MR. DISRAELI ON EVOLUTION. 53 Mount of Olives, has beautifully demonstrated the absurdity of the above position, remarking that nothing can be more monstrous than to represent a Creator as unconscious of creating. "There must be design," says the Syrian, "or all we see would be without sense, and I do not believe in the unmeaning. As for the natural forces to which all creation is now attributed, we know they are unconscious, while consciousness is as inevitable a portion of our existence as the eye or the hand. The conscious cannot be derived from the unconscious." Lothair having expressed a wish that he could assure himself of the personality of the Creator, but that he had been told that such an idea was unphilosophical, the Syrian thus replies: "Is it more unphilosophical to believe in a personal God, omnipotent and 5-1 MR. DISRAELI ON EVOLUTION. omniscient, than in natural forces unconscious and irresistible? Is it unphilosophical to combine power with intelligence? Goethe, a Spinozist who did not believe in Spinoza, said that he could bring his mind to the conception that, in the centre of space, we might meet with a monad of pure intelligence. What may be the centre of space I leave to the dædal imagination of the author of 'Faust;' but a monad of pure intelligence, is that more philosophical than the truth, first revealed to man amid these everlasting hills—that God made man in His own image?”* Lothair, Vol. III., Pp. 179, 183. CHAPTER III. "Ceux qui ont dit qu'une fatalité aveugle a produit tous les effets que nous voyons dans le monde ont dit une grande absurdité; car quelle plus grande absurdité qu'une fatalité aveugle qui aurait produit des êtres intelligents." MONTESQUIEU, De L'Esprit des Lois. Sentimental opposition deprecated-Broca, Max Müller-No evidence of transmutation of species within the historic period-Flourens-Animal Kingdom of Aristotle, the same as that of our day. Plea of the Imperfection of the Geological Record considered-Haeckel, Duke of Argyll, and Mivart— Professor Agassiz on the Immaterial Principle. In considering the validity of the arguments which can be adduced for or against the theory of Evolution, I desire to approach the subject in a spirit of toleration and impartiality, and I trust I shall say nothing in this essay to justify E 56 DARWINISM TESTED BY LANGUAGE. my being classed amongst those whom Mr. Darwin describes as "curiously illustrating the blindness of pre-conceived opinion," or amongst those whom Professor Huxley represents as "contenting themselves with smothering the investigating spirit under the feather-bed of respected and respectable tradition." I deprecate all idea of stirring up the odium theologicum, being fully conscious of the futility of attempting to check an unwelcome and distasteful theory by means of ecclesiastical censures. I consider the doctrine of Evolution as a legitimate subject for scientific inquiry; I recognise the deep knowledge of natural history which the "Descent of Man" displays; I fully endorse the terms of high commendation in which its literary merit has been acknowledged, and from its charm of style and elegance of SENTIMENTAL OPPOSITION DEPRECATED. 57 diction, I am not surprised that it has become equally popular in the drawingroom of the votary of fashion, as in the study of the naturalist and the theologian. I should not reject the Darwinian view of the origin of man, from any fancied notion that its adoption was derogatory to our dignity, and inconsistent with Man's position in the order of Nature, a notion which was evidently held by the poor deluded creature whose suicide was lately recorded in the public papers, and upon whose person was found a document, stating that his existence was no longer to be tolerated, since Mr. Darwin's discovery that he was descended from a monkey. Instead of sympathizing with the views of this unhappy victim of prejudice and folly, I fully echo the sentiment of the naturalist who said that he would prefer |