On the Genesis of Species Part 15

Trevelyan's flock. This flock was entirely composed of the common kind, and yet the new form rapidly developed itself "_to the extinction of the previously existing breed_."[242]

Indeed, the notion accepted by both Mr. Darwin and Mr. Herbert Spencer, and which is plainly the fact (namely, that changes of conditions and incident forces, within limits, augment the viability and fertility of individuals), harmonizes well with the suggested possibility as to an augmented viability and prepotency in new organic forms evolved by peculiar consentaneous actions of conditions and forces, both external and internal.

The remarkable series of changes noted by Dr. Bastian were certainly not produced by external incident forces _only_, but by these acting on a peculiar _materia_, having special properties and powers. Therefore, the changes were induced by the consentaneous action of internal and external forces.[243] In the same way then, we may expect changes in higher forms to be evolved by similar united action of internal and external forces.

One other point may here be alluded to. When the remarkable way in which structure and function simultaneously change, is borne in mind; when those numerous instances in which nature has supplied similar wants by similar means, as detailed in Chapter III., are remembered; when also all the wonderful contrivances of orchids, of mimicry, and the strange complexity of certain instinctive actions are considered: then the conviction forces itself on many minds that the organic world is the expression of an intelligence of some kind. This view has been well advocated by Mr. Joseph John Murphy, in his recent work so often here referred to.

{238} This intelligence, however, is evidently not altogether such as ours, or else has other ends in view than those most obvious to us. For the end is often attained in singularly roundabout ways, or with a prodigality of means which seems out of all proportion with the result: not with the simple action directed to one end which generally marks human activity.

Organic nature then speaks clearly to many minds of the action of an intelligence resulting, on the whole and in the main, in order, harmony, and beauty, yet of an intelligence the ways of which are not such as ours.

This view of evolution harmonizes well with Theistic conceptions; not, of course, that this harmony is brought forward as an argument in its favour generally, but it will have weight with those who are convinced that Theism reposes upon solid grounds of reason as _the_ rational view of the universe. To such it may be observed that, thus conceived, the Divine action has that slight amount of resemblance to, and that wide amount of divergence from what human action would be, which might be expected _a priori_--might be expected, that is, from a Being whose nature and aims are utterly beyond our power to imagine, however faintly, but whose truth and goodness are the fountain and source of our own perceptions of such qualities.

The view of evolution maintained in this work, though arrived at in complete independence, yet seems to agree in many respects with the views advocated by Professor Owen in the last volume of his "Anatomy of Vertebrates," under the term "derivation." He says:[244] "Derivation holds that every species changes in time, by virtue of inherent tendencies thereto. 'Natural Selection' holds that no such change can take place without the influence of altered external circ.u.mstances.[245] {239} 'Derivation' sees among the effects of the innate tendency to change irrespective of altered circ.u.mstances, a manifestation of creative power in the variety and beauty of the results; and, in the ultimate forthcoming of a being susceptible of appreciating such beauty, evidence of the pre-ordaining of such relation of power to the appreciation. 'Natural Selection' acknowledges that if ornament or beauty, in itself, should be a purpose in creation, it would be absolutely fatal to it as a hypothesis."

"'Natural Selection' sees grandeur in the view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one. 'Derivation' sees therein a narrow invocation of a special miracle and an unworthy limitation of creative power, the grandeur of which is manifested daily, hourly, in calling into life many forms, by conversion of physical and chemical into vital modes of force, under as many diversified conditions of the requisite elements to be so combined."

The view propounded in this work allows, however, a greater and more important part to the share of external influences, it being believed by the Author, however, that these external influences equally with the internal ones are the results of one harmonious action underlying the whole of nature, organic and inorganic, cosmical, physical, chemical, terrestrial, vital, and social.

According to this view, an internal law presides over the actions of every part of every individual, and of every organism as a unit, and of the entire organic world as a whole. It is believed that this conception of an internal innate force will ever remain necessary, however much its subordinate processes and actions may become explicable:

That by such a force, from time to time, new species are manifested by ordinary generation just as _Pavo nigripennis_ appeared suddenly, these new forms not being monstrosities but harmonious self-consistent wholes. That thus, as specific distinctness is manifested by obscure s.e.xual {240} conditions, so in obscure s.e.xual modifications specific distinctions arise.

That these "jumps" are considerable in comparison with the minute variations of "Natural Selection"--are in fact sensible steps, such as discriminate species from species.

That the latent tendency which exists to these sudden evolutions is determined to action by the stimulus of external conditions.

That "Natural Selection" rigorously destroys monstrosities, and abortive and feeble attempts at the performance of the evolutionary process.

That "Natural Selection" removes the antecedent species rapidly when the new one evolved is more in harmony with surrounding conditions.

That "Natural Selection" favours and develops useful variations, though it is impotent to originate them or to erect the physiological barrier which seems to exist between species.

By some such conception as this, the difficulties here enumerated, which beset the theory of "Natural Selection" pure and simple, are to be got over.

Thus, for example, the difficulties discussed in the first chapter--namely, those as to the origins and first beginnings of certain structures--are completely evaded.

Again, as to the independent origin of closely similar structures, such as the eyes of the Vertebrata and cuttle-fishes, the difficulty is removed if we may adopt the conception of an innate force similarly directed in each case, and a.s.sisted by favourable external conditions.

Specific stability, limitation to variability, and the facts of reversion, all harmonize with the view here put forward. The same may be said with regard to the significant facts of h.o.m.ology, and of organic symmetry; and our consideration of the hypothesis of Pangenesis in Chapter X., has seemed to result in a view as to innate powers which accords well with what is here advocated. [Page 241]

The evolutionary hypothesis here advocated also serves to explain all those remarkable facts which were stated in the first chapter to be explicable by the theory of Natural Selection, namely, the relation of existing to recent faunas and floras; the phenomena of h.o.m.ology and of rudimentary structures; also the processes gone through in development; and lastly, the wonderful facts of mimicry.

Finally, the view adopted is the synthesis of many distinct and, at first sight, conflicting conceptions, each of which contains elements of truth, and all of which it appears to be able more or less to harmonize.

Thus it has been seen that "Natural Selection" is accepted. It acts and must act, though alone it does not appear capable of fulfilling the task a.s.signed to it by Mr. Darwin.

Pangenesis has probably also much truth in it, and has certainly afforded valuable and pregnant suggestions, but unaided and alone it seems inadequate to explain the evolution of the individual organism.

Those three conceptions of the organic world which may be spoken of as the teleological, the typical, and the trans.m.u.tationist, have often been regarded as mutually antagonistic and conflicting.

The genesis of species as here conceived, however, accepts, locates, and harmonizes all the three.

Teleology concerns the ends for which organisms were designed. The recognition, therefore, that their formation took place by an evolution not fortuitous, in no way invalidates the acknowledgment of their final causes if on other grounds there are reasons for believing that such final causes exist.

Conformity to type, or the creation of species according to certain "divine ideas," is in no way interfered with by such a process of evolution as is here advocated. Such "divine ideas" must be accepted or declined upon quite other grounds than the mode of their realization, and of their manifestation in the world of sensible phenomena. [Page 242]

Trans.m.u.tationism (an old name for the evolutionary hypothesis), which was conceived at one time to be the very ant.i.thesis to the two preceding conceptions, harmonizes well with them if the evolution be conceived to be orderly and designed. It will in the next chapter be shown to be completely in harmony with conceptions, upon the acceptance of which "final causes"

and "divine ideal archetypes" alike depend.

Thus then, if the c.u.mulative argument put forward in this book is valid, we must admit the insufficiency of Natural Selection both on account of the residuary phenomena it fails to explain, and on account of certain other phenomena which seem actually to conflict with that theory. We have seen that though the laws of nature are constant, yet some of the conditions which determine specific change may be exceptionally absent at the present epoch of the world's history; also that it is not only possible, but highly probable, that an internal power or tendency is an important if not the main agent in evoking the manifestation of new species on the scene of realized existence, and that in any case, from the facts of h.o.m.ology, innate internal powers to the full as mysterious must anyhow be accepted, whether they act in specific origination or not. Besides all this, we have seen that it is probable that the action of this innate power is stimulated, evoked, and determined by external conditions, and also that the same external conditions, in the shape of "Natural Selection," play an important part in the evolutionary process: and finally, it has been affirmed that the view here advocated, while it is supported by the facts on which Darwinism rests, is not open to the objections and difficulties which oppose themselves to the reception of "Natural Selection," as the exclusive or even as the main agent in the successive and orderly evolution of organic forms in the _genesis of species_. [Page 243]

CHAPTER XII.

THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION.

Prejudiced opinions on the subject.--"Creation" sometimes denied from prejudice.---The unknowable.--Mr. Herbert Spencer's objections to theism; to creation.--Meanings of term "creation."--Confusion from not distinguis.h.i.+ng between "primary" and "derivative" creation.--Mr.

Darwin's objections.--Bearing of Christianity on the theory of evolution.--Supposed opposition, the result of a misconception.--Theological authority not opposed to evolution.--St.

Augustin.--St. Thomas Aquinas.--Certain consequences of want of flexibility of mind.--Reason and imagination.--The first cause and demonstration.--Parallel between Christianity and natural theology.--What evolution of species is.--Professor Aga.s.siz.--Innate powers must be recognized.--Bearing of evolution on religious belief.--Professor Huxley.--Professor Owen.--Mr. Wallace.--Mr.

Darwin.--_A priori_ conception of Divine action.--Origin of man.--Absolute creation and dogma.--Mr. Wallace's view.--A supernatural origin for man's body not necessary.--Two orders of being in man.--Two modes of origin.--Harmony of the physical, hyperphysical, and supernatural.--Reconciliation of science and religion as regards evolution.--Conclusion.

The special "Darwinian Theory" and that of an evolutionary process neither excessively minute nor fortuitous, having now been considered, it is time to turn to the important question, whether both or either of these conceptions may have any bearing, and if any, what, upon Christian belief?

Some readers will consider such an inquiry to be a work of supererogation.

Seeing clearly themselves the absurdity of prevalent popular views, and the shallowness of popular objections, they may be impatient of any discussion, on the subject. But it is submitted that there are many minds worthy {244} of the highest esteem and of every consideration, which have regarded the subject hitherto almost exclusively from one point of view; that there are some persons who are opposed to the progress (in their own minds or in that of their children or dependents) of physical scientific truth--the natural revelation--through a mistaken estimate of its religious bearings, while there are others who are zealous in its promotion from a precisely similar error. For the sake of both these then the Author may perhaps be pardoned for entering slightly on very elementary matters relating to the question, whether evolution or Darwinism have any, and if any, what, bearing on theology?

There are at least two cla.s.ses of men who will certainly a.s.sert that they have a very important and highly significant bearing upon it.

One of these cla.s.ses consists of persons zealous for religion indeed, but who identify orthodoxy with their own private interpretation of Scripture or with narrow opinions in which they have been brought up--opinions doubtless widely spread, but at the same time dest.i.tute of any distinct and authoritative sanction on the part of the Christian Church.

The other cla.s.s is made up of men hostile to religion, and who are glad to make use of any and every argument which they think may possibly be available against it.

Some individuals within this latter cla.s.s may not believe in the existence of G.o.d, but may yet abstain from publicly avowing this absence of belief, contenting themselves with denials of "creation" and "design," though these denials are really consequences of their att.i.tude of mind respecting the most important and fundamental of all beliefs.

Without a distinct belief in a personal G.o.d it is impossible to have any religion worthy of the name, and no one can at the same time accept the Christian religion and deny the dogma of creation. [Page 245]

"I believe in G.o.d," "the Creator of Heaven and Earth," the very first clauses of the Apostles' Creed, formally commit those who accept them to the a.s.sertion of this belief. If, therefore, any theory of physical science really conflicts with such an authoritative statement, its importance to Christians is unquestionable.

As, however, "creation" forms a part of "revelation," and as "revelation"

appeals for its acceptance to "reason" which has to prepare a basis for it by an intelligent acceptance of theism on _purely rational grounds_, it is necessary to start with a few words as to the reasonableness of belief in G.o.d, which indeed are less superfluous than some readers may perhaps imagine; "a few words," because this is not the place where the argument can be drawn out, but only one or two hints given in reply to certain modern objections.

No better example perhaps can be taken, as a type of these objections, than a pa.s.sage in Mr. Herbert Spencer's First Principles.[246] This author constantly speaks of the "ultimate cause of things" as "the Unknowable," a term singularly unfortunate, and as Mr. James Martineau has pointed out,[247] even self-contradictory: for that ent.i.ty, the knowledge of {246} the existence of which presses itself ever more and more upon the cultivated intellect, cannot be the unknown, still less _the unknowable_, because we certainly know it, in that we know for certain that it exists.

Nay more, to predicate incognoscibility of it, is even a certain knowledge of the mode of its existence. Mr. H. Spencer says:[248] "The consciousness of an Inscrutable Power manifested to us through all phenomena has been growing ever clearer; and must eventually be freed from its imperfections.

The certainty that on the one hand such a Power exists, while on the other hand its nature transcends intuition, and is beyond imagination, is the certainty towards which intelligence has from the first been progressing."

One would think then that the familiar and accepted word "the Inscrutable"

(which is in this pa.s.sage actually employed, and to which no theologian would object) would be an indefinitely better term than "the unknowable."