Such are some of the grounds on which geologists and palæontologists of the highest rank assert that the theory of evolution has not the slightest scientific basis; and they support their assertion with an amount of evidence of which the above items are a miserable pittance.
Sixthly. There is another consideration of decisive importance. Strauss says, there are three things which have been stumbling-blocks in the way of science. First, the origin of life; second, the origin of consciousness; third, the origin of reason. These are equivalent to the gaps which, Principal Dawson says, exist in the theory of evolution. He states them thus: 1. That between dead and living matter. 2. That between vegetable and animal life. "These are necessarily the converse of each other: the one deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends." 3. That "between any species of plant or animal, and any other species. It was this gap, and this only, which Darwin undertook to fill up by his great work on the origin of species, but, notwithstanding the immense amount of material thus expended, it yawns as wide as ever, since it must be admitted that no case has been ascertained in which an individual of one species has transgressed the limits between it and another species." 4. "Another gap is between the nature of the animal and the self-conscious, reasoning, and moral nature of man." (pp. 325-328)
First, as to the gap between death and life; this is what Dr. Stirling calls the "gulf of all gulfs, which Mr. Huxley's protoplasm is as powerless to efface as any other material expedient that has ever been suggested."[55] This gulf Mr. Darwin does not attempt to bridge over. He admits that life owes its origin to the act of the Creator. This, however, the most prominent of the advocates of Darwinism say, is giving up the whole controversy. If you admit the intervention of creative power at one point, you may as well admit it in any other. If life owes its origin to creative power, why not species? If the stupendous miracle of creation be admitted, there is no show of reason for denying supernatural intervention in the operations of nature. Most Darwinians attempt to pass this gulf on the imaginary bridge of spontaneous generation. In other words, they say there is no gulf there. The molecules of matter, in one combination, may as well exhibit the phenomena of life, as in other combinations, any other kind of phenomena. The distinguished Sir William Thomson cannot trust himself to that bridge. "Dead matter," he says, "cannot become living matter without coming under the influence of matter previously alive. This seems to me as sure a teaching of science as the law of gravitation.... I am ready to adopt, as an article of scientific faith, true through all space and through all time, that life proceeds from life, and nothing but life."[56] He refers the origin of life on this earth to falling meteors, which bring with them from other planets the germs of living organisms; and from those germs all the plants and animals with which our world is now covered have been derived. Principal Dawson thinks that this was intended as irony. But the whole tone of the address, and specially of the closing portion of it, in which this idea is advanced, is far too serious to admit of such an explanation.
No one can read the address referred to without being impressed, and even awed, by the immensity and grandeur of the field of knowledge which falls legitimately within the domain of science. The perusal of that discourse produces a feeling of humility analogous to the sense of insignificance which every man experiences when he thinks of himself as a speck on the surface of the earth, which itself is but a speck in the immensity of the universe. And when a man of mere ordinary culture sees Sir William Thomson surveying that field with a mastery of its details and familiarity with all the recondite methods of its investigation, he feels as nothing in his presence. Yet this great man, whom we cannot help regarding with wonder, is so carried away by the spirit of his class as to say, "Science is bound, by the everlasting law of honor, to face fearlessly every problem which can fairly be brought before it. If a probable solution, consistent with the ordinary course of nature, can be found, we must not invoke an abnormal act of Creative Power." And, therefore, instead of invoking Creative Power, he accounts for the origin of life on earth by falling meteors. How he accounts for its origin in the places whence the meteors came, he does not say. Yet Sir William Thomson believes in Creative Power; and in a subsequent page, we shall quote his explicit repudiation of the atheistic element in the Darwinian theory.
Strauss quotes Dubois-Reymond, a distinguished naturalist, as teaching that the first of these great problems, viz. the origin of life, admits of explanation on scientific (i. e., in his sense, materialistic) principles; and even the third, viz. the origin of reason; but the second, or the origin of consciousness, he says, "is perfectly inscrutable." Dubois-Reymond holds that "the most accurate knowledge of the essential organism reveals to us only matter in motion; but between this material movement and my feeling pain or pleasure, experiencing a sweet taste, seeing red, with the conclusion 'therefore I exist,' there is a profound gulf; and it 'remains utterly and forever inconceivable why to a number of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, etc., it should not be a matter of indifference how they lie or how they move; nor, can we in any wise tell how consciousness should result from their concurrent action.' Whether," adds Strauss, "these Verba Magistri are indeed the last word on the subject, time only can tell."[57] But if it is inconceivable, not to say absurd, that sense-consciousness should consist in the motion of molecules of matter, or be a function of such molecules, it can hardly be less absurd to account for thought, conscience, and religious feeling and belief on any such hypothesis. It may be said that Mr. Darwin is not responsible for these extreme opinions. That is very true. Mr. Darwin is not a Monist, for in admitting creation, he admits a dualism as between God and the world. Neither is he a Materialist, inasmuch as he assumes a supernatural origin for the infinitesimal modicum of life and intelligence in the primordial animalcule, from which without divine purpose or agency, all living things in the whole history of our earth have descended. All the innumerable varieties of plants, all the countless forms of animals, with all their instincts and faculties, all the varieties of men with their intellectual endowments, and their moral and religious nature, have, according to Darwin, been evolved by the agency of the blind, unconscious laws of nature. This infinitesimal spark of supernaturalism in Mr. Darwin's theory, would inevitably have gone out of itself, had it not been rudely and contemptuously trodden out by his bolder, and more logical successors.
The grand and fatal objection to Darwinism is this exclusion of design in the origin of species, or the production of living organisms. By design is meant the intelligent and voluntary selection of an end, and the intelligent and voluntary choice, application, and control of means appropriate to the accomplishment of that end. That design, therefore, implies intelligence, is involved in its very nature. No man can perceive this adaptation of means to the accomplishment of a preconceived end, without experiencing an irresistible conviction that it is the work of mind. No man does doubt it, and no man can doubt it. Darwin does not deny it. Haeckel does not deny it. No Darwinian denies it. What they do is to deny that there is any design in nature. It is merely apparent, as when the wind of the Bay of Biscay, as Huxley says, "selects the right kind of sand and spreads it in heaps upon the plains." But in thus denying design in nature, these writers array against themselves the intuitive perceptions and irresistible convictions of all mankind,—a barrier which no man has ever been able to surmount. Sir William Thomson, in the address already referred to, says: "I feel profoundly convinced that the argument of design has been greatly too much lost sight of in recent zoölogical speculations. Reaction against the frivolities of teleology, such as are to be found, not rarely, in the notes of the learned commentators on 'Paley's Natural Theology,' has, I believe, had a temporary effect of turning attention from the solid irrefragable argument so well put forward in that excellent old book. But overpowering proof of intelligence and benevolent design lie all around us, and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living beings depend upon one ever-acting Creator and Ruler."
It is impossible for even Mr. Darwin, inconsistent as it is with his whole theory, to deny all design in the constitution of nature. What is his law of heredity? Why should like beget like? Take two germ cells, one of a plant, another of an animal; no man by microscope or by chemical analysis, or by the magic power of the spectroscope, can detect the slightest difference between them, yet the one infallibly develops into a plant and the other into an animal. Take the germ of a fish and of a bird, and they are equally indistinguishable; yet the one always under all conditions develops into a fish and the other into a bird. Why is this? There is no physical force, whether light, heat, electricity, or anything else, which makes the slightest approximation to accounting for that fact. To say, as Stuart Mill would say, that it is an ultimate fact, and needs no explanation, is to say that there may be an effect without an adequate cause. The venerable R. E. Von Baer, the first naturalist in Russia, of whom Agassiz speaks in terms of such affectionate veneration in the "Atlantic Monthly" for January, 1874, has written a volume dated Dorpat, 1873, and entitled "Zum Streit über den Darwinismus." In that volume, as we learn from a German periodical, the author says: "The Darwinians lay great stress on heredity; but what is the law of heredity but a determination of something future? Is it not in its nature in the highest degree teleological? Indeed, is not the whole faculty of reproduction intended to introduce a new life-process? When a man looks at a dissected insect and examines its strings of eggs, and asks, Whence are they? the naturalist of our day has no answer to give, but that they were of necessity gradually produced by the changes in matter. When it is further asked, Why are they there? is it wrong to say, It is in order that when the eggs are mature and fertilized, new individuals of the same form should be produced."
It is further to be considered that there are innumerable cases of contrivance, or evidence of design in nature, to which the principle of natural selection, or the purposeless changes effected by unconscious force, cannot apply; as for example, the distinction of sex, with all that is therein involved. But passing by such cases, it may be asked, what would it avail to get rid of design in the vegetable and animal kingdom, while the whole universe is full of it? That this ordered Cosmos is not from necessity or chance, is almost a self-evident fact. Not one man in a million of those who ever heard of God, either does doubt or can doubt it. Besides how are the cosmical relations of light, heat, electricity, to the constituent parts of the universe, and especially, so far as this earth is concerned, to vegetable and animal life, to be accounted for? Is this all chance work? Is it by chance that light and heat cause plants to carry on their wonderful operations, transmuting the inorganic into the organic, dead matter into living and life sustaining matter? Is it without a purpose that water instead of contracting, expands at the freezing point?—a fact to which is due that the earth north of the tropic is habitable for man or beast. It is no answer to this question to say that a few other substances have the same peculiarity, when no good end, that we can see, is thereby accomplished. No man is so foolish as to deny that his eye was intended to enable him to see, because he cannot tell what the spleen was made for. It is, however, useless to dwell upon this subject. If a man denies that there is design in nature, he can with quite as good reason deny that there is any design in any or in all the works ever executed by man.
The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the denial of design in nature is virtually the denial of God. Mr. Darwin's theory does deny all design in nature, therefore, his theory is virtually atheistical; his theory, not he himself. He believes in a Creator. But when that Creator, millions on millions of ages ago, did something,—called matter and a living germ into existence,—and then abandoned the universe to itself to be controlled by chance and necessity, without any purpose on his part as to the result, or any intervention or guidance, then He is virtually consigned, so far as we are concerned, to non-existence. It has already been said that the most extreme of Mr. Darwin's admirers adopt and laud his theory, for the special reason that it banishes God from the world; that it enables them to account for design without referring it to the purpose or agency of God. This is done expressly by Büchner, Haeckel, Vogt, and Strauss. The opponents of Darwinism direct their objections principally against this element of the doctrine. This, as was stated by Rev. Dr. Peabody, was the main ground of the earnest opposition of Agassiz to the theory. America's great botanist, Dr. Asa Gray, avows himself an evolutionist; but he is not a Darwinian. Of that point we have the clearest possible proof. Mr. Darwin, after explicitly denying that the variations which have resulted in "the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided," adds: "However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief 'that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines' like a stream 'along definite and useful lines of irrigation.'"[58] If Mr. Darwin does not agree with Dr. Gray, Dr. Gray does not agree with Mr. Darwin. It is as to the exclusion of design from the operations of nature that our American, differs from the English, naturalist. This is the vital point. The denial of final causes is the formative idea of Darwin's theory, and therefore no teleologist can be a Darwinian.
Dr. Gray quotes from another writer the sentence, "It is a singular fact, that when we can find how anything is done, our first conclusion seems to be that God did not do it;" and then adds, "I agree with the writer that this first conclusion is premature and unworthy; I will add, deplorable. Through what faults of dogmatism on the one hand, and skepticism on the other, it came to be so thought, we need not here consider. Let us hope, and I confidently expect, that it is not to last; that the religious faith which survived without a shock the notion of the fixedness of the earth itself, may equally outlast the notion of the absolute fixedness of the species which inhabit it; that in the future, even more than in the past, faith in an order, which is the basis of science, will not—as it cannot reasonably—be dissevered from faith in an Ordainer, which is the basis of religion."[59] We thank God for that sentence. It is the concluding sentence of Dr. Gray's address as ex-President of "The American Association for the Advancement of Science," delivered August, 1872.