secondary causes in the production of all the phenomena of the universe; that in view of the intimate relations between Man and the rest of the living world; and between the forces exerted by the latter and all other forces, I can see no excuse for doubting that all are co-ordinated terms of Nature's great progression, from the formless to the formed,-from the inorganic to the organic,-from blind force to conscious intellect and will."1 1 "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature." Williams and Norgate, 1863, p. 108. "O vitæ philosophia dux! O virtutis indagatrix, expultrixque vitiorum ! ad te confugimus: a te opem petimus."-Cic., Tusc. Quæst., v. 2. 66 Philosophy, that leaned on Heaven before, Shrinks to her second cause, and is no more." -The Dunciad, Book iv. 643-644. "God, in the nature of each being, founds -Essay on Man, Ep. iii. 109–110. "Ah! it is a sad and terrible thing to see nigh a whole generation of men and women professing to be cultivated, looking around in a purblind fashion, and finding no God in this universe !"-Carlyle. CHAPTER III. "A PUERILE HYPOTHESIS.” THIS, then, is Evolution: "baldest of all the philosophies which have sprung up in our world." The evolution which solves the problem of human origin by the assumption that human nature exists potentially in mere inorganic matter; and the assertion that man, with all his powers, and all their products, is the necessary result, by spontaneous derivation, of the interaction of incandescent molecules. But is this evolution scientific? Is it demonstrable? Is it true? Before this question its assumptions cannot save it, however large; its assertions cannot prove it, however loud. The question lies deeper. Has it received the necessary "verification?" The "verification" without which, however ingenious as a theoretic conception, it must ever remain "a mere figment of the intellect?" 1 Prof. Tyndall's "Fragments of Science," p. 469. To this question the answer is both unambiguous and conclusive. To present it the more clearly, let us take separately the two points involved. First, what is the evidence for the succession of life from lower to higher forms? And second, what is the evidence as to the existence of any instance of the conversion or transmutation of one species into another? Let Professor Huxley answer. For we shall find no witness more competent than he; none whose authority in all matters of natural history and palæontology is more indisputable; none more illustrious in his championship of Evolution in general, or of Mr. Darwin's views in particular. "There is but one hypothesis," he tells us, "as to the origin of species of animals in general which has any scientific existence-that propounded by Mr. Darwin." 1 Testimony from that quarter, therefore, cannot fail to have a special force. And on the first part of the question Professor Huxley writes thus : "What, then, does an impartial survey of the positively ascertained truths of palæontology testify in relation to the common doctrines of progressive modification, which suppose that modification to have taken place by a necessary progress from more to less embryonic forms, or from 1 "Man's Place in Nature," p. 106. |