Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER IV.

SCIENTIFIC LEVITY.”

AGNOSTIC Evolution, then, is merely an unverified hypothesis. And it is based on two subordinate hypotheses, equally unverified. And in relation to it, these last are so essentially necessary, so absolutely fundamental, that if either of them be invalidated the entire superstructure falls to the ground. The Evolution here controverted, has no existence whatever, has even no theoretical existence, apart from these two postulates: (1) "Spontaneous Generation"; and (2) "Transmutation of Species." Without the first, it would be destitute of its starting-point, the "primordial form." Without the second, it would still be destitute, on agnostic principles, of all other forms than one.

"Transmutation of Species," however, though reserved for further examination below, may for the present be dismissed, on the high authority of Professor Mivart, as a "puerile hypothesis.” But when, on scientific grounds, we proceed to

enquire as to the amount and character of evidence produced or producible, in favour of

[ocr errors]

Spontaneous Generation," we are compelled to regard it as a hypothesis still more puerile.

Speaking of evolution at large, and in comprehensive terms, Professor Whewell justly, says, "The system ought to be described as a System of Order in which life grows out of dead matter, the higher out of the lower animals, and man out of brutes."

To begin then at the beginning. Is “The System," in its first postulate, true or false? Is it matter of fact, or merely matter of fiction? Does "life grow out of dead matter?"

Let us give the place of honour to "the Abraham of scientific men." Mr. Darwin, writing to the Athenæum, says—“I hope you will permit me to add a few remarks on Heterogeny, as the old doctrine of spontaneous generation is now called, to those given by Dr. Carpenter, who, however, is probably better fitted to discuss the question than any other man in England. Your reviewer believes that certain lowly organized animals have been generated spontaneously—that is, without pre-existing parents -during each geological period in slimy ooze. A mass of mud with matter decaying and under1 Whewell's "Indications." Second Edition, p. 12.

going complex chemical changes is a fine hiding-place for obscurity of ideas. But let us face the problem boldly. He who believes that organic beings have been produced during each geological period from dead matter, must believe that the first being thus arose. There must have been a time when inorganic elements alone existed in our planet: let any assumptions be made, such as that the reeking atmosphere was charged with carbonic acid, nitrogenized compounds, phosphorus, etc. Now is there a fact, or a shadow of a fact, supporting the belief that these elements, without the presence of any organic compounds, and acted on only by known forces, could produce a living creature? present, it is to us a result absolutely inconceivable." 1

At

Dr. Carpenter had previously written thus:"If your reviewer prefers to suppose that new types of Foraminifera originate from time to time out of the ooze,' under the influence of 'polar forces,' he has, of course, a right to his opinion; though by most naturalists such spontaneous generation' of rotalines and nummulites will be regarded as a far more' astounding hypothesis' than the one for which it is offered as a substitute. But I hold that mine 1 The Athenæum for 1863, p. 554.

E

[ocr errors]

is the more scientific, as being conformable to the fact ; whilst his is not supported by any evidence that rotalines or nummulites ever originate spontaneously, either in 'ooze' or anywhere else." 1

Spontaneous generation" therefore, so far from being a scientific verity, is pronounced by the highest authority in England to be an "astounding hypothesis," "not supported by any evidence"; while the scientific Abraham declares it to be "absolutely inconceivable."

"What displeases me in Strauss," says Humboldt, "is the scientific levity which leads him to see no difficulty in the organic springing from the inorganic, nay, man himself from Chaldean mud."

"2

But how? The modus operandi: what was that? For answer we must turn first of all to a work which has at least the distinction of having obtained honourable mention by Prof. Tyndall. In the Belfast Address 3 we read of "the celebrated Lamarck, who produced so profound an impression on the public mind through the vigorous exposition of his views by the author of the 'Vestiges of Creation.'" Turning then

1 The Athenæum for 1863, p. 461.

2 "Letters to Varnhagen." First Edition, p. 117.

3 P. 37.

to this "vigorous exposition" we find that the transition was effected by means of a "nucleated vesicle." This "nucleated vesicle," the fundamental form of all organisation, we must regard as "the meeting-point between the inorganic and the organic-the end of the mineral and the beginning of the vegetable and animal kingdoms, which thence start in different directions, but in a general parallelism and analogy."

Nor is this all. For "this nucleated vesicle is itself a type of mature and independent being in the infusory animalcules, as well as the starting-point in the fœtal progress of every higher individual in creation, both animal and vegetable."

What then? Granting all that is here assumed, we are as far as ever from a solution of the problem proposed. That problem is, to show the course of "Nature's great progression," as asserted, "from the formless to the formed, from the inorganic to the organic." But to begin with the nucleated vesicle as "the fundamental form of all organisation," is to begin, not at the beginning, but at the end. "The starting-point" here alleged, is on the wrong side the gulf. We want to know how it was reached. We want to see, not the first thing "formed," but the bridge that spans the chasm

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »