Part 4 (1/2)
_The Opponents of Darwinism._
_The Duke of Argyll._
When cultivated men undertake to refute a certain system, it is to be presumed that they give themselves the trouble to ascertain what that system is. As the advocates of Mr. Darwin's theory defend and applaud it because it excludes design, and as its opponents make that the main ground of their objection to it, there can be no reasonable doubt as to its real character. The question is, How are the contrivances in nature to be accounted for? One answer is, They are due to the purpose of G.o.d.
Mr. Darwin says, They are due to the gradual and undesigned acc.u.mulation of slight variations. The Duke's first objection to that doctrine is, that the evidence of design in the organs of plants and animals is so clear that Mr. Darwin himself cannot avoid using teleological language.
”He exhausts,” he says, ”every form of words and of ill.u.s.tration by which intention or mental purpose can be described. 'Contrivance,'
'beautiful contrivance,' 'curious contrivance,' are expressions which occur over and over again. Here is one sentence describing a particular species (of orchids): 'The labellum is developed _in order_ to attract the Lepidoptera; and we shall soon see reason for supposing that the nectar is purposely so lodged, that it can be sucked only slowly _in order_ to give time for the curious chemical quality of the matter setting hard and dry.'”[31] We have already seen that Mr. Darwin's answer to this objection is, that it is hard to keep from personifying nature, and that these expressions as used by him mean no more than chemists mean when they speak of affinities, and one element preferring another.
A second objection is, that a variation would not be useful to the individual in which it happens to occur, unless other variations should occur at the right time and in the right order; and that the concurrence of so many accidents as are required to account for the infinite diversity of forms in plants and animals, is altogether inconceivable.
A third objection is, that the variations often have no reference to the organism of the animal itself but to other organisms. ”Take one instance,” he says, ”out of millions. The poison of a deadly snake,--let us for a moment consider what that is. It is a secretion of definite chemical properties with reference not only--not even mainly--to the organism of the animal in which it is developed, but specially to another animal which it is intended to destroy.” ”How,” he asks, ”will the law of growth adjust a poison in one animal with such subtle knowledge of the organization of the other, that the deadly virus shall in a few minutes curdle the blood, benumb the nerves, and rush in upon the citadel of life? There is but one explanation: a Mind having minute and perfect knowledge of the structure of both has designed the one to be capable of inflicting death upon the other. This mental purpose and resolve is the one thing which our intelligence perceives with direct and intuitive recognition. The method of creation by which this purpose has been carried into effect is utterly unknown.”[32]
A fourth objection has reference to beauty. According to Mr. Darwin, flowers are not intentionally made beautiful, but those which happen to be beautiful attract insects, and by their agency are fertilized and survive. Male birds are not intentionally arrayed in bright colors, but those which happen to be so arrayed are attractive, and thus become the progenitors of their race. Against this explanation the Duke earnestly protests. He refers to the gorgeous adorned cla.s.s of Hummingbirds, of which naturalists enumerate no less than four hundred and thirty different species, distinguished one from the other, in general, only by their plumage. ”Now,” he asks, ”what explanation does the law of natural selection give,--I will not say of the origin, but even of the continuance of such specific varieties as these? None whatever. A crest of topaz is no better in the struggle of existence than a crest of sapphire. A frill ending in spangles of the emerald is no better in the battle of life than a frill ending in spangles of the ruby. A tail is not affected for the purposes of flight, whether its marginal, or its central feathers are decorated with white. It is impossible to bring such varieties into any physical law known to us. It has relation however to a Purpose, which stands in close a.n.a.logy with our knowledge of purpose in the works of men. Mere beauty and mere variety, for their own sake, are objects which we ourselves seek, when we can make the forces of nature subordinate to the attainment of them. There seems to be no conceivable reason why we should doubt or question that these are ends and aims also in the forms given to living organisms, when the facts correspond with this view and with no other.”[33]
It will be observed that all these objections have reference to the denial of teleology on the part of Mr. Darwin. If his theory admitted that the organisms in nature were due to a divine purpose, the objections would be void of all meaning.
There is a fifth objection. According to Darwin's theory organs are formed by the slow acc.u.mulation of unintended variations, which happen to be favorable to the subject of them in the struggle for life. But in many cases these organs, instead of being favorable, are injurious or c.u.mbersome until fully developed. Take the wing of a bird, for example.
In its rudimental state, it is useful neither for swimming, walking, nor flying. Now, as Darwin says it took millions of years to bring the eye to perfection, how long did it take to render a rudimental wing useful?
It is no sufficient answer to say that these rudimental organs might have been suited to the condition in which the animal existed, during the formative process. This is perfectly arbitrary. It has no basis of fact. There are but three kinds of locomotion that we know of: in the water, on the ground, and through the air; for all these purposes a half-formed wing would be an impediment.
The Duke devotes almost a whole chapter of his interesting book to the consideration of ”contrivance in the machinery for flight.” The conditions to secure regulated movement through the atmosphere are so numerous, so complicated, and so conflicting, that the problem never has been solved by human ingenuity. In the structure of the bird it is solved to perfection. As we are not writing a teleological argument, but only producing evidence that Darwinism excludes teleology, we cannot follow the details which prove that the wing of the gannet or swift is almost as wonderful and beautiful a specimen of contrivance as the eye of the eagle.
FOOTNOTES:
[31] _Reign of Law_. London, 1867, p. 40.
[32] _Reign of Law_. London, 1867, p. 37.
[33] _Reign of Law_, pp. 247, 248.
_Aga.s.siz._
Every one knows that the ill.u.s.trious Aga.s.siz, over whose recent grave the world stands weeping, was from the beginning a p.r.o.nounced and earnest opponent of Mr. Darwin's theory. He wrote as a naturalist, and therefore his objections are princ.i.p.ally directed against the theory of evolution, which he regarded as not only dest.i.tute of any scientific basis, but as subversive of the best established facts in zoology.
Nevertheless it is evident that his zeal was greatly intensified by his apprehension that a theory which obliterates all evidence of the being of G.o.d from the works of nature, endangered faith in that great doctrine itself. The Rev. Dr. Peabody, in the discourse delivered on the occasion of Professor Aga.s.siz's funeral, said: ”I cannot close this hasty and inadequate, yet fervent and hearty tribute, without recalling to your memory the reverent spirit in which he pursued his scientific labors.
Nearly forty years ago, in his first great work on fossil fishes, in developing principles of cla.s.sification, he wrote in quotations, 'An invisible thread in all ages runs through this immense diversity, exhibiting as a general result that there is a continual progress in development ending in man, the four cla.s.ses of vertebrates presenting the intermediate steps, and the invertebrates the constant accessory accompaniment. Have we not here the manifestation of a mind as powerful as prolific? an act of intelligence as sublime as provident? the marks of goodness as infinite as wise? the most palpable demonstration of the existence of a personal G.o.d, author of all this; ruler of the universe, and the dispenser of all good? This at least is what I read in the works of creation.' And it was what he ever read, and with profound awe and adoration. To this exalted faith he was inflexibly loyal. The laws of nature were to him the eternal Word of G.o.d.
”His repugnance to Darwinism grew in great part from his apprehension of its atheistical tendency,--an apprehension which I confess I cannot share; for I forget not that these theories, now in the ascendent, are maintained by not a few devout Christian men, and while they appear to me unproved and incapable of demonstration, I could admit them without parting with one iota of my faith in G.o.d and Christ. Yet I cannot but sympathize most strongly with him in the spirit in which he resisted what seemed to him lese-majesty against the sovereign of the universe.
Nor was his a theoretical faith. His whole life, in its broad philanthropy, in its pervading spirit of service, in its fidelity to arduous trusts and duties, and in its simplicity and truthfulness, bespoke one who was consciously fulfilling a mission from G.o.d to his fellow-men.”
The words ”evolution” and ”Darwinism” are so often in this country, but not in Europe, used interchangeably, that it is conceivable that Dr.
Peabody could retain his faith in G.o.d, and yet admit the doctrine of evolution. But it is not conceivable that any man should adopt the main element of Mr. Darwin's theory, viz., the denial of all final causes, and the a.s.sertion, that since the first creation of matter and life, G.o.d has left the universe to the control of unintelligent physical causes, so that all the phenomena of the plants and animals, all that is in man, and all that has ever happened on the earth, is due to physical force, and yet retain his faith in Christ. On that theory, there have been no supernatural revelation, no miracles; Christ is not risen, and we are yet in our sins. It is not thus that this matter is regarded abroad. The Christians of Germany say that the only alternative these theories leave us, is Heathenism or Christianity; ”Heidenthum oder Christenthum, Die Frage der Zeit.”
_Janet._
Janet, a professor of philosophy, is the author of a book on the Materialism of Buchner.[34] The greater part of the last chapter of his work is devoted to Darwinism. He says, ”Dr. Buchner invoked (Darwin's book) as a striking confirmation of his doctrine.” (p. 154) What Buchner's doctrine is has been shown on a previous page. The points of coincidence between Darwin's system and his are, that both regard mind as a mere function of living matter; and both refer all the organs and organisms of living things to the unconscious, unintelligent operation of physical causes. Buchner's way of accounting for complicated organs was, ”that the energy of the elements and forces of matter, which in their fated and accidental occurrence must have produced innumerable forms, which must needs limit each other mutually, and correspond, apparently, the one with the other, as if they were made for that purpose. Out of all those forms, they only have survived which were adapted, in some manner, to the conditions of the medium in which they were placed.” (p. 30) This is very clumsy. No wonder Buchner preferred Darwin's method. The two systems are, indeed, exactly the same, but Mr.
Darwin has a much more winning way of presenting it.