The origin of man from other mammals, and most directly from the catarrhine ape, is a deductive law, that follows necessarily from the inductive law of the Theory of Descent.[1587]
A “theory” is simply a hypothesis, a speculation, and not a law. To say otherwise is one of the many liberties taken now-a-days by Scientists. They enunciate an absurdity, and then hide it behind the shield of Science. A deduction from theoretical speculation is nothing [pg 703] more than a speculation on a speculation. Sir William Hamilton has already shown that the word theory is now used
In a very loose and improper sense ... that it is convertible into hypothesis, and hypothesis is commonly used as another term for conjecture, whereas the terms “theory”and “theoretical” are properly used in opposition to the terms practice and practical.
But Modern Science puts an extinguisher on the latter statement, and mocks at the idea. Materialistic Philosophers and Idealists of Europe and America may be agreed with the Evolutionists as to the physical origin of man, yet it will never become a general truth with the true Metaphysician; and the latter defies the Materialists to make good their arbitrary assumptions. That the ape-theory theme[1588] of Vogt and Darwin, on which the Huxley-Hæckelians have of late composed such extraordinary variations, is far less scientific—because clashing with the fundamental laws of that theme itself—than ours can ever be shown to be, is very easy of demonstration. Let the reader only turn to the excellent work on Human Species by the great French Naturalist de Quatrefages, and our statement will at once be verified.
Moreover, between the Esoteric teaching concerning the Origin of Man and Darwin's speculations, no man, unless he is a rank Materialist, will hesitate. This is the description given by Mr. Darwin of “the early progenitors of man.”
They must have been once covered with hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were probably pointed and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles. Their limbs and bodies were also acted on by many muscles which now only occasionally reäppear, but are normally present in the Quadrumana.... The foot was then prehensile, judging from the condition of the great toe in the fœtus; and our progenitors, no doubt, were arboreal in their habits, and frequented some warm forest-clad land. The males had great canine teeth, which served them as formidable weapons.[1589]
Darwin connects man with the type of the tailed catarrhines:
And consequently removes him a stage backward in the scale of evolution. The English naturalist is not satisfied to take his stand upon the ground of his own doctrines, and, like Hæckel, on this point places himself in direct variance with one of the fundamental laws which constitute the principal charm of Darwinism.
And then the learned French Naturalist proceeds to show how this fundamental law is broken. He says:
In fact, in the theory of Darwin, transmutations do not take place, either by chance or in every direction. They are ruled by certain laws which are due to the organization itself. If an organism is once modified in a given direction, it can undergo secondary or tertiary transmutations, but will still preserve the impress of the original. It is the law of permanent characterization, which alone permits Darwin to explain the filiation of groups, their characteristics, and their numerous relations. It is by virtue of this law that all the descendants of the first mollusc have been molluscs; all the descendants of the first vertebrate have been vertebrates. It is clear that this constitutes one of the foundations of the doctrine. It follows that two beings belonging to two distinct types can be referred to a common ancestor, but the one cannot be the descendant of the other.