New Theories in Astronomy

by William Stirling

One of the most illustrious of the founders of the Theory of Evolution has based his dissertations on the Descent of Man, on the Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, and on their wonderful plasticity under the care of man. Here there is an explicit acknowledgment of the necessity for the direction of an intelligent guiding power to produce such variations; these never having any useful or progressive results except under such care. If, then, there is a necessity of such directing and guiding power in the case of variations of such inferior importance, the superintendence of some similar power must have assuredly been much more necessary for the creation and evolution of matter, of life, and of man himself. This is what, one would think, common sense and reason would point, and what the Theory of Evolution seems to think—evidently without studying the subject far enough; but all that it has been able to do has been to substitute Nature for the Creator to whom Moses has ascribed not only Creation but the Making—Evolution—of the universe.

This naturally leads us to speculate on what Evolutionists consider Nature to be, and as none of them—nor anyone else—as far as we know, has ever thought it necessary to define Nature, we have to endeavour to draw from their writings what, in some measure and some way, they would like us to believe it to be. We find, then, that the base of their operations seems to be Natural Selection, which can hardly be interpreted in any other way than by calling it the Selection of Nature. Thus, then, they apparently want us to look upon Nature as the First Cause. But, if Nature can select, it must be a being, an entity, a something, that can distinguish one particle of matter from another, and be able to choose such pieces of it, be they protyle or protoplasm, and to make them unite, so as to form some special body, organic or inorganic. It is plain, also, that Selection can only be performed by such a being, or something, such as just so far described, that can distinguish, choose, and arrange the particles of matter destined to form the very smallest body or the universe. Thus we see that in whatever way the basis of the Theory of Evolution is looked upon—even for its own evolution—there is required a being of some kind that has knowledge and power to evolve or make all things that are "in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth." So we see that, if the theory of evolution dethrones the Creator and Evolver of the first chapter of Genesis, it has to enthrone another god which it calls Nature; and has to get rid of that god, and any number of others, before it can be what it pretends to be.

We are all very voluble in talking of Nature, and enthusiastic in admiring its beauties, wonders, and wisdom, but it seldom occurs to us that we are really doing so without thinking of whence come the beauty, wonders, and wisdom. We must, therefore, not be too hard on evolutionists, as they have only done what we all do every day of our lives; but if the theory of evolution is to be looked upon as a branch of science, we would recommend its students to open their eyes and think of it as a process which has been in existence from the beginning of things at least, and not as one of their invention or discovery. They may be able some day, through more accurate study and more convincing argumentation than they generally use, to lay claim to having discovered, as far as it is possible for man to do, the modus operandi of evolution, but that is all, and we would also warn some of them to think that, when we see them in their highest flights of science, genius, and self-sufficiency, we can

"Conceive the bard the hero of the story."

We have read a good deal of what has been called the War of Science, without having been able to see that there ever was any cause for such a war, with the exception of ignorance.

If Theology had been able, or rather had taken the trouble, to study thoroughly the first chapter of Genesis, and thus to comprehend that, if the earth was created without form and void, a great deal of work had to be done, after creation, in forming it into its present condition, there was no call upon it to find fault with Copernicus or persecute Galileus, because they said the earth revolved round the sun; more especially as they do not appear to have ever said anything against religion or revelation. Neither was there any necessity for opposing the so-called new science of evolution, because it (Theology) ought to have seen that the work expended in reducing the earth into form could hardly be conceived of otherwise than as a process of evolution; and would thus have been in a position to tell the authors of the new science that they had only discovered what had existed before the beginning of time.

On the other hand, there was no occasion for Science to take up the war. If it, in its turn, had taken the trouble to study and understand the first chapter of Genesis, it could have shown Theology that it did not comprehend, and could not give a true account of what religion and revelation are; whereas it (Science) seems to have had a strong tendency to demonstrate that religion and revelation are altogether false, and that the great work it has to perform is to dethrone Theology, and set itself up it in its stead.

It is not worth while even to think of who or which was the aggressor, seeing that the war originated from ignorance caused by want of thought and study on both sides. All that has to be said on the subject reduces itself to the fact that both Religion and Science have been coming, and are at present going, through the process of evolution. Can anyone say that Science has been truly scientific, without ever incurring in error, from the beginning of history up to the present day? Will any one venture to maintain that there has been no evolution, no progress, no softening of the spirit of Religion, from the institution of Christianity up to the end of the nineteenth century? If such there be, let the one look back to the time of Aristotle, and the other to the establishment of the Church under Constantine.

There has been for long an opinion, which goes on increasing in strength, that Science will ultimately reform Theology and put Religion in its right place; but if such is to be the case, Science has to begin by reforming itself and putting an end to error it has been, in many cases, teaching for generations; and by ceasing to formulate new theories, or bases of progress, which can be in many cases exploded by suppressing some of the error just alluded to. Little advance is made in science by forming hypotheses and theories, however brilliant they may appear, unless they are carefully studied and thought out to the very uttermost; because, if published abroad on the authority of some celebrated or even well-known name, they have a tendency to stop further investigation, and prevent students from exercising their own judgment and perhaps discovering what they might possibly find out were they to study them to the very end for their own satisfaction. This is in some measure the case even with respect to the solar system. We believe it can be shown that a more complete knowledge and comprehension of it, and even of the universe, has been kept back by the unquestioning acceptation by successive astronomers of the ideas and conceptions of their predecessors.

We have to acknowledge, at the same time, that Astronomy could not start into perfection at once, any more than any other science, and it is not to be wondered at that in times past ideas relating to it should have been formed without being properly thought out; even ideas that could not be properly thought out to the end for want of the requisite knowledge. But it is much to be regretted that such ideas should continue to be published at the present day as trustworthy instruction for readers who may look upon it as strictly correct. Among those who read text-books even on Astronomy, there must be a very considerable number who are rather surprised when they see statements made which do not agree with what they were taught at school, or with what they have practised in other sciences in their own professions or trades. It may be said that any person of ordinary intelligence will easily be able to correct such errors, but the evil does not stop here. If he can really correct them he will most probably find as well, that his instructors have been led into more serious errors, perhaps in more important matters, founded on the ideas which they had not fully studied out before giving them a place in their books. He may also find sometimes, in his reading, such ideas brought forward to substantiate some theory, just as far as they are required and then dropped, while a step or two further forward in the examination of these same ideas, would have exploded the theory altogether; because, although founded to a certain extent on one law of nature, they are in contradiction with what is laid down in some other law.