Part 8 (1/2)
3. Unicellular forms can come only from preexisting cells of the same kind; and even the individual cells of a multicellular organism, when once differentiated, reproduce only other cells after their own kind.
4. Species of plants and animals have wonderful powers of variation; but these variations seem to be regulated and predestined in accordance with definite laws, and in no instance known to science has this variation resulted in producing what could properly be called a distinct new kind of plant or animal.
5. Geology has been supposed to prove that there has been a long succession of distinct types of life on the globe in a very definite order extending through vast ages of time. This is now known to be a mistake. Most living forms of plants and animals are also found as fossils; but there is no possible way of telling that one kind of life lived and occupied the world before others, or that one kind of life is intrinsically older than any other or than the human race.
II
In view of such facts as these, what possible chance is there for a scheme of organic evolution?
Must we not say that every possible form of the development theory is hereby ruled out of court? There can be no thought of the gradual development of organic nature by every-day processes in a world where such facts prevail. Rather must we say, with the force of the acc.u.mulated momentum of all that has been won by modern science, that, instead of the animals and plants on our world having arisen by a long-drawn-out process of change and development of one kind into another, there must have been just such a literal Creation at the beginning as the Bible describes. As we stand with uncovered head and bowed form in the presence of this great truth, it would seem almost like sacrilege to attempt by rhetoric to adorn it. Its inevitableness, its majesty, its transcendent importance for our generation, would only be obscured by so doing.
The essential idea of the Evolution theory is _uniformity_. It seeks to show that the present orders of plant and animal life originated by causes or processes identical with those now said to be operating in our modern world. It denies that at any particular time in the past causes and processes were in operation to originate the present order of nature which were essentially different from the processes now operating in our world under what we call natural law. Evolution seeks to smooth out all distinction between Creation and the modern regime of ”natural law.”
On the other hand, the essential idea of the Christian doctrine of Creation is that, back at a period called ”the beginning,” forces and powers were brought into exercise and results were accomplished which have not since been exercised or accomplished. In other words, the origin of the world and the things upon it was essentially and radically _different_ from the manner in which the present order of nature is now being sustained and perpetuated. The mere matter of _time_ is in no way the essential idea in the problem. The question of _how much time_ was occupied in the work of Creation is of no importance, neither is the question of _how long ago_ it took place. The one essential idea is that the processes and methods of Creation are beyond us, for we have nothing with which to measure it; Creation and the reign of ”natural law” are essentially incommensurable. The one thing that the doctrine of Creation insists upon is that the origin of our world and of the things upon it must have been brought about by some direct and unusual manifestation of the power of the Being whom we call the Creator; and that since this original Creation the things of nature have been perpetuated and sustained by processes and methods which (though still essentially inscrutable by us) we call the order of nature and the reign of natural law.
But in view of the series of facts enumerated in the previous pages, the doctrine of Creation is established by modern scientific discoveries almost like the conclusion of a mathematical problem.
III
How are modern intelligent men and women to avoid any longer this inevitable conclusion of a literal Creation as the method of origin for our world and the things upon it?
The facts enumerated in the previous pages are not new; it is only the present grouping and arrangement of them, and the conclusions drawn from them, that are new. Of all the leading facts enumerated above, only the last one, the one regarding geology, is any longer a subject of serious discussion by educated people. And the general facts as stated above regarding geology have been proved (by the present writer) with such a wealth of facts and arguments that they also must speedily be acknowledged by scientists, when the latter take the trouble to study these facts and arguments. And with geology once adjusted to a system of real inductive science, instead of being as. .h.i.therto under the hypnotic control of speculative fancies and subjective methods, there is no longer any room for speculations regarding the origin of our world by evolutionary processes. It becomes almost a mathematical Q.E.D. _that things were made in the beginning by methods and processes that are no longer operative_, so far as science can observe. This means a real Creation, in the Bible sense of the term, something distinct from the means by which nature is now being sustained and carried on. Any attempt to describe the _why_ or the _how_ of this Creation would be useless speculation; but _this much is science_, and science that is to-day all the more impressive and conclusive because it has been won by centuries of conflict with every conceivable opposing prejudice.
IV
In conclusion we may attempt to speak in a brief way of the present relations.h.i.+p between the Creator and the things which He has made, and if possible to dispel the sad confusion prevailing in many minds between G.o.d's continued immediate action in certain departments of nature and His action in other departments through the intermediate use of second causes.
On every hand we hear proclaimed a form of the doctrine of G.o.d's omnipresence (usually called the divine ”immanence”) which not only denies all distinction between the original Creation and the present perpetuation of the world, but a form which practically denies all second causes, and which cannot well be distinguished from pantheism, though it would be a spiritualistic or ”idealistic” form of pantheism, or ”monism,” to use the favorite modern term. These extreme advocates of what they term the divine ”immanence” go so far as to deny all second causes. And while they are fond of proclaiming this idea as an entirely new discovery, and proclaiming it with all the enthusiasm of proselytes to a new religion, they are also p.r.o.ne to state the (seemingly) opposed doctrine of second causes in such a way that it amounts to a mere caricature, a burlesque, picturing a sort of ”absentee” G.o.d, who started the universe running and now merely stands by and watches it go. Thus pantheism and deism are often spoken of as the only alternatives for the choice of the modern man; for the real teachings of the Bible and of Christian philosophy are as completely ignored as if they had never been formulated or taught by intelligent people.
Let us first consider the scientific aspects of the doctrine of second causes, and the doctrine of G.o.d's immediate acting in various departments (or all departments) of nature.
1. We cannot deny that the will of man is a real cause, producing continual changes in the world about us. More than this, if there are not also second causes outside of the will of free intelligent personalities, the whole universe must be a gigantic deception; for it seems to be full of second causes. Long chains of what seem like second causes exist, made up of infinite numbers of links, as when the sun carries an amount of water up into the air, the latter dropping the water upon a mountain in the form of rain, gravity rolling it down the slope in vast force, sweeping away villages and towns, changing the fates of individuals and of nations. To quote two familiar examples from Stewart and Tait: ”In a steam engine the amount of work produced depends upon the amount of heat carried from the boiler into the condenser; and this amount depends in its turn upon the amount of coal which is burned in the furnace of the engine. In like manner the velocity of the bullet which issues from the rifle depends upon the transformation of the energy of the powder; this in turn depends upon the explosion of the percussion cap; this again upon the fall of the trigger; and lastly this upon the finger of the man who fires the rifle.”[54] Thus even the very strongest opponents of the idea of second causes never deny that the latter seem to surround us on every side, and that it would be possible to trace a continuous line of apparent effects and causes back to the very beginning.
[Footnote 54: ”The Unseen Universe,” p. 184.]
This view of the matter, it is evident, readily leads to a deistic view of the universe,--or to that burlesque of the Christian view spoken of as the doctrine of an ”absentee G.o.d,” watching His universe run from the outside, slightly concerned with what it does.
2. On the other hand, a careful study of the correlation of forces shows us that the great First Cause is still very closely related to the operation of His universe. We may start, for instance, with the old argument from the evidences of _design_ in nature, which, though often sneered at of late, cannot be cavalierly dismissed in this way; for, as Dugald Stewart has well said, ”every combination of means to an end implies intelligence.” But the direct or immediate action of the great Intelligence behind nature is manifest in the marvellous behavior of the cells; which, instead of behaving in a way to indicate that their life processes are due to properties inherent in the atoms and molecules composing them, show every appearance of being _mere automata_ under the direct control of an intelligent, purpose-filled Mind,--a Mind external to themselves, it is true, and gloriously transcending them, but constantly, ceaselessly exercised by an immediate action which we may well call ”immanent,” in the original and proper sense of this term. Yet vital action is capable of exact correlation with the other forces of nature; and thus the modern law of the correlation of forces teaches us that the energy behind life must be the same as the energy pervading all nature, the various manifestations of which we know as light, heat, gravity, electricity, etc. Thus while the study of the behavior of life or the doctrine of ”vitalism” might encourage us to think that in the cells and in the behavior of protoplasm we are witnessing the direct action of an intelligent Creator; yet we find that by the correlation of forces we must _say the same about all the physical and chemical phenomena of nature_. In other words, while the study of mere physical and chemical action might easily lead us to a strong belief in second causes, or to the belief that in this department of nature at least certain ”properties” had been imparted to matter and it had then been left to act largely by itself; yet, since the vital processes of living organisms are capable of exact correlation with all other forces, such as light, heat, and electricity, the direct action of this universal all-controlling Mind in all the phenomena of nature seems demonstrated beyond a doubt, leaving apparently little or no room for any action of second causes.
But this view of the matter, as is very evident, is liable to lead to a pantheistic view of the universe, than which nothing could be more horrible.
How then shall we reconcile these conflicting views?
In this case, as in so many others, the Bible comes in to show us the rational _via media_, the straight path of reason and sound philosophy which avoids the absurdities of both extremes.