The Philosophy of Creation/Chapter 3
CHAPTER III.
A SUMMARY OF THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION.
Organic Life Had No Absolute Commencement.
For the purpose of having the theory of Evolution before us in contrast with what is to be stated, and to observe what Evolution implies and to what it leads, it may be well to review a brief summary of its fundamental principles as stated by an acknowledged authority. Though there are other more distinguished investigators, Spencer is unquestionably entitled to the rank of the ablest defender of Evolution. The following collection of quotations, which admirably presents the substance of the theory, are from his Principles of Biology. These strong assertions, unsurpassed in clearness, frankness, and fulness, show the true character of Evolution.
"Absolute commencement of organic life on the globe, I distinctly deny. The affirmation of universal Evolution is in itself the negation of an absolute commencement of anything. Construed in terms of Evolution every kind of being is conceived as a product of modifications wrought by insensible gradations on a preexisting kind of being: and this holds as fully of the supposed commencement of organic life as of all subsequent development of organic life."[1]
On the one hand our author assumes, by asserting the eternity of matter, what he is in the effort to prove. On the other hand he frankly denies the beginning of organic life, and then proceeds to explain its origin as accomplished by insensible gradations on a "preëxisting kind of being." The explanation is simply put one step farther back, and we are no farther advanced in understanding until the "preëxisting kind of being" is accounted for and explained.
Organic Life Originated Solely In Chemical
Changes Due To External Conditions.
The particulars of the origin of organic matter according to Evolution, are well set forth in the following. "That organic matter was not produced all at once, but was reached through steps, we are well warranted in believing by the experiences of chemists. Organic matters are produced in the laboratory by what we may literally call artificial Evolution. Chemists find themselves unable to form these complex combinations directly from their elements; but they succeed in forming them indirectly, by successive modifications of simple combinations. In some binary compounds, one element of which is present in several equivalents, a change is made by substituting for one of these equivalents an equivalent of some other element; so producing a ternary compound. Then another of the equivalents is replaced, and so on. For instance, beginning with ammonia, NH3, a higher form is obtained by replacing one of the atoms of Hydrogen by an atom of Methyl, so producing Methyl-Amine, N(CH3H2); and then, under the further action of Methyl, ending in a further substitution, there is reached the still more compound substance, dimethyl-amine, N(CH3)(CH3)H. And in this manner highly complex substances are built up. * * * * The progress toward higher types of organic molecules is effected by modification upon modification; as through Evolution in general. Each of these modifications is a change of the molecule into equilibrium with its environment—an adaptation, as it were, to new surrounding conditions to which it is subjected; as through Evolution in general. Larger or more integrated aggregates are successively generated; as through Evolution in general. More complex or heterogeneous aggregates are so made to arise, one out of another; as through Evolution in general. A geometrically increasing multitude of these larger and more complex aggregates so produced, at the same time results; as through Evolution in general. And it is by the action of the successively higher forms on one another, joined with the action of environing conditions, that the highest forms are reached; as through Evolution in general. * * * the early world, as in the modern laboratory, inferior types of organic substance, by their mutual action under fit conditions, evolved the superior types of organic substances, ending in organizable protoplasm. And it can hardly be doubted that the shaping of organizable protoplasm, which is a substance modifiable in multitudinous ways with extreme facility, went on after the same manner. * * * Protein is capable of existing under probably at least a thousand isomeric forms, and is capable of forming, with itself and other elements, substances yet more intricate in composition that are practically infinite in their variety and kind. Exposed to those innumerable modifications of conditions which the earth's surface afforded, here in amount of light, there in amount of heat and elsewhere in the quality of its aqueous medium, this extremely changeable substance must have undergone now one, now another of its countless metamorphoses. And to the mutual influence of its metamorphic forms under favoring conditions, we may ascribe the production of the still more composite, still more sensitive, still more variously changeable portions of organic matter, which in masses, more minute and simpler than existing Protozoa, displayed actions verging little by little into those called vital actions, which protein itself exhibits in a certain degree, and which the lowest known things exhibit only in a greater degree."[2]
We are impelled to ask a question that seems pertinent, suggested by the first lines of the paragraph. If organic life had no absolute commencement, how could organic matter be reached "through steps"? Would not the commencement of organic matter be also the commencement of organic life?
When the Evolutionist has thus accounted for the origin of the lower life-forms, it is easy to assume the formation of the higher by the continued action of the same laws producing modification of function through infinitesimal changes. It should be observed, though, that the point to be proved is assumed as the basis of the demonstration, namely, "a preexisting kind of being." Until this is explained, there is absolutely no light thrown upon the subject.
Evolution Is Essentially Agnostic And
Infidel.
It may be profitable to notice here the essential character of Evolution. It will be observed from the above quotations that nature alone is made to work the evolution by combination of material substances. In this there is a latent denial of a specific Creator. Life is regarded as nothing higher than that activity which exists among material molecules "verging little by little into those called vital." Hence there is a denial of life from the Creator. Though there is no open rejection of a Creator, it can not be controverted that there is an absolute and positive rejection and denial of Him, for life in the first instance is made to consist of the activity of the particles of matter due to potencies inherent in matter, and higher forms of life are argued to be a product of evolution derived from matter by its taking on a more complex activity. Animal forms are regarded as nothing other than a particular arrangement of particles and kinds of matter "shaped" by external forces, whereby there is a denial of any supernatural form, or soul. Functional activities are concluded to be but properties of highly organized and complex molecules, whence there is a negation of anything other than matter, or higher than the material plane. This is the central error of Evolution, which, though pleading agnosticism in regard to supernatural forces, a spiritual world, and a Creator, actually rejects them, and levels all down to the plane of nature.
As to the compromise theory held by some, that there is a God, and Evolution is His method, it may be that such a theory is less hurtful to states of faith, but as a rational or a scientific theory it is confronted by the insurmountable objection that, like Evolution pure and simple, it has no facts to sustain it. If Evolution were in the main scientifically or assuredly demonstrated, such a theory might be held with some degree of plausibility. Yet, if Evolution were true, there would be no need of a Creator. The theory of Evolution is essentially such that it denies and forbids those modifications of it made by thoughtless but well-meaning persons to adapt the theory to certain religious tenets. A theory that derives the universe from a natural basis, the Creator being regarded totally unknown and unknowable, can in no degree be reconciled with one that gives it a spiritual origin in deriving it from the Creator.
Evolutionists nowadays do not openly deny the existence of a Creator. It has become their custom to say that they do not know, and so do not deny or affirm. But we should not be misled by this apparent frankness, for they proceed to reason and to build up a theory the same as though they avowedly denied His existence. That there is actual rejection of a Creator, is clearly evident from the former quotations and the conclusion drawn from them, namely, that "We must infer that a plant or animal of any species is made up of special units, in all of which there dwells the intrinsic aptitude to aggregate into the form of that species: just as in the atoms of a salt, there dwells the intrinsic aptitude to crystallize in a particular way. * * * * Groups of units taken from an organism (providing they are of a certain bulk and not much differentiated into special structures) have this power of rearranging themselves; and we are thus compelled to recognize the tendency to assume the specific form, as inherent in all parts of the organism."[3] If in the atoms of salt there dwells the intrinsic aptitude to aggregate into the form of that body, what need is there of a Creator from whom such aptitude may be derived extrinsically? Evolution therefore by the very principles upon which it is based forbids those so-called accommodations of it.
It can not be urged that God created a few simple forms, and then developed the higher from these by the process of Evolution, for the claims of Evolution itself prevent the possibility of such a commencement. Nor can the theory of Evolution be reconciled by complementing the "struggle for life" with a second factor, the "struggle for the life of others," as Drummond attempts in his Ascent of Man. The difficulty is further back than this. A careful consideration of the theories of Evolution in their varied forms, will disclose the fact that Evolution alone in its unqualified form is in any degree consistent with itself. It really meets with less difficulty, and is, from a scientific standpoint, at once seen as the most plausible. Its modified forms adopted to bridge difficulties only make wider chasms, and introduce greater perplexities.
I am well aware that in the minds of some, who have been pleased with certain presentations of evolutionary thought, will arise the objection that, in dealing with Evolution in general, I have not met their particular tenets, or have overlooked some special or later writer. It does not seem necessary to take up separately each modified form of Evolution, because all of its modifications, which are about as numerous as the writers on the subject, have the fundamental errors of Evolution in general within, though the errors may be more deeply hidden or the theory more tactfully presented. As theories they are but different tentacles of the same invertebrate.
The Use Of The Theory Of Evolution.
Greater liberty of thought has been claimed in behalf of Evolution, but as we see its developments, the character of knowledge it offers, and the conclusions to which it finally leads, we can not fail to observe that it imposes a mental bondage more disastrous than that of the religionists of the past. It is more disastrous, because the bonds imposed by religious dogma were capable of being broken, as they are to-day; but the fetters of agnosticism in regard to all things higher than what appeals to the senses, we are told, can never be removed, because the First Cause must be forever wrapped in the darkness of "total ignorance"; "and the man of science sees himself in the midst of perpetual changes of which he can discover neither the beginning nor the end."[4] While on the one hand religion of the past forbade freedom of thought, evolutionary science that so accuses religion, would take away its possibility. There is no prison so painful or rack so excruciating as that state of intellectual and spiritual bondage that would await the world were we obliged to accept the issue of these words: "Though the analysis of mental action may finally bring him (man) down to sensations, as the original materials out of which all thought is woven, yet he is a little forwarder; for he can give no account either of sensations themselves or of that something which is conscious of sensations."[5] Yet we would not derogate the works of such great scholars. They have served the cause of truth in a negative way. They have brought out many valuable facts, stimulated thought, and broken down dogmatic barriers. They have done a greater work than this. They have demonstrated that the realm of causes can not be discovered by going "down to sensations"; that modern scientific methods of their kind are totally inadequate to the discovery of any substance or form superior to the ponderable; that their results utterly fail to respond to the universal longings of the human mind, rewarding the most hopeful and earnest effort with the despair of agnosticism. They have touched bottom in the downward investigation, and have revealed to the world that there is no light in that direction. We need not waste time to travel that way again. It is a warning therefore to us and to those to come who would investigate causes, and obtain an enlightened understanding of the universe, that no progress can be made by commencing with nature, the lowest, and looking downward.
The uses of the theory of Evolution are therefore negative. It is a Reductio ad Absurdum process, by which the opposite is demonstrated. It must serve only as the background of dark, upon which shall be painted a picture of light.