« НазадПродовжити »
perpetual search after manifestations of miraculous powers and perpetual ‘catastrophes.” Creation is not a miraculous interference with the laws of Nature, but the very institution of those laws. Law and regularity, not arbitrary intervention, was the patristic ideal of creation. With this notion, they admitted without difficulty the most surprising origin of living creatures, provided it took place by law. They held that when God said, ‘Let the waters produce,’ ‘Let the earth produce,’ He conferred forces on the elements of earth and water, which enabled them naturally to produce the various species of organic beings. This power, they thought, remains attached to the elements throughout all time.”" The same writer quotes St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to the effect that, “in the institution of Nature we do not look for miracles, but for the laws of Nature.”” And, again, St. Basil,” speaks of the continued operation of natural laws in the production of all organisms. So much for writers of early and mediaeval times. As to the present day, the author can confidently affirm that there are many as well versed in theology as Mr. Darwin is in his own department of natural knowledge, who would not be disturbed by the thorough demonstration of his theory. Nay, they would not even be in the least painfully affected at witnessing the generation of animals of complex organization by the skilful artificial arrangement of natural forces, and the production, in the future, of a fish, by means analogous to those by which we now produce urea. And this because they know that the possibility of such phenomena, though by no means actually foreseen, has yet been fully provided for in the old philosophy centuries before Darwin, or even before Bacon, and that their place in the system can be at once assigned them without even disturbing its order or marring its harmony. Moreover, the old tradition in this respect has never been abandoned, however much it may have been ignored or neglected by some modern writers. In proof of this it may be observed that perhaps no post-mediaeval theologian has a wider reception among Christians throughout the world than Suarez, who has a separate section “in opposition to those who maintain the distinct creation of the various kinds—or substantial forms—of organic life. But the consideration of this matter must be deferred for the present, and the question of evolution, whether Darwinian or other, be first gone into. It is proposed, after that has been done, to return to this subject (here merely alluded to), and to consider at some length the bearing of “Evolution,” whether Darwinian or non-Darwinian, upon “Creation and Theism.” Now we will revert simply to the consideration of the theory of “Natural Selection ” itself. Whatever may have hitherto been the amount of acceptance that this theory has met with, all, I think, anticipated that the appearance of Mr. Darwin’s large and careful work on “Animals and Plants under Domestication ” could but further increase that acceptance. It is, however, somewhat problematical how far such anticipations will be realized. The newer book seems to add after all but little in support of the theory, and to leave most, if not all, its difficulties exactly where they were. It is a question, also, whether the hypothesis of “Pangenesis” ” may not be found rather to encumber than to support the theory it was intended to subserve. However, the work in question treats only of domestic animals, and probably the fiext instalment will address itself more vigorously and directly to the difficulties which seem to us yet to bar the way to a complete acceptance of the doctrine. If the theory of Natural Selection can be shown to be quite insufficient to explaim any considerable number of important phenomena connected with the origin of species, that theory, as the explanation, must be considered as provisionally discredited. If other causes than Natural (including sexual) Selection can be proved to have acted—if variation can in any cases be proved to be subject to certain determinations in special directions by other means than Natural Selection, it then becomes probable, a priori, that it is so in others, and that Natural Selection depends upon, and only supplements, such means, which conception is opposed to the pure Darwinian position. Now it is certain, a priori, that variation is obedient to some law, and therefore that “Natural Selection ” itself must be capable of being subsumed into some higher law; and it is evident, I believe, a posteriori, that Natural Selection is, at the very least, aided and supplemented by some other agency. Admitting, then, organic and other evolution, and that new forms of animals and plants (new species, genera, etc.) e.g., as the occasional reproduction, by individuals, of parts which they have lost; the appearance in offspring of parental, and sometimes of remote ancestral, characters, etc. It accounts for these phenomena by supposing that every creature possesses countless indefinitely-minute organic atoms, termed “gemmules,” which atoms are supposed to be generated in every part of every organ, to be in constant circulation about the body, and to have the power of reproduction. Moreover, atoms from every part are supposed to be stored in the generative productS.
10 The Rambler, March, 1860, vol. xii., p. 372.
11 “In primâ institutione naturae non quaeritur miraculum, sed quid natura rerum habeat, ut Augustinus dicit, lib. ii., sup. Gen. and lit. c. l.” (St. Thomas, Sum. I*. lxvii. 4, ad 3.)
to “Hexaem.” Hom. ix., p. 81.
18 Suarez, Metaphysica. Edition Vivés. Paris, 1868. Wol. I. Disputatio xv., § 2.
* “Pangenesis '' is the name of the new theory proposed by Mr. Darwin, in order to account for various obscure physiological facts, such,
have from time to time been evolved from preceding animals and plants, it follows, if the views here advocated are true, that this evolution has not taken place by the action of “Natural Selection ” alone, but through it (among other influences) aided by the concurrent action of some other natural law or laws, at present undiscovered; and probably that the genesis of species takes place partly, perhaps mainly, through laws which may be most conveniently spoken of as special powers and tendencies existing in each organism ; and partly through influences exerted on each by surrounding conditions and agencies organic and inorganic, terrestrial and cosmical, among which the “survival of the fittest' plays a certain but subordinate part. The theory of “Natural Selection ” may (though it need not) be taken in such a way as to lead men to regard the present organic world as formed, so to speak, accidentally, beautiful and wonderful as is confessedly the hap-hazard result. The same may perhaps be said with regard to the system advocated by Mr. Herbert Spencer, who, however, also relegates “Natural Selection ” to a subordinate rôle. The view here advocated, on the other hand, regards the whole organic world as arising and going forward in One harmonious development similar to that which displays itself in the growth and action of each separate individual organism. It also regards each such separate organism as the expression of powers and tendencies not to be accounted for by “Natural Selection ” alone, or even by that together with merely the direct influence of surrounding conditions. The difficulties which appear to oppose themselves to the reception of “Natural Selection ” or “the survival of the fittest,” as the one explanation of the origin of species, have no doubt been already considered by Mr. Darwin. Nevertheless, it may be worth while to enumerate them, and to state the considerations which appear to give them weight; and there is no doubt but that a naturalist so candid and careful as the author of the theory in question, will feel obliged, rather than the reverse, by the suggestion of all the doubts and difficulties which can be brought against it. What is to be brought forward may be summed up as follows: That “Natural Selection ” is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures. That it does not harmonize with the coexistence of closely-similar structures of diverse origin. That there are grounds for thinking that specific disferences may be developed suddenly instead of gradually. That the opinion that species have definite though very different limits to their variability is still tenable. That certain fossil transitional forms are absent, which might have been expected to be present. That some facts of geographical distribution supplement other difficulties. That the objection drawn from the physiological difference between “species” and “races” still exists unrefuted. That there are many remarkable phenomena in organic forms upon which “Natural Selection ” throws no light whatever, but the explanations of which, if they could be attained, might throw light upon specific origination. Besides these objections to the sufficiency of “Natural Selection,” others may be brought against the hypothesis of “Pangenesis,” which, professing as it does to explain great difficulties, seems to do so by presenting others not less great—almost to be the explanation of obscurum per obscurius.