1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/afa985da2330e68a6d1f1619725f8e68.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=eAw9FH3YtU4hVEEdN5amLCxWzLkRT6vQ3mZd%7Elnlh2AR9rdKe332VjvRARLQBoA%7EoGn44X3dvDE27A8M0firQ1PX%7E7dFbVey988liy0FmU1nm9bRQkpbcgn54hYGg6LNntj7n3T-J0wDa8r5MoZ8nybOCRWO83fAD43PFYXNp90u3UtEZm06KB0SnlSE4JY%7Expij6d8e5cWwtywJfcUPJQ3kIMRB8zms2borvZ-kvBgEcL1WOWnQnGUyATl8X4e-UuBGSIrPGL5qaqcCo9Joi8ldOgOw8hTk4w5sAMftTxxwezO%7ECbYnOn5bwZk8aJKt8RYyMY1cRZQ%7EzdAFXnWFqw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
2b8ce9dee50eb1f1f81101296d7af8f3
PDF Text
Text
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL
CREATION.
Taking a retrospective view of the dark and unenlightened
past, when the mighty forces of nature were almost entirely
hidden from the human gaze ; contemplating the sad spec
tacle of our forefathers being sunken in gross superstition,
ere the light of to-day had arisen above the horizon of
mental ignorance, and contrasting the then limitation of
knowledge with the extensive educational acquirements now
existing, what a pleasing contrast the intellectual advance
ment presents to the modern observer! Recognising the
glories of nature, and finding ourselves possessed of an
amazing amount of information respecting the laws of
nature and the phenomena with which these laws are con
nected—such information being for ages unknown to the
great masses of the people—we are prompted to inquire
what has produced this marvellous transformation, and to
what agency we are indebted for this grand and stupendous
revolution of the nineteenth century. Whatever may be
the reply of the theologian, whose intellect is too often
clouded with dreamy imaginations, the answer of the patient
and unfettered student of nature will be that it is to science
we owe the magic power which has substituted for the
dense darkness of the past the brilliant light of the present.
The marvels of astronomy, the revelations of geology, the
splendours of botany, the varieties of zoology, the wonders
of anatomy, the useful discoveries of physiology, and the
rapid strides which have been made in the development of
the mental sciences, all combine to unravel the once myste
rious operations of mind and matter. While each of the
modern sciences has corrected long-cherished errors and
�2
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
opened new paths of investigation, one or two of them have
especially tended to unfold to our view the nature, affinity,
and development of man, and the wonderful universe to
which he belongs. For instance, without the science of
geology we should, in all probability, forever have remained
in ignorance of the various changes which had taken place
on the earth previous to the appearance of man, and the
different forms of animal and vegetable life that were then
distributed over its surface. We now examine the various
strata of the earth, and there discover the fossil remains of
animals and plants which existed in the ages that rolled by
when no historian lived to pen the mighty transactions of
nature and hand them down to future generations. The
science of electricity, too, still only in its infancy, pro
mises to confer an amount of benefit upon mankind too
vast to be conceived. We hear the thunder roar, and behold
the vivid flash of lightning darting before our eyes like an
arrow from the bow of the archer ; but while we regard this
phenomenon we have learned not to look upon it with dread
as the vengeance of an angry God, but as a natural result
of the operation of known forces. It was for Dr. Watts to
sing:—
“ There all his stores of lightning lie
Till vengeance darts them down.”
But it remained for a Franklin and a Priestley to inform
us that tempests were not to be beheld as indicating the
wrath of an offended God, but as the effect of an unequal
diffusion of the electric fluid. Thus science has been, and
is, our benefactor, our enlightener, our improver, and our
redeemer. Without its aid we should still have been in a
state of mental darkness and physical degradation. Deprived
of its discoveries, we should still have been bound down
with the ties of superstition, ignorance, and fanaticism. As
Pope observes :—
“ Lo ! the poor Indian, whose untutored mind
Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind;
His soul proud Science never taught to stray
Far as the solar walk or milky way.”
Perhaps there is no domain of human thought where the
advantages of scientific investigation are more clear and
pronounced than in connection with what is termed “ Evo
lution ”—a word which, within the last few years, has
�EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
3
become very popular as representing a theory of man and
the universe opposed to the old orthodox notion of special
creation and supernatural government. There are, of course,
some professedly religious people who avow their belief in
Evolution, and who maintain that it is what they call God’s
mode of working; and there are those who even go so far
as to say that the power and wisdom of God are seen more
thoroughly displayed in the process of Evolution than in
the method, so long believed in, of special and supernatural
creation. But the number of these is comparatively small,
and, consequently, the great mass of those who accept the
word in its legitimate signification may be looked upon as
of a sceptical turn of mind.
It will not be difficult to
demonstrate that the popular theological idea of creation
finds no support in the theory of Evolution, which, if not a
demonstrated thesis, has, at least, in its favour the “ science
of probabilities ”—an advantage that cannot fairly be claimed
for the Biblical account of the origin of phenomena.
The term “evolution” may be defined as an unfolding,
opening out, or unwinding; a disclosure of something which
was not previously known, but which existed before in a
more condensed or hidden form. There is no new exist
ence called into being, but a making conspicuous to our
eyes that which was previously concealed. “ Evolution
teaches that the universe and man did not always exist in
their present form ; neither are they the product of a sudden
creative act, but rather the result of innumerable changes
from the lower to the higher, each step in advance being an
evolution from a pre-existing condition.” On the other
hand, the special creation doctrine teaches that, during a
limited period, God created the universe and man, and
that the various phenomena are not the result simply of
natural law, but the outcome of supernatural design.
According to Mr. Herbert Spencer, the whole theory of
Evolution is based upon three principles—namely, that
matter is indestructible, motion continuous, and force per
sistent. Two contending processes will be seen everywhere
in operation in the physical universe, the one antagonistic
to the other, each one for a time triumphing over its oppo
site.
These are termed “evolution” and “dissolution.”
Spencer remarks that “ Evolution, under its simplest aspect,
is the integration of matter and the dissipation of motion,
�4
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
while dissolution is the absorption of motion and the con
comitant disintegration of matter.” Thus it will be seen
that Herbert Spencer regards evolution as the concentration
or transition of matter from a diffused to a more condensed
and perceptible form. This change he traces in the systems
of the stars ; in the geological history of the earth; in the
growth and development of plants and animals; in the
history of language and the fine arts, and in the condition
of civilised states. Briefly, the theory is that the matter of
which the universe is composed has progressed from a
vague, incoherent, and, perhaps, all but homogeneous nebula
of tremendous extent, to complete systems of suns, worlds,
comets, sea, and land, and countless varieties of living
things, each composed of many very different parts, and of
complex organisations.
Coming to the organic bodies, there may be included
under the term “evolution” many different laws, some of
which we may not even know as yet, and a great number
of processes, acting sometimes in unison and often in an
tagonism, the one to the other. This, however, in no way
weakens the theory of evolution, which, beyond doubt, is
the process by which things have been brought to their
present condition. It will tend, perhaps, to elucidate this
truth the more readily and clearly if a brief exposition of
the theory be given under the chief divisions of this exten
sive subject.
The Formation of Worlds.—According to Evolution, the
present cosmos began its development at an immeasurably
remote date, and any attempt to comprehend the periods
that have rolled by since would paralyse our highest intel
lectual powers. When the matter which is now seen shaped
into suns and stars of vast magnitude, and of incompresible number, was diffused over the whole of the space in
which those bodies are now seen moving—of extreme
variety, and, perhaps, of nearly homogeneous character—
the human mind is unable to comprehend. This matter,
by virtue of the very laws now seen in operation in the
physical universe, would in time shape itself into bodies
with which the heavens are strewed, shining with a glory
that awes while it charms. What is called in these days
the nebular cosmogony may be said to have arisen with Sir
�EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
5
William Herschel, who discovered with his telescope what
seemed to be worlds and systems in course of formation—
that is, they were in various states which appeared to mark
different degrees of condensation.
M. Laplace, without any knowledge of Herschel’s specu
lations, arrived at a similar idea upon a totally different
ground—namely, the uniformity of the heavenly bodies.
He showed that, if matter existed in such a different state
as the nebular theory assumed, and if nuclei existed in it,
they would become centres of aggregation in which a rotary
motion would increase as the agglomeration proceeded.
Further, Laplace urged that at certain intervals the centri
fugal force acting in the rotating mass would overcome
the force of agglomeration, and the result would be a series
of rings existing apart from the mass to which they originally
adhered, each of which would retain the motion which it
possessed at the moment of separation. These rings would
again break up into spherical bodies, and hence come what
are termed primary bodies and their satellites. This La
place showed to be at least possible, and the results, in the
case of our solar system, are just what would have been
expected from the operations of this Jaw. For example,
everyone knows that the rapidity of the motions in the
planets is in the ratio of their nearness to the sun.
Many facts seem to support this theory, such as the
existence of the hundred and more small bodies, called
asteroids, observed between Mars and Jupiter, which doubt
less indicate a zone of agglomeration at several points, and
the rings of Saturn give an example of zones still preserved
intact. This theory has been held by some of the most
eminent astronomers, and is most ably advocated by the
late Professor Nicol in his “Architecture of the Heavens.”
Some experiments have also been tried—as, for example,
that of Plateau on a rotating globe of oil—which showed
the operation of the law by which the suns, planets, and
their moons were formed. Such is the evolution of worlds,
and it is unnecessary to point out how diametrically it is
opposed to the special creation described in Genesis, where
the heavens and the earth are called suddenly into being by
the fiat of God, and the sun stated to be created four days
afterwards. Which theory should, in these days of thought,
commend itself to a rational mind ?
�6
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
The Beginning of Life upon the Earth.—Evolution has
been subjected to many severe attacks at this point. Those
who contend for special creation have maintained, with a
dogmatism which but ill accords with the knowledge they
possess upon the subject, that nothing but the hypothesis
of the supernatural origin of things is sufficient to account
for the first appearance of life upon the earth, that evolution
completely breaks down here, and that all the experiments
which have been conducted with a view to lend it support
have turned out positive failures. Such is the allegation of
orthodox opponents. Let us see what grounds they have
for these reckless and dogmatic statements. The two views
of the origin of living beings have been called respectively
Biogenesis and Abiogenesis, the first meaning that life can
spring only from prior life, and the latter that life may
sometimes have its origin in dead matter. Dr. Charlton
Bastian, whose experiments will be hereafter referred to,
substitutes for Abiogenesis another word, Archebiosis.
Now, it is well known and admitted on all hands that
there was a time when no life existed on the earth. Not
the most minute animal, or the most insignificant plant,
found a place on the surface of what was probably at that
time a globe heated up to a temperature at which no living
thing could exist. The life, therefore, that did afterwards
appear could not have sprung from germs of prior living
bodies. True, the whimsical theory was put forward by an
eminent scientific man, some years ago, that the first germs
that found their way to the earth were probably thrown off
with meteoric matter from some other planet. But on the
face of it this is absurd, because such matter would be of
too high a temperature to admit of the existence upon it of
living bodies of any kind ; and, besides, were it otherwise,
it would explain nothing. It would only transfer the diffi
culty from this world to some other. For life must have
had a beginning somewhere, and the question is as to that
beginning somewhere. The supernaturalist seeks to get
out of the difficulty rather by cutting the Gordian knot than
by untying it, and falls back upon a special creation, thereby
avoiding any further trouble about the matter. But the
evolutionist thinks that he can see his way clearly in what
must necessarily be to some extent a labyrinth, because no
one lived at that time to observe and record what was taking
�EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
7
place. One thing is plain, which is, that living things were
made or came into existence—whatever the mode may have
been, or the power by which it occurred—out of non-living
matter. Even the believers in special creation will not
deny this. The only question is, therefore, whether the
process occurred in accordance with natural law, and whether
the forces by which it was brought about were those which
exist, or, at all events, which did exist, in material nature.
For it does not follow that, if such phenomena do not occur
to-day, they could never have taken place in the past. The
conditions of the earth were different then from what they are
now, and forces may have been in operation that are now
quiescent. Professor Huxley, who thinks that no instance
has occurred in modern times of the evolution of a living
organism from dead matter, and that the experiments which
have been conducted on the subject are inconclusive—who,
in fact, ranks himself on the side of the advocates of Bio
genesis—yet says that, if we could go back millions of years
to the dawn of life, we should, no doubt, behold living
bodies springing from non-living matter.
But, of course, it will be argued that, if it happened then,
it might take place now; and although, as I have said, this
is not conclusive, yet to some it has much weight. What
Nature has done once, it is insisted, she can do again.
Quite so ; but, then, all the conditions must be the same.
Dr. Bastian himself asks the question : “If such synthetic
processes took place then, why should they not take place
now? Why should the inherent molecular properties of
various kinds of matter have undergone so much altera
tion ?” (“ Beginnings of Life ”). And the question is likely
to be repeated, with, to say the least of it, some show of
reason.
It must never be forgotten, as Tyndall has very ably
pointed out, that the matter of which the organic body is
built up “ is that of inorganic nature. There is no substance
in the animal tissues that is not primarily derived from the
rocks, the water, and the air.” And the forces operating in
the one are those which we see working in the other, vitality
only excepted, which is probably but another manifestation
of the one great force of the universe. Indeed, Professor
Huxley does not make an exception even in the case of
vitality, which, he maintains, has no more actual existence
�8
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
than the imaginary aqueosity of water. Mr. Herbert
Spencer thinks that life, under all its forms, has arisen by
an unbroken evolution, and through natural causes alone;
and this view accords with the highest reason and philo
sophy.
Nor have the experiments performed with a view to solve
the problem been so conclusive as would appear to some.
At all events, the question is an open one as to whether the
origin of living things in non-living matter has not been
experimentally demonstrated. The old doctrine of “ spon
taneous generation ” can, in its new form and under its
recent name of Abiogenesis, or Archebiosis, claim the sup
port of men of great eminence in the scientific world at the
present time. Pouchet, a very illustrious Frenchman, per
formed a large number of experiments, and in all or most of
them he succeeded, according to his own opinion, in pro
ducing living things. The objection that there were germs
in the air, or water, or the materials that he employed, he met
by manufacturing artificial water out of oxygen and hydrogen,
and submitting the whole of the material employed to a
temperature above boiling-water point, which would certainly
destroy any living germ, either of an animal or vegetable
character. Then, in England a series of experiments have
been performed by Dr. Bastian, one of the leading scientists
of our time; and the results have been given to the world
in some voluminous and masterly books. “ These volumes,”
says an opponent—Dr. Elam—“ are full of the records of
arduous, thoughtful, and conscientious work, and must ever
retain a conspicuous place in the literature of biological
science.” Dr. Bastian maintains that he has succeeded, in
innumerable instances, in producing living organisms from
non-living matter. Hence the doctrine of Evolution, which
is in accordance with true philosophy, finds its support in
that physical science where we should expect to meet with
it, and to which it really belongs.
The Origin of Man.—It has already been stated that
the remains of man are met with only in the most
recent geological deposits. On this point there will be
no dispute. No doubt human beings have been in
existence for a much longer period than is generally sup
posed ; the short term of six thousand years, which our
�EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
9
fathers considered to cover man’s entire history, pales into
insignificance before the vast periods which we know to
have rolled their course since human life began. But that
fact in no way affects the question before us. Man was
certainly the last animal that appeared, as he was the
highest. If it be asked, Why highest as well as last ? the
answer is, Because, by the process of evolution, the highest
must come last. This is the law that we have seen operating
all through the physical universe, so far as that universe
has disclosed to us its mighty secrets, hidden for ages, but
now revealed to scientific observation and experiment.
Man came, as other organic bodies came, by no special
creation, but by the great forces of nature, which move
always in the same direction, and work to the same end.
As far as the physical powers are concerned, it will not be
difficult to conceive the same laws operating in his pro
duction as originated the various other forms of organic
beings. His body is built up of the same materials, upon
precisely the same plan : during life he is subject to the
same growth and decay, the same building up and pulling
down of tissues; and it is but reasonable to suppose that
the same forces originated his beginning, as we know they
will some day terminate his existence.
Mr. Darwin made a bold stroke when he gave the world
his “Descent of Man.” In 1859 he had published the first
edition of his work on “ The Origin of Species,” which fell
like a thunderbolt into the religious camp. The commo
tion it caused was tremendous, and the effect can to-day
hardly be imagined; so tolerant have we grown of late, and
such a change has passed over the scene within the past
quarter of a century. The most violent opposition raged
against the new views ; ridicule, denunciation, and abuse
were hurled at the head of the man who had propounded
so preposterous a theory as that all organic things had
sprung from a few simple living forms very low down in
the scale of being. Then came a larger work, entitled
“ Animals and Plants under Domestication,” brimful of
facts of a most startling character, supporting the theory
advanced in the previous book, and challenging refutation
on all hands. In the face of these facts, the public mind
cooled down a little, opposition became milder, some adver
saries were converted, and others manifested indifference.
�IO
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
The major part of those who still adhered to the super
natural and special creations held that, even if the theory of
Evolution turned out to be true, it would not apply to man,
who was a being possessed of an immortal soul, and, there
fore, belonged to a different order of creatures from any
other animals, and that Mr. Darwin never intended to
include human beings in the organic structures thus origi
nated.
In this state the controversy remained until 1872, when
Mr. Darwin took the bull by the horns, and at one stroke
swept away the last stronghold of special creation by showing
that humanity was no exception to the great law of evolu
tion ; for man, like other animals, had originated in natural
selection. The facts given in the book on “The Descent
of Man ” are both powerful and pertinent. This, however,
is not the place to dwell upon natural selection, and it is
only referred to so far as it supports evolution. The diffi
culties that have been placed in the way of the application
of this principle to man have not had much reference to
his bodily organs, but mainly to his mental and moral
powers, his social faculties, and the emotional side of his
nature. True, a controversy raged for a short time between
Huxley and Owen as to whether there was a special
structure in the human brain not to be found in the next
animals lower in the scale of being ; but this contention
has long since died out, and to-day no anatomist of any
note will be found contending for the existence of any such
organ. That the human brain differs considerably from the
brain of any lower animal no one who is at all acquainted
with the subject will deny; but this is difference in degree,
and not arising from the presence of any special structure
in the one which is absent in the other. Man, therefore,
must look for his origin just where he seeks for that of the
inferior creatures.
The science of embryology, which is now much more
carefully studied, and, consequently, much better known
than at any period in the past, lends very powerful support
to evolution, though, perhaps, little to natural selection.
“ The primordial germs,” says Huxley, “ of a man, a dog, a
bird, a fish, a beetle, a snail, and a polyp are in no essential
structural respects distinguishable” (“Lay Sermons”). Each
organism, in fact, commences its individual career at the
�EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
11
same point—that is, in a single cell. These cells are of the
same chemical composition, approximately of the same size,
and appear to be in all respects identical. Yet the one
developes into a fish, another into a reptile, a third into a
bird, a fourth into a dog, and a fifth into a man. The pro
cess is the same in all up to a certain point. First, the cell
divides into two, then into four, eight, sixteen, and so on,
until a particular condition is reached, called by Haeckel
morula, when a totally different set of changes occur. In
the case of the higher animals the development of the
embryo exhibits, up to a very late period, a remarkable
resemblance to that of man.
The Diversity of Living Things.—A mere glance at the
geological records will show at once that the order in which
animals and plants have appeared on the earth is that which
accords with evolution. The lowest came first, the highest
last, and a regular gradation between the two extremes. In
the early rocks in which life appears we meet with polyps,
coral, sea-worms, etc., and no trace of land animals or plants.
Then, passing upwards, we come upon fishes, then reptiles,
afterwards birds, subsequently mammals, and, last of all,
man. These are undisputed facts, as the most elementary
works on geology, whether written by a professing Christian
or an unbeliever, will clearly show.
The only objection, perhaps, of any weight that can be
urged against the changes which evolution asserts to have
taken place, is the fact that we do not see them occur.
But this, in the first place, is hardly correct, since we see
the tadpole—which is a fish breathing through gills, and
living in the water—pass up into a reptile, the frog, which
is a land animal breathing through lungs, and inhaling its
oxygen from the atmosphere. Secondly, the fact that we
do not see a change actually occur, which took millions of
years to become effected, can surely amount to little.
An ephemeral insect, whose life only lasts for a day, might
object, if able to reason, that an a corn could not grow into
an oak tree, because it had not seen it occur. But the
evidence would be there still in the numerous gradations
that might be seen between the acorn and the sturdy old
tree that had weathered the storms of a century. And in
�12
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
this case we see all the gradations between a monad and a
man in the rocks which furnish us with the history of the
past, although, as our lives are so short, we are not able to
see the whole change effected. Plants were not all suddenly
called into existence at one particular period, and then
animals at another and later time. This we know, because
the remains of plants and animals are found side by side
throughout all the rocks. If there be an exception, it is an
unfortunate one for the Christian supernaturalist, since it
shows that animals were first; for certain it is that animal
remains are met with in the oldest rocks.
The objection to evolution, that no transformation of one
species into another has been seen within recorded history,
is entirely groundless, and betrays utter carelessness
on the part of the objectors. The truth is, such trans
formations have taken place, as mentioned above in reference
to the tadpole. Professor Huxley and other scientists have
proved this to be the case. It should, however, be remem
bered that in most instances these great changes are the
work of time. As Dr. David Page observes : “ It is true
that, to whatever process we ascribe the introduction of new
species, its operation is so slow and gradual that centuries
may pass away before its results become discernible. But,
no matter how slow, time is without limit; and, if we can
trace a process of variation at work, it is sure to widen in
the long run into what are regarded as specific distinctions.
It is no invalidation of this argument that science cannot
point to the introduction of any new species within the
historic era; for till within a century or so science took no
notice of either the introduction or extinction of species, nor
was it sufficiently acquainted with the flora and fauna of
the globe to determine the amount of variation that was
taking place among their respective families. Indeed, in
fluenced by the belief that the life of the globe was the
result of one creative act, men were unwilling to look at the
long past which the infant science of palaeontology was be
ginning to reveal, and never deigned to doubt that the
future would be otherwise than the present. Even still
there are certain minds who ignore all that geology has
taught concerning the extinction of old races and the intro
duction of newer ones, and who, shutting their eyes to the
continuity of nature, cannot perceive that the same course
�EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
IS
of extinction and creation must ever be in progress ” (“ Man :
Where, Whence, and Whither ?”).
Let us now apply a test to the creative theory with a similar
demand, and what will be the result ? An utter failure on the
part of the creationists to substantiate their dogmatic preten
sions. Suppose we exclaimed, “ Show us a single creative act
of bne species within recorded history.” It would be impos
sible for them to do so, for there is not a shadow of evidence
drawn from human experience in favour of what theologians
call creation. “ We perceive a certain order and certain
method in nature ; we see that under new conditions certain
variations do take place in vegetable and animal structures,
and by an irresistible law of our intellect we associate the
variations with the conditions in the way of cause and
effect. Of such a method we can form some notion, and
bring if within the realm of reason ; of any other plan, how
ever it may be received, we can form no rational conception.”
“ The whole analogy of natural operations,” says Professor
Huxley, “ furnishes so complete and crushing an argument
against the intervention of any but what are called secondary
causes in the production of all the phenomena of the universe
that, in view of the intimate relations between man and the
rest of the living world, and between the forces exerted by
the latter and all other forces, I can see no excuse for doubt
ing that all are co-ordinated terms of nature’s great progres
sion, from the formless to the formed, from the inorganic to
the organic, from blind force to conscious intellect and will.”
The most that can be said of the creative theory is that it
is a question of belief; but of knowledge never.
Dr. Page observes : “We may believe in a direct act of
creation; but we cannot make it a subject of research.
Faith may accept, but reason cannot grasp it. On the
other hand, a process of derivation by descent is a thing we
can trace as of a kind with other processes; and, though
unable to explain, we can follow it as an indication, at least,
of the method which Nature has adopted in conformity with
her ordinary and normal course of procedure. We can
admit possibilities, but must reason from probabilities, and
the probable can only be judged of from what is already
known. Than this there is clearly no other course for
philosophy.
Everywhere in nature it sees nothing but
processes, means, and results, causes and effects, and it
�14
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
cannot conceive, even if it wished, of anything being brought
about unless through the instrumentality of means and pro
cesses.”
To me it has always been a difficulty to understand how
an infinite being could possibly have been the creator of all
things. For this reason : if he is infinite, he is everywhere ;
if everywhere, he is in the universe ; if in the universe now,
he was always there. If he were always in the universe,
there never was a time when the universe was not; there
fore, it could never have been created.
If it be said that this being was not always in the universe,
then there must have been a period when he occupied less
space than he did subsequently. But “ lesser ” and “ greater ”
cannot be applied to that which is eternally infinite. Further,
before we can recognise the soundness of the position taken
by the advocates of special creation, we have to think of a
time when there was no time—of a place where there was
no place. Is this possible ? If it were, it would be interest
ing to learn where an infinite God was at that particular
period, and how, in “no time,” he could perform his creative
act. Besides, if a being really exists who created all things,
the obvious question at once is, “ Where was this being
before anything else existed ?” “ Was there a time when
God over all was God over nothing ? Can we believe that
a God over nothing began to be out of nothing, and to
create all things when there was nothing ?” Moreover, if
the universe was created, from what did it emanate ? From
nothing? But “ from nothing, nothing can come.” Was
it created from something that already was ? If so, it was
no creation at all, but only a continuation of that which was
in existence. Further, “ creation needs action ; to act is to
use force; to use force implies the existence of something
upon which that force can be used. But if that ‘ something ’
were there before creation, the act of creating was simply
the re-forming of pre-existing materials.” Here three ques
tions may be put to the opponents of evolution who affirm
the idea of special creation :—(i) Is it logical to affirm the
existence of that of which nothing is known, either of itself
or by analogy ? Now, it cannot be alleged that anything is
known of the supposed supernatural power of creation. On
the other hand, sufficient is known of the facts of evolution
to prevent the careful student of Nature from attempting to
�EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
15
rob her of that force and life-giving principle which un
doubtedly belongs to her. (2) Is it logical to ascribe events
to causes the existence of which is unknown, and more
particularly when such events can be reasonably explained
upon natural principles with the aid of “ the science of
probabilities ” ? Dr. Page forcibly remarks : “ Man has his
natural history relations—of that there can be no gainsaying
—and we merely seek to apply to the determination of these
the same methods of research which by common consent
are applied to the determination of the relations of other
creatures............. Scientific research must abide by scientific
methods; scientific convictions must rest on scientific in
vestigations.” To assert that life is associated with some
thing that is immaterial and immortal, and that this force
could only have been brought into existence by a special
act of “the one great creator,” is to prostrate reason and ex
perience before the assumptions of an over-satisfied theology.
To once more use the words of Dr. Page : “ Science knows
nothing of life save through its manifestations. With the
growth of physical organisation it comes ; with the decay of
organisation it disappears. While life endures, mind is its
accompaniment; when life ceases, mental activity comes to
a close. Thus far we can trace; beyond this science is
utterly helpless. No observation from the external world ;
no analogy, however plausible ; no analysis, however minute,
can solve the problem of an immaterial and immortal exist
ence.” (3) Is it logical to urge the theory of special creation
when science proclaims the stability of natural law, and its
sufficiency for the production of all phenomena ? Professor
Tyndall, in his lecture on “ Sound,” remarks that, if there is
one thing that science has demonstrated more clearly than
another, it is the stability of the operations of the laws of
nature. We feel assured from experience that this is so,
and we act upon such assurance in our daily life. The
same errtinent scientist, in his Belfast address, says : “ Now,
as science demands the radical extirpation of caprice, and
the absolute reliance upon law in nature, there grew with
the growth of scientific notions a desire and determination
to sweep from the field of theory this mob of gods and
demons, and to place natural phenomena on a basis more
congruent with themselves.”
Again: “ Is there not a
temptation to close to some extent with Lucretius when he
�i6
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
affirms that ‘ Nature is seen to do all things spontaneously
of herself without the meddling of the gods,’ or with Bruno
when he declares that Matter is not ‘that mere empty
capacity which philosophers have pictured her to be, but
the universal mother who brings forth all things as the fruit
of her own womb....... By an intellectual necessity I cross
the boundary of the experimental evidence, and discern in
that matter which we, in our ignorance of its latent powers,
and notwithstanding our professed reverence for its creator,
have hitherto covered with opprobrium, the promise and
potency of all terrestrial life.”
Psychical Powers.—This is the great stronghold of the
opponents of evolution. They maintain that, whatever may
have taken place with regard to physical powers and bodily
organs, it is clear that the higher intellectual faculties of
man could not so have originated ; that those, at least, must
be the result of a special creation, and must have been
called into existence by some supernatural power when human
beings first appeared upon the stage of life. Such persons
further urge that, even if it could be shown beyond doubt
that the marvellously constructed body of man, with its
beautifully adjusted parts of bone and muscle, nerve and
brain, skin and mucous membrane, had its origin in evolu
tion, yet no light whatever would be thrown upon the
source of the wondrous powers of judgment and memory,
understanding and will, perception and conception. This
argument, no doubt, to some at first appears specious; but
the question is, Is it sound ? The assumption seems to be
that we meet with these powers now for the first time, and
that, therefore, it is here that a special creation must be
called in to account for their origin, their character being
so different from anything that has previously crossed our
path in this investigation. But assuredly this is not correct.
Some of these powers are certainly to be met with in the
lower animals—a few of them low down in the scale—and
for the rest the difference will be one of degree more than
of quality.
It will not surely be maintained that perception is pecu
liar to man; it must exist wherever there are organs of
sense, and these extend in some form or other to the
lowest phase of animal life. Volition is also met with in all
�EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
17
the higher animals; and memory may be observed in the
dog, horse, elephant, cat, camel, and numerous other
mammals, with whose habits every-day life makes us familiar.
Even judgment in the form of comparison is often displayed
by the domestic animals, the dog in particular. Dr. H.
Bischoff, in his “Essay on the Difference between Man
and Brutes,” says : “ It is impossible to deny the animals,
qualitatively and quantitatively, as many mental faculties as
we find in man. They possess consciousness. They feel,
think, and judge; they possess a will which determines their
actions and motions. Animals possess attachment; they
are grateful, obedient, good-natured; and, again, false
treacherous, disobedient, revengeful, jealous, etc. Their
actions frequently evince deliberation and memory. It is
in vain to derive such actions from so-called instinct, which
unconsciously compels them so to act.” Max Muller also,
in his “ Science of Language,” admits that brutes have five
senses like ourselves ; that they have sensations of pain and
pleasure; that they have memory; that they are able to
compare and distinguish ; have a will of their own, show
signs of shame and pride, and are guided by intellect as
well as by instinct.
With such facts as these before us, what reason have we
for supposing that these psychical powers are not as likely to
have been evolved as the bodily organs ? There is no break
whatever to be seen in the chain at the point of their appear
ance in man. If the mental powers of the lower animals
have come by evolution, there is not a shadow of reason for
supposing that those of man arose in any other way, for
they are all of the same quality, differing only in degree.
No doubt, as Mr. Darwin says, “the difference between the
mind of man and that of the highest ape is immense.” And
yet, as he also remarks, “great as it is, it is certainly one of
degree, and not of kind.” The highest powers of which
man can boast—memory, judgment, love, attention, curiosity,
imitation, emotion—may all be met with in an incipient
form in lower animals. Let any man analyse his mental
faculties one by one—-not look at them in a state of com
bination, for that will be calculated to mislead—and then
say which of them is peculiar to man as man, and not to be
found in a smaller degree much lower in the scale of being.
Even the capacity for improvement—in other words, for pro
�EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
gress—is not peculiar to man, as Mr. Darwin has shown by
innumerable examples of great force and beauty.
The emotions have often been spoken of as being pecu
liar to man, but evidently with no regard to accuracy.
Terror exists in all the highest of the lower animals as surely
as it does in man, and shows itself in the same way. It
causes the heart to palpitate, a tremor to pass along the
muscles, and even the hair to undergo that change which is
called “ standing on end,” in the horse, the dog, and other
animals, as in the human species. “ Courage and timidity,”
observes Darwin, “are extremely variable qualities in the
individuals of the same species, as is plainly seen in our
dogs. Some dogs and horses are ill-tempered and easily
turn sulky; others are good-tempered; and these qualities
are certainly inherited. Everyone knows how liable animals
are to furious rage, and how plainly they show it.” The
love of the dog for his master is proverbial; indeed, this
noble animal has been known to lick the hand of the vivisector while undergoing at his hands the severest torture.
And revenge is often manifested by the lowest animals—not
simply the sudden impulse which revenges itself at the
moment for pain inflicted or wrongs done, but long,
brooding feeling, which may smoulder for months, waiting
for the opportunity for manifesting itself, and, when that
comes, bursting out into a flame violent and hateful. There
are thousands of cases on record in which this has happened,
especially in the case of monkeys which have been kept
tame. And, perhaps, the personal experience of most
persons can furnish an example of the truth of this allegation.
The social instincts are plainly seen in many of the lower
animals; not, of course, in that perfect form in which they
are met with in man ; but the difference here again is one of
degree only. Many animals experience pleasure in the
company of their fellows, and are unhappy at a separation
being effected. They will show sympathy one for another,
and even perform services for each other’s benefit. Some
animals lie together in large numbers, and never separate
except for a very short time, and then only for a purpose
which they clearly understand. This is the case with sheep,
rats, American monkeys, and also with rooks, jackdaws, and
starlings. Darwin observes : “ Everyone must have noticed
-how miserable horses, dogs, sheep, etc., are when separated
�EVOLUTION and special creation.
J9
from their companions, and what affection the two former
kind will show on their re-union. It is curious to speculate
upon the feelings of a dog who will rest peacefully for hours
in a room with his master or any of the family without the
least notice being taken of him, but who, if left for a short
time by himself, barks and howls dismally.” Here we find
the origin of the social faculty in man. It is very easy to
imagine the course of development which this must have
taken in order to have culminated in the highest form
as we see it in the human species. The psychical powers
appear first in an incipient form, and then gradually develop
through a long course of ages, until they attain their height
in humanity.
Other influences, such as the power of
language, further the development, these powers themselves
being the result of the process of evolution. The question
how far language is confined to man is one of great interest
to the student of evolution. In replying to the inquiry,
“ What is the difference between the brute and man ?” Max
Muller says : “ Man speaks, and no brute has ever uttered
a word. Language is our Rubicon, and no brute has ever
crossed it.” Referring to this statement, Dr. Page remarks :
“Are not these powers of abstraction and language a matter of
degree rather than of kind ? Do not the actions of many of
the lower animals sufficiently indicate that they reason from
the particular to the general ? And have they not the power
of communicating their thoughts to one another by vocal
sounds which cannot be otherwise regarded than as lan
guage? No one who has sufficiently studied the conduct
of our domestic animals but must be convinced of this
power of generalisation ; no one who has listened attentively
to the various calls of mammals and birds can doubt they
have the power of expressing their mental emotions in
language. Their powers of abstraction may be limited, and
the range of their language restricted; but what shall we
say of the mental capacity of the now extinct Tasmanian,
which could not carry him beyond individual conceptions,
or of the monosyllabic click-cluck of the Bushman, as
compared with the intellectual grasp and the inflectional
languages of modern Europe ? If it shall be said that these
are matters merely of degree, then are the mental processes
and languages of the lower animals, as compared with
those of man, also matters of degree—things that manifest
�20
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
themselves in the same way and by the same organs, but
differing in power according to the perfection of the organs
through which they are manifested.”
The Doctor's view of this matter receives a striking corro
boration from the following excerpt from the introduction
to Agassiz’s “ Contributions to the Natural History of the
United States ” : “ The intelligibility of the voice of animals
to one another, and all their actions connected with such
calls, are also a strong argument of their perceptive power,
and of their ability to act spontaneously and with logical
sequence in accordance with these perceptions. There is a
vast field open for investigation in the relations between
the voice and the actions of animals, and a still more in
teresting subject of inquiry in the relationship between the
cycle of intonations which different species of animals of
the same family are capable of uttering, and which, so far as
I have yet been able to trace them, stand to one another in
the same relations as the different, so-called, families of
languages.”
The moral powers of man have been evolved in a manner
similar to that in which the other forces belonging to the
human race were evolved. All that we see in the evolution
of human conduct is the result of the great and potent law
of evolution. “ It is said,” writes M. J. Savage in his sug
gestive book, “ The Morals of Evolution,” “ that there can
be no permanent and eternal law of morality unless we
believe in a God and a future life. But I believe that this
moral law stands by virtue of its own right, and would
stand just the same without any regard to the question
of immortality or the discussion between Theism and
Atheism. If there be no God at all, am I not living ? Are
there not laws according to which my body is constructed—
laws of health, laws of life, laws that I must keep in order
to live and in order to be well ? If there be no God at all,
are you not existing ? Have I right to steal your property,
to injure you, to render you unhappy, because, forsooth, I
choose to doubt whether there is a God, or because you
choose to doubt whether there is a God ? Are not
the laws of society existing in themselves, and by their
own nature ? Suppose all the world should suddenly lose
its regard for truth and become false through and through,
so that no man could depend upon his brother, would
�EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
21
not society become disintegrated, disorganised? Would
not all commercial and social life suddenly become im
possible? Would not humanity become a chaos and a
wreck, and that without any sort of regard to the question
as to whether men believed in a God or did not believe in
one ? These laws are essential in the nature of things ; and
they stand, and you live by keeping them, and die by
breaking them, whether there is a God or not.
These are
the accurate and ennobling views of existence born of
minds which evolution has raised from the ignorant depths
of the past to the intellectual heights of the present.
On all sides the candid and impartial observer may be
hold undoubted evidence in favour of the doctrine of evolu
tion. We see it in the various changes of the solar system.
There are (i) fire mists; (2) globes of gas; (3) condensed
oceans; (4) crust formation; (5) mountains and rivers, and
(6) its present phenomena. What is this but evolution ?
Is it not a manifestation of changes from the lower to the
higher, from the simple to the complex, and from the
chaotic to the consolidated ? The same principle is illus
trated, as before indicated, by the science of embryology,
with its clearly-marked stages of development—the fish,
reptile, bird, quadruped, and, finally, the human form. The
relationship of the species gives its proof in favour of the
evolution theory. The different types of to-day had their
one starting point, the variations now seen having been pro
duced by altered conditions. Moreover, we find that in
the process of evolution some organs in animals become
useless, while others change their use, thus proving that the
animal kingdom possess structural affinities, and that the
subsequent differentiation depends upon the opportunity
afforded for evolution.
Then, again, man’s ability, to
divert animal instincts and intelligence from their original
sphere, as shown in the training of certain of the lower
animals; of improving the eye as an optical instrument;
of rendering less antagonistic the natures and instincts we
discover in different species constantly at war with each
other, all point to one process—that of evolution.
There is the old sentimental objection to this theory, that
it is humiliating to think that we have evolved from forms
lower down in the scale of animal life. But, as Dr. Page
points out, there is nothing in this view necessarily degrading
�22
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
11 If, in virtue of some yet unexplained process, man has
derived his descent from any of the lower orders, he is
clearly not of them—his higher structural adaptations and
improvable reason defining at once the specialty of his place,
and the responsibility of his functions. It can be no
degradation to have descended from some antecedent form
of life, any more than it can be an exaltation to have been
fashioned directly from the dust of the earth. There can
be nothing degrading or disgusting in the connection which
nature has obviously established between all that lives, and
those who employ such phrases must have but a poor and
by no means very reverent conception of the scheme of
creation. The truth is, there is nothing degrading in nature
save that which, forgetful of its own functions, debases and
degrades itself. The jibing and jeering at the idea of an
‘ape-ancestry,’ so often resorted to by the ignorant, has in
reality no significance to the mind of the philosophic
naturalist. There is evidently one structural plan running
throughout the whole of vitality, after which its myriad
members have been ascensively developed, just as there is
one great material plan pervading the planetary system;
and science merely seeks to unfold that plan, and to deter
mine the principles upon which it is constructed. If there
be no generic connection between man and the order that
stands next beneath him, there is at all events a marvellous
similarity in structural organisation, and this similarity is
surely suggestive of something more intimate than mere
coincidence.” Evolution, therefore, although unable to
supply the solution to every problem presented to the
student of nature, is, so far as can be discovered at the
present day, the truest theory of man and the universe, and
is sufficient for all practical purposes. Further, it satisfies
the intellect as no other theory does, and is assuredly more
reasonable than that of special creation.
One question of great importance will probably suggest
itself to those who have given the theory of evolution much
consideration. It is this : What is to be the position of
things, and especially of man, in the future ? Will there be
evolved higher beings after him, as he is higher than those
who preceded him ? He stands now as the lord of crea
tion ; but so stood many mighty reptiles of the past in their
day and generation. Could they have reasoned, would they
�'7" '
EVOLUTION1 AND SPECIAL CREATION.
23
not have concluded that they were the final end of creation,
and that all that had gone before was simply to prepare for
their entrance into the world? In that they would have
erred ; and it may be asked, Shall we not equally err if we
hastily decide that no higher being than man can ever come
on earth—that he is, and will ever remain, the highest of
organic existences ? Now, the cases are not quite analogous,
as a little reflection will show. The earlier animals were
entirely the creatures of evolution j man is largely the director
of the process. He can, by his intellect, control the law
itself, just as he bends gravitation to his will, though, in a
sense, he is as much subject to its power as the earth on which
he treads. Before man arose, the animals and plants then
existing were moulded by the great power operating upon
them from within and without; hence the form they took
and the functions they performed. When they had to con
tend with an unfortunate environment they became modi
fied ; or, failing that, they disappeared. Now man, by his
mental resource, can supply natural deficiencies, and thus not
defeat evolution, but direct its current into a new channel.
He can bring his food from a distance, and thus avoid
scarcity in the country where he dwells ; he can successfully
contend against climate, disease, and a thousand other
destructive agencies which might otherwise sweep him away.
It is, therefore, no longer a contest between physical powers,
but between physical and mental. No higher physical
development is likely to occur, because it would not meet
the case, since, however perfect it might be, it could not
hold its own in the struggle for existence against man with
his intellect. The development in the future must be one
of mind, not of body. We do not, consequently, look for
ward to the time when organised beings, higher and more
perfect physically than man, shall take his place on the
earth; but we do believe that a period will arrive when the
intellectual powers shall be refined, expanded, and exalted
beyond anything of which at present we can form a con
ception. The future of man is a topic of all-absorbing
interest, and it needs no prophetic insight to enable us to
form some dim and vague idea of what it will be. Mind
will grapple with the great forces of nature, making them
subservient to man’s comfort and convenience. Virtue
shall array herself more resolutely than ever against vice,
�24
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
and rid the world of its malignant power. Brother shall
cease slaying brother at the command of kingly despots, and
thus the world shall be crowned with the laurels of peace.
Priestcraft shall lose its power over humanity, and mental
liberty shall have a new birth. The barriers of social caste
shall be broken down, and the brotherhood of man thereby
consolidated. Woman shall no longer be a slave, but
free in her own right. Capital and labour shall cease
to be antagonistic, and shall be harmoniously employed
to enrich the comforts and to augment the happiness of the
race. Education shall supplant ignorance, and justice take
the place of oppression. Then the era shall have arrived
of which the philosopher has written and the poet has sung.
Freedom shall be the watchword of man, reason shall reign
supreme, and happiness prevail throughout the earth.
“ When from the lips of Truth one mighty breath
Shall, like a whirlwind, scatter in its breeze
The whole dark pile of human miseries,
Then shall the reign of mind commence on earth ;
And, starting forth as from a second birth,
Man, in the sunrise of the world’s new spring,
Shall walk transparent like some holy thing.”
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Evolution and special creation
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles [1836-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Lacking a title page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Date of publication from Cooke, Bill. The blasphemy depot.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Watts & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1893]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1574
N667
Subject
The topic of the resource
Evolution
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Evolution and special creation), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Darwin
Creationism
Darwinism
Evolution
NSS