ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

tation to the conditions of oxistonco. The special teleologists, such as Paley, occupy thomsolves with the latter only; they refor particular facts to special design, but leave an overwhelming array of the widest facts inexplicable. The morphologists build on unity of type, or that fundamental agreement in the struct uro of each great class of beings which is quito inde pendent of their habits or conditions of life; which requires each individual "to go through a certain formality," and to accept, at least for a time, certain organs, whether they are of any uso to him or not. Philosophical minds form various conceptions for har monizing the two views theoretically. Mr. Darwin harmonizes and explains them naturally. Adaptation to the conditions of existence is the result of natural selection; unity of type, of unity of descent. Accordingly, as he puts his theory, he is bound to account for the origination of new organs, and for their diversity in each great type, for their specialization, and overy adaptation of organ to function and of structure to condition, through natural agencies. Whenever ho attempts this he reminds us of Lamarck, and shows us how little light the science of a century devoted to structural investigation has thrown upon the mystery of organization. Hero purely natural explanations fail. The organs being given, natural selection may account for some improvement; if given of a variety of sorts or grades, natural selection might determine which should survive and where it should prevail.

On all this ground the only line for the theory to

1 Owen adds a third, viz., vegetativo repetition; but this, in the vegetable kingdom, is simply unity of typo.

take is to make the most of gradation and adherence to typo as suggestivo of derivation, and unaccountablo upon any other scientific view-deferring all attempts to explain how such a metamorphosis was effected, until naturalists have explained how the tadpole is metamorphosed into a frog, or one sort of polyp into another. As to why it is so, the philosophy of efficient cause, and oven the whole argument from design, would stand, upon the admission of such a theory of derivation, precisely where they stand without it. At least there is, or need be, no ground of difference here between Darwin and Agassiz. The latter will admit, with Owen and every morphologist, that hopeless is the attempt to explain the similarity of pattern in members of the same class by utility or the doctrine of final causes. "On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is, that it has so pleased the Creator to construct cach animal and plant." Mr. Darwin, in proposing a theory which suggests a how that harmonizes these facts into a system, wo trust implies that all was done wisely, in the largest senso designedly, and by an intelligent first cause. The contemplation of the subject on the intellectual side, the amplest exposition of tho unity of plan in creation, considered irrespectivo of natural agencies, leads to no other conclusion.

We are thus, at last, brought to the question, What would happen if the derivation of species were to be substantiated, either as a true physical theory, or as a suflicient hypothesis? What would come of it? The Inquiry is a pertinent one, just now. For, of those who agree with us in thinking that Darwin has not estab

lished his theory of derivation many will admit with us that he has rendered a theory of dorivation much less improbable than before; that such a theory chimos in with the established doctrines of physical science, and is not unlikely to be largely accepted long beforo it can be proved. Moreover, the various notions that prevail-equally among the most and the least religious -as to the relations between natural agencies or phonomena and efficient cause, are seemingly more crude, obscure, and discordant, than they need be,

It is not surprising that the doctrine of the book should be denounced as atheistical. What does surprise and concern us is, that it should be so denounced by a scientific man, on the broad assumption that a material connection between the members of a series of organized beings is inconsistent with the idea of their being intellectually connected with one another through the Deity, i. c., as products of one mind, as indicating and realizing a preconceived plan. An as sumption the rebound of which is somewhat fearful to contemplate, but fortunately one which every natural birth protests against.

It would be more correct to say that the theory in itself is perfectly compatible with an atheistic view of the universe. That is true; but it is equally true of physical theories generally. Indeed, it is more true of the theory of gravitation, and of the nebular hy pothesis, than of the hypothesis in question. The latter merely takes up a particular, proximate cause, or set of such causes, from which, it is argued, the present diversity of species has or may have contingently rosulted. The author does not say necessarily resulted;

that the actual results in modo and measure, and none other, must havo takon placo. On the other hand, tho theory of gravitation and its extension in the nebular hypothesis assumo a universal and ultimate physical cause, from which the effects in Nature must necessa rily have resulted. Now, it is not thought, at least at the present day, that the establishment of the Newtonian theory was a step toward atheism or pantheisin. Yet the great achievement of Newton consisted in proving that certain forces (blind forces, so far as tho theory is concerned), acting upon matter. in certain directions, must necessarily produce planetary orbits of the exact measure and form in which observation shows them to exist-a view which is just as consistent with eternal necessity, either in the atheistic or the pantheistic form, as it is with theism.

Nor is the theory of derivation particularly exposed to the charge of the atheism of fortuity; since it undertakes to assign real causes for harmonious and sys tematic results. But, of this, a word at the close.

The value of such objections to the theory of deri vation may be tested by one or two analogous cases. The common scientific as well as popular belief is that of the original, independent creation of oxygen and hydrogen, iron, gold, and the like. Is the speculative opinion now increasingly held, that some or all of the supposed elementary bodies are derivative or compound, developed from some preceding forms of matter, irreligious? Were the old alchemists atheists as well as dreamers in their attempts to transmute carth into gold? Or, to take an instance from force (power) -which stands one step nearer to efficient cause than

form-was the attempt to prove that heat, light, eleotricity, magnetism, and even mechanical power, aro variations or transmutations of one force, atheistical in its tendency? The supposed establishment of this view is reckoned as one of the greatest scientific triumphs of this century.

Perhaps, however, the objection is brought, not so much against the speculation itself, as against tho attempt to show how derivation might have been brought about. Then the same objection applies to a recent ingenious hypothesis made to account for the genesis of the chemical elements out of the ethereal medium, and to explain their several atomic weights and some other characteristics by their successive com• plexity-hydrogen consisting of so many atoms of ethereal substance united in a particular order, and so on. The speculation interested the philosophers of the British Association, and was thought innocent, but unsup ported by facts. Surely Mr. Darwin's theory is none the worse, morally, for having some foundation in fact.

In our opinion, then, it is far easier to vindicato a theistic character for the derivative theory, than to establish the theory itself upon adequate scientific evidence. Perhaps scarcely any philosophical objection can be urged against the former to which the nebular hypothesis is not equally exposed. Yet the nebular hypothesis finds general scientific acceptance, and is adopted as the basis of an extended and recondite illustration in Mr. Agassiz's great work.'

How the author of this book harmonizes his scientific theory with his philosophy and theology, he has

"Contributions to Natural History of America," vol. i., pp. 127-131.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »