of his -creatures. To secure this end, nature must be a perfect machine, all -the parts of which are adjusted for permanent and harmonious action. -It may perhaps rather be compared to a vast series of machines, each -running independently like the trains on a railway, but all connected -and regulated by an invisible guidance which determines the time and -the distance of each, and the manner in which the less urgent and less -important shall give place to others. Even this does not express the -whole truth; for the harmony of nature must be connected with constant -change and progress toward higher perfection. Does this conception of -natural law give us any warrant for the idea that the universe is a -product of chance? Is it not the highest realization of all that we -can conceive of the plans of superhuman intelligence? - -The stupid notion--still lingering in certain quarters--that when -anything has been referred to a natural law or to a secondary cause -under law, God may be dispensed with in relation to that thing, is -merely a survival of the superstition that divine action must be of -the nature of a capricious interference. The true theistic conception -of law is that already stated, of a voluntary limitation of divine -power in the interest of a material cosmos and its intelligent -inhabitants. Nor is the permanence of law dependent on necessity or on -mere mechanical routine, but on the unchanging will of the Legislator; -while the countless varieties and vicissitudes of nature depend, not -on caprice or on accidental interference, but on the interactions and -adjustments of laws of different grades, and so numerous and varied in -their scope and application and in the combinations of which they are -capable that it is often impossible for finite minds to calculate -their results. - -If, now, in conclusion, we are asked to sum up the hypotheses as to -the origin of natural laws and of the properties and determinations of -matter and force, we may do this under the following heads: - -1. Absolute creation by the will of a Supreme Intelligence, -self-existent and omnipotent. This may be the ultimate fact lying -behind all materials, forces, and laws known to science. - -2. Mediate creation, or the making of new complex products with -material already created and under laws previously existing. This is -applicable not so much to the primary origin of things as to their -subsequent determinations and modifications. - -3. Both of the above may be included under the expression "creation by -law," implying the institution from the first of fixed laws or modes -of action not to be subsequently deviated from. - -4. Theistic evolution, or the gradual development of the divine plans -by the apparently spontaneous interaction of things made. This is -universally admitted to occur in the minor modifications of created -things, though of course it can have no place as a mode of explaining -actual origins, and it must be limited within the laws of nature -established by the Creator. Practically, it might be difficult to make -any sharp distinctions between such evolution and mediate creation. - -5. Agnostic and monistic evolution, which hold the spontaneous -origination and differentiation of things out of primitive matter and -force, self-existent or fortuitous. The monistic form of this -hypothesis assumes one primary substance or existence potentially -embracing all subsequent developments. - -These theories are, of course, not all antagonistic to one another. -They resolve themselves into two groups, a theistic and an atheistic. -The former includes the first four; the latter, the fifth. Any one who -believes in God may suppose a primary creation of matter and energy, a -subsequent moulding and fashioning of them mediately and under natural -law, and also a gradual evolution of many new things by the -interaction of things previously made. This complex idea of the origin -of things seems, indeed, to be the rational outcome of Theism. It is -also the idea which underlies the old record in the book of Genesis, -where we have first an absolute creation, and then a series of -"makings" and "placings," and of things "bringing forth" other things, -in the course of the creative periods. - -On the other hand, Agnosticism postulates primary force or forces -self-existent and including potentially all that is subsequently -evolved from them. The only way in which it approximates to theism is -in its extreme monistic form, where the one force or power supposed -to underlie all existence is a sort of God shorn of personality, will, -and reason. - -The actual relations of these opposing theories to science cannot be -better explained than by a reference to the words of a leading monist, -whose views we shall have to notice in the next lecture. "If," says -Haeckel, "anybody feels the necessity of representing the origin of -matter as the work of a supernatural creative force independent of -matter itself, I would remind him that the idea of an immaterial force -creating matter in the first instance is an article of faith which has -nothing to do with science. Where faith begins, science ends." - -Precisely so, if only we invert the last sentence and say, "Where -science ends, faith begins." It is only by faith that we know of any -force, or even of the atoms of matter themselves, and in like manner -it is "by faith we know that the creative ages have been constituted -by the word of God."[1] The only difference is that the monist has -faith in the potency of nothing to produce something, or of something -material to exist for ever and to acquire at some point of time the -power spontaneously to enter on the process of development; while the -theist has faith in a primary intelligent Will as the Author of all -things. The latter has this to confirm his faith--that it accords with -what we know of the inertia of matter, of the constancy of forces, and -of the permanence of natural law, and is in harmony with the powers of -the one free energy we know--that of the human will. - -FOOTNOTE: - -[1] Epistle to Hebrews, xi. 3. - - - - -LECTURE II. - -THE SCIENCE OF LIFE AND MONISTIC EVOLUTION. - - -In the last lecture we have noticed the general relations of agnostic -speculations with natural science, and have exposed their failure to -account for natural facts and laws. We may now inquire into their mode -of dealing with the phenomena of life, with regard to the supposed -spontaneous evolution of which, and its development up to man himself, -so many confident generalizations have been put forth by the agnostic -and monistic philosophy. - -In the earlier history of modern natural science, the tendency was to -take nature as we find it, without speculation as to the origin of -living things, which men were content to regard as direct products of -creative power. But at a very early period--and especially after the -revelations of geology had disclosed a succession of ascending -dynasties of life--such speculations, which, independently of science, -had commended themselves to the poetical and philosophical minds of -antiquity, were revived. In France more particularly, the theories of -Buffon, Lamarck, and Geoffroy St. Hilaire opened up these exciting -themes, and they might even then have attained to the importance they -have since acquired but for the great and judicial intellect of -Cuvier, which perceived their futility and guided the researches of -naturalists into other and more profitable fields. The next stimulus -to such hypotheses was given by the progress of physiology, and -especially by researches into the embryonic development of animals and -plants. Here it was seen that there are homologies and likenesses of -plan linking organisms with each other, and that in the course of -their development the more complex creatures pass through stages -corresponding to the adult condition of lower forms. The questions -raised by the geographical distribution of animals, as ascertained by -the numerous expeditions and scientific travellers of modern times, -tended in the same direction. The way was thus prepared for the broad -generalizations of Darwin, who, seizing on the idea of artificial -selection as practised by breeders of animals and plants, and -imagining that something similar takes place in the natural struggle -for existence, saw in this a plausible solution for the question of -the progress and the variety of organized beings. - -The original Darwinian theory was soon found to be altogether -insufficient to account for the observed facts, because of the -tendency of the bare struggle for existence to produce degradation -rather than elevation; because of the testimony of geology to the fact -that introduction of new species takes place in times of expansion -rather than of struggle; because of the manifest tendency of the -breeds produced by artificial selection to become infertile and die -out in proportion to their deviation from the original types; and -because of the difficulty of preventing such breeds from reverting to -the original forms, which seem in all cases to be perfectly -equilibrated in their own parts and adapted to external nature, so -that varieties tend, as if by gravitative law, to fall back into the -original moulds. A great variety of other considerations--as those of -sexual selection, reproductive acceleration and retardation, periods -of more and less rapid evolution, innate tendency to vary at -particular times and in particular circumstances--have been imported -into the original doctrine. Thus the original Darwinism is a thing of -the past, even in the mind of its great author, though it has proved -the fruitful parent of a manifold progeny of allied ideas which -continue to bear its name. In this respect Darwinism is itself -amenable to the law of evolution, and has been continually changing -its form under the influence of the controversial struggles which have -risen around it. - -Darwinism was not necessarily atheistic or agnostic. Its author was -content to assume a few living beings or independent forms to begin -with, and did not propose to obtain them by any spontaneous action of -dead matter, nor to account for the primary origin of life, still less -of all material things. In this he was sufficiently humble and honest; -but the logical weakness of his position was at once apparent. If -creation was needed to give a few initial types, it might have -produced others also. The followers of Darwin, therefore, more -especially in Germany, at once pushed the doctrine back into -Agnosticism and Monism, giving to it a greater logical consistency, -but bringing it into violent conflict with theism and with common -sense. - -Darwin himself early perceived that his doctrine, if true, must apply -to man--in so far, at least, as his bodily frame is concerned. Man is -in this an animal, and closely related to other animals. To have -claimed for him a distinct origin would have altogether discredited -the theory, though it might be admitted that, man having appeared, his -free volition and his moral and social instincts would at once -profoundly modify the course of the evolution. On the other hand, the -gulf which separates the reason and the conscience of man from -instinct and the animal intelligence of lower creatures opposed an -almost impassable barrier to the union of man with lower animals; and -the attempt to bridge this gulf threatened to bring the theory into a -deadly struggle with the moral, social, and religious instincts of -mankind. In face of this difficulty, Darwin and most of his followers -adopted the more daring course of maintaining the evolution of the -whole man from lower forms, and thereby entered into a warfare, which -still rages, with psychology, ethics, philology, and theology. - -It is easy for shallow evolutionists unaware of the tendencies of -their doctrine, or for latitudinarian churchmen careless as to the -maintenance of truth if only outward forms are preserved and -comprehension secured, to overlook or make light of these antagonisms, -but science and common sense alike demand a severe adherence to -truth. It becomes, therefore, very important to ascertain to what -extent we are justified in adopting the agnostic evolution in its -relation to life and man on scientific grounds. Perhaps this may best -be done by reviewing the argument of Haeckel in his work on the -evolution of man--one of the ablest, and at the same time most -thorough, expositions of monistic evolution as applied to lower -animals and to men. - -Ernst Haeckel is an eminent comparative anatomist and physiologist, -who has earned a wide and deserved reputation by his able and -laborious studies of the calcareous sponges, the radiolarians, and -other low forms of life. In his work on _The Evolution of Man_ he -applies this knowledge to the solution of the problem of the origin of -humanity, and sets himself not only to illustrate, but to "prove," the -descent of our species from the simplest animal types, and even to -overwhelm with scorn every other explanation of the appearance of man -except that of spontaneous evolution. He is not merely an -evolutionist, but what he terms a "monist," and the monistic -philosophy, as defined by him, includes certain negations and certain -positive principles of a most comprehensive and important character. -It implies the denial of all spiritual or immaterial existence. Man is -to the monist merely a physiological machine, and nature is only a -greater self-existing and spontaneously-moving aggregate of forces. -Monism can thus altogether dispense with a Creative Will as -originating nature, and adopts the other alternative of self-existence -or causelessness for the universe and all its phenomena. Again, the -monistic doctrine necessarily implies that man, the animal, the plant, -and the mineral are only successive stages of the evolution of the -same primordial matter, constituting thus a connected chain of being, -all the parts of which sprang spontaneously from each other. Lastly, -as the admixture of primitive matter and force would itself be a sort -of dualism, Haeckel regards these as ultimately one, and apparently -resolves the origin of the universe into the operation of a -self-existing energy having in itself the potency of all things. After -all, this may be said to be an approximation to the idea of a Creator, -but not a living and willing Creator. Monism is thus not identical -with pantheism, but is rather a sort of atheistic monotheism, if such -a thing is imaginable; and vindicates the assertion attributed to a -late lamented physical philosopher--that he had found no atheistic -philosophy which had not a God somewhere. - -Haeckel's own statement of this aspect of his philosophy is somewhat -interesting. He says: "The opponents of the doctrine of evolution are -very fond of branding the monistic philosophy grounded upon it as -'materialism' by comparing _philosophical_ materialism with the wholly -different and censurable _moral_ materialism. Strictly, however, our -'monism' might as accurately or as inaccurately be called spiritualism -as materialism. The real materialistic philosophy asserts that the -phenomena of vital motion, like all other phenomena of motion, are -effects or products of matter. The other opposite extreme, -spiritualistic philosophy, asserts, on the contrary, that matter is -the product of motive force, and that all material forms are produced -by free forces entirely independent of the matter itself. Thus, -according to the materialistic conception of the universe, matter -precedes motion or active force; according to the spiritualistic -conception of the universe, on the contrary, active force or motion -precedes matter. Both views are dualistic, and we hold them both to be -equally false. A contrast to both is presented in the _monistic_ -philosophy, which can as little believe in force without matter as in -matter without force." - -It is evident that if Haeckel limits himself and his opponents to -matter and force as the sole possible explanations of the universe, he -may truly say that matter is inconceivable without force and force -inconceivable without matter. But the question arises, What is the -monistic power beyond these--the "power behind nature"? and as to the -true nature of this the Jena philosopher gives us only vague -generalities, though it is quite plain that he cannot admit a -Spiritual Creator. Further, as to the absence of any spiritual element -from the nature of man, he does not leave us in doubt as to what he -means; for immediately after the above paragraph he informs us that -"the 'spirit' and the 'mind' of man are but forces which are -inseparably connected with the material substance of our bodies. Just -as the motive-power of our flesh is involved in the muscular -form-element, so is the thinking force of our spirit involved in the -form-element of the brain." In a note appended to the passage, he says -that monism "conceives nature as one whole, and nowhere recognizes any -but mechanical causes." These assumptions as to man and nature -pervade the whole book, and of course greatly simplify the task of the -writer, as he does not require to account for the primary origin of -nature, or for anything in man except his physical frame; and even -this he can regard as a thing altogether mechanical. - -It is plain that we might here enter our dissent from Haeckel's -method, for he requires us, before we can proceed a single step in the -evolution of man, to assume many things which he cannot prove. What -evidence is there, for example, of the possibility of the development -of the rational and moral nature of man from the intelligence and the -instinct of the lower animals, or of the necessary dependence of the -phenomena of mind on the structure of brain-cells? The evidence, so -far as it goes, seems to tend the other way. What proof is there of -the spontaneous evolution of living forms from inorganic matter? -Experiment so far negatives the possibility of this. Even if we give -Haeckel, to begin with, a single living cell or granule of protoplasm, -we know that this protoplasm must have been produced by the agency of -a living vegetable cell previously existing; and we have no proof -that it can be produced in any other way. Again, what particle of -evidence have we that the atoms or the energy of an incandescent -fire-mist have in them anything of the power or potency of life? We -must grant the monist all these postulates as pure matters of faith, -before he can begin his demonstration; and, as none of them are -axiomatic truths, it is evident that so far he is simply a believer in -the dogmas of a philosophic creed, and in this respect weak as other -men whom he affects to despise. - -We may here place over against his authority that of another eminent -physiologist, of more philosophic mind, Dr. Carpenter, who has -recently said: "As a physiologist I must fully recognize the fact that -the physical force exerted by the body of man is not generated _de -novo_ by his will, but is derived directly from the oxidation of the -constituents of his food. But, holding it as equally certain--because -the fact is capable of verification by every one as often as he -chooses to make the experiment--that in the performance of every -volitional movement physical force is put in action, directed, and -controlled by the individual personality or _ego_, I deem it as absurd -and illogical to affirm that there is no place for a God in nature, -originating, directing, and controlling its forces by his will, as it -would be to assert that there is no place in man's body for his -conscious mind." - -Taking Haeckel on his own ground, as above defined, we may next -inquire as to the method which he employs in working out his argument. -This may be referred to three leading modes of treatment, which, as -they are somewhat diverse from those ordinarily familiar to logicians -and are extensively used by evolutionists, deserve some illustration, -more especially as Haeckel is a master in their use. - -An eminent French professor of the art of sleight-of-hand has defined -the leading principle of jugglers to be that of "appearing and -disappearing things;" and this is the best definition that occurs to -me of one method of reasoning largely used by Haeckel, and of which we -need to be on our guard when we find him employing, as he does in -almost every page, such phrases as "it cannot be doubted," "we may -therefore assume," "we may readily suppose," "this afterward assumes -or becomes," "we may confidently assert," "this developed directly," -and the like, which in his usage are equivalent to the "_Presto!_" of -the conjurer, and which, while we are looking at one structure or -animal, enable him to persuade us that it has been suddenly -transformed into something else. - -In tracing the genealogy of man he constantly employs this kind of -sleight-of-hand in the most adroit manner. He is perhaps describing to -us the embryo of a fish or an amphibian, and, as we become interested -in the curious details, it is suddenly by some clever phrase -transformed into a reptile or a bird; and yet, without rubbing our -eyes and reflecting on the differences and difficulties which he -neglects to state, we can scarcely doubt that it is the same animal, -after all. - -The little lancelet, or _Amphioxus_ (see Fig. 1), of the European -seas--a creature which was at one time thought to be a sea-snail, but -is really more akin to fishes--forms his link of connection between -our "fish-ancestors" and the invertebrate animals. So important is it -in this respect that our author Waxes eloquent in exhorting us to -regard it "with special veneration" as representing our "earliest -Silurian vertebrate ancestors," as being of "our own flesh and blood," -and as better worthy of being an object of "devoutest reverence" than -the "worthless rabble of so-called 'saints.'" In describing this -animal he takes pains to inform us that it is more different from an -ordinary fish than a fish is from a man. Yet, as he illustrates its -curious and unique structure, before we are aware, the lancelet is -gone and a fish is in its place, and this fish with the potency to -become a man in due time. Thus a creature intermediate in some -respects between fishes and mollusks, or between fishes and worms, but -so far apart from either that it seems but to mark the width of the -gap between them, becomes an easy stepping-stone from one to the -other. - - [Illustration: FIG. 1. - - The Lancelet (_Amphioxus_), the supposed earliest type of - vertebrate animal, and, according to Haeckel, the ancestor of - man. The figure is a section enlarged to twice the natural - size. - - _a_, mouth; - _b_, anus; - _c_, gill-opening; - _d_, gill; - _e_, stomach; - _f_, liver; - _g_, intestine; - _h_, gill-cavity; - _i_, notochord, or rudimentary back-bone; - _k_, _l_, _m_, _n_, _o_, arteries and veins.] - -In like manner, the ascidians, or sea-squirts--mollusks of low grade, -or, as Haeckel prefers to regard them, allied to worms--are most -remote in almost every respect from the vertebrates. But in the young -state of some of these creatures, and in the adult condition of one -animal referred to this group (_Appendicularia_), they have a sort of -swimming tail, which is stiffened by a rod of cartilage to enable it -to perform its function, and which for a time gives them a certain -resemblance to the lancelet or to embryo fishes; and this usually -temporary contrivance--curious as an imitative adaptation, but of no -other significance--becomes, by the art of "appearing and -disappearing," a rudimentary backbone, and enables us at once to -recognize in the young ascidian an embryo man. - -A second method characteristic of the book, and furnishing, indeed, -the main basis of its argument, is that of considering analogous -processes as identical, without regard to the difference of the -conditions under which they may be carried on. The great leading use -of this argument is in inducing us to regard the development of the -individual animal as the precise equivalent of the series of changes -by which the species was developed in the course of geological time. -These two kinds of development are distinguished by appropriate names. -_Ontogenesis_ is the embryonic development of the individual animal, -and is, of course, a short process, depending on the production of a -germ by a parent animal or parent pair, and the further growth of this -germ in connection more or less with the parent or with provision made -by it. This is, of course, a fact open to observation and study, -though some of its processes are mysterious and yet involved in doubt -and uncertainty. _Phylogenesis_ is the supposed development of a -species in the course of geological time and by the intervention of -long series of species, each in its time distinct and composed of -individuals each going regularly through a genetic circle of its own. - -The latter is a process not open to observation within the time at our -command--purely hypothetical, therefore, and of which the possibility -remains to be proved; while the causes on which it must depend are -necessarily altogether different from those at work in ontogenesis, -and the conditions of a long series of different kinds of animals, -each perfect in its kind, are equally dissimilar from those of an -animal passing through the regular stages from infancy to maturity. -The similarity, in some important respects, of ontogenesis to -phylogenesis was inevitable, provided that animals were to be of -different grades of complexity, since the development of the -individual must necessarily be from a more simple to a more complex -condition. On any hypothesis, the parallelism between embryological -facts and the history of animals in geological time affords many -interesting and important coincidences. Yet it is perfectly obvious -that the causes and the conditions of these two successions cannot -have been the same. Further, when we consider that the embryo-cell -which develops into one animal must necessarily be originally -distinct in its properties from that which develops into another kind -of animal, even though no obvious difference appears to us, we have no -ground for supposing that the early stages of all animals are alike; -and when we rigorously compare the development of any animal whatever -with the successive appearance of animals of the same or similar -groups in geological time, we find many things which do not -correspond--not merely in the want of links which we might expect to -find, but in the more significant appearance, prematurely or -inopportunely, of forms which we would not anticipate. Yet the main -argument of Haeckel's book is the quiet assumption that anything found -to occur in ontogenetic development must also have occurred in -phylogenesis, while manifest difficulties are got rid of by assuming -atavisms and abnormalities. - -A third characteristic of the method of the book is the use of certain -terms in peculiar senses, and as implying certain causes which are -taken for granted, though their efficacy and their mode of operation -are unknown. The chief of the terms so employed are "heredity" and -"adaptation." "Heredity" is usually understood as expressing the -power of permanent transmission of characters from parents to -offspring, and in this aspect it expresses the constancy of specific -forms; but, as used by Haeckel, it means the transmission by a parent -of any exceptional characters which the individual may have -accidentally assumed. "Adaptation" has usually been supposed to mean -the fitting of animals for their place in nature, however that came -about; as used by Haeckel, it imports the power of the individual -animal to adapt itself to changed conditions and to transmit these -changes to its offspring. Thus in this philosophy the rule is made the -exception and the exception the rule by a skilful use of familiar -terms in new senses; and heredity and adaptation are constantly -paraded as if they were two potent divinities employed in constantly -changing and improving the face of nature. - -It is scarcely too much to say that the conclusions of the book are -reached almost solely by the application of the above-mentioned -peculiar modes of reasoning to the vast store of facts at command of -the author, and that the reader who would test these conclusions by -the ordinary methods of judgment must be constantly on his guard. -Still, it is not necessary to believe that Haeckel is an intentional -deceiver. Such fallacies are those which are especially fitted to -mislead enthusiastic specialists, to be identified by them with proved -results of science, and to be held in an intolerant and dogmatic -spirit. - -Having thus noticed Haeckel's assumptions and his methods, we may next -shortly consider the manner in which he proceeds to work out the -phylogeny of man. Here he pursues a purely physiological method, only -occasionally and slightly referring to geological facts. He takes as a -first principle the law long ago formulated by Hunter, _Omne vivum ex -ovo_--a law which modern research has amply confirmed, showing that -every animal, however complex, can be traced back to an egg, which in -its simplest state is no more than a single cell, though this cell -requires to be fertilized by the addition of the contents of another -dissimilar cell, produced either in another organ of the same -individual or in a distinct individual. This process of fertilization -Haeckel seems to regard as unnecessary in the lowest forms of life; -but, though there are some simple animals in which it has not been -recognized, analogy would lead us to believe that in some form it is -necessary in all. Haekel's monistic view, however, requires that in -the lowest forms it should be absent and should have originated -spontaneously, though how does not seem to be very clear, as the -explanation given of it by him amounts to little more than the -statement that it must have occurred. Still, as a "dualistic" process -it is very significant with reference to the monistic theory. - -Much space is, of course, devoted to the tracing of the special -development or ontogenesis of man, and to the illustration of the fact -that in the earlier stages of this development the human embryo is -scarcely distinguishable from that of lower animals. We may, indeed, -affirm that all animals start from cells which, in so far as we can -see, are similar to each other, yet which must include potentially the -various properties of the animals which spring from them. As we trace -them onward in their development, we see these differences manifesting -themselves. At first all pass, according to Haeckel, through a stage -which he calls the "gastrula," in which the whole body is represented -by a sort of sac, the cavity of which is the stomach and the walls of -which consist of two layers of cells. It should be stated, however, -that many eminent naturalists dissent from this view, and maintain -that even in the earliest stages material differences can be observed. -In this they are probably right, as even Haeckel has to admit some -degree of divergence from this all-embracing "gastrĉa" theory. -Admitting, however, that such early similarity exists within certain -limits, we find that, as the embryo advances, it speedily begins to -indicate whether it is to be a coral-animal, a snail, a worm, or a -fish. Consequently, the physiologist who wishes to trace the -resemblances leading to mammals and to man has to lop off one by one -the several branches which lead in other directions, and to follow -that which conducts by the most direct course to the type which he has -in view. In this way Haeckel can show that the embryo _Homo sapiens_ -is in successive stages so like to the young of the fish, the reptile, -the bird, and the ordinary quadruped that he can produce for -comparison figures in which the cursory observer can detect scarcely -any difference. - -All this has long been known, and has been regarded as a wonderful -evidence of the homology or unity of plan which pervades nature, and -as constituting man the archetype of the animal kingdom--the highest -realization of a plan previously sketched by the Creator in many ruder -and humbler forms. It also teaches that it is not so much in the mere -bodily organism that we are to look for the distinguishing characters -of humanity as in the higher rational and moral nature. - -But Haeckel, like other evolutionists of the monistic and agnostic -schools, goes far beyond this. The ontogeny, on the evidence of -analogy, as already explained, is nothing less than a miniature -representation of the phylogeny. Man must in the long ages of -geological time have arisen from a monad, just as the individual man -has in his life-history arisen from an embryo-cell, and the several -stages through which the individual passes must be parallel to those -in the history of the race. True, the supposed monad must have been -wanting in all the conditions of origin, sexual fertilization, -parental influence, and surroundings. There is no perceptible relation -of cause and effect, any more than between the rotation of a -carriage-wheel and that of the earth on its axis. The analogy might -prompt to inquiries as to common laws and similarities of operation, -but it proves nothing as to causation. - -In default of such proof, Haeckel favors us with another analogy, -derived from the science of language. All the Indo-European languages -are believed to be descended from a common ancestral tongue, and this -is analogous to the descent of all animals from one primitive species. -But unfortunately the languages in question are the expressions of the -voice and the thought of one and the same species. The individuals -using them are known historically to have descended by ordinary -generation from a common source, and the connecting-links of the -various dialects are unbroken. The analogy fails altogether in the -case of species succeeding each other in geological time, unless the -very thing to be proved is taken for granted in the outset. - -The actual proof that a basis exists in nature for the doctrine of -evolution founded on these analogies, might be threefold. _First._ -There might be changes of the nature of phylogenesis going on under -our own observation, and even a very few of these would be sufficient -to give some show of probability. Elaborate attempts have been made to -show that variations, as existing in the more variable of our -domesticated species, lead in the direction of such changes; but the -results have been unsatisfactory, and our author scarcely condescends -to notice this line of proof. He evidently regards the time over which -human history has extended as too short to admit of this kind of -demonstration. _Secondly._ There might be in the existing system of -nature such a close connection or continuous chain of species as might -at least strengthen the argument from analogy; and undoubtedly there -are many groups of closely allied species, or of races confounded with -true specific types, which it might not be unreasonable to suppose of -common origin. These are, however, scattered widely apart; and the -contrary fact of extensive gaps in the series is so frequent, that -Haeckel is constantly under the necessity of supposing that multitudes -of species, and even of larger groups, have perished just where it is -most important to his conclusion that they should have remained. This -is, of course, unfortunate for the theory; but then, as Haeckel often -remarks, "we must suppose" that the missing links once existed. But, -_thirdly_, these gaps which now unhappily exist may be filled up by -fossil animals; and if in the successive geological periods we could -trace the actual phylogeny of even a few groups of living creatures, -we might have the demonstration desired. But here again the gaps are -so frequent and so serious that Haeckel scarcely attempts to use this -argument further than by giving a short and somewhat imperfect summary -of the geological succession in the beginning of his second volume. In -this he attempts to give a continuous series of the ancestors of man -as developed in geological time; but, of twenty-one groups which he -arranges in order from the beginning of the Laurentian to the modern -period, at least ten are not known at all as fossils, and others do -not belong, so far as known, to the ages to which he assigns them. -This necessity of manufacturing facts does not speak well for the -testimony of geology to the supposed phylogeny of man. - -In point of fact, it cannot be disguised that, though it is possible -to pick out some series of animal forms, like the horses and camels -referred to by some palĉontologists, which simulate a genetic order, -the general testimony of palĉontology is, on the whole, adverse to the -ordinary theories of evolution, whether applied to the vegetable or to -the animal kingdom. This the writer has elsewhere endeavored to show; -but he may refer here to the labors of Barrande, perhaps unrivalled in -extent and accuracy, which show that in the leading forms of life in -the older geological formations the succession is not such as to -correspond with any of the received theories of derivation.[2] Even -evolutionists, when sufficiently candid, admit their case not proven -by geological evidence. Gaudry, one of the best authorities on the -Tertiary mammalia, admits the impossibility of suggesting any possible -derivation for some of the leading groups, and Saporta, Mivart, and Le -Conte fall back on periods of rapid or paroxysmal evolution scarcely -differing from the idea of creation by law, or mediate creation, as it -has been termed. - -Thus the utmost value which can be attached to Haeckel's argument from -analogy would be that it suggests a possibility that the processes -which we see carried on in the evolution of the individual may, in the -laws which regulate them, be connected in some way more or less close -with those creative processes which on the wider field of geological -time have been concerned in the production of the multitudinous forms -of animal life. That Haeckel's philosophy goes but a very little way -toward any understanding of such relations, and that our present -information, even within the more limited scope of biological science, -is too meagre to permit of safe generalization, will appear from the -consideration of a few facts taken here and there from the multitude -employed by him to illustrate the monistic theory. - -When we are told that a moner or an embryo-cell is the early stage of -all animals alike, we naturally ask, Is it meant that all these cells -are really similar, or is it only that they appear similar to us, and -may actually be as profoundly unlike as the animals which they are -destined to produce? To make this question more plain, let us take the -case as formally stated: "From the weighty fact that the egg of the -human being, like the egg of all other animals, is a simple cell, it -may be quite certainly inferred that a one-celled parent-form once -existed, from which all the many-celled animals, man included, -developed." - -Now, let us suppose that we have under our microscope a one-celled -animalcule quite as simple in structure as our supposed ancestor. -Along with this we may have on the same slide another cell, which is -the embryo of a worm, and a third, which is the embryo of a man. All -these, according to the hypothesis, are similar in appearance; so that -we can by no means guess which is destined to continue always an -animalcule, or which will become a worm or may develop into a poet or -a philosopher. Is it meant that the things are actually alike or only -apparently so? If they are really alike, then their destinies must -depend on external circumstances. Put either of them into a pond, and -it will remain a monad. Put either of them into the ovary of a complex -animal, and it will develop into the likeness of that animal. But such -similarity is altogether improbable, and it would destroy the argument -of the evolutionist. In this case he would be hopelessly shut up to -the conclusion that "hens were before eggs;" and Haeckel elsewhere -informs us that the exactly opposite view is necessarily that of the -monistic evolutionist. Thus, though it may often be convenient to -speak of these three kinds of cells as if they were perfectly similar, -the method of "disappearance" has immediately to be resorted to, and -they are shown to be, in fact, quite dissimilar. There is, indeed, -the best ground to suppose that the one-celled animals and the -embryo-cells referred to, have little in common except their general -form. We know that the most minute cell must include a sufficient -number of molecules of protoplasm to admit of great varieties of -possible arrangement, and that these may be connected with most varied -possibilities as to the action of forces. Further, the embryo-cell -which is produced by a particular kind of animal, and whose -development results in the reproduction of a similar animal, must -contain potentially the parts and structures which are evolved from -it; and fact shows that this may be affirmed of both the embryo and -the sperm-cells where there are two sexes. Therefore it is in the -highest degree probable that the eggs of a worm and those of man, -though possibly alike to our coarse methods of investigation, are as -dissimilar as the animals that result from them. If so, the "egg may -be before the hen;" but it is as difficult to imagine the spontaneous -production of the egg which is potentially the hen as of the hen -itself. Thus the similarity of the eggs and early embryos of animals -of different grades is apparent only; and this fact, which embodies a -great, and perhaps insoluble, mystery, invalidates the whole of -Haeckel's reasoning on the alleged resemblances of different kinds of -animals in their early stages. - -A second difficulty arises from the fact that the simple embryo-cell -of any of the higher animals rapidly produces various kinds of -specialized cells different in structure and appearance and capable of -performing different functions, whereas in the lower forms of life -such cells may remain simple or may merely produce several similar -cells little or not at all differentiated. This objection, whenever it -occurs, Haeckel endeavors to turn by the assertion that a complex -animal is merely an aggregate of independent cells, each of which is a -sort of individual. He thus tries to break up the integrity of the -complex organism and to reduce it to a mere swarm of monads. He -compares the cells of an organism to the "individuals of a savage -community," who, at first separate and all alike in their habits and -occupations, at length organize themselves into a community and assume -different avocations. Single cells, he says, at first were alike, and -each performed the same simple offices of all the others. "At a later -period isolated cells gathered into communities; groups of simple -cells which had arisen from the continued division of a single cell -remained together, and now began gradually to perform different -offices of life." - -But this is a mere vague analogy. It does not represent anything -actually occurring in nature, except in the case of an embryo produced -by some animal which already shows all the tissues which its embryo is -destined to reproduce. Thus it establishes no probability of the -evolution of complex tissues from simple cells, and leaves altogether -unexplained that wonderful process by which the embryo-cell not only -divides into many cells, but becomes developed into all the variety of -dissimilar tissues evolved from the homogeneous egg; but evolved from -it, as we naturally suppose, because of the fact that the egg -represents potentially all these tissues as existing previously in the -parent organism. - -But if we are content to waive these objections or to accept the -solutions given of them by the "appearance-and-disappearance" -argument, we still find that the phylogeny, unlike the ontogenesis, is -full of wide gaps only to be passed _per saltum_ or to be accounted -for by the disappearance of a vast number of connecting-links. Of -course, it is easy to suppose that these intermediate forms have been -lost through time and accident, but why this has happened to some -rather than to others cannot be explained. In the phylogeny of man, -for example, what a vast hiatus yawns between the ascidian and the -lancelet, and another between the lancelet and the lamprey! It is true -that the missing links may have consisted of animals little likely to -be preserved as fossils; but why, if they ever existed, do not some of -them remain in the modern seas? Again, when we have so many species of -apes and so many races of men, why can we find no trace, recent or -fossil, of that "missing link" which we are told must have existed, -the "ape-like men," known to Haeckel as the "Alali," or speechless -men? - -A further question which should receive consideration from the monist -school is that very serious one, Why, if all is "mechanical" in the -development and actions of living beings, should there be any progress -whatever? Ordinary people fail to understand why a world of mere dead -matter should not go on to all eternity obeying physical and chemical -laws without developing life; or why, if some low form of life were -introduced capable of reproducing simple one-celled organisms, it -should not go on doing so. - -Further, even if some chance deviations should occur, we fail to -perceive why these should go on in a definite manner producing not -only the most complex machines, but many kinds of such machines--on -different plans, but each perfect in its way. Haeckel is never weary -of telling us that to monists organisms are mere machines. Even his -own mental work is merely the grinding of a cerebral machine. But he -seems not to perceive that to such a philosophy the homely argument -which Paley derived from the structure of a watch would be fatal: "The -question is whether machines (which monists consider all animals to -be, including themselves) infinitely more complicated than watches -could come into existence without design somewhere"[3]--that is, by -mere chance. Common sense is not likely to admit that this is -possible. - - [Illustration: FIG. 2. - - Impression of five fingers and five toes of an Amphibian of - the Lower Carboniferous Age, from the lowest Carboniferous - beds in Nova Scotia--an evidence of the fact that the number - five was already selected for the hands and feet of the - earliest known land vertebrates, and that the decimal system - of notation, with all that it involves to man, was determined - in the Palĉozoic Age. The upper figure natural size, the lower - reduced.] - -The difficulties above referred to relate to the introduction of life -and of new species on the monistic view. Others might be referred to -in connection with the production of new organs. An illustration is -afforded, among others, by the discussion of the introduction of the -five fingers and toes of man, which appear to descend to us -unchanged from the amphibians or batrachians of the Carboniferous -period. In this ancient age of the earth's geological history, feet -with five toes appear in numerous species of reptilians of various -grades (Fig. 2). They are preceded by no other vertebrates than -fishes, and these have numerous fin-rays instead of toes. There are no -properly transitional forms either fossil or recent. How were the -five-fingered limbs acquired in this abrupt way? Why were they five -rather than any other number? Why, when once introduced, have they -continued unchanged up to the present day? Haeckel's answer is a -curious example of his method: "The great significance of the five -digits depends on the fact that this number has been transmitted from -the Amphibia to all higher vertebrates. It would be impossible to -discover any reason why in the lowest Amphibia, as well as in reptiles -and in higher vertebrates up to man, there should always originally be -five digits on each of the anterior and posterior limbs, if we denied -that heredity from a common five-fingered parent-form is the efficient -cause of this phenomenon; heredity can alone account for it. In many -Amphibia certainly, as well as in many higher vertebrates, we find -less than five digits. But in all these cases it can be shown that -separate digits have retrograded, and have finally been completely -lost. The causes which affected the development of the five-fingered -foot of the higher vertebrates in this amphibian form from the -many-fingered foot (or properly fin), must certainly be found in the -adaptation to the totally altered functions which the limbs had to -discharge during the transition from an exclusively aquatic life to -one which was partially terrestrial. While the many-fingered fins of -the fish had previously served almost exclusively to propel the body -through the water, they had now also to afford support to the animal -when creeping on the land. This effected a modification both of the -skeleton and of the muscles of the limbs. The number of fin-rays was -gradually lessened, and was finally reduced to five. These five -remaining rays were, however, developed more vigorously. The soft -cartilaginous rays became hard bones. The rest of the skeleton also -became considerably more firm. The movements of the body became not -only more vigorous, but also more varied;" and the paragraph proceeds -to state other ameliorations of muscular and nervous system supposed -to be related to or caused by the improvement of the limbs. - -It will be observed that in the above extract, under the formula "the -causes which affected the development of the five-fingered foot ... -must certainly be found," all that other men would regard as demanding -proof is quietly assumed, and the animal grows before our eyes from a -fish to a reptile as under the wand of a conjurer. Further, the -transmission of the five toes is attributed to heredity or unchanged -reproduction, but this, of course, gives no explanation of the -original formation of the structure, nor of the causes which prevented -heredity from applying to the fishes which became amphibians and -acquired five toes, or to the amphibians which faithfully transmitted -their five toes, but not their other characteristics. - -It is perhaps scarcely profitable to follow further the criticism of -this extraordinary book. It may be necessary, however, to repeat that -it contains clear, and in the main accurate, sketches of the -embryology of a number of animals, only slightly colored by the -tendency to minimize differences. It may also be necessary to say that -in criticising Haeckel we take him on his own ground--that of a -monist--and have no special reference to those many phases which the -philosophy of evolution assumes in the minds of other naturalists, -many of whom accept it only partially or as a form of mediate creation -more or less reconcilable with theism. To these more moderate views no -reference has been made, though there can be no doubt that many of -them are quite as assailable as the position of Haeckel in point of -argument. It may also be observed that Haeckel's argument is almost -exclusively biological and confined to the animal kingdom, and to the -special line of descent attributed to man. The monistic hypothesis -becomes, as already stated, still less tenable when tested by the -facts of palĉontology. Hence most of the palĉontologists who favor -evolution appear to shrink from the extreme position of Haeckel. -Gaudry, one of the ablest of this school, in his recent work on the -development of the Mammalia, candidly admits the multitude of facts -for which derivation will not account, and perceives in the grand -succession of animals in time the evidence of a wise and far-reaching -creative plan, concluding with the words: "We may still leave out of -the question the processes by which the Author of the world has -produced the changes of which palĉontology presents the picture." In -like manner, the Count de Saporta in his _World of Plants_ closes his -summary of the periods of vegetation with the words: "But if we ascend -from one phenomenon to another, beyond the sphere of contingent and -changeable appearance, we find ourselves arrested by a Being -unchangeable and supreme, the first expression and absolute cause of -all existence, in whom diversity unites with unity, an eternal -problem, insoluble to science, but ever present to the human -consciousness. Here we reach the true source of the idea of religion, -and there presents itself distinctly to the mind that conception to -which we apply instinctively the name of God." - -Thus these evolutionists, like many others in this country and in -England, find a _modus vivendi_ between evolution and theism. They -have committed themselves to an interpretation of nature which may -prove fanciful and evanescent, and which certainly up to this time -remains an hypothesis, ingenious and captivating, but not fortified by -the evidence of facts. But in doing so they are not prepared to -accept the purely mechanical creed of the monist, or to separate -themselves from those ideas of morality, of religion, and of sonship -to God which have hitherto been the brightest gems in the crown of man -as the lord of this lower world. Whether they can maintain this -position against the monists, and whether they will be able in the end -to retain any practical form of religion along with the doctrine of -the derivation of man from the lower animals, remains to be seen. -Possibly before these questions come to a final issue the philosophy -of evolution may itself have been "modified" or have given place to -some new phase of thought. - -One curious point in this connection, to which little attention has -been given by evolutionists, is that to which Herbert Spencer has -given the name of "direct equilibration," though he is sufficiently -wise not to invite too much attention to it. This is the balance of -parts and forces within the organism itself. The organism is a complex -machine; and if its parts have been put together by chance and are -drifting onward in the path of evolution, there must of necessity be a -continual struggle going on between the different organs and -functions, each tending to swallow up the others and each struggling -for its own existence. This resolution of the body of each animal into -a house divided against itself is at first sight so revolting to -common sense and right feeling that few like to contemplate it. Roux -and other recent writers, however, especially in Germany, have brought -it into prominence, and it is no doubt a necessary consequence of the -evolutionary idea, though altogether at variance with the theory of -intelligent design, which supposes the animal machine put together -with care and for a purpose, and properly adjusted in all its parts. -On the hypothesis of evolution, the animal thus ceases to be, in the -proper sense of the term, even a machine, and becomes a mere mass of -conflicting parts depending for any constancy they may have on a -chance balancing of hostile forces, without any compelling power to -bring them together at first, or any means to bind them to joint -action in the system. The more such a doctrine is considered, the more -difficult does it seem to believe in the possibility of its truth. -Evolution has already reduced the cosmos into chaos, the harmony of -the universe into discord; but it seems past belief to introduce this -into the microcosm itself, and to see nothing in its exquisite -adjustments except the momentary equilibrium of a well-balanced fight. -Geological history also adds to the absurdity of such a view by -showing the marvellous permanence of many forms of life which have -continued to perpetuate themselves through almost immeasurable ages -without material changes, thus proving unanswerably the perfect -adjustment of their parts. - -Viewed rightly, this direct equilibration of the parts of the animal -seems to throw the greatest possible doubt on the capacity of any form -of evolution to produce new species. It is certain, from the facts -collected by Mr. Darwin himself in his work on animals under -domestication, that when man disturbs the balance of any organism by -changing in any way the relations of its parts, he introduces elements -of instability and weakness, which, despite the efforts of nature to -correct the evils resulting, speedily lead to degeneracy, infertility, -and extinction. Mr. T. Warren O'Neil of Philadelphia has recently -argued this point with much ability,[4] and has shown, on the -testimony of Darwin's facts, that unless "natural selection" is a -much more skilful breeder than man, and possesses some secrets not yet -discovered by us, the effects of this imaginary power would lead, not -to the production of new species, but merely to the extinction of -those already existing. In short, all the evidence goes to show -that--so beautifully balanced are the parts of the organism--any -excess or deficiency in any of them, when artificially or accidentally -introduced, brings in elements not only of instability, but of decay -and destruction. This subject is deserving of a more full treatment -than it can receive here, but enough has been said to show that in -this evolutionists have unwittingly furnished us with a new -confirmation of the theory of intelligent design. - -In some places there are in Haeckel's book touches of a grim humor -which are not without interest, as showing the subjective side of the -monistic theory and illustrating the attitude of its professors to -things held sacred by other men. For example, the following is the -introduction to the chapter headed "From the Primitive Worm to the -Skulled Animal," and which has for its motto the lines of Goethe -beginning: - - "Not like the gods am I! full well I know; - But like the worms which in the dust must go." - -"Both in prose and poetry man is very often compared to a worm; 'a -miserable worm,' 'a poor worm,' are common and almost compassionate -phrases. If we cannot detect any deep phylogenetic reference in this -zoological metaphor, we might at least safely assert that it contains -an unconscious comparison with a low condition of animal development -which is interesting in its bearing on the pedigree of the human -race." - -If Haeckel were well read in Scripture, he might have quoted here the -melancholy confession of the man of Uz: "I have said to the worm, Thou -art my mother and my sister." But, though Job, like the German -professor, could humbly say to the worm, "Thou art my mother," he -could still hold fast his integrity and believe in the fatherhood of -God. - -The moral bearing of monism is further illustrated by the following -extract, which refers to a more advanced step of the evolution--that -from the ape to man--and which shows the honest pride of the worthy -professor in his humble parentage: "Just as most people prefer to -trace their pedigree from a decayed baron, or if possible from a -celebrated prince, rather than from an unknown humble peasant, so they -prefer seeing the progenitor of the human race in an Adam degraded by -the fall, rather than in an ape capable of higher development and -progress. It is a matter of taste, and such genealogical preferences -do not, therefore, admit of discussion. It is more to my individual -taste to be the more highly-developed descendant of an ape, who in the -struggle for existence had developed progressively from lower mammals -as they from still lower vertebrates, than the degraded descendant of -an Adam, Godlike but debased by the fall, who was formed from a clod -of earth, and of an Eve created from a rib of Adam. As regards the -celebrated 'rib,' I must here expressly add, as a supplement to the -history of the development of the skeleton, that the number of ribs is -the same in man and in woman.[5] In the latter as well as in the -former the ribs originate from the skin-fibrous layer, and are to be -regarded phylogenetically as lower or ventral vertebrĉ."[6] - -There is no accounting for tastes, yet we may be pardoned for -retaining some preference for the first link of the old Jewish -genealogical table: "Which was the son of Adam, which was the son of -God." As to the "debasement" of the fall, it is to be feared that the -aboriginal ape would object to bearing the blame of existing human -iniquities as having arisen from any improvement in his nature and -habits; and it is scarcely fair to speak of Adam as "formed from a -_clod_ of earth," which is not precisely in accordance with the -record. As to the "rib," which seems so offensive to Haeckel, one -would have thought that he would, as an evolutionist, have had some -fellow-feeling in this with the writer of Genesis. The origin of sexes -is one of the acknowledged difficulties of the hypothesis, and, using -his method, we might surely "assume," or even "confidently assert," -the possibility that, in some early stage of the development, the -unfinished vertebral arches of the "skin-fibrous layer" might have -produced a new individual by a process of budding or gemmation. Quite -as remarkable suppositions are contained in some parts of his own -volumes, without any special divine power for rendering them -practicable. Further, if only an individual man originated in the -first instance, and if he were not provided with a suitable spouse, he -might have intermarried with the unimproved anthropoids, and the -results of the evolution would have been lost. Such considerations -should have weighed with Haeckel in inducing him to speak more -respectfully of Adam's rib, especially in view of the fact that in -dealing with the hard question of human origin the author of Genesis -had not the benefit of the researches of Baer and Haeckel. He had, no -doubt, the advantage of a firm faith in the reality of that Creative -Will which the monistic prophets of the nineteenth century have -banished from their calculations. Were Haeckel not a monist, he might -also be reminded of that grand doctrine of the lordship and -superiority of man based on the fact that there was no "help meet for -him;" and the foundation of the most sacred bond of human society on -the saying of the first man: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh -of my flesh." But monists probably attach little value to such ideas. - -It may be proper to add here that in his references to Adam, Haeckel -betrays a weakness not unusual with his school, in putting a false -gloss on the old record of Genesis. The statement that man was formed -from the dust of the ground implies no more than the production of his -body from the common materials employed in the construction of other -animals; this also in contradistinction from the higher nature derived -from the inbreathing or inspiration of God. The precise nature of the -method by which man was made or created is not stated by the author of -Genesis. Further, it would have been as easy for Divine Power to -create a pair as an individual. If this was not done, and if after the -lesson of superiority taught by the inspection of lower animals, and -the lesson of language taught by naming them, the first man in his -"deep sleep" is conscious of the removal of a portion of his own -flesh, and then on awaking has the woman "brought" to him, all this is -to teach a lesson not to be otherwise learned. The Mosaic record is -thus perfectly consistent with itself and with its own doctrine of -creation by Almighty Power. - -I have quoted the above passages as examples of the more jocose vein -of the Jena physiologist; but they constitute also a serious -revelation of the influence of his philosophy on his own mind and -heart, in lowering both to a cold, mechanical, and unsympathetic view -of man and nature. This is especially serious when we remember how -earnestly in a recent address he advocated the teaching of the methods -and results of this book, as those which, in the present state of -knowledge, should supersede the Bible in our schools. We may well say, -with his great opponent on that occasion, that if such doctrines -should be proved to be true, the teaching of them might become a -necessity, but one that would bring us face to face with the darkest -and most dangerous moral problem that has ever beset humanity; and -that so long as they remain unproved it is both unwise and criminal to -propagate them among the mass of men as conclusions which have been -demonstrated by science. - -In conclusion, we may notice shortly a few of the consequences of the -monistic evolution as held by Haeckel and others. Doctrines are -perhaps not to be judged by the consequences--at least, by the -immediate consequences--of their acceptance. Yet if their logical -consequences are such as to introduce confusion into our higher ideas -and sentiments, we have reason to hesitate as to their adoption--if on -no other ground, because we ourselves are a part of nature and should -be in harmony with any true explanation of it. - -We may affirm in this connection that agnostic evolution reduces all -our science to mere evanescent anthropomorphic fancies; so that, like -a parasite, it first supports itself on the strength and substance of -science, and then strangles it to death. Physical science is a product -of our thinking as to external things. If, therefore, the thinking -brain and the external nature which it studies are both of them the -fortuitous products of blind tendencies in a process of continuous -flux and vicissitude, our science can embody no elements of eternal -truth nor any conceptions as to the plans of a higher creative reason. -In that case it is absolutely worthless, and a pure waste of time and -energy, except in so far as it may yield any temporary material -advantages. - -Further, the agnostic evolution thus leaves us as orphans in the midst -of a cold and insensate nature. We are no longer dwellers in our -Father's house, beautiful and fitted for us, but are thrown into the -midst of a hideous conflict of dead forces, in which we must finally -perish and be annihilated. In a struggle so hopeless it is a mere -mockery to tell us that in millions of years something better may -come out of it, for we know that this will be of no avail to us, and -we feel that it is impossible. Thus the agnostic philosophy, if it be -once accepted as true, seriously raises the question whether life is -worth living. - -But if worth living, then it must be for the immediate and selfish -gratification of our desires and passions; and since we are deprived -of God and conscience, and right and wrong, and future reward or -punishment, and all men are alike in this position, there can be -nothing left for us but to rend and fight with our fellows for such -share of good as may fall to us in the deadly struggle, that we may -reach such happiness as may be possible for us in such an existence, -ere we drift into nonentity. Here, again, we are told that the -struggle will some time lead to the survival of the fittest, and that -the fittest may inaugurate a new and better reign of peace. But the -world has already lasted countless ages without arriving at this -result. It cannot concern me individually, any more than what happens -to-day concerns the extinct ichthyosaur or the megatherium. All that -is left for me is to "eat and drink, for to-morrow I die." - -If any one thinks that this is an exaggerated picture of the effects -of agnostic evolution as applied to man, I may refer him to the study -of Herbert Spencer's recent work _The Data of Ethics_, which has -contributed very much to open the eyes of thoughtful men to the depth -of spiritual, moral, and even social and political, ruin into which we -shall drift under the guidance of this philosophy. In this work the -data of ethics are reduced to the one consideration of what is -"pleasurable" to ourselves and others, and it is admitted that our -ideas of conscience, duty, and even of social obligation, are merely -fictions of temporary use until the time shall come when what is -pleasurable to ourselves shall coincide with what is pleasurable to -others; and this is to come, not out of the love of God and the -influence of his Spirit, but out of the blind struggle of opposing -interests. It has been well said that this system of morals--if it can -be dignified with such a name--is inferior, logically and practically, -not only to the "supernatural ethics" which it boastfully professes to -replace, but to the ethics of Aristotle and Cicero, and that "it will -not supersede revelation, nor is it likely to displace the old data of -ethics, whether Greek, Roman, or English." Independently of its -antagonism to theism and Christianity, it is foredoomed by the common -sense and the right feeling of even imperfect human nature. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2] Those who wish to understand the real bearings of palĉontology on -evolution should study Barrande's _Memoirs on the Silurian Trilobites, -Cephalopods, and Brachiopods_. - -[3] Beckett, _Origin of the Laws of Nature_. - -[4] _Refutation of Darwinism_, Philadelphia, 1880. - -[5] It was scarcely necessary to refer to this childish objection -unless the individual skeleton of Adam had been in question. - -[6] Rather, "vertebral arches." - - - - -LECTURE III. - -EVOLUTION AS TESTED BY THE RECORDS OF THE ROCKS. - - -Having discussed those vague analogies and fanciful pedigrees by which -it has been attempted to drag the science of Biology into the service -of Agnostic Evolution, we may now turn to another science--that of the -earth--and inquire how far it justifies us in affirming the -spontaneous evolution of plants and animals in the progress of -geological time. This subject is one which would require a lengthy -treatise for its full development, and it cannot be pursued in the -most satisfactory way without much previous knowledge of geological -facts and principles, and of the classification of animals and plants. -On the present occasion it must therefore be treated in the most -general possible manner, and with reference merely to the results -which have been reached. There is the more excuse for this mode of -treatment that, in works already published and widely circulated,[7] -I have endeavored to present its details in a popular form to general -readers. - -Geological investigation has disclosed a great series of stratified -rocks composing the crust of the earth, and formed at successive -times, chiefly by the agency of water. These can be arranged in -chronological order; and, so arranged, they constitute the physical -monuments of the earth's history. We must here take for granted, on -the testimony of geology, that the accumulation of this series of -deposits has extended over a vast lapse of time, and that the -successive formations contain remains of animals and plants from which -we can learn much as to the succession of life on the earth. Without -entering into geological details, it may be sufficient to present in -tabular form (see p. 107) the grand series of formations, with the -general history of life as ascertained from them. - - TABULAR VIEW OF GEOLOGICAL PERIODS AND OF LIFE-EPOCHS. - - +---------------------------------------+---------------+--------------+ - | | ANIMAL | VEGETABLE | - | GEOLOGICAL PERIODS. | LIFE. | LIFE. | - +---------------------------------------+---------------+--------------+ - | | | | - | CAINOZOIC or NEOZOIC. | | | - | | Age of _Man_ | | - | { _Post- { Recent. | and _Modern | | - | { Tertiary_ { Post-Glacial. | Mammals_. | | - | { or _Modern_ | | Age of | - | { |Age of _Extinct|_Angiosperms_ | - | { { Pleistocene, or | Mammals_. | and _Palms_. | - | { _Tertiary_ { Pliocene. | (Earliest | | - | { { Miocene. | Placental | | - | { { Eocene. | Mammals.) | | - | | | | - +---------------------------------------+---------------+--------------+ - | | | | - | MESOZOIC. | | | - | { { Upper, | | (Earliest | - | { _Cretaceous_ { Lower, or Neocomian. | | Modern | - | { | Age of | Trees.) | - | { | _Reptiles_ | | - | { { Oolite. | and _Birds_. | | - | { _Jurassic_ { Lias. | | Age of | - | { | | _Cycads_ and | - | { { Upper, | (Earliest | _Pines_. | - | { _Triassic_ { Middle, or | Marsupial | | - | { { Muschelkalk. | Mammals.) | | - | { { Lower. | | | - | | | | - +---------------------------------------+---------------+--------------+ - | | | | - | PALĈOZOIC. | | | - | { { Upper, | | | - | { { Middle, or Magnesian | | | - | { _Permian_ { Limestone. |(Earliest True | | - | { { Lower. | Reptiles.) | | - | { | | | - | { { Upper Coal-Formation.| | | - | { _Carboni- { Coal-Formation. | | | - | { ferous_ { Carboniferous | | | - | { { Limestone. | | | - | { { Lower Coal-Formation.| Age of | Age of | - | { | _Amphibians_ |_Acrogens_ and| - | { _Erian_ { Upper. | and _Fishes_. |_Gymnosperms_.| - | { or { Middle. | | | - | { _Devonian_ { Lower. | | | - | { | | | - | { { Upper, | | | - | { _Silurian_ { Lower, or | Age of | | - | { { Siluro-Cambrian. | _Mollusks_, | (Earliest | - | { | _Corals_ and |Land Plants.) | - | { { Upper. |_Crustaceans_. |Age of _Algĉ_.| - | { _Cambrian_ { Middle. | | | - | { { Lower. | | | - | | | | - +---------------------------------------+---------------+--------------+ - | | | | - | EOZOIC. | | | - | { _Huronian_ { Upper. | | | - | { { Lower. | Age of | Indications | - | { | _Protozoa_. | of Plants | - | { { Upper, or Norian. | (First Animal | not | - | { _Laurentian_ { Middle, | Remains.) | determinable.| - | { { Lower, or Bojian. | | | - | | | | - +---------------------------------------+---------------+--------------+ - -In the oldest rocks known to geologists--those of the Eozoic -time--some indications of the presence of life are found. Great beds -of limestone are contained in these formations, vast quantities of -carbon in the form of graphite, and thick beds of iron-ore. All these -are known, from their mode of occurrence in later deposits, to be -results, direct or indirect, of the agency of life; and if they -afforded no traces of organic forms, still their chemical character -would convey a presumption of their organic origin. But additional -evidence has been obtained in the presence of certain remarkable -laminated forms penetrated by microscopic tubes and canals, and which -are supposed to be the remains of the calcareous skeletons of -humbly-organized animals akin to the simplest of those now living in -the sea. Such animals--little more than masses of living animal -jelly--now abound in the waters, and protect themselves by secreting -calcareous skeletons, often complex and beautiful, and penetrated by -pores, through which the soft animal within can send forth minute -thread-like extensions of its body, which serve instead of limbs. The -Laurentian fossil known as _Eozoon Canadense_ (see Fig. 3) may have -been the skeleton of such a lowly-organized animal; and if so, it is -the oldest living thing that we know. But if really the skeleton or -covering of such an animal, _Eozoon_ is larger than any of its -successors, and quite as complex as any of them. There is nothing to -show that it could have originated from dead matter by any -spontaneous action, any more than its modern representatives could do -so. There is no evidence of its progress by evolution into any higher -form, and the group of animals to which it belongs has continued to -inhabit the ocean throughout geological time without any perceptible -advance in rank or complexity of structure. If, then, we admit the -animal nature of this earliest fossil, we can derive from it no -evidence of monistic evolution; and if we deny its animal nature, we -are confronted with a still graver difficulty in the next succeeding -formations. - - [Illustration: FIG. 3. - - 1. Small specimen of _Eozoon Canadense_, weathered out from - the containing rock, and showing its laminated structure. - - 2. Casts of irregular or acervaline chambers of upper part - (magnified). - - 3. Surface of a cast of a flat chamber, showing its - constituent chamberlets (magnified). - - 4. Section of casts of flat chambers (magnified). From the - Laurentian of Canada.] - -Between the rocks which contain _Eozoon_ and the next in which we find -any abundant remains of life, there is a gap in geological history, -either destitute of evidence of life or showing nothing materially in -advance of _Eozoon_. In the Cambrian Age, however, we obtain a vast -and varied accession of life. Here we find evidence that the sea -swarmed with living creatures near akin to those which still inhabit -it, and nearly as varied. Referring merely to leading groups, we have -here the soft shellfishes and the worms, the ordinary shellfishes, the -sea-stars, and the corals, with the sponges. In short, had we been -able to drop our dredge into the Cambrian or Lower Silurian ocean, we -should have brought up representatives of all the leading types of -invertebrate life that exist in the modern seas--different, it is -true, in details of structure from those now existing, but constructed -on the same principles and filling the same places in nature. - -If we inquire as to the history of this swarming marine life of the -early Palĉozoic, we find that its several species, after enduring for -a longer or a shorter time, one by one became extinct and were -replaced by others belonging to the same groups. Thus there is in each -great group a succession of new forms, distinct as species, but not -perceptibly elevated in the scale of being. In many cases, indeed, the -reverse seems to be the case; for it is not unusual to find the -successive dynasties of life in any one family manifesting degradation -rather than elevation. New, and sometimes higher, forms, it is true, -appear in the progress of time, but it is impossible, except by -violent suppositions, to connect them genetically with any -predecessors. The succession throughout the Palĉozoic presents the -appearance rather of the unchanged persistence of each group under a -succession of specific forms, and the introduction from time to time -of new groups, as if to replace others which were in process of decay -and disappearance. - -In the later half of the Palĉozoic we find a number of higher forms -breaking upon us with the same apparent suddenness as in the case of -the early Cambrian animals. Fishes appear, and soon abound in a great -variety of species, representing types of no mean rank, but, -singularly enough, belonging, in many cases, to groups now very rare; -while the commoner tribes of modern fish do not appear. On the land, -batrachian reptiles now abound, some of them very high in the -sub-class to which they belong. Scorpions, spiders, insects, and -millipedes appear, as well as land-snails, and this not in one -locality only, but over the whole northern hemisphere. At the same -time, the land appears clothed with an exuberant vegetation--not of -the lowest types nor of the highest, but of intermediate forms, such -as those of the pines, the club-mosses, and the ferns, all of which -attained in those days to magnitudes and numbers of species -unsurpassed, and in some cases unequalled, in the modern world. Nor do -they show any signs of an unformed or imperfect state. Their seeds -and spores, their fruits and spore-cases, are as elaborately -constructed, the tissues and forms of their stems and leaves as -delicate and beautiful, as in any modern plants. So with the compound -eyes and filmy wings of insects, the teeth, bones, and scales of -batrachians and fishes; all are as perfectly finished, and many quite -as complex and elegant, as in the animals of the present day (Figure -4). - - [Illustration: FIG. 4. - - Restoration (by _G. F. Matthew_) of a Trilobite - (_Paradoxides_) from the Lower Cambrian, as an evidence of the - existence of crustacean animals of high type and great - complexity in this early age. If such animals were evolved - from Protozoa by slow and gradual changes, the time required - would be greater than that which intervened between the - Cambrian period and the present time.] - -This wonderful Palĉozoic Age was, however, but a temporary state of -the earth. It passed away, and was replaced by the Mesozoic, -emphatically the reign of reptiles, when animals of that type attained -to colossal magnitude, to variety of function and structure, to -diversity of habitat in sea and on land, altogether unexampled in -their degraded descendants of modern times. Sea-lizards of gigantic -size swarmed everywhere in the waters. On land, huge quadrupeds, like -Atlantosaurus and Iguanodon and Megalosaurus, greatly exceeded the -elephants of later times; while winged reptiles--some of them of small -size, others with wings twenty feet in expanse--flitted in the air. -Strangely enough, with these reptilian lords appeared a few small and -lowly mammals, forerunners of the coming age. Birds also make their -appearance, and at the close of the period forests of broad-leaved -trees altogether different from those of the Palĉozoic Age, and -resembling those of our modern woods, appear for the first time over -great portions of the northern hemisphere. - -The Cainozoic, or Tertiary, is the age of mammals and of man. In it -the great reptilian tyrants of the Mesozoic disappear, and are -replaced on land and sea by mammals or beasts of the same orders with -those now living, though differing as to genera and species (see Fig. -5). So greatly, indeed, did mammalian life abound in this period that -in the middle part of the Tertiary most of the leading groups were -represented by more numerous species than at present; while many -groups then existing have now no representatives. At the close of this -great and wonderful procession of living beings comes man himself--the -last and crowning triumph of creation; the head, thus far, of life on -the earth. - -I have merely glanced at the leading events of this wonderful history, -because its details may be found in so many manuals and popular works -on geology. But if we imagine this great chain of life extending over -periods of enormous duration in comparison with the short span of -human history, presenting to the naturalist hosts of strange forms -which he could scarcely have imagined in his dreams, we may understand -how exciting have been these discoveries crowded within the lives of -two generations of geologists. Further, when we consider that the -general course of this great development of life, beginning with -Protozoa and ending with man, is from below upward--from the more -simple to the more complex--and that there is of necessity, in this -grand growth of life through the ages, a likeness or parallelism to -the growth of the individual animal from its more simple to its more -complex state, we can understand how naturalists should fancy that -here they have been introduced to the workshop of Nature, and that -they can discover how one creature may have been developed from -another by spontaneous evolution. - - [Illustration: FIG. 5. - - Skeleton of the American Mastodon, illustrating the number and - wide distribution of elephantine animals of the three genera - _Dinotherium_, _Mastodon_, and _Elephas_ in the later Tertiary - Age. Gaudry, the most eminent modern authority on these - animals, remarks that the facts at present known do not - "permit us to indicate any relation of descent between the - elephantine animals and those of other orders known to us at - present."] - -Many naturalists like Darwin and Haeckel, as well as philosophers like -Herbert Spencer, are quite carried away by this analogy, and appear -unable to perceive that it is merely a general resemblance between -processes altogether different in their nature, and therefore in -their causes. The greater part, however, of the more experienced -palĉontologists, or students of fossils, have long ago seen that in -the larger field of the earth's history there is very much that cannot -be found in the narrower field of the development of the individual -animal; and they have endeavored to reduce the succession of life to -such general expressions as shall render it more comprehensible and -may at length enable us to arrive at explanations of its complex -phenomena. Of these general expressions or conclusions I may state a -few here, as apposite to our present subject, and as showing how -little of real support the facts of the earth's history give to the -pseudo-gnosis of monistic evolution. - -1. The chain of life in geological time presents a wonderful testimony -to the reality of a beginning. Just as we know that any individual -animal must have had its birth, its infancy, its maturity, and will -reach an end of life, so we trace species and groups of species to -their beginning, watch their culmination, and perhaps follow them to -their extinction. It is true that there is a sense in which geology -shows "no sign of a beginning, no prospect of an end;" but this is -manifestly because it has reached only a little way back toward the -beginning of the earth as a whole, and can see in its present state no -indication of the time or manner of the end. But its revelation of the -fact that nearly all the animals and plants of the present day had a -very recent beginning in geological time, and its disclosure of the -disappearance of one form of life after another as we go back in time, -till we reach the comparatively few forms of life of the Lower -Cambrian, and finally have to rest over the solitary grandeur of -_Eozoon_, oblige it to say that nothing known to it is self-existent -and eternal. - -2. The geological record informs us that the general laws of nature -have continued unchanged from the earliest periods to which it relates -until the present day. This is the true "uniformitarianism" of geology -which holds to the dominion of existing causes from the first. But it -does not refuse to admit variations in the intensity of these causes -from time to time, and cycles of activity and repose, like those that -we see on a small scale in the seasons, the occurrence of storms, or -the paroxysms of volcanoes. When we find that the eyes of the old -trilobites have had lenses and tubes similar to those in the eyes of -modern crustaceans, we have evidence of the persistence of the laws of -light. When we see the structures of Palĉozoic leaves identical with -those of our modern forests, we know that the arrangements of the -soil, the atmosphere, and the rain were the same at that ancient time -as at present. Yet, with all this, we also find evidence that -long-continued periods of physical quiescence were followed by great -crumplings and foldings of the earth's crust, and we know that this -also is consistent with the operation of law; for it often happens -that causes long and quietly operating prepare for changes which may -be regarded as sudden and cataclysmic. - -3. Throughout the geological history there is progress toward greater -complexity and higher grade, along with degradation and extinction. -Though experience shows that it may be quite possible that new -discoveries may enable us to trace some of the higher forms of life -farther back than we now find them, yet there can be no question that -in the progress of geological time lower types have given place to -higher, less specialized to more specialized. Curiously enough, no -evidence proves this more clearly than that which relates to the -degradation of old forms. When, for example, the reptiles of the -Mesozoic Age were the lords of creation, there was apparently no place -for the larger Mammalia which appear at the close of the reptile -dynasty. So in the Palĉozoic, when trees of the cryptogamous type -predominated, there seems to have been no room in nature for the -forests of modern type which succeeded them. Thus the earth at every -period was fully peopled with living beings--at first with low and -generalized structures which attained their maxima at early stages and -then declined, and afterward with higher forms which took the places -of those that were passing away. These latter, again, though their -dominion was taken from them, were continued in lower positions under -the new dynasties. Thus none of the lower types of life introduced was -finally abandoned, but, after culminating in the highest forms of -which it was capable, each was still continued, though with fewer -species and a lower place. Examples of this abound in the history of -all the leading groups of animals and plants. - -4. There is thus a continued plan and order in the history of life -which cannot be fortuitous. The chance interaction of organisms and -their environment, even if we assume the organisms and environment as -given to us, could never produce an orderly continuous progress of the -utmost complexity in its detail, and extending through an enormous -lapse of time. It has been well said that if a pair of dice were to -turn up aces a hundred times in succession, any reasonable spectator -would conclude that they were loaded dice; so if countless millions of -atoms and thousands of species, each including within itself most -complex arrangement of parts, turn up in geological time in perfectly -regular order and a continued gradation of progress, something more -than chance must be implied. It is to be observed here that every -species of animal or plant, of however low grade, consists of many -co-ordinated parts in a condition of the nicest equilibrium. Any -change occurring which produces unequal or disproportionate -development, as the experience of breeders of abnormal varieties of -animals and plants abundantly proves, imperils the continued existence -of the species. Changes must, therefore, in order to be profitable, -affect the parts of the organism simultaneously and symmetrically. The -chances of this may well be compared to the casting of aces a -hundred times in succession, and are so infinitely small as to be -incredible under any other supposition than that of intelligent -design. - - [Illustration: FIG. 6. - - Group of Plants (restored) from the Devonian period, - illustrating the complexity and beauty of the earliest known - land vegetation, though many of the leading forms of modern - plants are unknown in this very ancient period.] - -5. The progress of life in geological time. Just as the growth of -trees is promoted or arrested by the vicissitudes of summer and -winter, so in the course of the geological history there have been -periods of pause and acceleration in the work of advancement. This is -in accordance with the general analogy of the operations of nature, -and is in no way at variance with the doctrine of uniformity already -referred to. Nor has it anything in common with the unfounded idea, at -one time entertained, of successive periods of entire destruction and -restoration of life. Prolific periods of this kind appear in the -marine invertebrates of the early Cambrian, the plants (Figure 6) and -fishes of the Devonian, the batrachians of the Carboniferous, the -reptiles of the Trias, the broad-leaved trees of the Cretaceous, and -the mammals of the early Tertiary. A remarkable contrast is afforded -by the later Tertiary and modern time, in which, with the exception of -man himself, and perhaps a very few other species, no new forms of -life have been introduced, while many old forms have perished. This -is somewhat unfortunate, since, in such a period of stagnation as that -in which we live, we can scarcely hope to witness either the creation -or the evolution of a new species. Evolutionists themselves--those, at -least, who are willing to allow their theory to be at all modified by -facts--now perceive this; and hence we have the doctrine, advanced by -Mivart, Le Conte, and others, of "critical periods," or periods of -rapid evolution alternating with others of greater quiescence. It is -further to be observed here that in a limited way and with reference -to certain forms of life we can see a reason for these intermittent -creations. The greater part of the marine fossils known to us are from -rocks now raised up in our continents, and they lived at periods when -the continents were submerged. Now, in geological time these periods -of submergence alternated with others of elevation; and it is manifest -that each period of continental submergence gave scope for the -introduction of numbers of new marine species, while each continental -elevation, on the other hand, gave opportunity for the increase of -land-life. Further, periods when a warm climate prevailed in the -arctic regions--periods when plants such as now live in temperate -regions could enjoy six months of continuous sunshine--were eminently -favorable to the development of such plants, and were utilized for the -introduction of new floras, which subsequently spread to the -southward. Thus we see physical changes occurring in an orderly -succession and made subservient to the progress of life. - -6. There is no direct evidence that in the course of geological time -one species has been gradually or suddenly changed into another. Of -the latter we could scarcely expect to find any evidence in fossils; -but of the former, if it had occurred, we might expect to find -indications in the history of some of the numerous species which have -been traced through successive geological formations. Species which -thus continue for a great length of time usually present numerous -varietal forms which have sometimes been described as new species; but -when carefully scrutinized they are found to be merely local and -temporary, and to pass into each other. On the other hand, we -constantly find species replaced by others entirely new, and this -without any transition. The two classes of facts are essentially -different; and though it is possible to point out in the newer -geological formations some genera and species allied to others which -have preceded them, and to suppose that the later forms proceeded from -the earlier, still, when the connecting-links cannot be found, this is -mere supposition, not scientific certainty. Further, it proceeds on -the principle of arbitrary choice of certain forms out of many without -any evidence of genetic connection. The worthlessness of such -derivation is well shown in a case which has often been paraded as an -illustration of evolution--the supposed genealogy of the horse. In -America a series of horse-like animals has been selected, beginning -with the _Orohippus_ of the Eocene, and these have been marshalled as -the ancestors of the fossil horses of America; for there are no native -horses in America in the modern period. Yet this is purely arbitrary, -and dependent merely on a succession of genera more and more closely -resembling the modern horse being procurable from successive Tertiary -deposits, often widely separated in time and place. In Europe, on the -other hand, the ancestry of the horse has been traced back to -_Palĉotherium_--an entirely different form--by just as likely -indications. Both genealogies can scarcely be true, and there is no -actual proof of either. The existing American horses, which are of -European parentage, are, according to the theory, descendants of -_Palĉotherium_, not of _Orohippus_; but if we had not known this on -historical evidence, there would have been nothing to prevent us from -tracing them to the latter animal. This simple consideration alone is -sufficient to show that such genealogies are not of the nature of -scientific evidence. - -It is further to be observed that some of the ablest palĉontologists, -and those who have enjoyed the largest opportunities of observation -and comparison, attach no value whatever to theories of evolution as -accounting for the origin of species. One of these is Joachim -Barrande, the palĉontologist of Bohemia, and the first authority in -Europe on the fossils of the older formations. Barrande, like some -other eminent palĉontologists, has the misfortune to be an unbeliever -in the modern gospel of evolution, but he has certainly labored to -overcome his doubts with greater assiduity than even many of the -apostles of the new doctrine; and if he is not convinced, the -stubbornness of the facts he has had to deal with must bear the -blame. In connection with his great and classical work on the Silurian -fossils of Bohemia, it has been necessary for him to study the similar -remains of every other country; and he has used this immense mass of -material in preparing statistics of the population of the Palĉozoic -world more perfect than any other naturalist has been able to produce. -In successive memoirs he has applied these statistical results to the -elucidation of the history of the oldest group of crustaceans--the -trilobites--and the highest group of the mollusks--the cephalopods. In -his latest memoir of this kind he takes up the brachiopods, or -lamp-shells, a group of bivalve shellfishes very ancient and very -abundantly represented in all the older formations of every part of -the world, and which thus affords the most ample material for tracing -its evolution, with the least possible difficulty in the nature of -"imperfection of the record." - -Barrande, in the publication before us, discusses the brachiopods with -reference, first, to the variations observed within the limits of the -species, eliminating in this way mere synonyms and varieties mistaken -for species. He also arrives at various important conclusions with -reference to the origin of species and varietal forms, which apply to -the cephalopods and trilobites as well as to the brachiopods, and some -of which, as the writer has elsewhere shown, apply very generally to -fossil animals and plants. One of these is that different -contemporaneous species, living under the same conditions, exhibit -very different degrees of vitality and variability. Another is the -sudden appearance at certain horizons of a great number of species, -each manifesting its complete specific characters. With very rare -exceptions, also, varietal forms are contemporaneous with the normal -form of their specific type, and occur in the same localities. Only in -a very few cases do they survive it. This and the previous results, as -well as the fact that parallel changes go on in groups having no -direct reaction on each other, prove that variation is not a -progressive influence, and that specific distinctions are not -dependent on it, but on the "sovereign action of one and the same -creative cause," as Barrande expresses it. These conclusions, it may -be observed, are not arrived at by that "slap-dash" method of mere -assertion so often followed on the other side of these questions, but -by the most severe and painstaking induction, and with careful -elaboration of a few apparent exceptions and doubtful cases. - -His second heading relates to the distribution in time of the genera -and species of brachiopods. This he illustrates with a series of -elaborate tables, accompanied by explanation. He then proceeds to -consider the animal population of each formation, in so far as -brachiopods, cephalopods, and trilobites are concerned, with reference -to the following questions: (1) How many species are continued from -the previous formation unchanged? (2) How many may be regarded as -modifications of previous species? (3) How many are migrants from -other regions where they have been known to exist previously? (4) How -many are absolutely new species? These questions are applied to each -of fourteen successive formations included in the Silurian of Bohemia. -The total number of species of brachiopods in these formations is six -hundred and forty, giving an average of 45.71 to each, and the results -of accurate study of each species in its characters, its varieties, -its geographical and geological range, are expressed in the following -short statement, which should somewhat astonish those gentlemen who -are so fond of asserting that derivation is "demonstrated" by -geological facts: - - 1. Species continued unchanged 28 per cent. - 2. Species migrated from abroad 7 " - 3. Species continued with modification 0 " - 4. New species without known ancestors 65 " - ------------- - 100 per cent. - -He shows that the same or very similar proportions hold with respect -to the cephalopods and trilobites, and, in fact, that the proportion -of species in the successive Silurian faunĉ which can be attributed to -descent with modification is absolutely _nil_. He may well remark that -in the face of such facts the origin of species is not explained by -what he terms _les élans poétiques de l'imagination_. - -The third part of Barrande's memoir, relating to the comparison of the -Silurian brachiopods of Bohemia with those of other countries, though -of great scientific interest, and important in extending the -conclusions of his previous chapters, does not so nearly concern our -present subject. - -I have thought it well to direct attention to these memoirs of -Barrande, because they form a specimen of conscientious work with the -view of ascertaining if there is any basis in nature for the doctrine -of spontaneous evolution of species, and, I am sorry to say, a -striking contrast to the mixture of fact and fancy on this subject -which too often passes current for science in England, America, and -Germany. Barrande's studies are also well deserving the attention of -our younger men of science, as they have before them, more especially -in the widely-spread Palĉozoic formations of America, an admirable -field for similar work. In an appendix to his first chapter Barrande -mentions that the three men who in their respective countries are the -highest authorities on Palĉozoic brachiopods, Hall, Davidson, and De -Koninck, agree with him in the main in his conclusions, and he refers -to an able memoir by D'Archiac in the same sense, on the cretaceous -brachiopods. - -It should be especially satisfactory to those naturalists who, like -the writer, had failed to see in the palĉontological record any good -evidence for the production of species by those simple and ready -methods in vogue with most evolutionists, to note the extension of -actual facts with respect to the geological dates and precise -conditions of the introduction of new forms, and to find that these -are more and more tending to prove the existence of highly complex -creative laws in connection with the great plan of the Creator as -carried out in geological time. These new facts should also warn the -ordinary reader of the danger of receiving without due caution those -general and often boastful assertions respecting these great and -intricate questions made by persons not acquainted with their actual -difficulty, or by enthusiastic speculators disposed to overlook -everything not in accordance with their preconceived ideas. - -It may be asked, Is there, then, no place in the geological record -even for theistic evolution? This it would be rash to affirm. We can -only say that up to this time there is no proof of it. If nature has -followed this method, she seems carefully to have concealed the -process. If such changes have occurred as to evolve from a species, -say of mollusk or coral, belonging to one geological period some form -found in another period, and recognized as a distinct species, we have -to suppose that the capacity for such change was in some way implanted -in the species on its creation, and ready to be developed under -favorable conditions or in the lapse of time. For example, we may -suppose that a plant originating in the long arctic summers of a warm -period might, on migrating southward into the alternations of day and -night, undergo material changes. A marine animal long confined to a -limited sea-basin might, on being permitted to expand over a wide -submerged continent, be greatly modified in its structure and habits. -Up to a certain point we know that such changes have occurred, and -Barrande himself has largely illustrated them. As an example which I -have myself studied, I may refer to the common shells known on our -coasts as sand-clams (_Mya truncata and Mya arenaria_). The former -species, in the cold waters of the Glacial Age, assumed a short form -which it still retains in the arctic regions, and occasionally in the -colder waters of the more temperate regions, though there a more -elongated form prevails. Evidently the two forms are interchangeable -according to the temperature of the water. Still, if we could imagine -a permanent refrigeration over all the area occupied by the animal, -the short form only might survive, and might be supposed to be a -distinct species. This did not occur, however, even in the Glacial -Age, and is not likely to occur. Further, the allied, though quite -distinct, species _Mya arenaria_ has lived with the other through all -the long duration of the Post-Pliocene and modern periods, and, though -having its own range of varietal forms, has preserved its -distinctness. Cases of this kind are obviously of the nature of -varietal, not specific, change. - -In conclusion, the whole of the facts and laws above detailed point to -a predetermined plan and to an intelligent Creator, of whose laws and -modes of procedure we may learn much by patient and careful study. -This surely gives a great additional interest to that marvellous story -of the earth which in these last days has been revealed to us by the -study of the rocks. We may also infer that not one method only but -many have been employed in replenishing the earth at first with living -beings, and in adding to these from time to time. To what extent we -may be able to understand these, time and future discoveries will -show. In the mean time, we can only suggest such general theories as -those referred to in the first of these lectures, but can affirm that -Agnostic Evolution is altogether abortive in its attempts to solve the -problem of the chain of life in geological time. - -FOOTNOTE: - -[7] _Story of the Earth_, _Origin of the World_, _Chain of Life in -Geological Time_. - - - - -LECTURE IV. - -THE ORIGIN AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN. - - -Man, when regarded merely as an organism, is closely related to the -lower animals. His body is constructed on the same general plan with -theirs. More especially, he is near akin to the other members of the -class Mammalia. But we must not forget that even as an animal man is -somewhat widely separated from his humbler relations (see Fig. 7). It -is easy to say that every bone, every muscle, every convolution of his -brain, has its counterpart in the corresponding parts of an orang or a -gorilla. But, admitting this, it is also true that every one of these -parts is different, and that the aggregate of all the differences -mounts up to an enormous sum-total, more especially in relation to -habits and to capacities for action. Those remarkable homologies or -likenesses of plan which obtain in the animal kingdom are very -wonderful, and the study of them greatly enlarges our conceptions of -the unity of nature; but we must never forget that such general -agreements in plan cover the most profound differences in detail and -in adaptation to use, and that, while they indicate a common type, -this may rather point to a unity of design than to a mere accidental -unity of descent. - - [Illustration: FIG. 7. - - Man and his "poor relation," the gorilla. (_After Huxley._) - The head of the gorilla, with immense jaws and small - brain-case, its huge spines on the neck, its long arms, its - elongated pelvis, and its hand-like feet, with its incapacity - to assume the erect position, indicate its ordinal difference - from man, and the necessity of many intermediate forms, still - unknown, to connect the two species.] - -There is a method, well known to natural science, for measuring and -indicating the divergence of man from his nearest allies. This is the -application of those principles of classification which, though of -essential importance in science, are by some modern students of nature -strangely overlooked or misunderstood. Perhaps in nothing has the -progress of ideas of evolution made a more injurious impress on the -advance of knowledge than in the manner in which it has caused many -eminent and able naturalists to diverge from all logical propriety in -their ideas of classification. Still, in so far as man is concerned, -there are some facts of this kind which are indisputable. He certainly -constitutes a distinct species, including many races, which all, -however, have common specific characters. On the other hand, no one -pretends that he is _conspecific_ with any lower animal. All -naturalists would now deride the stories, at one time current, that -gorillas and chimpanzees are degraded races of men. On the other -hand, even Haeckel admits that there is a wide gap, unfilled by any -recent or any fossil creature, between man and the highest apes. -Again, no _generic_ relationship can be claimed as between man and the -lower animals. He presents such structural differences as entitle him -to rank by himself in the genus _Homo_. Still further, the ablest -naturalists, before the rise of Darwinism, held that man was entitled -to be placed in a separate family or order from the apes. Modern -evolutionists prefer to fall back on the old arrangement of Linnĉus, -and to place man and apes together in the group of Primates, which, -however, Linnĉus would not have regarded as precisely of the same -value with an order as now held. In this those of them who have -sufficient ability to comprehend the facts of the case are undoubtedly -warped in judgment by the tendency of their philosophy to magnify -resemblances and to minimize differences; while the herd of feebler -men have their ideas of classification thoroughly confused by the -doctrine which they have received as a creed dictated by authority, -and to which they adhere under the influence of fear. In point of -fact, the differences between man and any other animal are so wide -that they warrant a distinction, not merely specific and generic, but -of a family and an ordinal character. - -Perhaps the best way to appreciate this will be to suppose that man -has become extinct, and that in some future geological period his -fossil remains are studied by some new race of intelligent beings, and -compared with those of the lower animals his contemporaries. Let us -suppose that they have disinterred a human skull or the bones of a -human foot. From the foot they would learn that man is not an arboreal -animal, but intended to walk erect on the ground. They could infer -from this certain structures and uses of the vertebral column and of -the anterior limbs different from those found in apes, and which would -certainly induce them to conclude that they had obtained remains -indicating a new order of mammals. If they had found the foot alone, -they might doubt whether the possessor of this strange and -highly-specialized organ had been carnivorous or herbivorous, more -nearly allied to the bears or to the monkeys. Should they now find the -skull, these doubts would be solved, and they would know that the new -animal was somewhat nearer to the apes than to the bears, but still -at a very remote distance from them, and this indicated by -peculiarities of brain-case, jaws, and teeth, proving divergences in -function still wider than those apparent in the structures. They would -also plainly perceive that to link man with his nearest mammalian -allies would require the discovery of several missing links. - -When we consider the psychological endowments of man, his divergence -from lower animals becomes immensely greater. In his external senses -and in the perceptions derived through them it is true he resembles -the brutes. There is also much in common with them in his appetites -and emotions, and in some of the lower manifestations of intelligence. -But he adds to this a higher reason, which causes his actions to be -differently determined from theirs; and this higher reason, or -spiritual nature, leads him to abstract ideas, to consciousness, to -notions of right and of wrong, to ideas of higher spiritual beings and -of futurity altogether unknown to lower animals. This divine reason, -in connection with special vocal contrivances, also bestows on him the -gift of speech. Nor can speech be reduced to a mere imitation of -natural sounds; for, granting that these sounds may be the raw -material of speech, yet man is enabled to apply this to the expression -of ideas in a manner altogether peculiar to himself. Scientific -precision obliges us to recognize these differences, and to admit that -they place man on an entirely different plane from the lower animals. - -Perhaps the expression "a different plane" is scarcely correct, for -man can exist on many different planes--a fact which has produced some -confusion in the minds of naturalists not versed in psychological -questions, though, when rightly considered, it marks very strongly the -distinction between the man and the mere animal. - -The lower animals are tied up by invariable instincts to certain lines -of action which keep all the individuals of any species on nearly the -same level, except where some little disturbance may be caused by man -in his processes of domestication. But with man it is quite different. -He is emancipated from the bond of instinct, and left free to follow -the guidance of his own will, determined by his own reason. It follows -that the habits and the actions of a man depend on what he knows and -believes, and on the deductions of his reason from these premises. -Without knowledge, culture, and training, man is more helpless than -any brute. With the noblest and highest capacities, he may devise and -follow habits of life more base than those of any mere animal. Thus -there is an almost immeasurable difference between the Godlike height -to which man can attain by the right use of his powers and the depth -to which ignorance and depravity may degrade him. It follows that the -degradation of the lower races of men is as strong a proof of the -difference between man and the lower animals as is the elevation of -the higher races. Both are characteristic of a being emancipated from -the control of instinct, knowing good and evil, free to choose, and -differing in these respects from every other creature on earth. Such -is man as we find him; and we may well ask by what process animal -instinct could ever spontaneously develop human freedom and human -reason. - -But we might have evidence of such a process, however strange and -improbable it might at first sight appear. We might be able to trace -man back in history or by prehistoric remains to greater and greater -approximation to the lower animals, and might thus bridge over the -great chasm now existing between man and beast. It may be instructive, -therefore, to glance at what geology discloses as to the origin of man -and his first appearance on the earth. - -In the older geological formations no remains of man or of his works -have been found. Nor do we expect to find them, for none of the -animals more nearly related to man then existed, and the condition of -the earth was probably not suited to them. Nor do we find human -remains even in the earlier Tertiary. Here also we do not expect them, -for the Mammalia of those times were all specifically distinct from -those of the modern world. It is only in the Pliocene period that we -begin to find modern species of mammals. Here, therefore, we may look -for human remains; but we do not find them as yet, and it is only at -the close of the Pliocene, or even after the succeeding Glacial -period, that we find undoubted traces of man. Let us glance at the -significance of this. - -Mammalian life probably culminated or attained to its maximum in the -Miocene and the early Pliocene periods. Then there were more numerous, -larger, and better-developed quadrupeds on our continents than we now -find. For example, the elephants, the noblest of the mammals, are at -present represented by two species confined to India and parts of -Africa.[8] In the Middle Tertiary there were, in addition to the -ordinary elephants, two other genera, Mastodon and Dinotherium, and -there were many species which were distributed over the whole northern -hemisphere. The sub-Himalayan deposits of India alone have, I believe, -afforded seven species, some of them of grander dimensions than either -of those now existing. We have no trustworthy evidence as yet that man -lived at this period. If he had, he either would have required the -protection of a special Eden, or would have needed superhuman strength -and sagacity. - -But the grand mammalian life of the Middle Tertiary was destined to -die out. At the close of the Pliocene came an age of refrigeration, -when arctic cold crept down over our continents far to the south, and -when most of the animals suited to temperate climates were either -frozen out or driven southward. During, or closing, this period was -also a great submergence of the continents, which must have been -equally destructive to mammalian life, and which extended over both -Eurasia and America till the summits of some of the highest hills were -under water. Attempts have been made to show that man existed before -or during the Glacial Age, but this is very unlikely, and, as I have -elsewhere argued, the evidence adduced to prove so great antiquity of -man, whether in America or Europe, has altogether broken down.[9] - -At the close of the Glacial period the continents re-emerged and -became more extensive than at present. Survivors of the Pliocene -species, as well as other species not previously known, spread -themselves over this new land. It would appear that it was in this -"Post-Glacial" period that man made his appearance, and that he was -then contemporary with many large animals now extinct, and was the -possessor of wider continental areas than his descendants now enjoy. -To this age belong those human bones and implements found in the older -cave and gravel deposits of Europe, and which are referred to those -palĉolithic or palĉocosmic ages which preceded the dawn of history in -Europe and the arrival therein of the present European races. The -occupation of Europe, and probably of Western Asia, by these oldest -tribes of men was closed by a subsidence or submergence at the end of -that "second continental period," as it has been called by Lyell,[10] -in which they lived. When the land was restored to its present -condition, they were replaced by the ancestors of the present European -races. - -It may be well here to tabulate that later portion of the earth's -geological history in which man appeared, more especially as it is -sometimes arranged in a manner not suited to convey a correct -impression of the actual succession. It will be seen by the general -table given in the last lecture that the latest of the Tertiary ages -is that known as the Pleistocene or Post-Pliocene, and this, with the -succeeding modern period, may be best arranged as follows: - - I. PLEISTOCENE, including-- - - (_a_) _Early Pleistocene_, or First Continental Period. Land - very extensive, moderate climate. - - (_b_) _Later Pleistocene_, or Glacial (including Dawkins' - "Mid-Pleistocene"). In this there was a great prevalence of - cold and glacial conditions, and a great submergence of the - northern land. - - II. MODERN, or Period of Man and Modern Mammals, including-- - - (_a_) _Post-Glacial_, or Second Continental Period, in which - the land was again very extensive, and palĉocosmic man was - contemporary with some great mammals--as the mammoth, now - extinct--and the area of land in the northern hemisphere was - greater than at present. (This represents the Late - Pleistocene of Dawkins.) It was terminated by a great and - very general subsidence, accompanied by the disappearance of - palĉocosmic man and some large Mammalia, and which may be - identical with the historical deluge.[11] - - (_b_) _Recent_, when the continents attained their present - levels, existing races of men colonized Europe, and living - species of mammals. This includes both the Prehistoric and - the Historic Period. - -The palĉocosmic men of the above table are the oldest certainly known -to us, and it has been truly said of them that they are so closely -related to modern races that, on any hypothesis of gradual evolution, -we must look for the transition from apes to men not merely in the -Eocene Tertiary, but even in the Mesozoic--that is, in formations -vastly older than any containing any remains so far as known either of -man or of apes. That these most ancient men were in truth most truly -human, and that they presented no transition to lower animals, will -appear from the following notices, which I condense from a work of my -own in which these subjects are more fully treated: - -The beautiful work of Lartet and Christy has vividly portrayed to us -the antiquities of the limestone plateau of the Dordogne--the ancient -Aquitania--remains which recall to us a population of Horites, or -cave-dwellers, of a time anterior to the dawn of history in France, -living much like the modern hunter-tribes of America, and, as already -stated, possibly contemporary--in their early history, at least--with -the mammoth and its extinct companions of the later Post-Pliocene -forests. We have already noticed the arts and implements of these -people, but what manner of people were they in themselves? The answer -is given to us by the skeletons found in the cave of Cro-magnon. This -cavern is a shelter or hollow under an overhanging ledge of limestone, -and excavated originally by the action of the weather on a softer bed. -It fronts the south-west and the little river Vezère; and, having -originally been about eight feet high and nearly twenty deep, must -have formed a cosey shelter from rain or cold or summer sun, and with -a pleasant outlook from its front. All rude races have much sagacity -in making selections of this sort. Being nearly fifty feet wide, it -was capacious enough to accommodate several families, and when in use -it no doubt had trees or shrubs in front, and may have been further -completed by stones, poles, or bark placed across the opening. It -seems, however, in the first instance to have been used only at -intervals, and to have been left vacant for considerable portions of -time. Perhaps it was visited only by hunting-or war-parties. But -subsequently it was permanently occupied, and this for so long a time -that in some places ashes and carbonaceous matter a foot and a half -deep, with bones, implements, etc., were accumulated. By this time the -height of the cavern had been much diminished, and, instead of -clearing it out for future use, it was made a place of burial, in -which four or five individuals were interred. Of these, two were men, -one of great age, the other probably in the prime of life. A third was -a woman of about thirty or forty years of age. The other remains were -too fragmentary to give very certain results. - -These bones, with others to be mentioned in connection with them, -unquestionably belong to the oldest human inhabitants known in Western -Europe. They have been most carefully examined by several competent -anatomists and archĉologists, and the results have been published -with excellent figures in the _Reliquiĉ Aquitanicĉ_. They are, -therefore, of the utmost interest for our present purpose, and I shall -try so to divest the descriptions of anatomical details as to give a -clear notion of their character. The 'Old Man of Cro-magnon' was of -great stature, being nearly six feet high. More than this, his bones -show that he was of the strongest and most athletic muscular -development--a Samson in strength; and the bones of the limbs have the -peculiar form which is characteristic of athletic men habituated to -rough walking, climbing, and running, for this is, I believe, the real -meaning of the enormous strength of the thigh-bone and the flattened -condition of the leg in this and other old skeletons. It occurs to -some extent, though much less than in this old man, in American -skeletons. His skull presents all the characters of advanced age, -though the teeth had been worn down to the sockets without being lost; -which, again, is the character of some, though not of all, aged Indian -skulls. The skull proper, or brain-case, is very long--more so than in -ordinary modern skulls--and this length is accompanied with a great -breadth; so that the brain was of greater size than in average modern -men, and the frontal region was largely and well developed. In this -respect this most ancient skull fails utterly to vindicate the -expectations of those who would regard prehistoric men as approaching -to the apes. It is at the opposite extreme. The face, however, -presented very peculiar characters. It was extremely broad, with -projecting cheek-bones and heavy jaw, in this resembling the coarse -types of the American face, and the eye-orbits were square and -elongated laterally. The nose was large and prominent, and the jaws -projected somewhat forward. This man, therefore, had, as to his -features, some resemblance to the harsher type of American -physiognomy, with overhanging brows, small and transverse eyes, high -cheek-bones, and coarse mouth. He had not lived to so great an age -without some rubs, for his thigh-bone showed a depression which must -have resulted from a severe wound--perhaps from the horn of some wild -animal or the spear of an enemy. - -The woman presented similar characters of stature and cranial form -modified by her sex, and must in form and visage have been a veritable -squaw, who, if her hair and complexion were suitable, would have -passed at once for an American Indian woman, of unusual size and -development. Her head bears sad testimony to the violence of her age -and people. She died from the effects of a blow from a stone-headed -pogamogan or spear, which has penetrated the right side of the -forehead with so clean a fracture as to indicate the extreme rapidity -and force of its blow. It is inferred from the condition of the edges -of this wound that she may have survived its infliction for two weeks -or more. If, as is most likely, the wound was received in some sudden -attack by a hostile tribe, they must have been driven off or have -retired, leaving the wounded woman in the hands of her friends to be -tended for a time, and then buried, either with other members of her -family or with others who had perished in the same skirmish. Unless -the wound was inflicted in sleep, during a night-attack, she must have -fallen, not in flight, but with her face to the foe, perhaps aiding -the resistance of her friends or shielding her little ones from -destruction. With the people of Cro-magnon, as with the American -Indians, the care of the wounded was probably a sacred duty, not to be -neglected without incurring the greatest disgrace and the vengeance of -the guardian spirits of the sufferers. - -The skulls of these people have been compared to those of the modern -Esthonians or Lithuanians; but on the authority of M. Quatrefages it -is stated that, while this applies to the probably later race of small -men found in some of the Belgian caves, it does not apply so well to -the people of Cro-magnon. Are, then, these people the types of any -ancient, or of the most ancient, European race? One answer is given by -the remarkable skeleton of Mentone, in the South of France, found -under circumstances equally suggestive of great antiquity (Figure 8). -Dr. Rivière, in a memoir on this skeleton illustrated by two beautiful -photographs, shows that the characters of the skull and of the bones -of the limbs are precisely similar to those of the Cro-magnon -skeleton, indicating a perfect identity of race, while the objects -found with the skeleton are similar in character. - -The ornaments of Cro-magnon were perforated shells from the Atlantic -and pieces of ivory. Those at Mentone were perforated Neritinĉ from -the Mediterranean and canine-teeth of the deer. In both cases there -was evidence that these ancient people painted themselves with red -oxide of iron; and, as if to complete the similarity, the Mentone man -had an old healed-up fracture of the radius of the left arm, the -effect of a violent blow or of a fall. Skulls found at Clichy and -Grenelle in 1868 and 1869 are described by Professor Broca and Mr. -Fleurens as of the same general type, and the remains found at -Gibraltar and in the cave of Paviland, in England, seem also to have -belonged to the same race. The celebrated Engis skull, believed to -have belonged to a contemporary of the mammoth, is also precisely of -the same type, though less massive than that of Cro-magnon; and, -lastly, even the somewhat degraded Neanderthal skull, found in a cave -near Dusseldorf, though, like that of Clichy, inferior in frontal -development, is referable to the same peculiar long-headed style of -man, in so far as can be judged from the portion that remains. - - [Illustration: FIG. 8. - - Portion of the skeleton of the fossil man of Mentone. This - skeleton was discovered by Dr. Rivière under about twenty feet - of accumulated débris. It belongs to the palĉocosmic age, and - illustrates the high type, physically, of the man of that - period. The skeleton, like others of that age, indicates a man - of great stature and muscular vigor, and with brain above the - average size. (_After Rivière._)] - -Let it be observed, then, that these skulls are probably the oldest -known in the world, and they are all referable to one race of men; and -let us ask what they tell as to the position and character of -palĉolithic man. The testimony is here fortunately wellnigh unanimous. -Huxley, who well compares some of the peculiar features of these -ancient skulls and skeletons to those of Australians and other rude -tribes, and of the ancient Danes of Borroby--a people not improbably -allied to the Esthonians and Fins--remarks that the manner in which -the individual heads of the most homogeneous rude races differ from -each other "in the same characters, though perhaps not to the same -extent with the Engis and Neanderthal skulls, seems to prohibit any -cautious reasoner from affirming the latter to have necessarily been -of distinct races." My own experience in American skulls, and the -still larger experience of Dr. Wilson, fully confirm the wisdom of -this caution.... He adds: "Finally, the comparatively large cranial -capacity of the Neanderthal skull, overlaid though it may be by -pithecoid, bony walls, and the completely human proportions of the -accompanying limb-bones, together with the very fair development of -the Engis skull, clearly indicate that the first traces of the -primordial stock whence man has been derived need no longer be sought -by those who entertain any form of the doctrine of progressive -development in the newest Tertiaries, but that they may be looked for -in an epoch more distant from that of the _Elephas primigenius_ than -that is from us." If he had possessed the Cro-magnon and Mentone -skulls at the time when this was written, he might well have said -immeasurably distant from the time of the _Elephas primigenius_. -Professor Broca, who seems by no means disinclined to favor a simian -origin for men, has the following general conclusions, which refer to -the Cro-magnon skulls: "The great volume of the brain, the development -of the frontal region, the fine elliptical profile of the anterior -portion of the skull, and the orthognathous form of the upper facial -region, are incontestably evidence of superiority which are met with -usually only in the civilized races. On the other hand, the great -breadth of face, the alveolar prognathism, the enormous development of -the ascending ramus of the lower jaw, the extent and roughness of the -muscular insertions, especially of the masticatory muscles, give rise -to the idea of a violent and brutal race." - - [Illustration: FIG. 9. - - Three bone harpoons. The upper is from Kent's Cavern, Torquay, - and perhaps the oldest known, being of the mammoth age. The - second is from Denmark, and is neocosmic, though prehistoric. - The third is modern, from Tierra del Fuego. They show the - similarity of bone implements in all ages of the world. The - earliest had already attained as much perfection as the - material permitted with reference to the use intended.] - -He adds that this apparent antithesis, seen also in the limbs as well -as in the skull, accords with the evidence furnished by the associated -weapons and implements of a rude hunter-life, and at the same time of -no mean degree of taste and skill in carving and other arts (see Fig. -9). He might have added that this is precisely the antithesis seen in -the American tribes, among whom art and taste of various kinds, and -much that is high and spiritual even in thought, coexisted with -barbarous modes of life and intense ferocity and cruelty. The god and -the devil were combined in these races, but there was nothing of the -mere brute. - -Rivière remarks, with expressions of surprise, the same contradictory -points in the Mentone skeleton. Its grand development of brain-case -and high facial angle--even higher, apparently, than in most of these -ancient skulls--combined with other characters which indicate a low -type and barbarous modes of life. - -Another point which strikes us in reading the descriptions, and which -deserves the attention of those who have access to the skeletons, is -the indication which they seem to present of an extreme longevity. The -massive proportions of the body, the great development of the muscular -processes, the extreme wearing of the teeth among a people who -predominantly lived on flesh and not on grain, the obliteration of the -sutures of the skull, along with indications of slow ossification of -the ends of the long bones, point in this direction, and seem to -indicate a slow maturity and great length of life in this most -primitive race. - -The picture would be incomplete did we not add that in France and -Belgium, in the immediately succeeding or reindeer age, these gigantic -and magnificent men seem to have been superseded by a feebler race of -smaller stature and with shorter heads; so that we have, even in these -oldest days, the same contrasts so plainly perceptible in the races of -the North of Europe and the North of America in historical times -(Figure 10). - - [Illustration: FIG. 10. - - Section of the cave of Frontal, in Belgium. (_After Dupont._) - _a_, limestone; _b_, deposit of mud of the mammoth age, on - which rests a bed of gravel, _c_, and above this there was, in - modern times, a mass of fallen débris, _d_, up to the dotted - line. On removing this, a hearth was found at _e_, on which - were numerous bones of modern animals, the remains of funeral - feasts. The cave was closed with a flat stone, and within were - skeletons, stone implements, ornaments, and pottery of the - "neolithic" age. Under these was undisturbed earth of the - palĉolithic, or mammoth age. The facts show the succession, in - Belgium, of palĉocosmic or antediluvian men and of neocosmic - men allied to the Basques or to the Laps, and all this - previous to the advent of the modern races.] - -It is further significant that there are some indications to show that -the larger and nobler race was that which inhabited Europe at the time -of its greatest elevation above the sea and greatest horizontal -extent, and when its fauna included many large quadrupeds now extinct. -This race of giants was thus in the possession of a greater -continental area than that now existing, and had to contend with -gigantic brute rivals for the possession of the world. It is also not -improbable that this early race became extinct in Europe in -consequence of the physical changes which occurred in connection with -the subsidence which reduced the land to its present limits, and -that the dwarfish race which succeeded came in as the appropriate -accompaniment of a diminished land-surface and a less genial climate -in the early modern period. Both of these races are properly -palĉolithic, and are supposed to antedate the period of polished -stone; but this may, to a great extent, be a prejudice of collectors, -who have arrived at a foregone conclusion as to the distinctness of -these periods (Figure 11). Judging from the great cranial capacity of -the older race and the small number of their skeletons found, it would -be fair to suppose that they represent rude outlying tribes belonging -to races which elsewhere had attained to greater culture. - - [Illustration: FIG. 11. - - Flint arrow-heads found together in a modern Indian deposit in - Canada, and showing the coincidence in time of rude and - finished flint weapons, or that among all savages using - chipped flint, the palĉolithic and neolithic ages are - contemporaneous.] - -Lastly, both of these old European races were Turanian, Mongolian, or -American in their head-forms and features, as well as in their habits, -implements, and arts. To illustrate this, in so far as the older of -the two races is concerned, I have carefully compared collections of -American Indian skulls with casts and figures representing the form -and dimensions of some of the oldest European crania above referred -to. Some of the American skulls may fairly be compared in their -characters with the Mentone skull, and others with those of -Cro-magnon, Engis, and Neanderthal; and so like are some of the Huron, -Iroquois, and other northern American skulls to these ancient European -relics and others of their type, that it would be difficult to affirm -that they might not have belonged to near relatives. On the other -hand, the smaller and shorter heads of the race of the reindeer age in -Europe may be compared with the Laps, and with some of the more -delicately formed Algonquin and Chippewayan skulls in America. If, -therefore, the reader desires to realize the probable aspect of the -men of Cro-magnon, of Mentone, or of Engis, I may refer him to modern -American heads. So permanent is this great Turanian race, out of which -all the other races now extant seem to have been developed, in the -milder and more hospitable regions of the Old World, while in northern -Asia and in America it has retained to this day its primitive -characters. - -The reader, reflecting on what he has learned from history, may be -disposed here to ask, Must we suppose Adam to have been one of these -Turanian men, like old men of Cro-magnon? In answer, I would say that -there is no good reason to regard the first man as having resembled a -Greek Apollo or an Adonis. He was probably of sterner and more -muscular mould. But the gigantic palĉolithic men of the European caves -are more probably representatives of that fearful and powerful race -who filled the antediluvian world with violence, and who reappear in -postdiluvian times as the Anakim and traditional giants, who -constitute a feature in the early history of so many countries. -Perhaps nothing is more curious in the revelations as to the most -ancient cave-men than that they confirm the old belief that there were -'giants in those days.' - -And now let us pause for a moment to picture these so-called -palĉolithic men. What could the old man of Cro-magnon have told us had -we been able to sit by his hearth and listen understandingly to his -speech?--which, if we may judge from the form of his palate-bones, -must have resembled more that of the Americans or Mongolians than of -any modern European people. He had, no doubt, travelled far, for to -his stalwart limbs a long journey through forests and over plains and -mountains would be a mere pastime. He may have bestridden the wild -horse, which seems to have abounded at the time in France, and he may -have launched his canoe on the waters of the Atlantic. His experience -and memory might extend back a century or more, and his traditional -lore might go back to the times of the first mother of our race. Did -he live in that wide Post-Pliocene continent which extended westward -through Ireland? Did he know and had he visited the nations that lived -in the valley of the great Gihon, that ran down the Mediterranean -Valley, or on that nameless river which flowed through the Dover -Straits? Had he visited or seen from afar the great island Atlantis, -whose inhabitants could almost see in the sunset sky the islands of -the blest? Or did he live at a later time, after the Post-Pliocene -subsidence, and when the land had assumed its present form? In that -case he could have told us of the great deluge, of the huge animals of -the antediluvian World--known to him only by tradition--and of the -diminished strength and longevity of men in his comparatively modern -days. We can but conjecture all this. But, mute though they may be as -to the details of their lives, the man of Cro-magnon and his -contemporaries are eloquent of one great truth, in which they coincide -with the Americans and with the primitive men of all the early ages. -They tell us that primitive man had the same high cerebral -organization which he possesses now, and, we may infer, the same high -intellectual and moral nature, fitting him for communion with God and -headship over the lower world. They indicate, also, like the -Mound-builders, who preceded the North American Indian, that man's -earlier state was the best--that he had been a high and noble creature -before he became a savage. It is not conceivable that their high -development of brain and mind could have spontaneously engrafted -itself on a mere brutal and savage life. These gifts must be remnants -of a noble organization degraded by moral evil. They thus justify the -tradition of a Golden and Edenic Age, and mutely protest against the -philosophy of progressive development as applied to man, while they -bear witness to the identity in all important characters of the oldest -prehistoric men with that variety of our species which is at the -present day at once the most widely extended and the most primitive in -its manners and usages. - -Thus it would appear that these earliest known men are not -specifically distinct from ourselves, but are a distinct race, most -nearly allied to that great Turanian stock which is at the present -day, and has apparently from the earliest historic times been, the -most widely spread of all. Though rude and uncultured, they were not -either physically or mentally inferior to the average men of to-day, -and were indeed in several respects men of high type, whose great -cranial capacity might lead us to suppose that their ancestors had -recently been in a higher state of civilization than themselves. It -is, however, possible that this characteristic was rather connected -with great energy and physical development than with high mental -activity. - -To the hypothesis of evolution, as applied to man, these facts -evidently oppose great difficulties. They show that such modern -degraded races as the Fuegians or the Tasmanians cannot present to us -the types of our earlier ancestors, since the latter were men of a -different and higher style. Nor do these oldest known men present any -approximation in physical characters to the lower animals. Further, we -may infer from their works, and from what we know of their beliefs -and habits, that they were not creatures of instinct, but of thought -like ourselves, and that materialistic doctrines of automatism and -brain-force without mind would be quite as absurd in their application -to them as to their modern representatives. - -It is not too much to say that, in presence of these facts, the -spontaneous origin of man from inferior animals cannot be held as a -scientific conclusion. It may be an article of faith in authority, or -a superstition or an hypothesis, but is in no respect a result of -scientific investigation into the fossil remains of man. But if man is -not such a product of spontaneous evolution, he must have been created -by a Being having a higher reason and a greater power than his own; -and the ancestry of the agnostic, and the rational powers which he -exercises, constitute the best refutation of his own doctrine. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[8] The Ceylon elephant is by some believed to be distinct, but is -probably a variety of the Indian species. - -[9] _Fossil Men_ (London, 1880), Appendix. - -[10] The first continental period was that of the earlier Pliocene. - -[11] The precise date in years assignable to this event geology cannot -determine; but I have elsewhere shown that the actual antiquity of the -palĉocosmic or antediluvian man has been greatly exaggerated. - - - - -LECTURE V. - -NATURE AS A MANIFESTATION OF MIND. - - -The subjects already discussed should have prepared us to regard -nature as not a merely fortuitous congeries of matter and forces, but -as embodying plan, design, and contrivance; and we may now inquire as -to the character of these, considered as possible manifestations of -mind in nature. The idea that nature is a manifestation of mind, is -ancient, and probably universal. It proceeds naturally from the -analogy between the operations of nature and those which originate in -our own will and contrivance. When men begin to think more accurately, -this idea acquires a deeper foundation in the conclusion that nature, -in all its varied manifestations, is one vast machine too great and -complex for us to comprehend, and implying a primary energy infinitely -beyond that of man; and thus the unity of nature points to one -Creative Mind. - -Even to savage peoples, in whose minds the idea of unity has not -germinated, or from whose traditions it has been lost, a spiritual -essence appears to underlie all natural phenomena, though they may -regard this as consisting of a separate spirit or manitou for every -material thing. In all the more cultivated races the ideas of natural -religion have taken more definite forms in their theology and -philosophy. Dugald Stewart has well expressed the more scientific form -of this idea in two short statements: - -"1. Every effect implies a cause. - -"2. Every combination of means to an end implies intelligence." - -The theistic aspect of the doctrine had, as we have seen in a previous -lecture, been already admirably expressed by Paul in his Epistle to -the Romans. Writing of what every heathen must know of mind in nature, -he says: "The invisible things of him since the creation of the world -are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, -even his eternal power and divinity." The two things which, according -to him, every intelligent man must perceive in nature are, first, -power above and beyond that of man, and, secondly, superhuman -intelligence. Even Agnostic Evolution cannot wholly divest itself of -the idea of mind in nature. Its advocates continually use terms -implying contrivance and plan when speaking of nature; and Spencer -appears explicitly to admit that we cannot divest ourselves of the -notion of a First Cause. Even those writers who seek to shelter -themselves under such vague and unmeaning statements as that human -intelligence must be potentially present in atoms or in the solar -energy, are merely attributing superhuman power and divinity to atoms -and forces. - -Nor can they escape by the magisterial denunciation of such ideas as -"anthropomorphic" fancies. All science must in this sense be -anthropomorphic, for it consists of what nature appears to us to be -when viewed through the medium of our senses, and of what we think of -nature as so presented to us. The only difference is this--that if -Agnostic Evolution is true, Science itself only represents a certain -stage of the development, and can have no actual or permanent truth; -while, if the theistic view is correct, then the fact that man himself -belongs to the unity of nature and is in harmony with its other parts -gives us some guarantee for the absolute truth of scientific facts and -principles. - -We may now consider more in detail some of the aspects under which -mind presents itself in nature. - -1. It may be maintained that nature is an exhibition of regulated and -determined power. The first impression of nature presented to a mind -uninitiated in its mysteries is that it is a mere conflict of opposing -forces; but so soon as we study any natural phenomena in detail, we -see that this is an error, and that everything is balanced in the -nicest way by the most subtle interactions of matter and force. We -find also that, while forces are mutually convertible and atoms -susceptible of vast varieties of arrangement, all this is determined -by fixed law and carried out with invariable regularity and constancy. - -The vapor of water, for example, diffused in the atmosphere, is -condensed by extreme cold and falls to the ground in snowflakes. In -these, particles of water previously kept asunder by heat are united -by cohesive force; and the heat has gone on other missions. But these -particles do not merely unite: they geometrize. Like well-drilled -soldiers arranging themselves in ranks, they form themselves, -according to regular axes of attraction, in lines diverging at an -angle of sixty degrees; and thus the snowflakes are hexagonal plates -and six-rayed stars, the latter often growing into very complex -shapes, but all based on the law of attraction under angles of sixty -degrees (see Fig. 12). The frost on the window-panes observes the same -law, and so does every crystallization of water where it has scope to -arrange itself in accordance with its own geometry. But this law of -crystallization gives to snow and ice their mechanical properties, and -is connected with a multitude of adjustments of water in the solid -state to its place in nature. The same law, varied in a vast number of -ways in every distinct substance, builds up crystals of all kinds and -crystalline rocks, and is connected with countless adaptations of -different kinds of matter to mechanical and chemical uses in the arts. -It is easy to see that all this might have been otherwise--nay, that -it must have been otherwise--but for the institution of many and -complex laws. - - [Illustration: FIG. 12. - - Snowflakes copied from nature under the microscope, and - serving to illustrate the geometrical arrangement of molecules - of water in crystallizing. _a_, _b_, simple stars; _c_, _d_, - hexagonal plates; _e_, _f_, rays of large and complex - star-shaped flakes. The law of arrangement of the molecules is - that of attraction in the lines of three axes at angles of - sixty degrees, and the varieties are produced by differences - in temperature and rate of supply of material.] - -A lump of coal at first suggests little to excite interest or -imagination; but the student of its composition and microscopic -structure finds that it is an accumulation of vegetable matter -representing the action of the solar light on the leaves of trees of -the Palĉozoic Age. It thus calls up images of these perished forests -and of the causes concerned in their production and growth, and in the -accumulation and preservation of their buried remains. It further -suggests the many ways in which this solar energy, so long sealed up, -can be recalled to activity in heat, gaslight, steam, and electric -light, and how remarkably these things have been related to the wealth -and the civilization of modern nations. An able writer of the agnostic -school, in a popular lecture on coal, has his imagination so -stimulated by these thoughts that he apostrophizes "Nature" as the -cunning contriver who stored up this buried sunlight by her strange -and mysterious alchemy, kept it quietly to herself through all the -long geological periods when reptiles and brute mammals were lords of -creation, and through those centuries of barbarism when savage men -roamed over the productive coal-districts in ignorance of their -treasures, and then revealed her long-hidden stores of wealth and -comfort to the admiring study of science and civilization, and for the -benefit of the millions belonging to densely-peopled and progressive -nations; It is plain that "Nature" in such a connection represents -either a poetical fiction, a superstitious fancy, or an intelligent -Creative Mind. It is further evident that such Creative Mind must be -in harmony with that of man, though vastly greater in its scope and -grasp in time and space. - -Even the numerical relations observed in nature teach the same lesson. -The leaves of plants are not arranged at random, but in a series of -curiously-related spirals, differing in different plants, but always -the same in the same species and regulated by definite laws. Similar -definiteness regulates the ramification of plants, which depends -primarily on the arrangement of the leaves. The angle of ramification -of the veins of the leaf is settled for each species of plant; so are -the numbers of parts in the flower and the angular arrangement of -these parts. It is the same in the animal kingdom, such numbers as 5, -6, 8, 10 being selected to determine the parts in particular animals -and portions of animals. Once settled, these numbers are wonderfully -permanent in geological time. The first known land reptiles appear in -the Carboniferous period, and they have normally five toes; these -appear in the earliest known species in the lowest beds of the -Carboniferous. Their predecessors, the fishes, had numerous fin-rays; -but when limbs for locomotion on land were contrived, the number five -was adopted as the typical one. It still persists in the five toes and -fingers of man himself. From these, as is well known, our decimal -notation is derived. It did not originate in any special fitness of -the number ten, but in the fact that men began to reckon by counting -their ten fingers. Thus the decimal system of arithmetic, with all -that follows from it, was settled millions of years ago, in the -Carboniferous period, either by certain low-browed and unintelligent -batrachians or by their Maker. - -2. Nature presents to us very remarkable revelations of dissimilar and -widely-separated matters and forces. I have referred to the numerical -arrangement of the leaves of plants; but the leaf itself, in its -structure and functions, is one of the most remarkable things in -nature. Composed of layers of loosely-placed living cells with -air-spaces between them; enclosed above and below with a transparent -epidermis, the spaces between the cells communicating with the -atmosphere without by means of microscopic pores guarded by -cunningly-contrived valves opening or closing according to the -hygrometric state of the air; connected with the stem of the plant by -a system of tubes strengthened with spiral fibres within,--the -structure of the leaf is, mechanically considered, of extreme beauty -and complexity. But its living functions are still more wonderful. -Receiving the water from the soil with such materials as it brings -thence in solution, and absorbing carbonic dioxide and ammonia from -the air, the living protoplasm of the leaf-cells has the power of -chemically changing all these substances, and of producing from them -those complicated and otherwise inimitable organic compounds of which -the tissues of the plant are built up. The force by which this is done -is that of the solar heat and light, both admitted freely into the -interior of the leaf through the transparent epidermis, and therein -imprisoned, so as to constitute a powerful storehouse of evaporation -and chemical energy. In this way all the materials available for the -maintenance of life, whether vegetable or animal, are produced, and no -other structure than the living vegetable cell, as it exists in the -leaf, has the power to effect these miracles of transmutation. Here, -let it be observed, we have the vegetable cell placed in relation with -the system of the plant, with the soil, with the atmosphere and its -waters, with the distant sun itself and the properties of its emitted -energies. Let it further be observed that, on the one hand, the -chemistry involved in this is of a character altogether different from -that which applies to inorganic matter, and, on the other, the -products derived from a very few elements embrace all that vast -variety of compounds which we observe in plants and animals, and which -constitute the material of one of the most complex of sciences--that -of organic chemistry. Finally, these complicated structures were -produced and all their relations set up at a very early geological -period. In so far as we can judge from their remains and the results -effected, the leaves of the Palĉozoic period were functionally as -perfect as their modern successors (see Figs. 13, 14). Of course, the -agnostic evolutionist may, if he pleases, attribute all this to -fortuitous interactions of the sun, the atmosphere, and the earth, and -may provide for what these fail to explain by the assumption of -potentialities equivalent to the things produced. But the -probability of such an hypothesis becomes infinitely small when we -consider the variety and the diversity of things and forces which must -have conspired to produce the results observed, and to maintain them -so constantly, and yet with so much difference in circumstances and -details. It is a relief to turn from such bewildering and gratuitous -suppositions to the theory which supposes a designing Creative Mind. - - [Illustration: FIG. 13. - - Section of the leaf of a Cycad, being one of the most ancient - styles of leaf of which the structure is known. _a_, upper - epidermis; _b_, upper layer of cells, with grains of - chlorophyll; _c_, lower layer of cells, with chlorophyll; _d_, - lower epidermis; _e_, stomata, or breathing-pores, with - contractile cells for opening and closing.] - - [Illustration: FIG. 14. - - Foliage from the coal-formation, showing some of the forms of - leaves instrumental in accumulating the carbon of our - coal-beds, by their action on the atmosphere under the - influence of sunlight.] - -From the boundless variety of illustrations which the animal kingdom -presents I may select one--the contrivances by means of which marine -animals are enabled to float or balance themselves in the waters. The -_Pearly Nautilus_ (see Fig. 15) is one of the most familiar, and also -one of the most curious. Its coiled shell is divided by partitions -into air-chambers so proportioned that the buoyancy of the air is -sufficient to counterpoise in sea-water the weight of the animal. -There are also contrivances by which the density of the contained air -and of the body of the animal can be so modified as slightly to -disturb this equilibrium, and to enable the creature to rise or sink -in the waters. It would be tedious to describe, without adequate -illustrations, all the machinery connected with these adjustments. -It is sufficient for our purpose to know that they are provided in -such a manner that the animal is practically exempted from the -operation of the force of gravity. In the modern seas these provisions -are enjoyed by only a few species of the genera _Nautilus_ and -_Spirula_; but in former geological ages, more numerous, as well as -larger and more complex, forms existed. Further, this contrivance is -very old. We find in the _Orthoceratites_ and their allies of the -earliest Silurian formations these arrangements in their full -perfection, and in some forms[12] even more complex than in later -types. - - [Illustration: FIG. 15. - - Section of the Pearly Nautilus and its shell, showing that the - animal occupies only the outer chamber, the others being - filled with air and acting as a float whose buoyancy can be - modified by the action of the tube, or siphuncle, passing - through the chambers.] - -The peculiar contrivances observed in the nautilus and its allies are -possessed by no other mollusks, but there is another group of somewhat -lower grade, that of the _Ianthinĉ_, or violet snails, in which -flotation is provided for in another way (see Fig. 16). In these -animals the shell is perfectly simple, though light, and the floating -apparatus consists in a series of horny air-vesicles attached to what -is termed the "foot" of the animal, and which are increased in number -to suit its increasing weight as it grows in size. There are some -reasons to believe that this entirely different contrivance is as -old in geological time as the chambered shell of the nautiloid -animals. It was, indeed, in all probability, more common and adapted -to larger animals in the Silurian period than at present. - - [Illustration: FIG. 16. - - _Ianthina_, or Violet Snail, attached to a float composed of - horny hollow vesicles, to the under side of which its eggs are - attached. When hatched, each young animal develops a small - float similar to that of the parent.] - -Another curious instance--not, so far as yet known, existing at all in -the modern world--is that of the remarkable stalked star-fish -described by Professor Hall under the name _Camerocrinus_, and whose -remains are found in the Upper Silurian rocks. The Crinoids, or -feather-stars, are well-known inhabitants of the seas, in both ancient -and modern times; but previous to Professor Hall's discovery they were -known only as animals attached by flexible stems to the sea-bottom or -creeping slowly by means of their radiating arms. It was not suspected -that any of them had committed themselves to the mercy of the -currents, suspended from floats. It appears, however, that this was -actually realized in the Upper Silurian period, when certain animals -of this group developed a hollow calcareous vesicle forming a -balloon-shaped float, from which they could hang suspended in the -water and float freely (see Fig. 17). So far as known, this -remarkable contrivance was temporary, and probably adapted to some -peculiarities of the habits and food of these animals occurring only -in the geological period in which they existed. - - [Illustration: FIG. 17. - - _Camerocrinus_, reduced in size (as restored by Hall). This is - a crinoid, or feather-star, of the Upper Silurian period, - floating by means of a hollow balloon-shaped structure divided - into chambers and formed of calcareous plates.] - -Examples of this sort of adjustment are found in other types of animal -life. In the beautiful Portuguese man-of-war (_Physalia_) and its -allies flotation is provided for by membranous or cartilaginous sacs -or vesicles filled with air, and which are the common support of -numerous individuals which hang from them (see Fig. 18). In some -allied creatures the buoyancy required is secured by little vesicles -filled with oil secreted by the animals themselves. - -In each of these cases we have a skilful adaptation of means to ends. -The float is so constructed as to avail itself of the properties of -gases and liquids, and the apparatus is framed on the most scientific -principles and in the most artistic manner. That this apparatus grows -and is not mechanically put together, and that in each case the -instincts and the habits of the animal have been correlated with it, -can scarcely be held by the most obtuse intellect to invalidate the -evidence of intelligent design. - - [Illustration: FIG. 18. - - The _Physalia_, or "Portuguese man-of-war" of the Atlantic, - being a colony of animals provided with long tentacles used as - fishing-lines, and hanging from a membranous float with a - crest, or "sail," on the top, and a pointed end which, being - turned from side to side, serves as a rudder.] - -3. Structures apparently the most simple, and often heedlessly spoken -of as if they involved no complexity, prove, on examination, to be -intricate and complex almost beyond conception. In nothing, perhaps, -is this better seen than in that much-abused protoplasm which has been -made to do duty for God in the origination of life, but which is -itself a most laboriously manufactured material. Albumen, or white of -egg--which is otherwise named "protoplasm"--is a very complicated -substance both chemically and in its molecular arrangements, and when -endowed with life it presents properties altogether inscrutable. It is -easy to say that the protoplasm of an egg or of some humble animalcule -or microscopic embryo is little more than a mass of structureless -jelly; yet, in the case of the embryo, a microscopic dot of this -apparently structureless jelly must contain all the parts of the -future animal, however complex; but how we may never know, and -certainly cannot yet comprehend. - -There are minute animalcules belonging to the group of flagellate -Infusoria, some of which, under ordinary microscopic powers, appear -merely as moving specks, and show their actual structures only under -powers of two thousand diameters, or more; yet these animals can be -seen to have an outer skin and an inner mass, to have pulsating sacs -and reproductive organs, and threadlike flagella wherewith to swim. -Their eggs are, of course, much smaller than themselves--so much so -that some of them are probably invisible under the highest powers yet -employed. Each of them, however, is potentially an animal, with all -its parts represented structurally in some way. Nor need we wonder at -this. It has been calculated that a speck scarcely visible under the -most powerful microscope may contain two million four hundred thousand -molecules of protoplasm.[13] If each of these molecules were a brick, -there would be enough of them to build a terrace of twenty-five good -dwelling-houses. But this is supposing them to be all alike; whereas -we know that the molecules of albumen are capable of being of very -various kinds. Each of these molecules really contains eight hundred -and eighty-two ultimate atoms--namely, four hundred of carbon, three -hundred and ten of hydrogen, one hundred and twenty of oxygen, fifty -of nitrogen, and two of sulphur and phosphorus. Now, we know that -these atoms may be differently arranged in different molecules, -producing considerable difference of properties. Let us try, then, to -calculate of how many differences of arrangement the atoms of one -molecule of protoplasm are susceptible, and then to calculate of how -many changes these different assemblages are capable in a microscopic -dot composed of two million four hundred thousand of them. It is -scarcely necessary to say that such a calculation, in the multitudes -of possibilities involved, transcends human powers of imagination; yet -it answers questions of mechanical and chemical grouping merely, -without any reference to the additional mystery of life. Let it be -observed that this vastly complex material is assumed as if there were -nothing remarkable in it, by many of those theorists who plausibly -explain to us the spontaneous origin of living things. But nature, in -arranging all the parts of a complicated animal beforehand in an -apparently structureless microscopic ovum, has all these vast numbers -to deal with in working out the exact result; and this not in one case -merely, but in multitudes of cases involving the most varied -combinations. We can scarcely suppose the atoms themselves to have the -power of thus unerringly marshalling themselves to work out the -structures of organisms infinitely varied, yet all alike after their -kinds. If not, then "Nature" must be a goddess gifted with superhuman -powers of calculation and marvellous deftness in arranging invisible -atoms. - -4. The beauty of form, proportion, and coloring that abounds in nature -affords evidence of mind. Herculean efforts have been made by modern -evolutionists to eliminate altogether the idea of beauty from nature, -by theories of sexual selection and the like, and to persuade us that -beauty is merely utility in disguise, and even then only an accidental -coincidence between our perceptions and certain external things. But -in no part of their argument have they more signally failed in -accounting for the observed facts, and in no part have they more -seriously outraged the common sense and natural taste of men. In point -of fact, we have here one of those great correlations belonging to the -unity of nature--that indissoluble connection which has been -established between the senses and the ĉsthetic sentiments of man and -certain things in the external world. But there is more in beauty than -this merely anthropological relation. Certain forms, for example, -adopted in the skeletons of the lower animals are necessarily -beautiful because of their geometrical proportions. Certain styles of -coloring are necessarily beautiful because of harmonies and contrasts -which depend on the essential properties of the waves of light. Beauty -is thus in a great measure independent of the taste of the spectator. -It is also independent of mere utility, since, even if we admit that -all these combinations of forms, motions, and colors which we call -beautiful are also useful, it is easy to perceive that the end could -often be attained without the beauty. - -It is a curious fact that some of the simplest animals--as, for -example, sponges and Foraminifera,--are furnished with the most -beautiful skeletons. Nothing can exceed the beauty of form and -proportions in the shells of some Foraminifera and Polycistina, or in -the skeletons of some silicious sponges (see Fig. 19), while it is -obvious that these humble creatures, without brains and external -senses, can neither contrive nor appreciate the beauty with which they -are clothed. Further, some of these structures are very old -geologically. The sponge whose skeleton his known as "Venus's -flower-basket" produces a structure of interwoven silicious threads -exquisite in its beauty and perfect in its mechanical arrangements -for strength (Figure 20). Even in the old Cambrian rocks there are -remains of sponges which seem already to have practically solved the -geometrical problems involved in the production of these wonderful -skeletons; and with a Chinese-like persistency, having attained to -perfection, they have adhered to it throughout geological time. Nor is -there anything of mere inorganic crystallization in this. The silica -of which the skeletons are made is colloidal, not crystalline, and the -forms themselves have no relations to the crystalline axes of silica. -Such illustrations might be multiplied to any extent, and apply to all -the beauties of form, structure, and coloring which abound around us -and far excel our artificial imitations of them. - - [Illustration: FIG. 19. - - Magnified portion of a silicious sponge, showing the principle - of construction of the hexactinellid sponges, with six-rayed - spicules joined together and strengthened with diagonal - braces. (_After Zittel._)] - - [Illustration: FIG. 20. - - _Euplectella_, or "Venus's flower-basket," a silicious sponge, - showing its general form. (Reduced, from _Am. Naturalist_, - vol. iv.)] - -5. The instincts of the lower animals imply a Higher Intelligence. -Instinct, in the theistic view of nature, can be nothing less than a -divine inspiration placing the animal in relation with other things -and processes, often of the most complex character, and which it could -by no means have devised for itself. Further, instinct is in its very -essence a thing unimprovable. Like the laws of nature, it operates -invariably; and if diminished or changed, it would prove useless for -its purpose. It is not, like human inventions, slowly perfected under -the influence of thought and imagination, and laboriously taught by -each generation to its successors: it is inherited by each generation -in all its perfection, and from the first goes directly to its end as -if it were a merely physical cause. - -The favorite explanation of instinct from the side of Agnostic -Evolution is that it originated in the struggle for existence of some -previous generation, and was then perpetuated as an inheritance. But, -like most of the other explanations of this school, this quietly takes -for granted what should be proved. That instinct is hereditary is -evident; but the question is, How did it begin? and to say simply that -it did begin at some former period is to tell us nothing. From a -scientific point of view, the invariable operation of any natural law -affords no evidence of any gradual or sudden origination of it at any -point of past time; and when such law is connected with a complicated -organism and various other laws and processes of the external world, -the supposition of its slowly arising from nothing through many -generations of animals becomes too intricate to be credible. Instinct -must have originated in a perfect condition, and with the organism and -its environment already established. I may borrow here an apposite -illustration from recent papers on the unity of nature by the Duke of -Argyll, which deserve careful study by any one who values common-sense -views of this subject. The example which I select is that of the -action of a young merganser in its effort to elude pursuit: - -"On a secluded lake in one of the Hebrides, I observed a dun-diver, or -female of the red-breasted merganser (_Mergus serrator_), with her -brood of young ducklings. On giving chase in the boat we soon found -that the young, although not above a fortnight old, had such -extraordinary powers of swimming and diving that it was almost -impossible to capture them. The distance they went under water, and -the unexpected places in which they emerged, baffled all our efforts -for a considerable time. At last one of the brood made for the shore, -with the object of hiding among the grass and heather which fringed -the margin of the lake. We pursued it as closely as we could; but when -the little bird gained the shore, our boat was still about twenty -yards off. Long drought had left a broad margin of small flat stones -and mud between the water and the usual bank. I saw the little bird -run up about a couple of yards from the water, and then suddenly -disappear. Knowing what was likely to be enacted, I kept my eye fixed -on the spot; and when the boat was run upon the beach, I proceeded to -find and pick up the chick. But, on reaching the place of -disappearance, no sign of the young merganser was to be seen. The -closest scrutiny, with the certain knowledge that it was there, failed -to enable me to detect it. Proceeding cautiously forward, I soon -became convinced that I had already overshot the mark; and, on turning -round, it was only to see the bird rise like an apparition from the -stones and, dashing past the stranded boat, regain the lake, where, -having now recovered its wind, it instantly dived and disappeared. The -tactical skill of the whole of this manoeuvre, and the success with -which it was executed, were greeted with loud cheers from the whole -party; and our admiration was not diminished when we remembered that, -some two weeks before that time, the little performer had been coiled -up inside the shell of an egg, and that about a month before it was -apparently nothing but a mass of albumen and of fatty oils." - -On this the duke very properly remarks that any idea of training and -experience is absolutely excluded, because it "assumes the -pre-existence of the very powers for which it professes to account." -He then turns to the idea that animals are merely automata or -"machines." Here it is to be observed that the essential idea of a -machine is twofold. First, it is a merely mechanical structure put -together to do certain things; secondly, it must be related to a -contriver and constructor. If we think proper to call the young -merganser a machine, we must admit both of these characters, more -especially as the bird is in every way a more marvellous machine than -any of human construction. He concludes his notice of this case with -the following suggestive words: - -"This is a method of escape which cannot be resorted to successfully -except by birds whose coloring is adapted to the purpose by a close -assimilation with the coloring of surrounding objects. The old bird -would not have been concealed on the same ground, and would never -itself resort to the same method of escape. The young, therefore, -cannot have been instructed in it by the method of example. But -the small size of the chick, together with its obscure and -curiously-mottled coloring, are specially adapted to this mode of -concealment. The young of all birds which breed upon the ground are -provided with a garment in such perfect harmony with surrounding -effects of light as to render this manoeuvre easy. It depends, however, -wholly for its success upon absolute stillness. The slightest motion at -once attracts the eye of any enemy which is searching for the young. -And this absolute stillness must be preserved amidst all the emotions -of fear and terror which the close approach of the object of alarm -must, and obviously does, inspire. Whence comes this splendid, even if -it be unconscious, faith in the sufficiency of a defence which it must -require such nerve and strength of will to practise? No movement, not -even the slightest, though the enemy should seem about to trample on -it,--such is the terrible requirement of nature, and by the child of -nature implicitly obeyed. Here, again, beyond all question, we have an -instinct as much born with the creature as the harmonious tinting of -its plumage, the external furnishing being inseparably united with the -internal furnishing of mind which enables the little creature in very -truth to 'walk by faith, and not by sight.' Is this automatism? Is this -machinery? Yes, undoubtedly, in the sense explained before--that the -instinct has been given to the bird in precisely the same sense in -which its structure has been given to it; so that anterior to all -experience, and without the aid of instruction or of example, it is -inspired to act in this manner on the appropriate occasion arising." - -Lastly, the reason of man himself is an actual illustration of mind in -nature. Here we raise a question which should perhaps have been -considered earlier: Is man himself actually a part of what we call -nature? We are so accustomed to the distinction between things natural -and things artificial that we are liable to overlook this essential -question. Is nature the universe outside of us, containing the things -that we study and which constitute our environment? Are we elevated on -a pedestal, so to speak, above nature? or, on the other hand, does -nature include man himself? In that haze or fog of ideas which -environs modern evolutionism, it is not wonderful that this question -escapes notice, and that the most contradictory utterances are given -forth. Tyndall--by no means the most foggy of the agnostics--may -afford an instance. He remarks respecting the philosophers of -antiquity:[14] "The experiences which formed the weft and woof of -their theories were drawn, not from the study of nature, but from that -which lay much closer to them-the observation of man.... Their -theories accordingly took an anthropomorphic form." Here we see that -in the view of the writer man is distinct from and outside of nature, -and so much out of harmony with it that the observation of him leads -to false conclusions, stigmatized, accordingly, as "anthropomorphic." -In this case man must be supernatural, and preternatural as well. But -it is Tyndall's precise object to show us that there is nothing -supernatural either in man or elsewhere. The contradiction is an -instructive example of the delusions which sometimes pass for science. - -If, with Tyndall, we are to place man outside of nature, then the -human mind at once becomes to us a supernatural intelligence. But -truth forbids such a conclusion. The reason of man, however beyond the -intelligence of lower animals, so harmonizes with natural laws that -it is evidently a part of the great unity of nature, and we can no -more dissociate the mind of man from nature than from his own animal -body. If we could do so, we might have ground to distrust the validity -of all our conclusions as to nature, and thus to cut away the -foundations of science; and what remained of philosophy and religion -would be preternatural, in the bad sense of destroying the unity of -nature and imperilling our confidence in the unity of the Creator -himself. - -In connection with this we have cause to consider the true meaning and -use of two terms often hurled at theists as weapons of attack. - -The word "anthropomorphic" is a term of reproach for our interpreting -nature in harmony with our own thoughts or our own constitution. But -if man is a part of nature, he must be a competent interpreter of it. -If he is not a part of nature, then, whether we make him godlike or a -demon, we have, in him, to deal with something supernatural. It is -true that in a certain sense he is above nature, but not in any sense -which so dissociates him from it as to prevent him from rationally -thinking of it in his own thoughts and speaking of it in his own form -of words. So true is this that no writers are more anthropomorphic in -their modes of speaking of nature than those who most strongly -denounce anthropomorphism. Even the celebrated definition of life by -Herbert Spencer cannot escape this tincture. "Life," he says, "is the -continuous adjustment of internal to external conditions." Now, the -essence of this definition lies in the word "adjustment." But to -adjust is to arrange, adapt, or fit--all purely human and intelligent -actions. Nothing, therefore, could be more anthropomorphic than such a -statement. As theists we need not complain of this, but surely as -agnostics we should decidedly object to it. - -The other word whose meaning it is necessary to consider is -"supernatural," which it might be well, perhaps, to follow the example -of the New Testament in avoiding altogether as a misleading term. If -by supernatural we mean something outside of and above nature and -natural law, there is really no such thing in the universe. There may -be that which is "spiritual," as distinguished from that which is -natural in the material sense; but the spiritual has its own laws, -which are not in conflict with those of the natural. Even God cannot -in this sense be said to be supernatural, since his will is -necessarily in conformity with natural law. Yet this absurd sense of -the term "supernatural" is constantly forced upon us by so-called -advanced thinkers, and employed as an argument against theism. The -only true sense in which any being or any thing can be said to be -supernatural is that in which we use it with reference to the original -creation of matter and force and the institution of natural law. The -power which can do these things is above nature, but not outside of -it; for matter, energy, and law must be included in, and in harmony -with, the Creative Will. - -To return from this digression. If man is a part of nature, we can see -how it is that he conforms to natural law, not merely in his bodily -organization and capabilities, but in his mind and habits of thought, -so that he can comprehend nature and employ it for his purposes. Even -his moral and his religious ideas must in this case be conformed to -his conditions of existence as a part of nature. We have here also the -surest guarantee of the correctness of our conclusions respecting the -laws of nature. In like manner, there is here a sense in which man is -above nature, because he is placed at the head of it. In another -sense he is inferior to the aggregate of nature, because, as Agassiz -well puts it, there is in the universe a "wealth of endowment of the -most comprehensive mental manifestations which man can never fully -comprehend." - -Still further, if the universe has been created, then, just as its -laws must be in harmony with the will of the Creator, so must our -mental constitution; and man, as a reasoning and conscious being, must -be made in the image of his Maker. If we discard the idea of an -intelligent Creator, then mind and all its powers must be potentially -in the atoms of matter or in the forces which move them; but this is a -mere form of words signifying nothing, or, if it has any significance, -this is contrary to science, since it bestows on matter properties -which experiment does not show it to possess. Thus the existence of -man is not only a positive proof of the presence of mind in nature, -but affords the strongest possible proof of a higher Creative Mind, -from which that of man emanates. The power which originated and -sustains the universe must be at least as much greater and more -intelligent than man as the universe is greater than man in the power -and the contrivance which it indicates. Thus we return to the Pauline -idea--that the power and the divinity of the Creator are shown by the -things he has made. Legitimate science can say nothing more, and can -say nothing less. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[12] As _Piloceras_, for example. - -[13] I am indebted for these figures to my friend Dr. S. P. Robins of -Montreal. - -[14] Belfast Address. - - - - -LECTURE VI. - -SCIENCE AND REVELATION. - - -Thus far we have proceeded solely on scientific grounds, and have seen -that Monism and Agnosticism fail to account for nature. We may -therefore feel ourselves justified in assuming, as the only promising -solution of the enigma of existence, the being of a Divine Creator. -But this does not wholly exhaust the relations of science to religion. -When Science has led us into the presence of the Creator, she has -brought us to the threshold of religion, and there she suggests the -possibility that the spirit of man may have other relations with God -beyond those established by merely physical law. Science may venture -to say: "If all nature expresses the will of the Creator as carried -out in his laws, if the instinct of lower animals is an inspiration of -God, should we not expect that there will be laws of a higher order -regulating the free moral nature of man, and that there will be -possibilities of the reason of man communicating with, or receiving -aid from, the Supreme Intelligence?" Science undoubtedly suggests this -much to our reason, and the suggestion has commended itself to most of -the greater and clearer minds that have studied nature, whatever their -religious beliefs or their want of them. - -It may thus be allowable for us, without encroaching on the domain of -theology, to inquire to what extent scientific principles and -scientific habits of thought agree with or diverge from the religious -beliefs of men. I do not propose to enter here into the inquiry as to -the accordance of the Bible with the earth's geological history, or -that of its representations of nature with the facts as held by -science. These subjects I have fully discussed in other works, which -are sufficiently accessible.[15] I shall merely refer to certain -general relations of science to the probability of a divine -revelation, and to the character of such revelation. - -As to what is termed natural religion, enough has already been said. -If nature testifies to the being of God, and if the reason and the -conscience implanted in man, "accusing and excusing" one another, -constitute a law of God within him, regulating in some degree his -relations to God and to his fellow-men, we have a sufficient basis for -the natural religion which more or less actuates the conduct of every -human being. The case is different with revealed religion. Here we -have an apparent interference on the part of the Creator with his own -work, an additional intervention in one department to effect results -which elsewhere are worked out by the ordinary operation of natural -law. In revelation, therefore, we may have something, quite out of the -ordinary course of nature. On the other hand, it is possible that even -here we may have something more in harmony with natural laws than at -first sight appears. - -It cannot truly be said that a revelation from God to man is -improbable from the point of view of science. Physical laws and brute -instincts are in their nature unvarying, and neither require nor admit -of intervention. But the reason and the will of free agents are in -this respect different. Though necessarily under law, they can judge -and decide between one law and another, and can even evade or -counteract one law by employing another, or can resolve to be -disobedient. Rational free agents may thus enter into courses not in -harmony with their own interests or their relations to their -surroundings. Hence, so soon as it pleased God to introduce in any -part of the universe a free rational will gifted with certain powers -over lower nature, only two courses were possible: either God must -leave such free agent wholly to his own devices, making him a god on a -small scale, and so far practically abdicating in his favor, or he -must place him under some law, and this not of the nature of mere -physical compulsion--which, on the hypothesis, would be -inadmissible--but in the nature of requirements addressed to his -reason and his conscience. Hence we might infer _a priori_ the -probability of some sort of communication between God and man. -Further, did we find such rational creature beginning, on his -introduction into the world, to mar the face of nature, to inflict -unnecessary suffering or injury on lower creatures or on members of -his own species, to disregard the moral instincts implanted in him, or -to disown the God who had created him, we should still more distinctly -perceive the need of revelation. This would in such case be no more -at variance with science or with natural law than the education given -by wise parents to their children, or the laws promulgated by a wise -government for the guidance of its subjects, both of which are, and -are intended to be, interventions affecting the ordinary course of -affairs. - -Of necessity, all this proceeds on the supposition that there is a -God. But in certain discussions now prevalent as to the "origin of -religion," it is customary quietly to assume that there is no God to -be known, and consequently that religion must be a mere gratuitous -invention of man. It is not too much to say, however, that any -scientific conception of the unity of nature and of man's place in it -must forbid our making atheistic assumptions. If man were a mere -product of blind, unintelligent chance, the idea of a God was not -likely ever to have occurred to him, still less to have become the -common property of all races of men. In like manner, there is no -scientific basis for the assumption that man originated in a low and -bestial type, and that his religion developed itself by degrees from -the instincts of lower animals, from which man is supposed to have -originated. Such suppositions are unscientific (1) because no ancient -remains of such low forms of man are known; (2) because the lowest -types of man now extant can be proved to be degraded descendants of -higher types; (3) because, if man had originated in a low condition, -this would not have diminished the probability of a divine revelation -being given to promote his elevation. - -On the other hand, it is a sad reality that man tends to sink from -high ideal morality and reason into debasing vices and gross -superstitions that are not natural, but which, on the contrary, place -him at variance with natural as well as with moral law. Thus the -actual and the possible debasement of man, instead of proving his -bestial origin, only increases the need of a divine revelation for his -improvement. - -But, supposing the need of a revelation to be admitted, other -questions might arise as to its mode. Here the anticipations of -science would be guided by the analogy of nature. We should suppose -that the revelation would be made through the medium of the beings it -was intended to affect. It would be a revelation impressed on human -minds and expressed in human language. It might be in the form of -laws with penalties attached, or in that of persuasions addressed to -the reason and the sentiments. It would probably be gradual and -progressive--at first simple, and later more complex and complete. It -would thus become historical, and would be related to the stages of -that progress which it was intended to promote. It would necessarily -be incomplete, more especially in its earlier portions, and it would -always be under the necessity of more or less rudely representing -divine and heavenly things by earthly figures. Being human in its -medium, it would have the characteristics and the idiosyncrasies of -man to a certain extent, except in so far as it might please God to -communicate it directly through a perfect humanity identified with -divinity, or through higher and more perfect intelligences than man. - -We should further expect that such revelation would not conflict with -what is good in natural religion or in the natural emotions and -sentiments of man; that it would not contradict natural facts or laws; -and that it would take advantage of the familiar knowledge of mankind -in order to illustrate such higher spiritual truths as cannot be -expressed in human language. Such a revelation would of necessity -require that we should receive it in faith, but faith resting on -evidence derived from things known, and from the analogy of the -revelation itself with what God reveals in nature. It would be no valid -objection to such a revelation to say that it is anthropomorphic, -since, in the nature of the case, it must come through man and be -suited to man; nor would it be any valid objection that it is -figurative, for truth as to spiritual realities must always be -expressed in terms of known phenomena of the natural world. - -It has been objected, though not on behalf of science, that such a -revelation, if it related to things discoverable by man, would be -useless, while, if it related to things not discoverable, it could not -be understood. This is, however, a mere play upon words, and reminds -one of the doctrine attributed to the Arabian caliph with reference to -the Alexandrian Library: If its books contain what is written in the -Koran, they are useless; if anything different, they are injurious; -therefore let them be destroyed. It would indeed be subversive of all -education, human as well as divine; for the essence of this is to take -advantage of what the pupil knows, and to build on it acquirements -which, unaided, he could not have attained. - -But, though all may agree as to the possibility, or even the -probability, of a revelation, many may dissent from particular dogmas -contained in or implied by the particular form of revelation in which -Christians believe. It is true that this dissent is based, not so much -on science as on alleged opposition to human sentiments; but it is -more or less supposed to be reinforced by scientific facts and laws. -Of doctrines supposed to be objectionable from these points of view, I -may name the reality of miracles and of prophecy; the efficacy of -prayer and of atonement or sacrifice; and the permanence of the -consequences of sin. Admitting that these doctrines are not original -discoveries of man, but revealed to him, and that they are not founded -on science, it may nevertheless be easily shown that they are in -harmony with the analogy of nature in a greater degree than either -their friends or their opponents usually suppose. - -Miracles--or "signs," as they are more properly called in the New -Testament--are sometimes stated to imply suspension of natural law. If -they were such, and were alleged to be produced by any power short of -that of the Lawmaker himself, they would be incredible; and if -asserted to be by his power, they would be so far incredible as -implying changeableness, and therefore imperfection. It may be -affirmed, however, of the miracles recorded in Scripture, that they do -not require suspension of natural laws, but merely modifications of -the operation and peculiar interactions of these. Many of them, -indeed, profess to be merely unusual natural effects arranged for -special purposes, and depending for their miraculous character on -their appositeness in time to certain circumstances. This is the case, -for instance, with the plagues of Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea, -and the supply of quails to the Israelites. Miracles, whether -performed as attestations of revelation or as works of mercy or of -judgment, belong to the domain of natural law, but to those operations -of it which are beyond human control or foresight. Their nature in -this respect we can understand by considering the many operations -possible to civilized men which may appear miraculous to a savage, and -which, from his point of view, may be amply sufficient as evidence of -the superior knowledge and power of him who performs them. That one -man should be able instantaneously to transmit his thoughts to another -situated a thousand miles away was, until the invention of the -electric telegraph, impossible. The actual performance of such an -operation would have been as much a miracle as the communication of -thought from one planet to another would be now. But if man can thus -work miracles, why should not the Almighty do so, when higher moral -ends are to be served by apparent interference with the ordinary -course of matter and force? Admitting the existence of God, physical -science can have nothing to say against miracles. On the contrary, it -can assure us of the probability that if God reveals himself to us at -all by natural means, such revelation will probably be miraculous. - -If the possibility of God communicating with his rational creatures be -conceded, then the objections taken to prophecy lose all value. If -anything known to God and unknown to man can be revealed, things past -and future may be revealed as well as things present. Science abounds -in prophecy. All through the geological history there have been -prophetic types, mute witnesses to coming facts. Minute disturbances -of heavenly bodies, altogether inappreciable by the ordinary -observer, enable the astronomer to predict the discovery of new -planets. A line in a spectrum, without significance to the -uninitiated, foretells a new element. The merest fragment, sufficient -only for microscopic examination, enables the palĉontologist to -describe to incredulous auditors some organism altogether unknown in -its entire structures. What possible reason can there be for excluding -such indications of the past and the future from a revelation made by -him who knows perfectly the end from the beginning, and to whom the -future results of human actions to the end of time must be as evident -as the simplest train of causes and effects is to us? It is Huxley, I -think, who says that if the laws affecting human conduct were fully -known to us, it would have been possible to calculate a thousand years -ago the exact state of affairs in Britain at this moment. Probably -such a calculation might be too complicated for us, even if the data -were given; but it cannot be too complicated for the Divine Mind, and -possibly might even be mastered by some intelligences in the universe -subject to God, but higher than man. - -That there should be suffering at all in the universe is, no doubt, a -mysterious thing; but the fact is evident, and certain benefits which -flow from it are also evident. Indeed, we fail to see how a world of -sentient beings could continue to exist, unless the penalty of -suffering were attached to natural law. Further, all such penalties -are, in consequence of the permanence of matter and the conservation -of force, necessarily permanent, unless in cases where some reaction -sets in under the influence of some other law or force than that which -brings the penalty. Even in this case, the effect of any violation of -any natural law is eternal and infinite. No sane man doubts this in -the case of what may be called sins against natural laws; but many, -with strange inconsistency, doubt and disbelieve it in the higher -domain of morals. If we were for a moment to admit the materialist's -doctrine that appetites, passions, and sentiments are merely effects -of physical changes in nerve-cells, then we should be shut up to the -conclusion that the effects of any derangement of these must be -perpetual and coextensive with the universe. Why should it be -otherwise in things belonging to the domains of reason and conscience? -Further, if natural laws are the expression of the will of the -Creator, and if these unfailingly assert themselves, and must do so, -in order to the permanence of the material universe, would not analogy -teach that, unless the Supreme Being is wholly bound up in material -processes, and is altogether indifferent to moral considerations, the -same regularity and constancy must prevail in the spiritual world? - -This question is closely connected with the ideas of sacrifice and -atonement. Nothing is more certain in physics than that action and -reaction are equal, and that no effect can be produced without an -adequate cause. It results from this that every action must involve a -corresponding expenditure of matter and force. Anything else would be -pure magic; which, we know, is nonsense. Thus every intervention on -behalf of others must imply a corresponding sacrifice. We cannot raise -a fallen child or aid the poor or the hungry without a sacrifice of -power or means proportioned to the result. So, in the moral world, -degradation cannot be remedied nor punishment averted without -corresponding sacrifice; and this, it may be, on the part of those who -are in no degree blameworthy. If men have fallen into moral evil and -God proposes to elevate them from this condition, this must be done -by some corresponding expenditure of force, else we have one of those -miracles which would imply a subversion of law of the most portentous -kind. The moral stimulus given by the sacrifice itself is a secondary -consideration to this great law of equivalency of cause and effect. -There is, therefore, a perfect conformity to natural analogy in the -Christian idea of the substitution of the pure and perfect Man for the -sinner, as well as in that of the putting forth of the divine power -manifested in him to raise and restore the fallen. - -The efficacy of prayer is one of the last things that a scientific -naturalist should question, if he is at the same time a theist. Prayer -is itself one of the laws of nature, and one of those that show in the -finest way how higher laws override and modify those that are lower. -The young ravens, we are told, cry to God; and so they literally do; -and their cry is answered, for the parent-ravens, cruel and voracious, -under the impulse of a God-given instinct range over land and water -and exhaust every energy that they may satisfy that cry. The bleat of -the lamb will not only meet with response from the mother-ewe, but -will even exercise a physiological effect in promoting the secretion -of milk in her udder. The mother who hears the cry of her child, -crushed under some weighty thing which has fallen on it, will never -pause to consider that it is the law of gravitation which has caused -the accident; she will defy the law of gravitation, and if necessary -will pray any one who is near to help her. Prayer, in short, is a -natural power so important that without it the young of most of the -higher animals would have little chance of life; and it triumphs over -almost every other natural law which may stand in its way. If, then, -irrational animals can overcome the forces of dead nature in answer to -prayer; if man himself, in answer to the cry of distress, can do -things in ordinary circumstances almost impossible,--how foolish is it -to suppose that this link of connection cannot subsist between God and -his rational offspring! One wonders that any man of science should for -a moment entertain such an idea, if, indeed, he has any belief -whatever in the existence of a God. - -There is another aspect of prayer insisted on in revelation on which -the observation of nature throws some light. In the case of animals, -there must be a certain relation between the one that prays and the -one that answers--a filial relation, perhaps--and in any case there -must be a correspondence between the language of prayer and the -emotions of the creature appealed to. Except in a few cases where -human training has modified instinct, the cry of one species of animal -awakes no response in another of a different kind. So prayer to God -must be in the Spirit of God. It must also be the cry of real need, -and with reference to needs which have his sympathy. There is a prayer -which never reaches God, or which is even an abomination to him; and -there is prayer prompted by the indwelling Spirit of God, which cannot -be uttered in human words, yet will surely be answered. All this is so -perfectly in accordance with natural analogies, that it strikes one -acquainted with nature as almost a matter of course. - -In tracing these analogies, I do not desire to imply that natural -science can itself teach us religion, or that it is to afford the test -of what is true in spiritual things. I have merely wished to direct -attention to obvious analogies between things natural and things -spiritual, which show that there is no such antagonism between -science and revelation as many suppose, and that, in grand essential -laws and principles, it may be true that earth is - - "But the shadow of heaven, and things therein - Each to the other like more than on earth is thought." - -FOOTNOTE: - -[15] More especially in _The Origin of the World_ (London and New -York, 1877). - - -THE END. - - - * * * * * - - -Transcriber's Notes: - -Obvious typographical errors were repaired. Hyphenation variants used -equally were retained (back-bone and backbone, thread-like and -threadlike). - -Original had chapter title pages before the start of each chapter, -resulting in duplication of chapter titles. Those duplications have -been removed. - -Original contents erroneously indicated Lecture VI began on page 217. -This has been corrected to page 219. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Facts and fancies in modern science, by -John William Dawson - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FACTS, FANCIES IN MODERN SCIENCE *** - -***** This file should be named 42466-8.txt or 42466-8.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/4/2/4/6/42466/ - -Produced by Albert László, JoAnn Greenwood, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - - -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 - www.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 1.F.3. 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 MERCHANTABILITY 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 are 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 information page at www.gutenberg.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. 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 -contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the -Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -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 www.gutenberg.org/donate - -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: www.gutenberg.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For forty 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: - - 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. |