Susan Coolidge - "Verses"

William Shakespeare - "The Tragedy of King Lear"

Unknown - "The World English Bible (WEB): Genesis"

Unkown - "Vergil's Aeneid in Latin"

The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume I

h >> his son >> The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume I




It would be inappropriate, even if it were possible, to discuss the
difficulties and unresolved problems which have hitherto met the
evolutionist, and which will probably continue to puzzle him for
generations to come, in the course of this brief history of the reception
of Mr. Darwin's great work. But there are two or three objections of a
more general character, based, or supposed to be based, upon philosophical
and theological foundations, which were loudly expressed in the early days
of the Darwinian controversy, and which, though they have been answered
over and over again, crop up now and then to the present day.

The most singular of these, perhaps immortal, fallacies, which live on,
Tithonus-like, when sense and force have long deserted them, is that which
charges Mr. Darwin with having attempted to reinstate the old pagan
goddess, Chance. It is said that he supposes variations to come about "by
chance," and that the fittest survive the "chances" of the struggle for
existence, and thus "chance" is substituted for providential design.

It is not a little wonderful that such an accusation as this should be
brought against a writer who has, over and over again, warned his readers
that when he uses the word "spontaneous," he merely means that he is
ignorant of the cause of that which is so termed; and whose whole theory
crumbles to pieces if the uniformity and regularity of natural causation
for illimitable past ages is denied. But probably the best answer to those
who talk of Darwinism meaning the reign of "chance," is to ask them what
they themselves understand by "chance"? Do they believe that anything in
this universe happens without reason or without a cause? Do they really
conceive that any event has no cause, and could not have been predicted by
any one who had a sufficient insight into the order of Nature? If they do,
it is they who are the inheritors of antique superstition and ignorance,
and whose minds have never been illumined by a ray of scientific thought.
The one act of faith in the convert to science, is the confession of the
universality of order and of the absolute validity in all times and under
all circumstances, of the law of causation. This confession is an act of
faith, because, by the nature of the case, the truth of such propositions
is not susceptible of proof. But such faith is not blind, but reasonable;
because it is invariably confirmed by experience, and constitutes the sole
trustworthy foundation for all action.

If one of these people, in whom the chance-worship of our remoter ancestors
thus strangely survives, should be within reach of the sea when a heavy
gale is blowing, let him betake himself to the shore and watch the scene.
Let him note the infinite variety of form and size of the tossing waves out
at sea; or of the curves of their foam-crested breakers, as they dash
against the rocks; let him listen to the roar and scream of the shingle as
it is cast up and torn down the beach; or look at the flakes of foam as
they drive hither and thither before the wind; or note the play of colours,
which answers a gleam of sunshine as it falls upon the myriad bubbles.
Surely here, if anywhere, he will say that chance is supreme, and bend the
knee as one who has entered the very penetralia of his divinity. But the
man of science knows that here, as everywhere, perfect order is manifested;
that there is not a curve of the waves, not a note in the howling chorus,
not a rainbow-glint on a bubble, which is other than a necessary
consequence of the ascertained laws of nature; and that with a sufficient
knowledge of the conditions, competent physico-mathematical skill could
account for, and indeed predict, every one of these "chance" events.

A second very common objection to Mr. Darwin's views was (and is), that
they abolish Teleology, and eviscerate the argument from design. It is
nearly twenty years since I ventured to offer some remarks on this subject,
and as my arguments have as yet received no refutation, I hope I may be
excused for reproducing them. I observed, "that the doctrine of Evolution
is the most formidable opponent of all the commoner and coarser forms of
Teleology. But perhaps the most remarkable service to the Philosophy of
Biology rendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of Teleology and
Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both, which his views
offer. The teleology which supposes that the eye, such as we see it in
man, or one of the higher vertebrata, was made with the precise structure
it exhibits, for the purpose of enabling the animal which possesses it to
see, has undoubtedly received its death-blow. Nevertheless, it is
necessary to remember that there is a wider teleology which is not touched
by the doctrine of Evolution, but is actually based upon the fundamental
proposition of Evolution. This proposition is that the whole world, living
and not living, is the result of the mutual interaction, according to
definite laws, of the forces (I should now like to substitute the word
powers for "forces.") possessed by the molecules of which the primitive
nebulosity of the universe was composed. If this be true, it is no less
certain that the existing world lay potentially in the cosmic vapour, and
that a sufficient intelligence could, from a knowledge of the properties of
the molecules of that vapour, have predicted, say the state of the fauna of
Britain in 1869, with as much certainty as one can say what will happen to
the vapour of the breath on a cold winter's day...

...The teleological and the mechanical views of nature are not,
necessarily, mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the more purely a
mechanist the speculator is, the more firmly does he assume a primordial
molecular arrangement of which all the phenomena of the universe are the
consequences, and the more completely is he thereby at the mercy of the
teleologist, who can always defy him to disprove that this primordial
molecular arrangement was not intended to evolve the phenomena of the
universe." (The "Genealogy of Animals" ('The Academy,' 1869), reprinted in
'Critiques and Addresses.')

The acute champion of Teleology, Paley, saw no difficulty in admitting that
the "production of things" may be the result of trains of mechanical
dispositions fixed beforehand by intelligent appointment and kept in action
by a power at the centre ('Natural Theology,' chapter xxiii.), that is to
say, he proleptically accepted the modern doctrine of Evolution; and his
successors might do well to follow their leader, or at any rate to attend
to his weighty reasonings, before rushing into an antagonism which has no
reasonable foundation.

Having got rid of the belief in chance and the disbelief in design, as in
no sense appurtenances of Evolution, the third libel upon that doctrine,
that it is anti-theistic, might perhaps be left to shift for itself. But
the persistence with which many people refuse to draw the plainest
consequences from the propositions they profess to accept, renders it
advisable to remark that the doctrine of Evolution is neither Anti-theistic
nor Theistic. It simply has no more to do with Theism than the first book
of Euclid has. It is quite certain that a normal fresh-laid egg contains
neither cock nor hen; and it is also as certain as any proposition in
physics or morals, that if such an egg is kept under proper conditions for
three weeks, a cock or hen chicken will be found in it. It is also quite
certain that if the shell were transparent we should be able to watch the
formation of the young fowl, day by day, by a process of evolution, from a
microscopic cellular germ to its full size and complication of structure.
Therefore Evolution, in the strictest sense, is actually going on in this
and analogous millions and millions of instances, wherever living creatures
exist. Therefore, to borrow an argument from Butler, as that which now
happens must be consistent with the attributes of the Deity, if such a
Being exists, Evolution must be consistent with those attributes. And, if
so, the evolution of the universe, which is neither more nor less
explicable than that of a chicken, must also be consistent with them. The
doctrine of Evolution, therefore, does not even come into contact with
Theism, considered as a philosophical doctrine. That with which it does
collide, and with which it is absolutely inconsistent, is the conception of
creation, which theological speculators have based upon the history
narrated in the opening of the book of Genesis.

There is a great deal of talk and not a little lamentation about the so-
called religious difficulties which physical science has created. In
theological science, as a matter of fact, it has created none. Not a
solitary problem presents itself to the philosophical Theist, at the
present day, which has not existed from the time that philosophers began to
think out the logical grounds and the logical consequences of Theism. All
the real or imaginary perplexities which flow from the conception of the
universe as a determinate mechanism, are equally involved in the assumption
of an Eternal, Omnipotent and Omniscient Deity. The theological equivalent
of the scientific conception of order is Providence; and the doctrine of
determinism follows as surely from the attributes of foreknowledge assumed
by the theologian, as from the universality of natural causation assumed by
the man of science. The angels in 'Paradise Lost' would have found the
task of enlightening Adam upon the mysteries of "Fate, Foreknowledge, and
Free-will," not a whit more difficult, if their pupil had been educated in
a "Real-schule" and trained in every laboratory of a modern university. In
respect of the great problems of Philosophy, the post-Darwinian generation
is, in one sense, exactly where the prae-Darwinian generations were. They
remain insoluble. But the present generation has the advantage of being
better provided with the means of freeing itself from the tyranny of
certain sham solutions.

The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an
islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our
business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land, to add
something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions. And even a
cursory glance at the history of the biological sciences during the last
quarter of a century is sufficient to justify the assertion, that the most
potent instrument for the extension of the realm of natural knowledge which
has come into men's hands, since the publication of Newton's 'Principia,'
is Darwin's 'Origin of Species.'

It was badly received by the generation to which it was first addressed,
and the outpouring of angry nonsense to which it gave rise is sad to think
upon. But the present generation will probably behave just as badly if
another Darwin should arise, and inflict upon them that which the
generality of mankind most hate--the necessity of revising their
convictions. Let them, then, be charitable to us ancients; and if they
behave no better than the men of my day to some new benefactor, let them
recollect that, after all, our wrath did not come to much, and vented
itself chiefly in the bad language of sanctimonious scolds. Let them as
speedily perform a strategic right-about-face, and follow the truth
wherever it leads. The opponents of the new truth will discover, as those
of Darwin are doing, that, after all, theories do not alter facts, and that
the universe remains unaffected even though texts crumble. Or, it may be,
that, as history repeats itself, their happy ingenuity will also discover
that the new wine is exactly of the same vintage as the old, and that
(rightly viewed) the old bottles prove to have been expressly made for
holding it.

Copyright (c) 2007. topbookz.net. All rights reserved.