Hardy-Williams Library OF THE OEOIOGTOiL HISTORY OF ORGANISMS FOTTNXIBD BY Charles Emas Hardy No. (jTJXjX 27, 17Q8 JULY 7, 1S6b) QH 369.F17 e " Un ' VerSl,y Ubrary 3 1924 024 755 534 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924024755534 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED BY ALFRED FAIRHURST, A. M., Professor of Natural Science in Kentucky University. St. Lottis: CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING COMPANY. 1897. Copyrighted, 1897, by CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING COMPANY. TO 2Ulen 1R. 3Benton, MY FAITHFUL FRIEND AND MY FORMER TEACHER, ttbfs Dolume Us 3U3fingls ©eOtcate&. PREFACE. Having been for many years a teacher of various branches of natural science, it has been my duty to discuss the subject of organic evolution. This vol- ume contains some of the objections which I have from time to time presented against the acceptance of. that theory, together with several chapters on other subjects. A. Faiehuest. Lexington, Kentucky, December 11, 1897. TABLE OF CONTENTS. I. INTRODUCTION 11 II. MATTER. Definition of — Elements, Number of — Physical condition dependent on pressure and temperature — So-called elements may be com- pounds — Divisibility of matter — Size of atoms and molecules — Porosity of matter — Compounds, nature of — Chemical laws gov- erning atoms— Law of definite proportions — Law of multiple proportions — Chemical formulas — Carbon compounds, great number and importance of — Organic and Inorganic Chemistry — Isomerism — Organized matter not formed by thefchemist. 14-29 III. FORCE. Definition — Kinds of — Correlation of different kinds of energy — The- ory as to what the different kinds of energy are — Sound the vibration of a material medium — Radiant energy the vibration of an ethereal medium — Difficulties as to explaining gravity- Infinite complexity of ethereal vibrations — Velocity of radiant energy — Lord Kelvin's views of the luminiferous ether — Lodge's views as to the nature of ether — Conclusions as to the nature of ether — Cohesion, capillarity, chemism, magnetism — Dissipation of energy into infinite space. ..... 30-48 IV. METHOD OF CREATION. Spontaneous Generation — Theistic methods of creation that are possible — Primary and secondary causes — Special fiats seem to have been necessary — Biblical view of the relation of the Creator to nature — The dispute as to method of creation is between Theism and Atheism — Necessary to assume Theism in crea- tion. ........ 4&-56 V. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. Length of the authentic geological record— Special act required to create the first living being — Elements that are necessary for living things — Attempts to prove the truth of spontaneous gen- eration failures — Nature ought to have produced spontaneous generation many times, if once — Science has failed to reveal the origin of life ...... 57-64 (5) 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS VI. NATURAL SELECTION. Facts on which the theory is founded — Rate of increase of organ- isms — Variations — Differences — Use of the phrase "Natural Selection " — Darwin's views stated — Evolution of man not due to chance — Evolution represented hy the tree as a figure — Varia- tion under domestication — Darwin claims that well-marked variations are incipient species — Difficulty of accounting for cross-sterility of closely-related species — Difficulty of preserving a variation in a state of nature — Assumption of cross-sterility by birth as an explanation — Isolation regarded as of importance in forming new species — Barriers fail to account for new species — Impossible for Natural Selection to do what is done by artificial selection — Inheritance of acquired characters. . 65-86 VII. PALEONTOLOGY. Length of geological time — Eozoon — Lost record claimed, preceding the Primordial — Animals of the Primordial highly organized — Sub-kingdoms and classes from the first widely separated — Ab- sence of transitional forms — Species appear as if by " substitu- tion" and 'not by "transformation" — Fragmentariness of the record exaggerated — Evolutionist assumes that the "missing links " favor his theory — Romanes regards the known geological record as " a chapter of accidents " — Le Conte's theory that spe- cies are evolved suddenly — Evolutionists have largely abandoned Paleontology. ....... 87-103 VIII. PALEONTOLOGY. The evolution of man inconsistent with the known stability of spe- cies — Species of long life — Doubt by Darwin as to advance of organization, on the whole — Long history of Trilobites without progress — Lack of progress among mollusks — Little progress among insects, scorpions and spiders — Huxley's address as to lack of [progress in structure — Suddenness of the appearance of Fishes— The oldest fossils do not represent the lowest members of the classes — Great differences in structure of Eocene mam- mals — The classes of vertebrates began earlier than their known fossils. . ...... 104-134 IX. PALEONTOLOGY. Haeckel's primitive vertebrate, Amphioxus — Balanoglossus as a con- necting link — Long existence of these forms without change — Various long-lived forms that have made no progress — Remains of placental mammals ought to be found in Cretaceous — Great diversity of Eocene mammals — Sudden appearance of Eocene mammals — "Whales of the Miocene — The horses of the Tertiary Conclusions to be drawn. ..... 125-140 TABLE OF CONTENTS 7 X. EMBRYOLOGY. Protozoa and Metazoa — Methods of reproduction — Radical differ- ences in the embryos of animals— Embryology applied to man's ancestors — Resemblances in embryos largely superficial — Embry- ology cannot confirm the theory of evolution — Gill-arches of the lizard 141-152 XI. SPECIAL OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OP EVOLU- TION. Evolution must account for the existence of all organs — Difficulty of accounting for the various electric organs of fishes — Difficulty as to wings — Feathers and legs— Great difference between fins and legs — As to the evolution of Pterodactyls — The evolution of Birds presents special difficulties — Improbability of the evolu- tion, independently, of homologous structures — Correlation of growth as a factor in evolution — Inheritance of acquired char- acters as a factor — Evolution of eyes — Numerous kinds and posi- tions of eyes and eye-spots — If eyes were evolved, then numerous independent evolutions of them — Romane's theory as to evolu- tion of eyes — Various locations of eyes and eye-spots — The evolu- tion of ears presents difficulties — The breathing apparatus of various kinds — The different kinds required separate evolutions — Webs of spiders and stings of insects — Poison glands of snakes and fangs. ....... 153-181 XII. RUDIMENTARY ORGANS. Questions concerning them — Darwin's views as to their origin — Seem ing impossibility of evolving milk glands — Assumption that many mammae have entirely disappeared — Darwin's views — Origin of the sexual organs — Spurs of birds useless as rudiments — Rudimentary teeth — Rudimentary legs of some snakes. 182-194 XIII. SECONDARY SEXUAL DIFFERENCES. Some of the differences between the sexes — Sexual selection and the law of battle — The horns of deer — Horns of Chameleon Owenii — Sexual selection could not take notice of rudiments — Sexual selec- tion and evolution of colors of birds — Colors of fishes. . 195-203 XIV. INSTINCT. Instincts of the honey bees — Cells and eggs — Queens— their instincts — Instincts of the workers — Workers cannot improve their instincts by inheritance — Instincts which could not have been acquired by inheritance — Darwin's explanation of such instincts — Instinct of birds to incubate their eggs, and structure of egg — Instinct of the Surinam Toad and adaptive structure — Instincts of certain fishes 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS and adaptive structures — Instincts and number of eggs — In- stincts and peculiarities of structure of the water spider — In- stincts of spiders and adaptive structures — Evolution fails to account for the simultaneous production of instincts and the structures that " render them useful — Instincts of a scavenger beetle — Instincts of the beaver. . . . 204-229 XV. THE ORIGIN OF MAN. Length of time he has been here — Some of the oldest known skulls — Difficulties as to evolving man's body — The sizes of the brains of men and apes — Mental powers of savages greater than would be expected — No low race of man serving as a connecting link — The greatest differences between man and animals are psychic — Enumeration of mental powers of animals as given by Darwin — Darwin's admissions as to deficiency of certain powers in ani- mals—Low moral standing of savages does not favor evolution- Darwin's theory as to the origin of the moral sense — The general good of the community the test — "Ought" employs "the con- sciousness of a persistent instinct" — Habits probably not in- herited — Spencer's theory as to the origin of instincts — Darwin's definition of a moral being — Evolution assumes that all psychic phenomena are essentially alike — " Experiences of utility " cannot create, but only improve faculties — The faculties of the mind are essentially different — Spencer's theory that all the faculties are composed of units of feeling that are fundamentally alike — One feeling cannot be derived from another — Spencer's theory that "mind is resolvable into nervous shocks " — The authority of con- science — Animals are destitute of conscience — Instincts do not speak with the authority of conscience — Mind as a controlling power in nature— Mind not resolvable into matter plus motion — Our knowledge of mind is immediate — Relations of mind to other things — Mind is ever conscious of its supremacy — How explain the act of remembering? It is not sensation — Reason, will, and other faculties are not sensations — Dana's belief in a Divine Being. ........ 230-265 XVI. A FUTURE LIFE. Ether a universal medium and God a Universal Spirit — The general hope of the human race as to the future — Means in nature for satisfying every natural desire — Indestructibility of matter and energy and mind — The mystery of inheritance — A future life necessary to fulfill the possibilities of mind — Faith, hope, love, reason, conscience and imagination look to the future — Life and death both parts of the universal plan — The upward progress through the ages points to the future. . . . 266-271 TABLE OF CONTENTS 9 XVII. DESIGN IN NATURE. Creation has proceeded upward — Temperature of the Sun during millions of years — Comparative uniformity of climate during geological time — Chemical laws to which matter is subject — Many material conditions that must precede life — Elements that are necessary for living beings— Certain relative quantities of the elements are required — Poisonous elements locked up in harmless compounds — Chance cannot account for the elements and their quantities— Length of time in creating does not affect design — Design shown in the structure and powers of man — Time in- volved does not affect design — Design shown in man's relations to things — Beauty, evidence of design — Moral nature of man, evidence of design — Prevalence of law indicates design — Design shown in plants, animals and minerals — Every organism adapted to its environment — Objections : Rudimentary organs — Things that at one time seem useless become useful. , . . 272-300 XVIII. EVIL AND ALTRUISM IN NATURE. Evil is suffering — Capacity to suffer necessary for protection — Suffering arises from violating the laws of nature — The laws of nature are necessary and beneficent — That the ignorant suffer, and the innocent, justifiable — Man responsible for much suffer- ing — Appetites and passions good if properly governed — Capacity for pleasure and pain increase together — Much more pleasure than pain in life — Altruism in nature. . . . 301-310 XIX. AGNOSTICISM. Belief that space is all alike and infinite — Spencer's claim that "Space and Time are wholly incomprehensible" — "Mental im- ages " not the ultimate basis of our knowledge — Spencer's recon- ciliation of religion and science — Agnosticism — Religion and science occupy different fields — Concerning miracles — not viola- tions of law — Creed of the Agnostic — Agnosticism not ad- apted to man — Spencer's views of existing religions — Incon- sistency of Spencer's views — Christianity and Agnosticism con- trasted. ........ 311-329 XX. RECAPITULATION. Chemical laws — Energy of the universe and its dissipation — Dynam- ical theory of things insufficient — Spontaneous generation not proved — Natural selection and objections to — Little progress in structure among animals generally — Long survival of many forms — Embryology and special objections — Rudimentary organs and secondary^ sexual differences — Instincts of bees and birds — Psychic differences between men and animals — Mind the control- ing power. ....... 330-343 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS XXI. GENESIS AND GEOLOGY. Great incompleteness of the known geological record — Probable chronological order of the introduction of certain forms — The known geological record not to be used for the whole — Impossi- bility of showing a conflict between the record in Genesis and the Geological account — Purpose of the cosmogony in Genesis — TJselessness of Geology to that early people — Moral and religious purpose in Genesis — Monotheism a revelation, of necessity — Monotheism a confirmation of the record in Genesis — The first days of creation. ...... 344-353 APPENDIX. The Primary Factors of Organic Evolution. By E. D. Cope. Definition of evolution — Energies of evolution and spontaneous gen- eration — Mind and evolution— Definition of life — Variations in organisms the. result of mechanical causes — Variations in color of Beetles, Snakes and Lizards— Effect of locality — Teeth — Skele- tons of frogs — Phylogeny founded on Embryology and Paleon- tology — Amphioxus is probably the ancestral vertebrate — Mam- mals derived from Permian reptiles — Great difference in the structure of teeth of different .marsupials — Oldest known mam- mals are highly specialized — Lemurs and not monkeys probably the ancestors of man — Difference in structure between man and ape — Huxley's view as to differences in structure of man and ape — Oldest known remains of man — Genealogy of man based on that given by Cope — Cope's mechanical theory as to variations applied to man — Causes of variations, Physiogenesis and Kine- togenesis — Physical theory of the origin of lungs — Physical the- ory as to the jointed structure of limbs — Origin of vertebrae and teeth — Independent origins of like structures in skele- tons 354-381 Organic Evolution Considered. INTEODUCTION. In the following pages I have endeavored to give a general statement of the claims of Evolution as applied to the origin of organic forms, and then to offer those objections which, it seems to me, go far toward invalidating these claims. I have not given in detail all of the arguments which have been presented in support of the theory of organic evolution, for this would be a superfluous work in view of the fact that this has been most fully and ably done by Darwin and other writers. My endeavor has been to urge more in detail some of the objections to the theory than has been done by others. The evolutionist may be a Theist, an Atheist, an Agnostic, a Pantheist, or a Materialist. To my mind it is not a matter of indifference as to which of these he is. I look upon the theory of evolution as being of no importance except as it involves the well-being of man. My object in what I have written is to promote the belief in Theism and in the existence of a spiritual nature in man which Theism alone can explain. It is a fact, I believe, that the propagation of the theory of Evolution has decreased the belief in The- ism. While this may be true, the fact should not be 11 12 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED lost sight of that a belief in the former is consistem with a belief in the latter. If it can be shown that the theory of Evolution ii not true, then Theism will, to most minds, be the nee essary alternative. To my own mind, Theism is noi an alternative to Evolution at all, for I believe thai whether the latter has taken place or not, Theism ii the only explanation of the present order of things. Starting with the present distribution of matte] and energy in the universe, and accepting the theory of the indestructibility of matter and the conserva tion and correlation of energy, the belief in the con tinuity of natural processes necessarily follows, so fai as these processes can be explained in terms of Mat ter and Force, but I do not believe that all phenomens can be explained in the above terms. I believe that Matter, Force and Mind are manr festations of the Creator, but I do not think thai either of these can be explained in terms of the othei two. It is the prerogative of Mind to interfere wit! the course of events in Nature. The presence of Mind in Nature is the primary fad of human knowledge. To construct a Teleology which excludes Mind as a permanent factor froir Nature is to annihilate the one thing of the existence of which we are most certain. If Matter and Force are a part of Nature, so is Mind, and we have no reason to believe that the lattei is less enduring than the former. To assume the continuity of natural causes through the infinite past, at the same time eliminating Mine as a factor of Evolution, and regarding it simply as i transient phase of a small part of Nature, is not justi- fied by the facts. I believe that if the truth of the theory of Evolution can ever be established, it can be done only on the basis of Theism. INTRODUCTION 13 The amount of evidence necessary to convince one of the theory depends on the data with which we begin. If Matter and Force are the only data, then the acceptance of the theory of Evolution in its widest scope necessarily follows. If we add to the above a belief in the existence of a Supreme Intelligence, then the strength of the evi- dence must be greatly increased, and it must har- monize with our conceptions of God. It is true, I believe, that the theory of Evolution has contributed to Atheism, and especially to Agnos- ticism. It has been common with evolutionists to deny that Nature furnishes evidence of the existence of an Intelligent Creator. Some of them seem to delight in affirming the lack of design in Nature, as if there could be some special merit in a universe in which there is no manifestation of intelligence. As for myself, I prefer to believe in and to seek the highest possible form of existence of which my mind can conceive. Unless the existence of the human mind can be explained in terms of matter and force — a thing that it is impossible to do — then its existence points with certainty to a Divine Mind in the universe. The logic that blots God out of existence blots out also the human mind. Mind exists, and God exists as its necessary Author. II. MATTEE. Matter occupies space, resists being put in motion, and is unable to part with its motion except by communicating it to other matter. About seventy simple substances are known to the chemist. A simple substance, or element, is one that cannot be separated into two or more different kinds of matter; for example, gold, silver, mercury, iron and sulphur are elements. Elements are divided into metals and non-metallic substances, most of them being classed among the former. At ordinary temperatures elements exist as gases, liquids or solids. Four, namely, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and chlorine, are gases, while bromme and mercury are the only liquid elements, all the others being solids under ordinary conditions. It is proba- ble that fluorine also is a gas. Any substance may be a solid, a liquid, or a gas, depending on the temperature and pressure to which it is subjected. All ordinary gases, both simple and compound, have been liquefied, and some of them solidified, by abstracting their heat and applying pressure. Air has been reduced to solid lumps by the reduc- tion of the temperature alone. Oxygen has been liquefied, but it has not yet been solidified. The lowest temperature yet obtained is minus 225° 0. Olzewski obtained this extremely low tempera- ture by evaporating solid nitrogen in a vacuum. The absolute zero, or the point at which no heat is 14 MATTER 15 supposed to exist in matter, is minus 273 °C, so that a temperature has been reached only 48 °C above the absolute zero. It has been found that gases can not be liquefied and solidified by the application of any amount of pressure, however great, unless at the same time their temperature be reduced below the critical point. Pressure is, therefore, only a secondary factor in liquefying gases. I have stated that there are about seventy elements known to the chemist, and that an element cannot be separated into two or more kinds of matter. There is some evidence to indicate that the ele- ments are compounds. The fact that the so-called elements generally give many lines in the spectrum, instead of giving a single line, would seem to indicate that an element is not composed of homogeneous material, and the fact that the chemical action of an element varies under different circumstances in re- markable ways, as, for example, carbon in the hydro- carbon compounds has been regarded as evidence that elements are really compounds. On the other hand, it has been claimed that all elements have probably been derived from one orig- inal form of matter, which Professor Crookes calls protyle. From this original stuff, "fire-mist," the elements, as we know them, have been evolved in succession, by cooling; the smallest atoms, such as those of hydrogen, having been first formed. The numerical relations between the atomic weights as arranged by Mendeleeff, may be regarded as evi- dence of the common origin of elements. For all practical purposes, however, the chemist recognizes the seventy elements as such, and this from the fact that he is unable to separate them into simpler forms. 16 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED If we grind a piece of sulphur in a mortar, we break it into smaller and smaller pieces, each of which is sulphur. If we could put it into the mor- tars of the gods, which, it is said, "grind slow but exceeding small," would there be any practical limit to the smallness of the pieces? Is there a limit in the division of matter beyond which nature cannot go? The chemist images that there is a limit, and he calls the ultimate piece of matter which nature does not divide an atom. No eye has ever seen an atom, no microscope can ever render it visible. The mote that dances in the sunbeam is composed of millions of atoms. The spectroscope enables us to detect the Viso, 000,000 of a grain of sodium, and this small speck of sodium must contain millions of atoms in order to color the flame sufficiently to render the sodium visible. A grain of musk, it is said, will scent a room for years without losing an appreciable amount of its weight, and yet during this time the air in the room has changed many times, and the molecules of musk have been disseminated through the vast volume so that the sense of smell could detect their presence. What an enormous volume of air a little of the musk from the skunk will vitiate, and yet this is only possible by the almost infinite smallness of the molecules. Nobert has drawn 4,000 lines on the breadth of one millimetre, which is more than 200,000 lines to the inch. A film of silver has been obtained 1 /i«i,ooa of an inch in thickness, and films of platinum and gold have been obtained Yi26,ooo of an inch in thickness, and yet it is probable that this thickness contains many atoms. The thickness of the soap-bubble at the dark part just before it breaks, is 1 /m of the length of the MATTER 17 sodium wave of light, which would be something more than Yioojooo of a centimetre in thickness. But the molecules of this thin film are very complex, so that in the thickness of the film quite a number of atoms must exist. Sir William Thomson says "that in any ordinary liquid, transparent solid, or seemingly opaque solid, the mean distance between the centres of contiguous molecules "is less than the Vs, 000,000 and greater than the Vi'Ooo,ooo,ooo of a centimetre."* " To form some conception of the degree of coarse- grainedness indicated by this conclusion, imagine a globe of water or glass, as large as a football, to be magnified up to the size of the earth, each constituent molecule being magnified in the same proportion. The magnified structure would be more coarse-grained than a heap of small shot, but probably less coarse- grained than a heap of footballs." It is said that the smallest object visible under the microscope is x /4,ooo of a millimetre, which is about Vioojooo of an inch, and yet such an object contains millions of molecules. It has been claimed that an organic being of that size would contain perhaps one million molecules of organic matter in addition to the water which constitutes most of its bulk. Crookes, taking the estimate that 1 c. c. of air con- tains 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules, says that to fill a globe 13.5 centimetres in diameter, which has been exhausted to the one-millionth of an atmosphere, would require, if the molecules entered at the rate of 100,000,000 in a second, 408,501,731 years. At the above rate it would require about 2,500,000 years to fill a globe one inch in diameter. If we estimate the number of molecules at 19,000,000,000,000,000,000 in a cubic centimetre, as has been done by some, then *Popular Lectures and Addresses, Sir W. Thomson, p. 217. 18 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED the above times would be reduced to about 7,700,000 and 47,500 years respectively. Assuming a specific number of molecules per cubic centimetre of any gas, and accepting the hypothesis of Avogadro that equal volumes of all gases under like conditions of temperature and pressure contain equal numbers of molecules, it becomes easy to calcu- late the number of molecules of simple substances that constitute any solid or liquid that can be readily converted into the form of gases. For example, a cubic centimetre of nitric acid, the formula of which is H NO3, specific gravity 1.517, is composed of about 272 cubic centimetres of nitro- gen, 273 of hydrogen, and 809 c. c. of oxygen, the vol- ume of the three gases together is 1354 c. c. When these three gases unite to form nitric acid the 1354 c. c, shrink to 1 c. c. Assuming 19,000,000,000,000,- 000,000 molecules in 1 c. c. of the gas, there would be in 1354 c. c. 25,726,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules, which enter into the 1 c. c. of nitric acid. The cube root of the above number is about 29,500,000, so that according to this estimate if the molecules of nitric acid fill the entire space in the 1 c. c, so that there are no vacant spaces between the molecules, then a molecule of the above gases is, on the average, about V^'soo.ooo of a centimetre in diameter, which is about Vraireojooo, of an inch. One cubic centimetre of water is composed of 1258 c. c. of hydrogen and 629 c. c. of oxygen — in all, 1887 cubic centimetres. Estimating, as in the case of nitric acid, 19 quintillions of molecules in each cubic centi- metre of gas at O C and the pressure of one atmos- phere, there would be 35,853,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of the two gases in 1 c. c. of water, which would allow an average diameter of about V^o^ooo MATTER 19 of a centimetre, or about */&, 500,000 of an inch, if water is not porous. In a similar way for solids — taking ammonium nitrate, N Hj N Oa, for example, one cubic centi- metre of which contains 2,083 cubic centimetres of its three constituent gases, the number of molecules in 1 c. c. of the solid would be 39,577,000,000,000,000,- 000,000, and the average diameter of the molecule, if the solid is not porous, would be V34,ooo,ooo of a cen- timetre in diameter, or about V85,ooo,ooo of an inch. Taking another solid, ammonium bicarbonate, N H4 H C O3, we estimate the size of the molecules of its elements to be about 1 /u,m,(m of a centimetre, or about Y86,25o,ooo of an inch. In this estimate the substances were taken in the simple form and the carbon was assumed to occupy the same space that it would occupy if it had the specific gravity of the diamond. Instead of the above method, we may regard the N H4 H C O3 as being composed of the two gases N H3 and C O2 and of water, H2 O. The average size of the molecules of these three compounds is about Y29,5oo,ooo centimetre, or 1 /w,m,ow of an inch. The above estimates of the sizes of molecules, as already stated, are made upon the assumption that solids and liquids are not porous, or that there are no vacant spaces between the molecules. That there are such spaces, however, is evident from the fact that both solids and liquids can be com- pressed into smaller volumes than they occupy at O C, and from the fact that they contain heat, which forces the molecules apart. I think, however, that the vacant spaces between the molecules of a solid are small compared to the space occupied by the molecules themselves. It seems probable that at the absolute zero, namely, 20 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED — 273.7° C, if this represents the temperature at which all heat is absent, there is no molecular motion in matter, and that the molecules, if they are cubes of equal size, would fill the whole space so that there would be no pores. The small amount of expansion which solids and liquids undergo, due to a change of temperature, shows that if they could be reduced to the absolute zero, they would occupy nearly as much space as they occupy at 0° C. For example,' a cubic centimetre of steel on being cooled from 0° C to — 273° C would lose about Yioo of its volume if it followed the law of expansion and contraction which has been established for higher temperatures. Glass would lose Y125 and zinc 1 /m of its volume. From this it would seem that the molecules of solids at ordinary temperatures are probably very close together, and, for the most part, in contact with each other. Lord Kelvin estimates from the kinetic theory of gases that in glass or water "there are probably some- thing like 600 molecules to the wave-length " of violet light, " and almost certainly not fewer than 200, or 300, or 400."* Taking 600 as the number of molecules of water in a wave-length of 1 violet light, which is about Y2,5oo of a millimetre in length, the size of the molecule of water would be about Vi5,ooo,ooo of a centimetre, or V37)6oo,ooo of an inch in diameter, — or, more accurately, this would be the average distance between the centers of adjacent molecules. The thickness of the film of the soap bubble at the dark part, just before it breaks, is said to be 1 /m the length of the sodium wave of light, which is equal to Y847,ooo of a centimetre, or about Y2>ii8,ooo of an inch. This represents the thinnest portion of matter that has ♦Popular Lectures and Addresses, by Sir W. Thomson, p. 193. MATTES 21 been measured. It is evident that the diameter of the molecules of water and soap cannot exceed the thick- ness of the film. Regarding the molecule of soap as made up of fifty atoms, — for example, sodium pal- mitate, the formula of which is C15 H31 C O2 Na, exact- ly fifty atoms; then, if the black film of soap bub- ble contains only one layer of molecules of soap together with sufficient water to make the thickness fifty atoms, the size of the atoms, or, rather, the average distance from center to center of atoms, would be 1 /4a,m,wo of a centimetre. Of course, it is impossible to tell the number of atoms or molecules contained in the thinnest part of a soap bubble. The only definite conclusion is that the diameter of the molecules in the particular case cannot exceed the thickness of the film, and that the diameter of the atoms must be con- siderably less than the thinnest part of the film. Thus far I have spoken of simple substances and of the size of atoms and molecules. It is evident that, if there are but seventy simple substances known, most things with which we are acquainted must be compounds. A compound is produced by the union of two or more simple substances. For example, thoroughly mix 32 parts by weight of sulphur with 56 of iron filings, and ignite the mixture with a burning match. The whole mass, even in the absence of air, will soon glow with heat and light. The weight of the result- ing mass is equal to that of the sulphur plus that of the iron. The heat and light were produced by the chemical action of the sulphur and iron on each other. The atoms of the two substances rushed together with such enormous velocity that intense heat and light were generated by the concussion, as is done when the motion of a cannon ball is arrested by a steel-clad 22 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED vessel. An atom of sulphur and an atom of iron throughout the mass — atom for atom— crash together and hold each other in their grasp. The result of the chemical action is a new substance that looks like neither sulphur nor iron. Before the burning match was placed in the mixture the sulphur and iron could be readily separated by mechanical means — the iron could be removed with a magnet, or the sulphur could be dissolved out with bisulphide of carbon. The compound formed looks like neither sulphur nor iron, and its mechanical and chemical properties are different from those of the two elements that compose it. The whole of the two elements used is present in the compound, known by the name, sulphide of iron, and by various chemical means they may be separated from each other and obtained again in the simple form. The smallest amount of this compound that can exist is represented by one atom of sulphur com- bined with one atom of iron, which is expressed by the formula Fe S. This smallest conceivable amount of a compound is called by the chemist a molecule. A single molecule may contain from two up to hundreds of atoms. The molecule is the unit of the compound on which its qualities as a distinct substance depend. We are unable to tell in advance from the proper- ties of the elements what will be the properties of the compounds produced by their union. How totally we would be unable to predict that by putting a spark to a mixture of two volumes of hydrogen and one volume of oxygen they would unite with a tremendous explosion to form a volume of water more than eighteen hundred times less than that of the two gases; or that by decomposing common salt we would find it composed of a soft metal and a very poisonous MATTER 23 gas; or that by uniting sulphur and carbon, two solids, we would obtain a very volatile liquid of an extremely unpleasant odor; or, again, that by the union of one volume each of nitrogen and chlorine together with four volumes of hydrogen — all three of them gases — we would obtain a white solid, known as chloride of ammonium. Examples might be multiplied indefinitely, but these few are sufficient to show how widely different are the properties of compounds from the proper- ties of their constituent elements. All material thing3 with which we are acquainted, the thousands of different objects upon the earth, are built of a few primary building materials. As infinite varieties of houses may be built of stone, and brick, and mortar, so countless varieties of com- pounds may be built of atoms of a few different kinds. The same atom may be made to do many different kinds of service. It is indeed an amazing fact that the primary building materials of the earth and of the other worlds which have revealed thier composition, at least partly, through the spec- troscope, are but a few kinds of atoms, and that these atoms are inconceivably small. And yet each atom is subject to definite and invari- able laws. The laws of the material universe are the laws of atoms. Atoms are the law-abiding citizens of the universe; they do their work with absolute precision. The fundamental laws of chemistry are mathematically exact. For example, take the law of " definite propor- tions," that in every chemical compound the. kinds and relative quantities of the constituent elements are fixed and invariable. One correct analysis of pure water determines the composition of all water in existence. The chemist cannot believe that the 24 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED composition of water can vary by a single atom of either of its elements. He feels certain that the rule is infallible that each molecule of water must contain two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, and that it can have no other composition. The same principle holds good of every other com- pound. Again, it often occurs that the same elements unite in different proportions to form different com- pounds, and, in these cases, they unite according to the law of " multiple proportions," namely, that when two elements, A and B, unite in more than one proportion, if we take quantities of the compounds which contain the same amount of A, the quantities of B will bear a very simple relation to each other. For example, take the compounds of nitrogen and oxygen represented by the following five formulas, N 3 O, N 2 2 , N 3 3 , N 2 Oi and N 2 6 . It will be noticed that while each compound has two atoms of nitrogen in its molecule, the amounts of oxygen are simple multiples of the quantity in the first com- pound. The formula for water is H2 O, but there is another compound of oxygen and hydrogen, H2 O2, known as hydrogen dioxide, which is a very active oxydizing agent. Chemists have determined with great exactness the relative weights of atoms. I shall not describe the methods by which this has been done. Hydro- gen being the lightest known substance, its atomic weight is taken as unity. The atomic weights of the seventy elements range from 1 to 239, the latter being the atomic weight of uranium. It is a remarkable fact that when elements combine with each other, their amounts are represented by their atomic weights or by some multiple of these MATTER 25 weights. Oxygen, for example, unites with every element except fluorine, and with most elements in more than one proportion, and yet the amount of oxygen in any compound is always its atomic weight, 16, or some multiple of this weight. This renders it possible for the chemist to represent every compound by means of a formula which contains a definite num- ber of atoms. A formula, such as that of water, H2 O, shows the kinds of elements, hydrogen and oxygen; the number of atoms of each element in the molecule, two of hydrogen and one of oxygen; and the relative weights of the two elements. The two atoms of hydrogen weigh 2 and the one atom of oxygen weighs 16. The weight of the molecule, H 2 O, is equal to the sum of the weights of its atoms — 2 plus 16 equal 18. We know therefore, by examin- ing the formula that 2 /is of the weight of water is H and 16 /i8 O. When we consider the countless number of com- pounds that may be formed by the union of the sev- enty elements, ranging from the molecule of only two atoms up to the most complex molecules, which con- tain a half dozen or a dozen elements and hundreds of atoms, and find that in every compound the law of combination according to atomic weights is ob- served, the fact is marvelous. Who numbers the atoms that they may combine? Who wheels them into line by twos, by tens - or by hundreds and binds them together? The power of the Infinite is upon them, for they are infinitely perfect in their workings. The hand that upholds and guides the earth and planets and the countless worlds that revolve through infinite space, guides the atoms of which all these worlds are made. What a wide and marvelous range of functions has been bestowed upon certain elements! Carbon is a 26 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED remarkable example which shows the almost unlim- ited possibilities of an element in helping to build structures of the most wonderful and diverse kinds. In its uncombined crystalline condition, it constitutes the diamond, the hardest of all known substances. In a second form it is known as graphite, or black lead, and in other forms as charcoal and lampblack. This hardest of all elements helps to form a countless number of compounds, some of which are gases, other liquids, and still others are solids. It is a neces- sary constituent of every plant and animal. It is found in the gas, carbon dioxide, which is a necessary food of plants. The same gas unites with many bases to form the many mineral carbonates that exist in nature. It is a part of a vast number of organic compounds which are of the highest importance to man and in the economy of life. Among these com- pounds are starch, cellulose, the various sugars, the many organic acids, the alkaloids, such as those in quinine, morphine and strychnine, the alcohols, the different fats and oils, and the numerous essential oils, and the long lists of hydrocarbons. These are but a few of the great number of compounds which carbon helps to form. So important is this element that the great branch of organic chemistry is often called the chemistry of the compounds of carbon. In many compounds carbon is combined with hydrogen alone, in many" more with hydrogen and oxygen, and in a large number it is united with hydro- gen, oxygen and nitrogen. It is indeed marvelous [that these four elements, which constitute the great bulk of the organic world, can, by uniting in different ways, produce the vast number of compounds that constitute the great science of organic chemistry. Carbon and hydrogen alone unite to form several MATTER 27 long series of homologous compounds, and it is a most remarkable fact, that in the compounds of one series the elements exist in the same relative amounts. For example, the following six formulas of this series show that there are twice as many atoms of hydrogen as of oxygen in each compound. C2 H*, C3 H 6 , C4 Hs, Cs H10, Ce H12, C7 Hu. The analysis of any one of these compounds shows that there is by weight six parts of carbon and one of hydrogen, and from this it might seem that, one formula would serve for each of the six compounds, and yet the chemist is certain from the specific gravities of the vapors of these compounds that the above are the correct formulas. But more remarkable than the above is the fact that sometimes different compounds must be repre- sented by the same formulas. For example, several different compounds have the formula C5 H10, and others the formula C2 H* CI2. In these cases of isomerism the molecular weights of the substances are the same, and we can only account for [the difference in the properties of the compounds by assuming that the atoms are combined in them in different ways. We can easily imagine that the fifteen atoms in the formula Cs H10 might be differently grouped with each other so as to form compounds of different qualities, on the same principle that fifteen blocks of two different kinds might be arranged in different ways. I may here state that there is no distinction be- tween Organic and Inorganic Chemistry. It was formerly thought that organic compounds could not be produced artificially from the elements or from inorganic substances, but that they could be built up by living organisms only, or produced from matter organized by plants and animals. Chemists have,, 28 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED however, especially in recent years, succeeded in manufacturing from the elementary substances them- selves, or from inorganic compounds, a good many carbon compounds which are obtained from organic matter, or which are produced by plants and animals. And yet it is true that the processes of manufacture, as carried on artificially on the one hand, or by the living being on the other, are probably widely differ- ent from each other. It is probable that the life force of the living being is something more than the properties of the inorganic elements, and that it proceeds according to methods that cannot be fol- lowed in the laboratory. This seems the more probable when we remember that but few carbon compounds that exist in living beings have been artificially produced, and that we know almost noth- ing of the methods by which organic beings produce the great multitude of very complex organic com- pounds. It is beyond the truth for the chemist to claim that, in manufacturing a few carbon com- pounds in the laboratory, he is imitating the pro- cesses carried on in the living world. It is evident that the living organism uses methods which are un- known to the chemist, and which it is not probable can ever be imitated. I need not say that no organized form of matter has ever been produced artificially. The chemist, I presume, does not even dream that he will ever be able to manufacture from the elements albumen like the white of an egg, nor a nerve fibre, nor cell, nor a grain of corn. While the power of the chemist in manufacturing carbon compounds must certainly be regarded as one of the great triumphs of science, yet it must be admitted that it amounts to but little when compared to the work of living plants and animals. MATTER 29 I make the above remarks because there are those who seem to imagine that the chemist in the labora- tory may imitate the great multitude of wonderful and unknown processes which are carried on in the living world, and that the laboratory, by the use of inorganic materials, may supersede the organic world in the manufacture of carbon compounds. A fundamental doctrine in chemistry is that matter cannot be destroyed. The chemist relies on this as a well-established fact. We know of no method by which to destroy a single atom of matter. The chemist may separate substances from each other, or he may cause them to unite by bringing them together under certain conditions; he may change substances from the solid to the liquid and from the liquid to the gaseous condition; he may render matter invisible, or the reverse, but he cannot destroy it. The indestructibility of matter is shown not only by experiment, but also by the fact that the mind of man is totally unable to conceive that something may be- come nothing. III. FOKCE. In this chapter I will consider briefly some of the forces of nature. Force may be defined as that which can put matter in motion. Among the forces of nature may be mentioned light, heat, electricity, magnetism, chemical affinity, cohesion, adhesion, and gravitation. Forces act upon bodies in two ways — they cause bodies to approach or to recede from each other; to attract or to repel. As examples of the former, chemical affinity binds atoms together to form molecules; cohesion causes like atoms or molecules to cling together to form masses of matter; gravitation causes each atom in the universe to attract every other atom in the universe ; and magnetism causes the magnet to attract iron or steel. Heat, which causes bodies to expand, thereby sepa- rating more widely their molecules, generally acts as a repellant force. The like poles of magnets, bodies electrified alike, and currents of electricity in unlike directions repel each other. Some forces act only at insensible distances. Chemical affinity, adhesion, and cohesion are exam- ples. Gravitation acts at all distances. No limit can imagined at which two bodies cease to attract each other. Our knowledge of force is derived from its effects on matter. Matter in motion shows force at work. 30 FORCE 31 The lifted weight and the bent spring represent forces ready to do work. It is assumed that energy is indestructible. The quantity of energy in the universe is constant. When one form of energy disappears it has become one or more other forms of energy. Coal is burnt under a boiler. Chemical affinity causes the atoms of oxygen of the air and the atoms of the fuel to rush together with such enormous velocity as to generate a large quantity of heat. This heat increases the motion of the molecules of water until they are forced wide apart in the form of steam, and the expanding steam gives mechanical motion to the engine. The engine runs a dynamo, thereby con- verting some of its energy into electricity and mag- netism, and the electricity is conveyed to a distant motor and is converted into magnetism and mechan- ical energy to run a car. Some of the electricity is converted back into heat, and some into light; or, again, it may be made to separate the atoms which united to generate the original heat. Thus chemical" force, mechanical force, electricity, magnetism flight, and heat are seen to be in succes- sion manifestations of the same energy. I need hardly say that the correlation of the different forms of energy is one of the greatest discoveries of modern science. All forms of energy seem to be essentially one. Each may. be converted into any of the others. And so the problem of energy is simplified; and yet it should be remembered that the highest powers of the human mind have been and are being taxed in endeavoring to explain the methods by which the forces of nature produce their results. Some of the problems involved are so subtlo that it seems hardly possible that they can ever be solved. How shall we explain magnetism, electricity, light, 32 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED heat, ana gravity? This question involves many diffi- culties, some of which are probably unanswerable. Sound is known to be the vibration of air or other material media, and the pitch depends on the fre- quency of the vibrations. The lowest audible note is produced by 20 to 30 vibrations per second, and it is said that some ears can appreciate sounds made by 50,000 vibrations per second. The length of waves produced by 16 vibrations per second is about 70 feet, and the wave length due to 50,000 vibrations is about 3 /^ of an inch. The production of waves of sound requires an elastic medium. The medium, air for example, propagates sound by a series of longitudinal vibrations of the molecules of air, resulting in a series of condensations followed by rarefactions. Sound is one form of mechanical energy which is transmitted by means of waves through elastic mate- rial media, — at the rate of about 1,100 feet per second through air, at the ordinary temperature, but more rapidly than this through liquids and solids. How can we explain the transmission of other forms of energy? of heat and light and gravitation through interstellar space? the motion of heat and electricity through material media? the attraction of magnets, and the drawing of atom to atom in chemical action? It should be remembered that all matter is por- ous — that between the molecules of all gases, liquids and solids are spaces which are not occupied by any known form of matter. If these intermolecular spaces are an absolute vacuum, then we are left to account for the transmission of energy through a vacuum. If we heat one end of an iron rod, the heat slowly creeps along until the whole rod becomes hot. In this case we may assume that the molecules of the end first heated are thrown into more rapid vibration, FORGE 33 and that by concussion they communicate their energy to the neighboring atoms. The rate of trans- mission of heat in this way would be, at most, a few feet per hour. But radiant energy, such as the light and heat of the sun, flash through space at the rate of 186,000 miles per second. Electricity travels through a conducting wire thousands of miles in a second, and it is even claimed that it sometimes travels with the velocity of light. As to the velocity of gravitation and other forms of attractive energy, we are entirely ignorant. We now inquire, Can energy manifest itself through an absolute vacuum? Our knowledge of energy is that it is connected with matter, and manifests itself in and through mat- ter, and not independently of it. Shall we, therefore, assume that all space is full of matter, and that the energy of sun and stars is con- veyed through infinite space by means of some kind of universal medium? The theory now accepted by all physicists is that there is a medium, ether, not composed of ordinary matter, which fills all space except that occupied by the atoms of ordinary kinds of matter. It permeates all gases and liquids and solids, occupying the spaces between their molecules. The belief in the existence of such a medium has been forced upon physicists for reasons so weighty that all have been led to accept it. First, it is impossible to conceive the action of energy through an absolute vacuum. Newton felt the difficulty of trying to explain the action of gravity through a vacuum, and wrote as follows on the sub- ject: "That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act on 3 34 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a compe- tent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Grav- ity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consid- eration of my readers."* Again he writes in his queries: "Qu. 21. Is not this medium much rarer in the denser Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets, and Comets, than in the empty celes- tial Spaces between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great Bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavoring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer? For if the Medium be rarer within the Sun's Body than at its surface, and rarer there than at the hundredth parth of an Inch from its Body, and rarer there than at the Orb of Saturn, I see no reason why the increase of density should stop anywhere, and not rather be continued through all distances from the Sun to Saturn and beyond. And though the increase of density may at great distances be exceeding slow, yet if the elastic force of the medium be exceeding great, it may suffice to impel Bodies from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer, with all that power which we call Gravity. And that the elastic force of the Medium is exceed- ing great, may be gathered from the swiftness of its vibrations," etcf *On Light, by Stokes, p. 16. tModern Views of Electricity, by Lodge, p. 406. FORGE 35 " Qu. 22. May not Planets and Comets, and all gross Bodies, perform their motions more freely, and with less resistance in this Aetherial Medium than in Fluid, which fills all Space adequately without leaving any Pores, and by consequence is much denser than quicksilver and gold? And may not its resistance be so small as to be inconsiderable? For instance, if this Aether (for so I call it,) should be supposed 700,000 times more elastic than our Air, and about 700,000 times more rare, its resistance would be above 600,000,000 times less than that of Water. And so small a resistance would scarce make a sensible alter- ation in the Motions of the Planets in ten thousand years," etc.* I quote the above to show that Newton regarded a medium as necessary in order to explain the action of gravity. I may here remark that of all the forces of nature, gravity is least understood as to its method of action. No theory has been offered that meets the difficulties involved. The belief in the existence of ether, a universal medium, has grown out of facts connected with light. It is now admitted by the scientific world, that light consists of the vibrations of ether that can be recog- nized by the eye. While the vibrations of matter which produce audible sounds are limited to about 50,000 per second, the vibrations of ether which pro- duce red light are 370 trillions, and violet light 739 trillions per second ; and beyond the violet are invis- ible rays that vibrate at a still higher rate, while below the red are rays of heat which have a slower rate of vibration than the rays of light. In the solar spectrum, produced by the passage of the sun's rays through a prism, we find heat, light ♦Modern Views of Electricity, by Lodge, p. 406. 36 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED consisting of all the colors of the rainbow, and invis- ible rays beyond the violet, all arranged in definite order according to their rates of vibration. As in music the different notes depend on different rates of vibration of air, so the different colors are due to the different rates of the vibrations of ether. We know from experience that many notes may be sounded at once and all be audible to the ear. The air as a medium responds readily at the same time to many different rates of vibration, so that the ear can distinguish them as separate notes. So ether responds to the many rates of vibration which are necessary to produce the heat and light and actinic rays that reach us from the sun. We some- times speak of the seven colors of the rainbow, but this is simply a convenience, for the number is indef- initely great. They shade so gradually one into another in the rainbow that it is impossible for the eye to draw definite lines between them. This vast number of colors, together with the multitude of rates of vibrations that represent the different de- grees of heat and of actinic rays, show that the motions of the ether, as represented in the rays of the sun, are inconceivably complex. And when in addition to this we remember the fact that hundreds of thousands of stars have been seen, and that in order to see them the ether must respond at one and the same time to separate vibrations from all of these bodies scattered through infinite space, the methods of vibration become infinitely complex. Instead of waves like those of sound, varying from half an inch to 70 feet in length, we find from forty thousand to sixty thousand waves in the length of one inch. How infinitely delicate must be the organ of sight that it may appreciate such extremely small disturbances of a medium so subtle and attenuated FORCE 37 that all the science and ingenuity of man have failed to reveal its existence as matter ! And yet scientists feel sure that ether reaches from the earth to the most distant star from which light has ever reached us. Marvelous indeed is the fact that there are visi- ble stars so distant from us that it requires thousands of years for their light, traveling at the rate of 186,000 miles per second, to reach the earth ! And yet the waves of light are flashed across infinite space, and travel on and on for ages without being lost, through an ether that is being perpetually agitated in every conceivable direction and manner by the ceaseless vibrations of countless worlds. We look upon the telegraph and telephone as being wonderful means of communication — which they truly are — but light and heat flow with ceaseless activity from world to world with no visible means of transit through infinite space. The existence of life on the earth is rendered possible by the fact that the sun's light and heat are poured through ninety-two millions of miles of space that must be, so far as ordinary matter is concerned, an almost absolute vacuum. It may be asked, why assume the existence of a uni- versal medium? In answer to this it may be said that, from the transmission of sound through air and other media, and the transmission of heat and electricity through conductors, it might seem that a medium is necessary in order to convey energy through space. And yet it may be said that the qualities which are assigned to ether are so different from those of ordi- nary matter that analogy fails. But still the human mind is left helpless in the presence of the question as to how energy can pass through an absolute vacuum. It therefore assumes the existence of a medium. In addition to this, the various facts connected with 38 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED light, — refraction, diffraction, polarization, colors shown by films, — can only be fully explained by the undulatory theory which necessarily involves a medi- um. Besides, this theory easily explains the differ- ent colors of light, the differences in the qualities of heat, and the ultra violet invisible rays. In order to explain the polarization of light, it is necessary to assume that the ether vibrates trans- versely to the line of radiation, instead of longitudi- nally, as in the case of sound. What, then, must be the properties of a medium which can transmit radiant energy at the rate of 186,000 miles per second by means of transverse vibrations? Among the various authors who have expressed their views as to the nature of ether, no one stands higher than Lord Kelvin. He expresses his views in the following language: " What we know of the luminiferous ether is that it has the rigidity of a solid and gradually yields. Whether or not it is brittle and cracks, we cannot yet tell, but I believe the discoveries in electricity and the motions of comets and the marvelous spurts of light from them, tend to show cracks in the luminiferous ether — show a correspondence be- tween the electric flash and the aurora borealis and cracks in the luminiferous ether. Do not take this as an assertion, it is hardly more than a vague scien- tific dream; but you may regard the existence of the luminiferous ether as a reality of science; that is, we have an all-pervading medium, an elastic solid, with a great degree of rigidity — a rigidity so prodig- ious in proportion to its density that the vibrations of light in it have the frequencies I have mentioned, with the wave-lengths 1 have mentioned. The fun- damental question as to whether or not luminifer- FORCE 39 ous ether has gravity has not been answered. We have no knowledge that the luminiferous ether is attracted by gravity; it is sometimes called impon- derable because some people vainly -imagine that it has no weight. I call it matter with the same kind of rigidity that this elastic jelly has."* "The luminiferous ether is an elastic solid for which the nearest analogy I can give you is this jelly which you see."t "Now what is the luminiferous ether? It is mat- ter prodigiously less dense than air — millions and millions and millions of times less dense than air. We can form some sort of idea of its limitations. We believe it is a real thing, with great rigidity in comparison with its density; it may be made to vibrate 400 million, million times per second; and yet be of such density as not to produce the slightest resistance to any body going through it." J He has also assigned to it a density which makes one cubic centimeter weigh .000,000,000,000,000,- 000,936 grain. "This density, although about the same as that of the atmosphere at the height of 340 kilometers, is yet enormously great as compared with that which air would assume in interstellar space. ' The rigidity of the ether, according to the same authority, is approximately one thousand-mill- ionth of that of steel ; so that masses of ordinary mat- ter can pass through it readily. "§ Lodge speaks of it as "a perfectly continuous, sub- tle, incompressible substance pervading all space and penetrating between the molecules of all ordinary matter which are imbedded in it and connected with one another by its means. And we must regard it as the one universal medium by which all actions be- * Popular Lectures and Addresses, by Sir W. Thomson, pp, 328, 329. t Ibid, p. 327. X Ibid, 347. § Barker's Physics, p. 366. 40 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED tween bodies are carried on. This, then, is its func- tion — to act as the transmitter of motion and energy."* "As far as we know, it appears to be a perfectlj homogeneous, incompressible, continuous body, in- capable of being resolved into simpler elements 01 atoms; it is, in fact, continuous, not molecular. ' ' Gravitation is explainable by differences of pres- sure in the medium, caused by some action between it and matter not yet understood. Cohesion is explain- able also, probably in the same way. " Light consists of undulations or waves in the medium ; while electricity is turning out, quite possi- bly, to be an aspect of a part of the very medium itself."! " One continuous substance filling all space; which can vibrate as light; which can be sheared into posi- tive and negative electricity; which in whirls consti- tutes matter, and which transmits by continuity, and not by impact, every action and reaction of which matter is capable. This is the modern view of the Ether and its functions. "J " The vibrations of light are not such as can be transmitted by a set of disconnected molecules; if by molecules at all, it must be by molecules connected into a solid; i. e., by a body with rigidity. Eigiditj means active resistance to shearing stress, i. e., to alteration in shape ; it is also called elasticity of figure ; it is by the possession of rigidity that a solid differs from a fluid. For a body to transmit vibrations at all, it must possess inertia ; transverse vibrations can only be transmitted by a body with rigidity. All matter possesses inertia, but fluids only possess volume elasticity, and accordingly can only transmit longitudinal vibrations. Light consists of transverse * Modern Views of Electricity, by Oliver J. Lodge, p. 339. + Ibid, 338. % Ibid, p. 358. FORCE 41 vibrations ; air and water have no rigidity, yet they are transparent, i. e., transmit transverse vibrations; hence it must be the ether inside them which really conveys the motion, and the ether must have proper- ties which, if it were ordinary matter, we would style inertia or rigidity. No highly rarefied air will serve the purpose; the ether must be a distinct body. Air may exist, indeed, in planetary space, even to infinity, but if so, it is of almost infinitesimal density com- pared with the ether there."* "So at a height of only 4,000 miles above the sur- face, the atmospheric density is a number with 127 ciphers after the decimal point before the significant figures begin." The density of ether, as calculated by Sir William Thomson, is represented by a decimal " with only 17 ciphers before the significant figures. In interplanetary space, therefore, all the air that exists is utterly negligible; the density of the ether there, though small, is enormous by comparison." It is known that ordinary forms of matter are not necessary for the transmission of light, for it passes readily through the most perfect vacuum. It also passes through the diamond — the hardest known solid, but with less velocity than through the vacuum. If ether serves as a medium for light in a vacuum, it is probable that it also serves as a medium in the diamond. There is nothing to justify the con- clusion that the molecules of a transparent solid serve as a medium for radiant energy. The high rate of speed at which light traverses such bodies excludes the belief that solids act as conductors of light as they do of heat. The following are some of the conclusions with regard to ether : * Modern Views of Electricity, by Oliver J. .Lodge, p. 340. 42 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED It occupies all space except that occupied by atoms of matter. It must be capable of transmitting light at the rate of about 186,000 miles per second. It must offer almost no resistance to the motions of the heavenly bodies, for we know that the earth has been moving through it for millions of years without having its motion destroyed — it is now mov- ing at the rate of about 19 miles per second. It must be non-condensible by gravity, for if it could be thus condensed, as can our atmosphere and all other gases, it would be too rare in interstellar space to transmit radiant energy by transverse vibra- tions. This makes it necessary to assume that it is a continuous substance, i. e., that there are no vacant spaces between the atoms of ether, unless it should be assumed that it is a substance which is free from gravity. With freedom from the effects of gravity we might imagine ether to be uniformly distributed through all space, and composed of molecules that are not in contact, i. e., that ether is porous. However this may be, ether must possess great rigidity compared with its density in order that it may transmit transverse vibrations. It must be capable of receiving and transmitting the vibrations of the atoms and molecules of ordin- ary matter. The different kinds of heat and light represent different rates of vibration of atoms and molecules. Radiant energy displays the activity of atoms and molecules, — in dealing with it we have to do with the properties of elements. The spectroscope reveals the fact that in studying light we gain a knowledge of the qualities of the atoms of matter. Light might be called the music of vibrating atoms. White light is the perfect har- mony of all the vibrations of light. FORCE 43 Ethei' must not only receive vibrations from atoms, but it must impart them to other matter. The earth is dependent on the mechanical work done by the radiant energy of the sun. The fact that it requires force to move ether and that ether in motion can impart motion to matter, indicates that ether possesses inertia. It is evident that if ether is composed of atoms they must be vastly smaller than the atoms of ordin- ary kinds of matter, since it permeates the hardest solids. Thus we have in ether a hypothetical substance which has never been detected as matter, — which, in fact, must be extremely different in its properties from any known form of matter. All modern physicists have assumed the existence of ether as a necessary medium for the transmission of radiant energy, and also of other forms of energy. Science is driven to assume the existence of a uni- versal medium, and, without the aid of analogy, in order to perfect her theories. She regards the exist- ence of ether as certain — as a matter no longer to be called in question. And so we may rest in the conclusion that nearly all space is filled with an infinitely subtle substance which possesses marvelous properties, which are, for the most part, extremely different from those of ordinary matter. If ether is a continuous substance, then no part of space is an absolute vacuum — the atoms of matter and of ether completely fill all space. With space thus filled we are relieved of the neces- sity of assuming that force is transmitted through a vacuum. With ether as a universal medium can we explain the action of the various forces? Can gravity, mag- 44 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED netism, electricity and chemical affinity be thus ex- plained? Do motions of ether account for the action of each of these forces? "When we speak of ether as a medium for the trans- mission of force, we exclude the idea that ether itself is energy. Force is, by definition, that which can put matter in motion, and in defining matter we would be obliged to include ether. The existence of ether gives us no conception of force itself, but it simply serves to explain the transmission of certain- forms of energy. As to gravity, we can yet form no adequate concep- tion. What sort of motions and distributions of an almost infinitely thin, non-resistant material like ether, will explain gravitation? The mind can form no adequate conception as to how the motion of ether will account for this force. It would seem that ether, which offers no perceptible resistance to the motions of the planets, is entirely inadequate as a medium to explain the action of gravity. That one body may put another in motion implies inertia and resistance in both. We know that a body falling towards the earth soon acquires a great velocity. What adequate reason have we for believing that moving ether is pushing the falling body? or that the pressure of ether is greater on one side of the falling body than on the other? It is true that Newton and others have felt it neces- sary to assume the existence of ether in order to explain gravity, and yet, with ether as a medium, the human mind has made no progress in formulating an adequate theory of gravity. If we consider chemical affinity which binds atom to atom to form molecules, the method of action is as uncertain as that of gravity. Indeed, Sir W. Thomson seeks to explain capillary attraction by the FORCE 45 law of gravitation. He says, " Until we see how gravity itself is to be explained as Newton and Fara- day thought it must be explained, by some continuous action of intervening or surrounding matter, may we not be temporarily satisfied to explain capillary at- traction merely as Newtonian attraction intensified in virtue of intensely dense molecules movable among one another, of which the aggregate constitutes a mass of liquid or solid."* Again he says, " Hence, unless we find heterogen- eousness and the Newtonian law of attraction incapa- ble of explaining cohesion and capillary attraction, we are not forced to seek the explanation in a devia- tion from Newton's law of gravitational force. "t May we regard the attractions of molecules and atoms as due to the force of gravity acting at insensi- ble distances? When a mixture of one volume of oxygen with two volumes of hydrogen explodes to form water, is it due to the fall of these atoms against each other, produced by gravitation? If we answer in the affirmative, the answer is simply an unknown quantity. If we seek to explain how ether acts as a medium in chemical affinity, we fail to do so. It may be that electric currents are ether in motion through certain media, and that magnetism is due to ether moving in vortices. Magnetism acts readily through a vacuum and through solids, liquids, and gases. Neither the total absence of matter nor the presence of the densest solids interferes with its action. It may be that the motions of ether will explain the facts of magnetism. In fact, we are compelled to choose between ether and an absolute vacuum in explaining the action of all attractive forces. Shall we accept the theory that a * Popular Lectures and Addresses, pp. 9, 10. t Ibid, p. 4. 46 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED substance can exist all around and in us which we cannot detect with any of our senses, or shall we believe that energy can pass through a vacuum? We know that matter may exist in such conditions that ife does not appeal to our senses. When the atmosphere in which we live is perfectly quiet it excites no one of our senses, and we are unconscious of its existence. If this is true of matter so dense as our air, it can easily be imagined that a substance might exist so attenuated as to escape our senses. We cannot weigh ether, because we cannot exhaust it from a vessel, owing to the fact that it passes readily through the densest solids ; nor can we, for the same reason, con- dense it. It may be said, however, that ether in motion as light, heat and electricity, appeals to the senses. We must, in fact, believe in the existence of ether unless we choose to fall back upon the corpuscular theory of radiant energy — a theory which totally fails to explain many of the phenomena of light. We conclude, therefore, that all space in the uni- verse is filled with matter and ether, every atom of which is in constant agitation ; that each can receive motion from, and impart motion to, the other, and that by means of ether as a medium, the radiant energy of the universe may be distributed through space with the velocity of light. According to this view all physical energy is held by matter and ether. Matter is continually imparting its radiant energy to ether. Must not the time finally come when all the energy of matter which can be radiated will be imparted to ether and dissipated through infinite space? The quantity of matter in the universe is finite, and consequently the quantity of energy in this matter is finite. It cannot, therefore, require infinite time in which to part with its radiant energy. Owing FORCE 47 to the radiation of energy it would seem that sun and stars and all material things must finally become dark and cold. Even if we claim that the concussion of falling bodies generates the light and heat of the universe, yet it is evident that with infinite time a finite number of finite quantities of matter must do their work and part with their energy. Looking backward we might ask, If sun and stars have existed through an infinite past, how is it possible for them to be in their present highly heated condition? We know that they are material bodies, and that, like other bodies of matter, they must part with their heat and light. It is evident, therefore, that they cannot have had their present high temperatures through an infinite past. The present high tempera- ture of the sun has, according to any physical theory, been maintained but a few millions of years at most. The vast sums of energy in matter have in some way been stored up there within finite time, and the finite future will serve to dissipate this energy through infinite space. It may be claimed that past time is infinite, that matter has existed during the infinite past, and that, consequently, the fact that much of it is so highly heated is evidence that worlds may be kept glowing with light and heat through an infinite future. In answer to this we may say that we know of no phys- ical means by which a finite quantity of matter, sur- rounded by an infinite quantity of ether, could be kept hot through infinite time — and this for the rea- son that the light and heat of this matter would be Tadiated into infinite space, with no known method by which they could again be concentrated in matter. The present concentration of energy in matter, as we see it in the sun and stars, has taken place within 48 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED the finite past, for the evident reason that they cannot have radiated light and heat through infinite time and still be highly heated. The present energy of the heavenly bodies has been stored in them within a finite past, and must be dissipated within a finite future. The present condition of the universe is temporal. There must, therefore, be a power unseen and eternal, unconditioned, that has established the visible universe in its present condition. The uni- verse as it now is cannot be explained according to known physical laws. We must assume something more than matter and ether in motion — we must at least predicate a cause of motion. IV. METHOD OF CREATION. There exist on the earth at present from a million to a million and a half species of animals and vege- tables,* and it is commonly believed that the number of extinct forms is many times greater than the liv- ing. These organic beings ai'e divided into kingdoms, sub-kingdoms, classes, orders, genera, species and varieties. It is taught by evolution, that beginning with proto- plasm, derived by spontaneous generation from in- organic matter, the process of evolution, acting through secondary agencies alone, has, from this primordial protoplasm by ordinary generation and by processes strictly natural, but in no case supernatural, derived the countless multitude of animal and vege- table species that have appeared upon the earth. The primordial protoplasm was the parent from which all organic beings have descended. Spontaneous generation being strictly a natural process, a process so rare, according to some authors, that we need not expect it to be repeated, the exist- ence of all organic species, including man, was sus- pended on the production of life by strictly natural processes which are still in operation, but which are persistently refusing to produce a similar result. If there is an intelligent Creator, it would seem that he carried rashness to the verge of destruction when * The Interpretation of Nature, by N. S. Shaler, p 149. 4 49 50 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED he suspended the possible existence of life upon seo ondary agencies which have acted for at least a hun- dred million years* upon the earth, but which in all that time have been able to produce and propagate the primordial protoplasm only once. It was indeed fortunate that the one and only possible card of for- tune in the lottery of infinite impossibilities was drawn so early in the geological history of the earth, so that there would be an abundance of time while the sun retained its light and heat to evolve the count- less species of living beings, the highest of which culminated in man. It is a significant fact in the existence of living beings that they appeared so early in the history of the earth. From the dead, unconscious matter that we tread beneath our feet, we may, according to the theory of evolution, ascend by secondary agencies alone, by vir- tue of "the laws impressed on matter by the Cre- ator," as Darwin has expressed it, through spontan- eous generation, on and on, through an infinite num- ber of organic forms till we reach the mind of man, which is the pinnacle of evolution. I need not say that Darwin in " The Origin of Species," has given to the world most of the facts' and arguments that have been urged for and against the theory of organic evolution. Perhaps no other scientific book has ever done so much in so short a time to turn human thought aside into a new channel. Before proceeding to consider the facts which bear upon the theory of the evolution of organic forms, I will present the possible Theistic theories according to which new organic forms may have been brought into existence. First, the Creator may have created each species by * The Interpretation of Nature, by N. S. Shaler, p, 122. METHOD OF CREATION 51 means of secondary agencies alone, by the process of evolution. Second, he may have created each species from in- organic matter by means of a special fiat. Third, he may have created certain types of living beings from inorganic matter by special fiats, and from these types he may .have evolved, by secondary agencies, all other forms. The existence of secondary causes implies a pri- mary cause. The unity in nature shows that the primary cause is one and not many. The method of creation is nothing except as it bears on our interpretation of the nature of the creative power. Theism stands in no danger from creation by secondary causes, for they are consistent with the existence of an intelligent Creator. Evolu- tion may be atheistic, but it is not necessarily so. Either of the above methods of creation may be Theistic. Evolution, if true, is only the immediate explana- tion, but the vital question is, What is the nature of the final Cause as indicated by the secondary causes? Evolution, in the belief of the Theistic evolution- ist, is due to secondary agencies working according to established law through all ages, under the guidance of the Divine Mind. The action of natural causes has been continuous, and it is believed by evolution- ists generally that they are sufficient to account for the present condition of things in the universe. On the other hand, it is evident that a failure in the sufficiency of secondary causes to produce a known result, renders it necessary that the Primary Cause should come to their aid. Each new form that is created involves to a certain extent a change in the method of creation. It may not demand new agencies, but it requires at least a 52 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED change in the method by which the agencies work. When we speak of secondary causes, we imply the existence of a Primary Cause from which they have sprung. If matter and the forces of nature are sec- ondary causes, then their existence is due to the Primary Cause, and tbeir creation required special acts of that cause. Darwin speaks of "the laws im- pressed on matter by the Creator." The impression of these laws on matter must have required special fiats of the Creator. Spencer attributes all known phenomena to the Unknown and Unknowable Power, It seems to me that at least several fiats were neces- sary in creation, namely, the creation of matter, the creation of the forces of nature, the creation of the first living being, the creation of the senses, the crea- tion of instincts, and the creation of the mind oi man. These are exceptional kinds of work, which demanded, I think, the exercise of exceptional kinds of power, or they demanded exceptional methods oi the action of secondary agencies, which could be brought about only by the acts of the Primary Cause. It is conceivable that the Creator's method may be similar to that of man in dealing with nature. Man accomplishes an endless number of purposes by mak- ing use of existing matter and forces. A special act of the Creator does not involve the abandonment of the use of secondary agencies, but it may be a special use of these agencies, so that thej> accomplish work which they would not otherwise per- form. The mind of man is a controlling agency ic the affairs of the earth. Mind perpetually interferes with the workings of nature, directing her forces intc new channels, and thus producing results which are as wonderful as miracles. It is the prerogative oi mind to rule over all else — to subdue, combine, direct and fulfill the endless purposes of intelligence. METHOD OF CREATION 53 The Creator has made the universe. Its laws are his laws. Its present condition is due to him. We may say that he created nature and left it to its own workings, or, on the other hand, that the workings of nature are due to his immediate presence and the per- petual exercise of his power. That the Creator would make the universe and then separate himself from it, as if he had no interest in it, seems to my mind wholly improbable. "In him we live and move and have our being," expresses, I be- lieve, a scientific truth. He is a universal presence and power in and through nature at all times. All power is his power, and all the workings of nature are due to him. " For of him, and through him, and unto him are all things." "For your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." " Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father; but the very hairs of your head are all numbered." "The glory of the Lord shall endure forever: the Lord shall rejoice in his works. He looketh on the earth and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills and they smoke." " The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice." "His lightnings enlightened the world: the earth saw, and trembled. The hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth." The Bible represents the Creator as a present, liv- ing, intelligent God, who is interested in his works, and who is ever working in and through nature. The forces of nature are the power of God, and the results produced by these forces are due to his will. We are not to look on the Universe as a complex 54 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED machine which the Creator has made and set to work, and from which he has withdrawn himself and which he views as a spectator, but we are to regard its oper- ations as being due to his omnipresence and to the perpetual exercise of his power, and believe that all things are done with absolute wisdom. Whatever may be our theory as to the nature of the first Cause, we must believe that the Universe, as it exists, is the best possible. If the Creator is destitute of intelligence, then it is evident that the Universe, as it is, was the only thing possible. If, on the other hand, the Creator is a God of intelligence, wisdom, mercy and love, it is evident that in creating the Universe he manifested to the fullest possible extent the nature of his attributes. We have no reason to believe that nature might have been better, that it is imperfect, and that things are out of joint. It is impossible, from our limited view of things, that we should be able to show a lack of wisdom in the works of the Creator of an infinite Universe. Our capacities, and time, and opportunities for knowing are all extremely limited, and these things would suggest that we are not prepared to pronounce adverse judgments against the attributes of an infinite Intelligence working through eternity. The fact that the work of creation has advanced from inorganic matter to the mind of man, would of itself, in a general way, seem to indicate the wisdom and beneficence of the Creator. The vital question at issue with regard to the crea- tion of living beings is as to the nature of the Cre- ator. At bottom the question as to the method of creation is only a dispute between Theism and Atheism. If the existence of all things can be explained in terms of matter and force, then Atheism METHOD OF CREATION 55 triumphs. If the existence of a Supreme Spirit must be assumed in order to account for the present condi- tion of things, then Theism is established. Whether the Creator created living beings suddenly or slowly, whether he made them directly from inor- ganic matter or created some from others by the process of evolution, whether he created by fiat or by the use of secondary agencies, is of importance only as it helps us to understand the nature of the Creator himself. It is certain that the bodies of all animals and plants consist of a few simple kinds of ordinary mat- ter. It is certain that the plant gets its food from soil, water and air, and that its tissues are converted into the tissues of animals. The plant is not the less noble that its cells are made of inorganic matter, nor the animal the less elevated because its body is con- structed of the materials furnished by plants, nor is man less spiritual because he subsists on animals and plants and minerals. If the plant can grow into an animal, if the worm can be developed into a fish, the fish into a reptile, the reptile into a mammal, and the mammal into a man, then the fact of such origins does not degrade the higher forms into the lower, but it shows the greatness of the Power that has created them. But we would be blind, if, having concluded that the above was the method of creation, we should also affirm that soil, plant, worm, fish, reptile, mammal and man are essentially alike. The attempt to prove this is a mistake which has been made by some evolutionists. It is this effort especially that the Theist resists, for he regards it as Atheism. He denies that man is only matter and force. He denies that all the members of the series, although constructed of the same material 56 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED elements, are essentially alike. He denies that man can be explained in terms of the mammal, and so on back till all are explained in terms of a common soil and sunshine. He believes that as we ascend the scale, whether by evolution or otherwise, something more than dyna- mics must be appealed to in order to account for the marvelous progress. If we knew that man was made directly from inor- ganic matter, then there could be no question as to the existence of an intelligent Creator. The miracle is evidence of supernatural power. A miracle producing a small change is as strong proof as one producing a great change, but in the former case there is more room to question the fact as to its being a miracle. For example, the creation of a single living cell — an amoeba — directly from in- organic matter might possibly be regarded as a case of spontaneous generation, while the creation of a man in a similar way would be an undoubted miracle. On account of the doubts thus arising as to the cause of small changes, which constitute the method of evolution, the Theist is slow to accept this as a sub- stitute for the older belief. My own conviction is that, whatever the method, it is Divine. Equal results require equal causes, whether produced sud- denly or prolonged through the ages. V. SPONTANEOUS GENEKATION. That living beings have had a beginning on the earth all scientists admit. As to when they began it would be useless to inquire, but it was, without doubt, at a time vastly remote. The authentic geological record of plants and animals extends backward, perhaps, fifty million years, and it cannot be claimed that the oldest known fossils represent the first organisms that were created. We do not know from the geological record "whether the plant and the animal appeared simultan- eously, or whether the plant preceded the animal. It is believed by some geologists that the oldest known fossil is the Eozoon canadense, and that this is the skeleton of a very low, but not of the lowest, form of animal life. The weight of opinion of the latest authorities is, I think, that Eozoon is not a fossil. If it represents an animal it is evident that plants must have existed, as food, at the same time, for it is well known that no animal can live exclusive- ly on inorganic food. The presence of graphite in the rocks in which Eozoon is found can be explained by supposing that it was obtained from organic matter. I make these remarks to show that we cannot look to the geological record to reveal the beginning of life. The only known method of producing a plant or animal is by means of one or more parent organisms. 57 58 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED As long as there is no necessary break in this method it must be exclusively accepted. But the break in the chain of ordinary method when we come to the first living organism is abrupt — it is a great gulf reaching from the dead to the liv- ing. There is no greater chasm in nature than that between dead matter and a living being, unless it is that between mind on the one hand and matter and force on the other. It is a gulf which science cannot bridge. We have not even the aid of analogy when we try to explain the origin of the first living being. The parents, accord- ing to the theory of abiogenesis, are inorganic matter and the forces of nature, and these are not analogous to a living parent. Some evolutionists speak lightly of the " special- act " theory of creation. The beginning of life on the earth involved a special act of some kind. Whether the Creator worked directly or indirectly, the act of creation was no less special. If the first living being was brought into existence by the Crea- tor through the exercise of secondary agencies, it re- quired a special directing of these agencies to produce the result, and this is all that the Theist needs to mean by the word miracle. We are driven to assume a special act of the Creator by the break in the method of producing new organic beings by ordinary generation, and by the failure of the theory of spon- taneous generation. I will now proceed to briefly examine this theory. Let us get clearly before us the nature of the prob- lem to be solved. Every living being, whether plant or animal, must have as constituent parts of its body at least four elements, namely, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. These four elements, either free or in combination, or both, exist abundantly in SPONTANEOUS GENERATION 59 all parts of the earth. The forms of plant food which the plant commonly uses, are carbon dioxide, represented by the formula C O2 ; water, the formula of which is H2 O, and ammonia, with the formula- N H3, and a nitrate, with the formula K N O3. The plant obtains its carbon from carbon dioxide, which it takes from the air; its hydrogen and oxygen mostly from water, which it obtains from the soil, and its nitrogen from some compound of ammonia or some nitrate, both of which it gets in solution in water from the soil. It will be noticed that the formulas of these plant foods are simple; that is, the molecule of each kind has but few atoms, as shown by the formula. The plant alone, and not the animal, has the power to take these comparatively simple inorganic compounds and, by the aid of heat, light and the other usual physical conditions, convert them into the exceedingly com- plex tissues that compose its body. The most essen- tial of these tissues, the one that is necessarily pres- ent in every organic being, is protoplasm. This is the substance in which life manifests itself especially. It is composed of the four elements named above, and it is exceedingly complex in its structure, each mole- cule of protoplasm containing hundreds of atoms. One of the formulas given for protoplasm is C72 Hm NisSOk. In order to prove that spontaneous generation has taken place, it would be necessary to show that a living being, composed of the exceedingly complex substance, protoplasm, capable of propagating its kind by the ordinary method of generation, can be produced from the above four elements and their compounds, by the action of the forces of nature. It will be noticed that this is not simply a question of chemical composition, but also of life and of ability 60 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED to propagate its kind. Dead protoplasm may have the same chemical composition that living protoplasm has, and even living protoplasm may be wholly unable to produce other protoplasm. Did nature in her laboratory, through the second- ary agencies of matter and force alone, create the first living organism, with the wonderful power of propagating its kind? If she has done this we are absolutely ignorant of the fact. There is no case of analogy from which we can conclude that she thus creates living beings from dead matter. Besides this, the facts, so far as known, point in the other direction. It should be remembered that spontaneous generation is a neces- sary part of the theory of evolution as held by most evolutionists. If natural forces acting on matter in the usual way ever created living beings, I know of no reason why this process should not have continued through all time since the first living being appeared. It is not commonly claimed that spontaneous generation is taking place at present. A few years ago the scien- tific world was much agitated over the subject. Dr. Bastion thought that, beyond doubt, he had shown that spontaneous generation takes place from organic infusions. Then followed Tyndall with almost a thousand experiments, in which he proved to the satisfaction of the scientific world that spontaneous generation does not take place from organic in- fusions; that, so far as experiments show anything, it is that a living organism must have had a parent organism. It will be noticed that in these experiments he and others used water which already contained organic matter. The protoplasm necessary to form the body of the new living organism was ready made and at SPONTANEOUS GENERATION 61 hand. If living beings could not come into existence from this highly oi'ganized matter, which can serve as animal food and of which their bodies are made, what hope can there be that they can originate from very simple forms of inorganic matter? If spontaneous generation has taken place, it is still a legitimate problem for the laboratory to solve. If it has taken place in nature, then I can see no reason why it may not be repeated time after time. It is admitted by some scientists that it is not now taking place, and it is assumed by them that it is an occurrence so extraordinary that we ought not to ex- pect it to be repeated. But why extraordinary? Spontaneous generation, as believed in by most evolu- tionists, is simply a matter of chemistry, and certain- ly no chemical action can be regarded as being so extraordinary that it may not be repeated. We have good reason to believe that life began millions of years ago under physical conditions that substantially exist in many parts of the world to-day, and that have existed from the first dawn of life. The earth is one vast laboratory in which every moment are taking place countless millions of experi- ments. The materials for the construction of organic beings are everywhere present, and the same forces are ceaselessly doing their work, as they have been from the first. To conclude that under the numerous and widespread conditions favorable to the existence of life, which have so long existed and which still exist in the earth, spontaneous generation, a chemical problem, could have been produced but once, or only a few times, is beyond belief. In view of the presence of such conditions, extend- ing through the many millions of years since life began, nature ought to have successfully repeated the experiment resulting in spontaneous generation a 62 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED great many times. And yet all the known evidence is against the belief that nature can create a living organism from dead matter. If, therefore, we cannot look to spontaneous gen- eration, which represents only secondary causes, we must look beyond to the First Cause as the Creator of life. I am aware that there are those who question the legitimacy of this conclusion. There are those who claim that matter and the forces of nature are the only cause, and they, of course, must believe that spontaneous generation has taken place. The functions performed by the living organism, however simple it may be, are so different from any thing in the inorganic world that a priori we would not expect the former to spring from the latter by spontaneous generation. The functions of the organ- ism, including the prehension, digestion, circulation, and assimilation of food, the reproduction of other organisms like itself, and then decay and death, followed by the return of the body to comparatively simple inorganic forms of matter, constitute a cycle of changes for which we find no analogy in the inor- ganic world. It is true that the chemist has manufactured cer- tain organic compounds from their inorganic ele- ments, but in no case has he been able to produce from inorganic matter an organic compound that is a,n essential part of the tissues of a living being, and, least of all, has he been able to manufacture pro- toplasm, which is the absolutely essential substance in every living thing. And even if he could build up protoplasm by starting with the elements, a thing which is beyond all hope, still the manufactured protoplasm would be destitute of life, and the ques- tion as to the origin of life would remain unanswered. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION 63 Dead protoplasm can neither grow nor propagate. Every living organism has an individuality and struc- ture, and it performs functions which are beyond the power of the chemist to produce. Nor is there any physical science which can throw light upon this subject. Chemistry, Anatomy, Phys- iology, Biology and all the microscopes serve only mechanical purposes — they cannot reveal the origin of life. We will wait in vain for science to speak with authority in this matter. The known facts of science are, I believe, opposed to the theory of spon- taneous generation. It is evident that with this state of facts there can be no conflict between science and religion with re- gard to the origin of life. Science admits that she knows nothing on the subject, but at the same time many evolutionists deem it necessary to defend the theory of abiogenesis as being necessary to complete that of evolution. Mr. Darwin says, " There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been original- ly breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one." The creation of the first living being was an ex- ceptional kind of work which required the exercise of an exceptional kind of power. If, as Mr. Darwin says, life was breathed by the Creator into the first forms, this constitutes a break in the sufficiency of natural causes alone to produce life. If a special fiat was necessary at this point, why may it not have been at others? The insufficiency of natural causes makes it neces- sary to assume the exercise of some power that can control nature, and thus produce results that would not otherwise have been produced. The creation of a 64 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED living being from inorganic matter by the Creator was, so far as I can see, no more an interference with the processes of nature than is my voluntary act in writing these words. In each case the result is due to a power that does not exist in the inanimate world. VI. NATURAL SELECTION. The theory of " Natural Selection " has been most elaborately argued pro and con, by Mr. Darwin, in " The Origin of Species," and on this theory he, for the most part, relies to explain the evolution of organic forms. The general facts concerning it are the following: The earth can produce but a limited supply of food for living beings. Every species of plants and of animals multiplies its kind in a geometrical ratio, so that if all the young of any species of organism could live to the average age of those of its kind that arrive at the age of maturity, the earth would in a few gen- erations be filled by the individuals of that species. As a matter of fact this is not the case, for the earth is occupied by hundreds of thousands of organic forms. The whole possible number of organisms that can live on the earth at one time, is limited by the pos- sible quantity of food at their disposal. Taking the birth-rate of organisms and the quantity of food at their disposal, it is evident that most of them must perish before arriving at the age of maturity, for lack of food, if for no other reason. In many cases the number of animals living is much less than the food will support, there being frequent- ly a superabundance of food that goes to waste. It is, therefore, evident that nature has some means 5 65 66 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED of destroying most organic beings that are produced before they arrive at the age of maturity. The supply of food being insufficient to support all of the organic beings that are produced, a struggle to obtain that food is perpetually going on, in which the great majority, being necessarily unsuccessful, perish. Everywhere in the organic world is perpetual compe- tition, warfare, a " struggle for existence," in which, other things being equal, the weaker perish. A second fact in the theory of natural selection is that the offspring closely resemble the parents. A third fact is that the offspring are never exactly like the parents. The variation from the parent form may be in shape, size, color, and, in fact, in an endless number of respects. It is claimed by Darwin that the variation at any one time is, as a rule, extremely small; so small, in fact, that it would not be noticeable. Again, it is claimed that if any variation is useful to the individual possessing it, if it enables it the bet- ter to compete with its kind and with other organisms for food, or if it gives it an advantage in escaping from its enemies, or an advantage in any other respect over others of its species, then it will survive, while those less favored will perish. It is further claimed that the useful variation will be propagated, so that the offspring of the individual which possesses the favorable variation will stand a better chance of surviving than those that have not favorably varied. In this way, therefore, Nature is continually selecting the forms that are best able to compete with other organisms for existence. To ex- press this process Mr. Darwin has used the expression "Natural Selection," and Herbert Spencer the ex- pression " Survival of the Fittest." It is further claimed by Darwin, and by evolution- NATURAL SELECTION 67 ists generally, that, given a sufficient length of time and slowly varying conditions, such as exist upon the earth, there is no practical limit to the amount of variation of organic forms that may slowly take place, and that natural selection is, for the most part, suffi- cient to account for the preservation of favorable variations, thus accumulating .them in certain direc- tions. It is not, however, commonly held that natural selection alone will account for the evolution of all organic forms. Darwin says that "Natural selection acts solely through the preservation of variations in some way advantageous, which consequently endure." Again he says, " It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and in- organic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in process, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long-past geological ages, that we see only that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were." Again he says, " I believe that animals are de- scended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. " Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide." In these quotations are clearly set forth the general claims of the theory of natural selection. It is true that in the organic world there exist the 68 OBGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED two tendencies above named, the tendency of the off- spring to closely resemble the parent, and the tend- ency to vary somewhat from the parent. The essence of the theory of orgauic evolution is involved in the relative strength of these tendencies. They may be compared to the centripetal and thecentrif- agul forces. Is there an orbit of variation for each species be- yond which the tendency to variation cannot carry the form? Is the tendency to resemble the parent a centripetal force that can forever hold the amount of variation within a definite orbit? or, on the other hand, does the centrifugal force carry the new forms off in tangents so that there is no return to the ancestral form? It is evident that if the theory of natural selection is true, it is not a complete theory of organic evolu- tion. It accounts only for preserving certain forms instead of others. Darwin says, " Natural selection acts solely through the preservation of variations in some way advantageous, which consequently endure." Again, he says, " I have called this principle by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its rela- tion to man's power of selection." Natural Selection attempts, therefore, to account for the preservation of certain variations, and not foi their production. As to the causes and the amount of variation, no satisfactory theory has been given. Darwin, after assigning various reasons why he thinks variations may take place, says, " Our ignorance ol the laws of variation is profound. Not in one case out of a hundred can we pretend to assign any reasoc why this or that part has varied." And so it happens that we are left in almost total darkness as to the cause of the most important factor in organic evolu- NATURAL SELECTION 69 tion. A complete theory of evolution by secondary agencies alone demands an explanation of the causes of variation. It may be that the causes of variation are purely secondary, or it may be that variations are produced by secondary agencies under the direct control of the Creator, or they may be produced by special fiats. It is evident that with these alternatives the evolu- tionist has no right to urge the theory of secondary causes alone, and this is especially true if, by second- ary causes, is meant causes that may work independ- ently of the direct control of the Creator, for the use of the expression, secondary causes, implies the ex- istence of a Primary Cause, and known facts do not justify us in assuming that any part of the Universe can run itself if severed from the Primary Cause. That every event must have an efficient cause there can be no doubt, but there may be grave doubts as to whether a cause is to be regarded as secondary or primary. The following closing paragraph of " The Origin of Species " contains a general summary of Darwin's theory. " It is interesting to comtemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flit- ting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately con- structed forms, so different from each, and depend- ent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Eeproduction; Inheritance, which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse ; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a struggle for life, and as a consequence to Natural 70 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus from the war of Nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one; and that, while this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, end- less forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, have been, and are being, evolved." From this passage it is seen that Darwin did not accept the theory of spontaneous generation. He speaks of " life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one." This first form was the egg from which all subsequent organic beings have been hatched by incubation through the long ages. This primordial protoplasm, which, according to most evolutionists, was produced by spontaneous generation, was, it seems to me, endowed with miraculous power, as shown by its ability to vary without limitation in countless directions, to produce the most complex physical results and all the varied and wonderful phenomena, of life, together with the human mind with all of its marvelous powers. If the Creator could breathe life into " a few forms or into one," as Darwin thinks he did, without vio- lating the law of his own being, and in accordance with the laws which he has established, it seems evident that he might at other times breathe life into other forms in accordance with his laws. I see no necessity for a logic that would compel the Creator to confine the number of his creative fiats to a few, or to one, nor which would limit the fiats to one time. NATURAL SELECTION 71 With most evolutionists the backbone of their theory is the assumption that secondary agencies alone have produced all organic forms. Darwin says, " To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and the death of the individual." The "secondary causes," as I understand him, are "the laws impressed on matter." If this is true, then it would seem that the Creator might have retired after creating matter, or, at most, after creating the first organism, and have let the work go on without his further special care. Again, Darwin says that the facts, so far as he can judge, do not " afford any evidence of the existence of an innate tendency toward perfectibility or pro- gressive development." * Again, he says, " I believe in no law of necessary development." As for myself, I believe that mind was the goal of creation which the Creator had in view. No other theory gives a sufficient explanation of creation. Without mind as the crowning work I would say that creation would have been a failure. Does Mr. Darwin accept the theory that mind was the intended goal of creation? And, if so, would he say that the "secondary causes," "the laws im- pressed on matter by the Creator," had the necessary tendency, beyond the possibility of failure, to evolve man endowed with mind? I think that he does not accept this view. If the theory of evolution is true, the unbroken chain of organic beings reaching from man back to the first living being, extends, I presume, over at least * Origin of Species, p. 102, 5th Ed. 72 ORGANIC M VOLUTION CONSIDERED a hundred million years. If we imagine the primor- dial protoplasm to have been turned over to the man- agement of purely secondary causes, to the " laws impressed on matter," to run the amuck of adverse circumstances during all that time, without the direct supervision of the Creator, it seems to me that there were millions of chances to one that this direct chain would have been broken, and thus have destroyed the possibility of the evolution of man. It was possible, according to the theory, for man to be evolved in one line only, and that line was com- posed of an infinite number of forms in succession, the extinction of any one of which, without leaving progeny, would have prevented the evolution of man. That blind chance, without the intervention of an Intelligent Creator, could have preserved the infinite ancestral line, does not seem probable. This evolution, according to Mr. Darwin, by virtue of "the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," proceeded upward from protoplasm to man, in spite of the fact that there does not seem to be " any evi- dence of the existence of an innate tendency toward perfectibility or progressive development." The evolution of man assumes the preservation in every instance of the most highly developed forms in each of the countless generations that compose the chain of evolution, unless it may be assumed that ultimate forms higher than man might have been evolved from beings that have perished. Natural selection does not, however, necessarily preserve the most highly developed forms. It only preserves those forms that are best adapted to com- pete in the struggle for existence under the given cir- cumstance's. The fact of a more highly organized body, or even of greater intelligence, does not neces- sarily insure preservation. NATURAL SELECTION 73 The forms that have been most successful in the struggle for existence through the long geological ages, snch as the lingula and certain protozoa, are simple in their structure, while the most complex beings, and those in which the brain is most highly developed, such as the highest species of vertebrates, have had but a brief existence. There is nothing in the laws of nature to insure beyond doubt, at all times, the preservation of the higher forms instead of the lower, for the latter may be better adapted to compete for existence under the particular circum- stances. "Survival of the fittest" does not necessarily mean survival of the highest. This is shown to be true by the very recent disappearance of man's im- mediate ancestors, if he was produced by evolution. Between man and the anthropomorphous apes, which are regarded as being substantially like the re- mote ancestors of man, there existed the immediate progenitors of man, all of which have perished ; yet they must have been vastly more intelligent than the apes which have survived. Without dwelling further upon this, I will say that the fact that man was created, either by a fiat or by evolution, can only be explained by assuming the ex- istence of an Intelligent Creator. The theory of evolution would imply a no less wonderful Intelligence than that of fiat, involving as it does long ages and au infinite number of vicissi- tudes and varying circumstances. Mr. Darwin seems to imply an Intelligent Creator when he says: " The birth of the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance."* * Descent of Man, Vol. 2, p. 378. 74 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED The figure of a tree has been a favorite one by which to represent the evolution of organic forms. Beginning with primordial protoplasm as a seed, we follow its growth. The main trunk of the tree, repre- senting the direct line of man's ascent, is made up of the countless forms that have intervened between man and the first organism, the different races of men being represented by an equal number of small twigs at the top. As the primordial form multiplied, it branched by favorable variations, the new forms thus produced constituting branches of the tree of evolution. Long before the authentic geological record began, the tree of life divided into two great divisions, — that of animals and that of plants, and when the authentic record began we find animals, widely different in structure, representing all the sub- kingdoms and most of the classes of invertebrates. And so the tree continued to grow and branch through the ages, the individual twigs representing species and varieties. If this tree were planted in the earth so that the part under the earth would represent extinct forms, and the part above the ground represent living forms, it is evident that most of the tree would be buried, for the reason that the living species are few com- pared to the extinct. It is also evident that the branches and twigs above ground, that represent liv- ing forms, would, for the most part, stand isolated, and that, to find their points of union, we must look beneath the surface among extinct forms. If we knew the entire record of life we could begin with any species and trace it back, without a break, to the primordial form. Having stated the general outline of the theory of natural selection, I will present some of the argu- NATURAL SELECTION 75 ments which have been offered for and against the theory. Darwin gives special attention to the subject of variation under domestication. It is well known that new varieties of plants and animals are produced under domestication, and that they are separated and preserved as distinct varieties by the agency of man. He dwells at length on the many varieties of domes- tic pigeons, and attempts to show that their common ancestor was the rock pigeon. These varieties, he claims, are as different in structure from each other as are all well-marked species. The varieties of pigeons all cross readily with each other, producing fertile offspring, and there is a fre- quent tendency in these crosses to revert to the form of the original stock. This is the clearest case that he presents among the domestic animals of the recent origin of well-marked varieties. He claims that these varieties are incipient species, and that species are only well marked varieties. If we grant that varieties can be produced, where can we set the limits of variability? He concludes that we cannot set a limit, and that, consequently, by the law of natural selection princi- pally, all organic forms have been evolved from a sim- ple form. With regard to the fertility of hybrids he says, "Now it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to bring for- ward one case- of the hybrid offspring of two animals clearly distinct being themselves perfectly fertile." It is well known that as a rule distinct species will not cross, and that if they do cross the offspring are not fertile. On the other hand, it is true that all varieties of a species readily cross, producing fertile offspring. 76 ORGANIC EVOLUTION' CONSIDERED This has commonly been regarded as a well-defined distinction between varieties and species. If the varieties of pigeons which are so different from each other did not freely cross, and if the mon- grel offspring were not fertile, his argument as to the production of new species under domestication would be complete. The fact is, we do not know of the origin of any two species of animals that do not cross and whose off- spring are not fertile; in other words, we do not know of the origin of species, but only of varieties. The origin of species that will not cross and produce fertile offspring is assumed from the origin of varie- ties that do cross and produce fertile offspring. This leaves the evolutionist to account for one of the most difficult things in connection with his theory, namely, how did varieties of animals of the same species become cross-sterile? Let us consider this difficulty. It is claimed by evolutionists that varieties are incipient species ; that closely related existing species were once only varieties of the same species. These closely related species which, it is claimed, have had a common origin, now often live side by side, occupy- ing the same or contiguous territories. It is a well known fact that by crossing varieties the offspring are rendered more vigorous and fertile, while by crossing species the offspring are either sterile or become so in a few generations and die out. How can varieties that are perfectly cross-fertile become species that are cross-sterile? Suppose that a species A, in a state of nature, pro- duces a variety B, the known facts lead us to believe that A and B would cross with each other, and that B would be lost as a variety. It is admitted by evolu- tionists that if the closely related varieties of domes- NATURAL SELECTION 77 tic animals were permitted to freely mingle, in a state of nature, they would, in a few generations, produce a common form. There is nothing like the agency of man, in nature, to prevent varieties from mingling. The only method by which A and B could remain separated while located side by side, would be for them to be rendered cross-sterile in some way. If B were born cross-fertile with A, there is no conceivable method probable, by which, if the reproductive organs of both are perfect, which is necessarily implied in this case, they could ever become cross-sterile. This leads to the most important question, whether B may, by birth, be cross-sterile with its parent A, while the individuals composing B are fertile with each other and also those of A with each other. It is admitted by evolutionists that cross-sterility between A and B cannot be accounted for by the the- ory of natural selection, for it could be of no conceiv- able advantage. Dr. Romanes cuts the Gordian knot by assuming that B is, by birth, cross-sterile with A, and at the same time he assumes, and must assume, that the sexual organs of both A and B are perfect, so that each can propagate its kind. According to this assumption there must be pro- duced in the same locality, and at the same time, enough individuals of B, cross-sterile with A but fer- tile with each other, to propagate B, and, besides, there must be some favorable variation of these indi- viduals that will enable them to survive. Besides this, cross-sterility of A with B must be repeated every time a new species B originates, in order to isolate it from the parent form, which, con sidering the hundreds of thousands of known species of living organisms, together with the common as- sumption that all known forms, both living and fossil, 78 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED as Darwin claims, are as nothing compared to the number of unknown extinct species, would make it necessary to repeat cross-sterility by birth between parent A and offspring B an infinite number of times. When we remember that the universal rule seems to be that parent and offspring are cross-fertile, and not cross-sterile, as the theory of evolution absolutely demands, there is no sufficient reason for making the extreme assumption of cross-sterility by birth. All known facts are against this extreme assumption. When we consider that no case of cross-sterility is known between A and B, when the sexual organs of both are perfect, and that the theory of evolution demands an infinite number of such cases, so that they could hardly be regarded as exceptions to the fact of cross-fertility, and when we remember that the infi- nite number of species of animals which have sur- vived to propagate their kind represent only a small fraction of those that were born cross-sterile with the parent form, because only those survived that were born not only cross-sterile, but also with some favor- able variation that would the better enable them to compete for existence — remembering these things, it would seem that the theory of evolution is pushed to the verge of despair in adopting the theory of cross- sterility by birth between parent and offspring. And yet this assumption, which has of late been urged by Dr. Romanes especially, and adopted by others, is regarded as the most plausible way out of the diffi- culty. The formation of permanent varieties in a state of nature is infinitely more difficult than under domesti- cation, because in the latter case man separates the forms that he wants to .propagate, and keeps them apart from the parent stock, whereas, in the former NATUBAL SELECTION 79 case the variation is lost by mingling with the com- mon stock. Mr. Darwin says that very " rarely single varia- tions, whether slight or strongly marked, could be perpetuated." He says: "If, for instance, a bird of some kind could procure its food more easily by having its beak curved, and if one were born with its beak strongly curved, and which consequently flourished, neverthe- less, there would be a very poor chance of this one individual perpetuating its kind to the exclusion of the common form; but there can hardly be a doubt, judging by what we see taking place under domestica- tion, that this result would follow from the preserva- tion during many generations of a large number of individuals with more or less curved beaks, and from the destruction of a still larger number with the straightest beaks."* Here he admits that even a favorable variation in a single individual is not at all likely to be propa- gated, but he attempts to bridge the difficulty by assuming that the same favorable variation may take place at the same time in a large number of individ- uals, so that the favorable variation, in spite of ming- ling with all other variations, can be propagated. I think that this assumption is destitute of the sup- port of facts. The fact is that variations take place in all conceivable directions, and, as Darwin repeat- edly urges, they are generally very slight. Varia- tions in one direction are, on an average, probably equal to those in another, and, consequently, when all the variations are mingled, as they are in a state of nature, the form of the species remains substan- tially constant. Besides, this theory, if true, would account for * Origin of Species, 5th Edition, p. 94. 80 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED only one species at a time in the same locality, for it assumes that the individuals with the favorable vari- ation survive at the expense of the parent form; nor does it account for cross-sterility between closely- related species. The later evolutionists, feeling the insufficiency of Darwin's assumption, have bridged the difficulty by introducing a still greater qne — that of cross-ster- ility by birth. Darwin says that he cannot agree "that migration and isolation are necessary for the formation of new species."* Again: "Although isolation is of great importance in the production of new species, on the whole I am inclined to believe that largeness of area is still more important, especially for the production of species which shall prove capable of enduring for a long period and spreading widely, "f Suppose, according to this, that we find two species that have been evolved from a common stock occupy- ing contiguous territories and mingling with each other on the common border. How can we account for the evolution of these two species in these locali- ties? It is evident that the difficulties that arise from the merging of new forms and of producing cross- sterility remain in full force. These difficulties are always present in a state of nature, whether the terri- tory is large or small, for the new species and its parent must occupy the same territory. The great difficulty in all cases is to isolate new forms from the parent form so that they will not be lost by mingling. Nature has no method, so far as facts show, of doing this. Again, Darwin says, that "isolation is of great * Origin of Species, 5th Edition, p. 105. t Ibid. p. 106. NATURAL SELECTION 81 importance in the production of new species."* It is evident, however, that if a species be divided into two parts by barriers, this cannot decrease the difficulties already mentioned — this cannot prevent the merging of variations, nor produce cross-sterility between parent and offspring. The same difficulties that arise in forming a new species from a whole species, apply with equal force to the formation of a new species from a part of a species. The dividing of a species by barriers cannot therefore account for the formation of a new species. When we consider that many hundreds of thous- ands of species have existed, we cannot for a moment suppose that sufficient barriers could have isolated them, or even any considerable per cent of them, while being formed. Besides, closely related species occupy the same ter- ritory, which could not generally be the case if they had been isolated from each other by barriers while being formed, for if such barriers had existed they would have kept the species permanently isolated. Besides, if the supposed barriers were sufficient to isolate the parts of a species, they would be sufficient to prevent the species from separating into parts — for the barriers are, by supposition, impassable. Mr. Darwin, however, as already stated, denies that " migration and isolation are necessary for the forma- tion of new species." When we consider the largo numbers and relative positions of species, it seems necessary to assume that closely related species have generally been formed without being insolated by barriers. With regard to the difficulty of preserving varia- tions in nature, Le Conte says: " But how can the process of progressive divergence begin, when slight 6 * Origin of Species, p. 106. 82 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED varieties are even more fertile by cross-breeding than by close breeding? Is it not evident that, with every generation, the slight varieties would cross-breed with one another and with the parent stock, and thus all varietal differences be funded into a common stock, and the type would be preserved unchanged? This, as already pointed out, has always been the chief dif- ficulty in the way of imagining how varieties can grow into species ; and the difficulty is only increased by our discussion of the law of cross-breeding. Now just here Dr. Romanes's most important and prolific idea comes to our help, and, as it seems to us, com- pletely solves the difficulty." * Thus, in the face of the fact that slight variations render animals more fertile by cross-breeding, it is assumed that new varieties are born cross-sterile with the parent form and cross-fertile with their own kind. I know of no assumption among scientific men that seems more extreme and unwarranted than this — none more in opposition to the facts at present known. Le Conte says further: "But suppose among these divergent variations there arise, from time to time, some which affect the reproductive or- gans in such wise that the variety, though perfectly fertile with its own kind, is infertile, or imperfectly fertile, with other varieties, and especially with the parent stock. "t Here we find several things that must happen in a single generation. First, a number of individuals must be born and exist at the same time, which possess the same varia- tion. Second, this variation must, if it can be preserved, be of such a kind that it will give the individuals pos- * Evolution and Creation, p. 226. t Ibid, p. 227. NATURAL SELECTION 83 sessing it an advantage over the parent stock in the struggle for existence. Third, the individuals possessing the favorable vari- ation must be cross-sterile with the parent stock, otherwise the variation will be " funded into a com- mon stock, and the type preserved unchanged.' Fourth, the individuals with the favorable variation must be fertile with each other. Fifth, these individuals with the same favorable variation must find each other so that they can pro- pagate their kind, a thing that would hardly take place if they were few, as they probably would be, and were scattered over a wide territory. All of these things are assumed in face of the fact that variation increases instead of decreasing fei'tility. Besides, as already shown, it becomes necessary to assume that the remarkable fact of cross-sterility of parent and offspring has occurred an infinite number of times in order to produce all species. This idea must therefore be regarded as most "pro- lific" in order to meet the demands of the theory of evolution. It is assumed by Darwin and by evolutionists gener- ally, that the formation of a species takes places very slowly, by innumerable slight variations. If this view is accepted, together with that of Romanes, then cross-sterility between parent and offspring must be the overwhelming rule instead of the exception, in order to keep the very slight variations from being lost by mingling with the parent form. We know, -however, that it is not the rule, nor is it even known, so far as 1 am informed, that there are exceptional cases among animals where a variety in nature is cross-sterile with the parent, but fertile with those of its own kind. 84 OBGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED With regard to cross-sterility, Darwin says: "After mature reflection it seems to me that this could not. have been effected through 'natural selection, for it could have been of no direct advantage to an in- dividual animal to breed badly with another individ- ual of a different variety, and thus to leave few off- spring; consequently such individuals could not have been preserved or selected."* Again, he says: "That the sterility of first crosses, and indirectly of hybrids, is simply incidental on un- known differences in the reproductive systems of the parent species. "f Mr. Spencer has written a series of articles entitled "The Inadequacy of Natural Selection." As to arti- ficial and natural selection he says: " They are anal- ogous only within certain narrow limits, and in the great majority of cases, natural selection is utterly incapable of doing that which artificial selection does. "J He quotes from Mr. Darwin: "Any particular variation would soon be lost by crossing, reversion and the accidental destruction of the varying individ- uals, unless carefully preserved by man,"§ Mr. Spencer claims that " the inheritance of ac- quired characters " is a necessary supplement to nat- ural selection. Referring to his " Principles of Biol- ogy," he says: "It was contended that the relative powers of co-operative parts cannot be adjusted solely by survival of the fittest, and especially where the parts are numerous and the co-operation complex." After arguing this proposition at length, he says: " Close contemplation of the facts impresses me more strongly than ever with the two alternatives — * Origin of Species, p. 247. + Ibid, pp. 248-9. % Popular Science Monthly for April, May and June, 1893. § Animals and Plants under Domestication, Vol. II., p. 292. NATURAL SELECTION 85 either there has been inheritance of acquired charac- ters, or there has been no evolution." Also, " For the inheritance of acquired characters, which it is now the fashion of the biological world to deny, was by Mr. Darwin fully recognized and often insisted on." . . . "The neo-Darwinists, how- ever, do not admit this cause at all." In concluding he says: " See then how the cause stands. Natural selection, or survival of the fittest, is almost exclusively operative throughout the vegetable world, and throughout the lower animal world, characterized by relative passivity. But with the ascent to higher types of animals, its effects are in increasing degrees involved with those produced by inheritance of acquired characters, until, in ani- mals of complex structures, inheritance of acquired characters becomes an important, if not the chief, cause of evolution." He admits that known facts which show that ac- quired characters are inherited are few, but he thinks that they are "as large a number as can be expected, considering the difficulty of observing them and the absence of search." From the above, we see that the biological world is against Mr. Spencer's view; that he would abandon the theory of evolution unless acquired characters had been inherited, but that facts in support of this theory are meager. I think that his argument shows the insufficiency of the theory of natural selection, but the truth of his own theory remains to be established. We shall see further on that natural selection has been supple- mented by the theories of sexual selection and of the correlation of growth If Mr. Spencer's theory as to the inheritance of acquired characters is true, still I do not see how 86 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED this can result in the formation of new species in a state of nature. Whatever might be the acquired characters of individuals, they would be lost by min- gling, and the difficulties which I have presented of evolving new species remain in full force. Biologists in the above instance, as well as in oth- ers, differ in theory as to fundamental principles of evolution. He who imagines that the theory of organic evolu- tion has been proved to the point of demonstration, has but to read the contentions of evolutionists them- selves with regard to the most important things in- volved in the theory, in order to satisfy his mind that there is great diversity of opinion. GEOLOGICAL AGES AND PERIODS. To be read upward by beginning at Archaean on this page and ending at Recent on next page. Classes and Orders of Animals survive by the dying out of old and the introduction of new Species. °S Permian. oi2 D O OO 9 M CARBONIF- EROUS OR Coal - meas- ures. SUBCARBON- IFEROUS. First known Reptiles. Trilobites disappear. Orthoeerous Cephalopods nearly extinct. Fishes with vertebrated tails almost extinct. Cephalopods of many kinds. First Amphibians :— Labyrinthodonts. Fishes were all Sharks and Ganoids. Lepidodendrids, Sigillarids, Calamites, Ferns and Conifers abound. Spiders, Myriapods, Scorpions. Numerous Insects:— May-flies, Locusts, Cockroaches, Beetles. (Some of the insects were gigantic in size.) First land Snails. Crinoids culminated. Sea-urchins. 0) £ 1-1 x SrS ©< a Catskill. Chemung. Hamilton. Cornifer- ous. Ferns, Lycopods, Sigillarids, Calamites and Conifers. Eurypterids of large size. Limnoids; Shrimps. Orthopterous and Neuropterous Insects. Myriapods. Large number of Corals. Fishes: — Placoderms, Dipnoans, Ganoids, Chimseroids, Sharks. Goniatites. Brachiopods probably culminated in the Devonian. P D Oriskany. Lower Hel- Salina. Niagara. Echinoids. Insects: — Orthopters and Hemipters. Scorpions ; Brachiopods and Cephalopods abundant through Silurian. Trilobites abounded through the Silurian. Trenton. Canadian. Primordial. Fishes: — Ganoids, Placoderms, and probably Sharks. Insects; Eurypterids. Trilobites culminated in the Lower Silurian. Sea-weed, the only plants found. Cephaloposds ; Trilobites ; Crinoids ; Star-flshes ; Worms; Brachiopods; Lamellibranchs; Gastropods; Sponges; Corals; Hydrozoans; Pteropods. Arch.ean. Eozoon. (Probably not a fossil.) CQ u o t. o «3f 3-< INSTINCT 219 believe that these several changes could thus have been brought about by chance. Among some fishes it is said that the males, Arius for example, carry the eggs in their mouth till they are hatched. How could this instinct have originated by natural selection? Why does not the male swal- low the eggs as food instead of carrying them till they hatch? In another fish, Aspredo, the eggs are attached to various parts of the body by slender stalks. The eggs of sharks have two tendrils at each end by means of which they can attach themselves to objects and thus be better protected. The male sea-horse carries the eggs in a pouch on the under surface of the body till they are hatched. The pouch in this case is pectoral, while the pouch of the pipe-fish, which serves a similar purpose, is under its tail. As to how these pouches could have been evolved, together with the combined instincts of the males and females which cause them to use the pouches, is beyond my comprehension. It is indeed easy to say that they were evolved gradually by natu- ral selection, but the evidence to support this asser- tion seems to me extremely insufficient. The instincts of animals with regard to depositing their eggs in the most suitable places, the methods of protecting their eggs, and the care of the young are numerous and wonderful. It is a general law that the number of eggs pro- duced by an animal is in proportion to the risks to which they are subjected. Most fishes produce thou- sands of eggs, but they are eaten in large quantities by animals; also the young are destroyed in large num- bers, so that if there were but few eggs the chances for producing mature fishes would be greatly de- 220 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED creased. The shark produces but few eggs, but on account of their structure they are well protected. So throughout the animal kingdom we see that by a great multitude of eggs, or by peculiar structure, or by special means of preservation it is made certain that each species will propagate its kind. That these many adaptations are necessary for the preservation of species is evident, but we know nothing as to how they have originated. There is no assurance in nature that if an animal lays fewer eggs, therefore they will be better pro- tected; nor, on the other hand, that, if the eggs are better protected, therefore fewer will be produced. The number of eggs and the degree of protection do not stand related to each other as cause and effect ; they must, therefore, if they were evolved, have orig- inated in all cases by chance — the number of such instances being equal to the number of species of ani- mals. This leads me to emphasize my belief again that the wholesale origin of adaptations in nature, where there is no relation of cause and effect between the things that are adapted to each other — which is generally the case — could not have been brought about by chance. The "Water Spider presents difficulties to the theory of natural selection that I will notice. In this animal changes of structure and instinct are implied which I think cannot be explained by natural selection. Spiders are air-breathing animals which live habitu- ally in the air. The Water Spider is also an air- breather, but it lives habitually under the water. A short distance under the surface of the water it spins an egg-shaped cell with an opening underneath through which it can pass. This cell is securely attached to some object so that it will remain sub- merged. The body of this spider is covered with INSTINCT 221 hairs which inclose air, and this prevents it from becoming wet. The cell having been constructed, the spider pro- ceeds to fill it with air. The hind legs are covered with hair, and they are of such shape that they can secure a large bubble of air which it carries under the cell and releases. The air rises to the top of the cell, expelling the water. By repeating the process the cell is filled with air. In the upper part of the cell the eggs are placed and surrounded by a cocoon. About one hundred young are hatched and reared in a single cell. In this case we see several things which must have been produced simultaneously if they were evolved. First, the peculiar hind legs of the animal which ena- ble it to carry a large bubble of air would have been of no use to it for this purpose without its habit of living under water, and consequently this structure would not have been evolved in the absence of the habit. But it could not live under the water without a cell nor without the instinct to fill the cell with air. Each of these two instincts, together with the peculiar structure which enables it to carry air with its legs, would have been useless without the other, and conse- quently, if they were evolved, they were produced simultaneously. They must all have been produced before the spider could live habitually under water. The instinct and the power to construct a perfect cell through which water would not pass and the in- stinct to fill it with air could not have been gradually acquired by natural selection, for they must all be per- fect before the spider can live under the water. An imperfect cell, or an imperfect instinct failing to properly fill it with air, or inability to perform the work owing to defective structure would be fatal in attempting to make the change from a terrestrial to ■222 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED an aquatic mode of living. If such a change took place, therefore, we would be obliged to assume that it occurred in a single generation, otherwise it would have been a failure. That it could have thus sud- denly occurred I presume that no one would claim. The conclusion, therefore, is that the above changes could not have been produced slowly, by natural selection, nor suddenly, and that, consequently, they were not produced by the process of evolution. I see no probable method by which the modifica- tions of structure and the instincts necessary to pro- duce the web of the spider could have been evolved. I copy the following from Orton's Zoology. "Spiders are provided at the posterior end with two or three pairs of appendages called spinnerets, which are homologous with legs. The office of the spinnerets is to reel out the silk from the silk-glands, the tip being perforated by a myriad of little tubes through which the silk escapes in excessively fine threads. An ordinary thread, just visible to the naked eye, is the union of a thousand or more of these delicate streams of silk. These primary threads are drawn out and united by the hind legs." From this we see that two special glands, capable of secreting a soft material that can be readily drawn into the finest threads of the greatest strength, requir- ing no perceptible time for drying, and two to four spinnerets perforated by more than a thousand of the smallest apertures, and hind legs modified so that they can be used to draw out the web through the spinnerets, and also the instincts which enable the spider to use its web to advantage, must all have been evolved. To evolve the silk glands would have required, as for most other organs, a long period of incipiency, during which they would have been useless. We can INSTINCT 223 not assume that a substance so exceptional in its •character as the web of the spider could have been suddenly produced by evolution. But the glands would be useless without the spinnerets. If the lat- ter are homologous with legs, as has been claimed, then we must assume that two or three pairs of legs that were probably at one time useful for locomotion became so modified that they could perform the func- tion of spinnerets. In what conceivable way could locomotive legs have become so modified and pierced with more than a thousand apertures through which the web is drawn? True spiders are found in the Carboniferous Age, and, if they were evolved, they must have appeared in the Silurian. The fact that insects and scorpions iiave been found in the latter renders it the more probable that spiders existed at that time. The spiders of the Carboniferous had, no doubt, the web- making structure. I infer this from their appearance and from the fact that all living spiders make web. The existence of the structure necessary to manufac- ture web, at a period so remote, renders it the more difficult to believe that this structure could have been evolved. If we assume that living spiders have had a com- mon origin by evolution, then the instinct to manufac- ture a special form of web, such as that of the Garden Spider, is very ancient, for we find other species, for ■example, Acrosoma arcuta, which differ greatly in structure from the garden spider, but which construct a nearly similar web. According to the assumption the instinct has existed during the long period neces- sary to evolve the great physical differences between the two species. In this instance, therefore, as in the ease of birds, already discussed, evolution necessarily assumes the existence of instincts through immense 224 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED periods of time. On the other hand, the great differ- ences in the habits of spiders might be taken to show that instincts change. Similarity of instincts, however, cannot be taken to indicate, of necessity, a common origin. Mr. Darwin says that there exist " cases of instincts almost identically the same in animals so remote in the scale of Nature, that we cannot account for their similarity by inheritance from a common progenitor, and consequently must believe that they were inde- pendently acquired through natural selection." * Again he says: "Many instincts are so wonderful that their development will probably appear to the reader a difficulty sufficient to overcome my whole theory." Instances may be enumerated indefinitely Which show the difficulty of accounting for changes of structure and at the same time the origin of instincts that render the acquired structures useful. Among fishes, take the Sting Ray, which has a long prehensile tail, and above the base of the tail a barbed spine pointing backwards, on which it impales its enemies by the use of its tail as a lasso. It seems to me en- tirely improbably that the tail, the barb, and the instinct to use them were evolved either simultaneous- ly or in succession. How was the singular instinct evolved which causes the male hornbills of Africa and India to plaster up the female in a hole in a tree, leaving only a small aperature through which they feed the female and her youug? It is evident that this serves for protec- tion, but I cannot see how it could have been grad- ually evolved by natural selection. The work must be quite complete before it can serve its purpose. In what way could the strange instinct of the Aus- * Origin oi Species, p. 226. INSTINCT 225 tralian Jungle Fowl have been evolved? This bird does not incubate its eggs but deposits them in a great heap of decomposing organic matter, sometimes fif- teen feet high and sixty feet in circumference, which it piles up by throwing backwards with one foot while it stands on the other. Each egg is deposited in a separate hole several feet long in the mound, after which the hole is filled with loose material and the egg left to incubate. It is evident that this bird could not have abandoned the usual method of incubation until its instinct caused it to construct a tumulus of organic matter sufficient for the purpose of incubation. It would not be claimed that it did this suddenly, but gradual- ly. It must have at first brought together sufficient material to relieve it of part of the work of incuba- tion, and the habit of doing this must have grown, because it was useful, until it finally ceased incu- bating its eggs. It also lost the instinct, common to birds, of placing all of its eggs in close proximity with each other, for it deposits but one egg in each hole. The fact that these changes in its instincts and habits are conceivable can only show the possibility and not the probability that they have taken place. It is conceivable that trees might become men, and yet this does not even suggest the possibility of such a change. The various instincts which cause animals to pro- vide in advance for the young that they never see nor recognize as their offspring cannot, I think, be satisfactorily accounted for by evolution. Take, for example, the well-known beetle, which prepares a ball of animal excretion in which it depos- its an egg and then buries the ball in a deep hole which it makes in the earth, where it is hatched, and 15 226 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED the larva feeds on the organic matter which has been prepared in the ball. Here we have a series of instincts serving a com- mon purpose. The deposit of the egg in the organic matter, the shaping of this into a ball, the prepara- tion of a hole in the ground, and the moving of the ball into this place of safety, are all done for the benefit of offspring that can never be known to the parent. To account for these wonderful instincts, we are told that " necessity is the mother of invention," that the struggle for existence is so severe that the production and preservation of new instincts are a matter of necessity. The fact that the first beetle deposited an egg in such decomposing organic matter by accident was no assurance that the egg would pro- duce a beetle which would repeat the accident. But we must assume that the first deposit of an egg thus made was on account of a new-born instinct which was strong enough to be inherited by the offspring. Strangest of all, however, is the instinct which causes this beetle to move this ball, considerable distances frequently, by standing on its front legs and pushing backwards with its hind legs. These balls are several times as large as the beetles themselves. Sometimes two beetles join in moving a single ball, one pushing, while the other climbs on to the opposite side of the ball, thus disturbing its equilibrium. But moving the ball would be useless to the species unless it were de- posited in the ground in a place of greater safety, so that the instinct to move it and the instinct to de- posit it in a more secure place by digging a hole in the ground must have been evolved at the same time. I see no reason to believe that this could have taken place. It is no argument to say that such changes take place by chance, and that they are preserved INSTINCT 227 because they are useful. That they might be pre- served if they took place need not be disputed, but the evidence, in my estimation, is totally inadequate to show that such changes occur. As I have said elsewhere, it is easy to imagine that any finite existence may originate by starting with nothing and adding atom by atom. So it may be imagined with instincts. The Beaver furnishes one of the most remarkable examples of instinct among vertebrates. It lives in communities and constructs dams, sometimes as much as three hundred yards long, across shallow streams of water. These dams are built of sticks of wood, generally about three feet long and six or seven inches in diameter, which the animal cuts with its teeth. They are put in the water and held in posi- tion by means of mud, stones and moss which are placed upon them. The dams are ten or twelve feet thick at the base, and when the streams are wide, instead of extending straight across, they are made to curve upstream against the current, thus enabling the structure to better resist the force of the water. The amount of labor necessary to construct a large dam is enormous, and requires an incredible number of logs of wood and great skill in engineering. Near the dam the beavers build their houses. Each house is about seven feet in diameter on the interior and three feet high in the center and the walls are of great thickness. Each lodge is large enough to ac- commodate five or six beavers. The outside is plastered with mud and carefully smoothed, and the mud is renewed each year in order to keep the houses in good repair. All the houses of the colony are surrounded by a ditch which contains water, and each lodge is connected by a passage-way with the ditch. 228 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED As a supply of food for winter, they store up a large number of logs under the water, the bark of which they consume. In this case we find an organized community work- ing for the common good in constructing the dam and the ditch and storing up food, and then making special preparation for living in small groups by con- structing their lodges and connecting them with the ditch. Here we see highly-developed instincts that look to the future good of the organism. The building of the dam, the digging of the ditch, the storing of the food are all done to meet future emergencies. It is evident that the construction of a dam could not have been evolved gradually, for a dam must be of sufficient extent to be useful before natural selec- tion could act. Are we to presume that beavers experimented for countless generations, thereby building up the instinct which leads them to construct a dam? If so, on what ground can we explain the preservation of the incip- ient instinct until it was sufficiently developed to be of practical use? In what way could they have known in advance, or had an instinct in advance, that a dam would serve their good? Shall we assume that their instinct in the first instance led them to construct a dam, they not having had any experience to evolve an instinct of this kind? If the instinct existed without having been evolved by experience, then we cannot account for its evolution. If evolved, then we must assume that the first dam made was of sufficient use to give its makers an advantage in the struggle for existence, and that the instinct which caused its con- struction was transmitted to their offspring. In accounting for the evolution of this instinct, as in other cases, we necessarily begin with an instinct INSTINCT 229 that is already useful, and thus we assume the exist- ence of that for which we are trying to account. We are obliged to assume that in a single generation a beaver or a colony of beavers was produced which had a new instinct, and sufficiently developed to en- able them to build a useful dam, and that in conse- quence of this they were the better preserved and the instinct propagated. If all this could have happened in a single. generation, it is evident that no question need be raised as to the possibility of future evolu- tion. Besides this, the construction of a ditch for water around their lodges required a different instinct serv- ing another purpose. Its evolution involves similar difficulties. I will not dwell longer on the difficulty of account- ing for the evolution of special instincts and of the changes of structure in organisms necessary to adapt them to the use of new instincts. The animal" king- dom is full of difficulties of this kind. Volumes might be written describing the strange instincts of Insects alone. In conclusion, I repeat that I regard the complex instincts and peculiar structure of the honey-bee as insuperable objections to the theory of evolution. XV. THE OEIGIN OF MAN. Considered geologically, man has but a brief his- tory. As to the length of time he has been here, judging from his remains and works of art, Le Conte says: "It may be 100,000 years or it may be only 10,000 years, but more probably the former than the latter." He further says that " The earliest men yet found are in no sense connecting links between man and ape." * The Engis skull, one of the most ancient that has been discovered, is said to be " a well-shaped, average human skull." The Mentone skull is of " average or more than average " size, having a facial angle of 85°, while the Neanderthal skull, which is also very ancient, is of lower type, but " is in no respect intermediate" be- tween man and ape, being " truly human." In the Aurignac cave in France were found the bones of several human skeletons mingled with those of various extinct mammals, such as the Cave-bear, Cave-lion, Cave-hyena, Mammoth, Irish Elk and oth- ers. The presence of the bones of these extinct mammals shows that the human remains are prob- ably quite ancient. Le Conte says: "The conclusion reached by M. Lartet is, that this was a family or tribal burial place; that in the cave along with the bodies were placed funeral gifts in the form of trinkets and food; and * Elements of Geology, p. 601. 230 THE ORIGIN OF MAN 231 that the funeral feast was cooked and eaten on the level space in front of the cave; and, finally, that carnivorous beasts gnawed the bones left on the spot. It is evident that the Aurignac men practiced relig- ious rites which indicated a belief in immortality." * If such were among the oldest known men, how long must it have taken to evolve them, with their belief in immortality, from the highest known apes? And yet we have no evidence whatever from fossils that connect him with a lower form, that he has been evolved at all. The ancient Egyptian paintings show that the Cau- casian and Negro races have undergone little, if any, change in the last 4000 years. If this length of time has produced no appreciable change in these races what would be the period required to evolve man from an ape-like ancestor? Mr. Wallace tries to account for the absence of physical change in man within the historic pei'iod by claiming that the mind of man enables him to adapt himself to a changing environment, thus relieving him from the necessity of undergoing physical change. He believes that the lower animals have been evolved by natural selection, but that mind is the creation of a superior intelligence. He says: " The inference I would draw from this class of phenomena is that a superior intelligence has guided the development of man in a definite direction and for a special purpose, just as man guides the development of many animal and vegetable forms." t The following are some of the objections which he offers against the theory of the evolution of man by natural selection : * Elements of Geology, p. 596. + On Natural Selection, p. 359. 232 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED First, anthropologists have been divided on the question as to whether the different races of men have had a common or separate origins. If the latter, then nothing so remarkable could be assumed to have taken place. No evolutionist would assume that it would be possible. Again, the absence of a covering of hair from most of man's body cannot be accounted for by the theory of natural selection. If he was evolved, it was from animals that had a hairy covering. The loss of this covering could be of no use to man in the savage condition when he had no clothing. The hair is thick- est on the backs of the lower animals, while it is almost entirely absent from the back of man. Most savages are comparatively naked. They need the cov- ering of hair for protection, and in the absence of it they provide at least some slight protection for the back from rain. It is evident, therefore, that the loss of the hairy covering in man cannot be accounted for by natural selection. The loss of a part while useful is opposed to that theory. Again, all the quadrumana use the big toe as a thumb, while man cannot use it in this way. The loss of it as an organ of prehension could not have been useful to savage man, and it could not therefore have been brought about by natural selection. The quadrumana are accustomed to go "on all fours" horizontally, or in a more or less stooping posture, while man walks upright. Acquiring an upright position could not have been useful to man in his assumed low condition as he emerged from the animal, and consequently such a change cannot be explained by natural selection. Again, the human hand is far more highly organized than is necessary to meet the demands of rude sav- THE ORIGIN OF MAN 233 ages, and, therefore, natural selection fails to account for the existence of this highly perfect organ. He also claims that the powers of the human voice have not been produced by natural selection, for sav- ages are not accustomed to sing, but to howl and make unpleasant sounds. One of the strongest points which he makes against the evolution of man by natural selection is that " the brain of the savage is shown to be larger than he needs it to be." He claims that the size of the brain is probably the most important factor in determining mental capacity. The following are given as the average sizes of brains in cubic inches: Teutonic family, 94; Esquimaux, 91; Negroes, 85; Australians and Tasmanians, 82; Bushmen, 77. Some of the largest brains have been found among savages. The largest Teutonic skull in a certain col- lection had a capacity of 112.4 cubic inches; an Auri- canian, 115.5; an Esquimau, 113.1; a Marquesan, 110.6; a Negro, 105.8; and an Australian 104.5. The European with a brain less than 65 cubic inches is invariably an idiot. The brain of the Orang-utan is 28 cubic inches; that of the Gorilla, 30, while jM 1 /^ cubic inches is the capacity of the largest Gorilla brain that has been measured. Calling the average of the anthropoid apes 10, the size of the brain of savages is 26, and of civilized man 32. "The Engis skull, perhaps the oldest known" is, according to Prof. Huxley, " a fair average skull, which might have belonged to a philosopher, or might have contained the thoughtless brains of a savage." Speaking of the oldest known skulls, Wallace says: "But what is still more extraordinary, the few re- 234 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED mains yet known of pre-historic man do not indicate any material diminution in the size of the brain-case." Natural selection assumes that progress does not take place beyond what is demanded by environment. This being true, how is it possible to account for the large size of the brains of savages? When man began to emerge he had to contend with nothing higher than brutes, and a small increase in brain would enable him to do this successfully. Savages have capacities for education far greater than is demanded by their mode of living. The same is true of their moral and religious capacities. They have latent powers of mind which anticipate a more advanced state of existence than that of the savage condition in which they have existed for ages. Pow- ers which have, therefore, been dormant for thousands of years, could not have been preserved because they were useful, but, on the other hand, they should have disappeared by disuse. Max Miiller says that "between the language of animals and the language of man there is no natural bridge, and that to account for human language such as we possess would require a faculty of which no trace has ever been discovered in lower animals. "Rational language is to be traced back to roots, and every root is the sign of a general conception or abstract idea of which the animal mind is incapable. Mr. Darwin has said there are savage languages which contain no abstract terms; but the names for com- mon objects, such as father, mother, brother, etc., are abstract terms, and unless Mr. Darwin is prepared to produce a language containing no such names, his statement, said the lecturer, falls to the ground as the result of a misconception of the real nature of a gen- eral idea as distinguished from an emotion."" * * Abstract of his Lecture on Nature, Dec. 1872, p. 145. THE ORIGIN OF MAN 235 Professor Virchow is reported to have said in a recent lecture: "We seek in vain for the missing link. There exists a definite barrier separating man from the animal which has not yet been effaced — heredity, which transmits to children the faculties of their parents. We have never seen a monkey bring a man into the world, nor a man produce a monkey. All men having a simian appearance are simply patho- logical variants. It was generally believed a few years ago that there existed a few human races which still remained in the primitive inferior condition of their organization. But all these races have been objects of minute investigation, and we know that they have an organization like ours, often indeed superior to that of supposed higher races. Thus the Eskimo head and the head of the Terra del Fuegians belong to the perfected types.". In view of the evidence furnished by examining all the races and varieties of men, he says: "Thus we are repulsed at every line of the assault upon the human question. All the researches undertaken with the aim of finding continuity in progressive develop- ment have been without result. There exists no pro- anthropes, no man-monkey, and the ' connecting link ' remains a phantom." The fragments of a skeleton recently discovered, of a supposed man-ape, in the Pleistocene deposits of Java have not been proved to be such. Dana says: "Man's origin has thus far no suffi- cient explanation from science. His close relations in structure to the Man-Apes are unquestionable. They have the same number of bones with two excep- tions, and the bones are the same in kind and struc- ture. The muscles are mostly the same. Both carry their young in their arms. The affiliations strongly suggest community of descent. But the divergencies 236 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED mentioned on page 1018, especially the cases of degen- eracy in man's structure, exhibited in his plantigrade feet and the primitive character of his teeth, allying him in these respects to the Lower Eocene forms, are admitted proof that he has not descended from any" existing type of Ape. In addition, man's erect pos- ture makes the gap a very broad one. The brute, the Ape included, has powerful muscles in the back of the neck to carry the head in its horizontal position, while man has no such muscles, as any one of the species can prove by crawling for a while on ' all fours.' Beyond this, the great size of the brain, his eminent intellectual and moral qualities, his voice and speech, give him his sole title to the position at the head of the Kingdom of Life."* He believes with Wal- lace " that the intervention of a Power above Nature was at the basis of Man's development." Huxley has pointed out the many physical diffei'- ences between man and the gorilla, which is the most man-like ape in size and structure. Neither fossils nor living animals have been discov- ered from which man could have been immediately evolved. All admit, however, that the greatest differences between man and the highest ape are psychic, and not physical. The evolution of the human mind with all of it's wonderful powers must be accounted for. Darwin has tried to explain their evolution. He says: "My object in this chapter is solely to show that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties." f Again he says: "Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, is certainly one of degree and not of kind." % * Manual of Geology, p. 1036. t Descent of Man, Vol. 1, p. 34. \ Ibid, p. 101. THE ORIGIN OF MAN 237 He claims that the lower animals show fear, terror, suspicion, courage, ill-temper, rage, revenge, love, maternal affection, a desire to be loved, shame, mod- esty, curiosity, the power to imitate, the power of giving attention, memory, imagination, and reason. Most of these powers he claims have been exhibited especially by dogs and monkeys. He thinks that the higher animals dream, as "is shown by their movements and voice," and that this is evidence that they have " some imagination." It might be admitted that animals possess most of the above named powers, and still the greatest difficul- ties would remain. Mr. Darwin refers to them as follows: "It has been asserted that man alone is capable of progressive improvement; that he alone makes use of tools or fire, domesticates other animals, possesses property, or employs language; that no other animal is self- conscious, comprehends itself, has the power of abstraction, or possesses general ideas; that man alone has a sense of beauty, is liable to caprice, has the feeling of gratitude, mystery, etc.; believes in God, or is endowed with a conscience. I will hazard a few remarks on the more important and interesting of these points." Having considered the evidence bearing on these points he says: "There can be no doubt that the difference between the mind of the lowest man and that of the highest animal is immense. An anthropo- morphous ape, if he could take a dispassionate view of his own case, would admit that though he could form an artful plan to plunder a garden, though he could use stones for fighting or for breaking open nuts, yet that the thought of fashioning a stone into a tool was quite beyond his scope. Still less, as he would admit, could he follow out a train of metaphysical reasoning, 238 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED or solve a mathematical problem, or reflect on God, or admire a grand natural scene. Some apes, how- ever, would probably declare that they could and did admire the beauty of the colored skin and fur of their partners in marriage. They would admit that, though they could make other apes understand by cries some of their perceptions and simpler wants, the notion of expressing definite ideas by definite sounds had never crossed their minds. They might insist that they were ready to aid their fellow-apes of the same troop in many ways, to risk their lives for them, and to take charge of their orphans; but they would be forced to acknowledge that disinterested love for all living things, the most noble attribute of man, was quite beyond their comprehension."* But he adds : " Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, is certainly one of degree and not of kind." Also, " The moral sense perhaps affords the best and high- est distinction between man and the lower animals. "f Again he says: " Self-consciousness, Individuality, Abstraction, General Ideas, etc. " It would be useless to attempt discussing these high faculties, which, according to several recent writers, make the sole and complete distinction between man and the brutes, for hardly two authors agree in their definitions. Such faculties could not have been fully developed in man until his mental powers had ad- vanced to a high standard, and this implies the use of a perfect language. No one supposes that one of the lower animals reflects whence he comes or whither he goes — what is death or what is life, and so forth." % He attempts to explain the origin of these powers as follows: "If it be maintained that certain pow- ers, such as self -consciousness, abstraction, etc., are * Descent of Man, Vol. 1, p. 101. t Ibid, p. 100. % Ibid, p. 60. THE ORIGIN OF MAST 239 peculiar to man, it may well be that these are the in- cidental results of other highly advanced intellectual faculties; and these again are mainly the result of the continued use of a highly developed language." He also thinks that man has been evolved from *' ape-like progenitors."* The admissions contained in the above quotations are, it seems to me, quite fatal to the general conclu- sions. If man has been evolved from "ape-like pro- genitors," it has been a long time since he branched off from that stock. In the meantime these progeni- tors have been called on by a perpetually changing environment to improve themselves, with the result that they still remain brutes, while man, during the same time, and in the same countries, and with similar environments, has developed God-like capacities of intellect. How can we account for the extreme dif- ference of progress between the "ape-like ancestor" and man? The fact that the ape still survives shows that there has been no necessity for his making progress, and, consequently, environment could not have rendered it necessary for any of the offspring of the apes to have changed into men. The following is a summary of Mr. Darwin's admis- sions. The "anthropomorphous ape" taking "a dis- passionate view" admits, that he has never thought of fashioning even the simplest tool; that he cannot follow out a train of metaphysical reasoning, or solve a mathematical problem, or reflect on God, or admire a grand natural scene; that " the notion of expressing definite ideas by definite sounds had never crossed their minds," that " disinterested love for all things, the most noble attribute of man, was quite beyond their comprehension; " that he had no knowledge of * Descent of Man, Vol. 1, p. 81. 240 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED right and wrong, that he was totally ignorant of the meaning of that "imperious word ought," that he had no self -consciousness, nor idea of individuality, nor general ideas, etc., for these latter faculties imply mental powers "advanced to a high standard" and " the use of a perfect language." Here, then, it is admitted that Self-consciousness, Individuality, Abstraction, General Ideas, etc., are not possessed by the higher animals, for the existence of these faculties depends upon "other highly ad- vanced intellectual faculties," and these again are the result of the continued use of a highly developed language. According to this, the highest human faculties are the offspring of other highly developed faculties, and the latter are the offspring of language. We do not know that the native strength of the intellectual faculties is due to the language of ances- tors. We cannot estimate natural ability of children by the vocabularies of their parents. An extensive education requires a large vocabulary, but the birth of high intellectual faculties is more than the birth of words. We do not know that the size of the brain is in any way dependent on language. Ideas precede words, and faculties precede ideas. Ideas invent words. If the ape had ideas he would invent lan- guage to express them — especially if he is the ances- tor of man, who has invented a great multitude of languages. It may be claimed that language greatly contributes to mental activity, that this improves the brain, and that this improvement is hereditary. We do not know to what extent this may be true, but if it is true, it does not dispose of the difficulty. The ques- tion is not how can faculties be cultivated and strengthened, but how can they originate? THE ORIGIN OF MAN 241 It is claimed that self-consciousness and other fac- ulties not possessed by brutes may be evolved from " other highly advanced intellectual faculties." As to how self-consciousness could thus be evolved, we are left wholly in the dark. No facts are given to justify this extraordinary conclusion. It is a neces- sary part of the theory of evolution, and consequent- ly it must be assumed even in the absence of proof. Mr. Darwin, in speaking of the many high powers of the human mind which have been enumerated, says cautiously, " I will hazard a few remarks on the more important and interesting of these points." He does not claim to offer anything like conclusive evi- dence that self-consciousness and other high powers have been evolved from lower faculties, such as ani- mals possess, but I think that he simply assumes it as a necessary part of his theory. To tell us that self- consciousness is evolved from certain high faculties which themselves have been mostly produced by the use of a perfect language may be a legitimate opin- ion, but I think that it is very far from conclusive evidence. He refers to the low moral standing of savages in support of his theory. According to natural selec- , tion, savages ought not to have any capacities except those that have been constantly in use and that have been preserved because they have been useful. The moral standing of savages is low, and this fact would seem to indicate a lack of capacity for morals. It is found, however, that savages have natural powers which enable them to make great progress in morals, and in education in all directions. It is this native capacity for improvement, which could not have been evolved by their savage mode of life, that distin- guishes them from animals. The story has been told of Mr. Darwin that when 16 242 ORGANIC EVOLVTION CONSIDERED he sailed past certain islands in the Pacific, he found them inhabited by cannibals, but that twenty-five years afterwards he found these cannibals converted to Christianity and enjoying the blessings of civiliza- tion. It is further said that in consequence of this great change wrought by Christian missionaries, he donated twenty-five pounds a year to the Missionary Society. How many millions of years would it take for even Christian missionaries to convert a tribe of gorillas into man-loving, God-fearing, self-conscious beings capable of believing that they possessed immortal souls? The fact of such great and sudden changes pro- duced in the lives of the most degraded savages shows the infinite gulf between them and the highest brutes. The more degraded man is shown to be in his savage condition, the more wonderful becomes the contrast between him and the highest animals when he has the opportunities of civilization. Evo- lution, instead of gaining, loses much by hunting up degraded savages, for the lowest tribes have vastly more capacity than the theory calls for or can explain. Mr. Darwin attempts to account for the moral sense as follows: " Philosophers of the derivative school of morals formerly assumed that the foundation of morality lay in a form of Selfishness; but more re- cently in the Greatest-Happiness principle. Accord- ing to the view given above, the moral sense is funda- mentally identical with the social instincts; and in the case of the lower animals it would be absurd to speak of these instincts as having been developed from selfishness, or for the happiness of the community. They have however, certainly been developed for the general good of the community. The term "general good," may be defined as the means by which the THE ORIGIN OF MAN 243 greatest possible number of individuals can be reared in full vigor and health, with all their faculties per- fect, under the conditions to which they are exposed. As the social instincts both of man and the lower ani- mals have no doubt been developed by the same steps, it would be advisable, if found practicable, to use the same definition in both cases, and to take as the test of morality, the general good or welfare of the com- munity, rather than the general happiness; but this definition would perhaps require some limitation on account of political ethics." * Again he says: "It is possible, or, as we shall hereafter see, even probable, that the habit of self- command, like other habits, may be inherited. Thus at last man comes to feel, through acquired, and, per- haps, inherited habit, that it is best for him to obey his more persistent instincts. The imperious word ought seems merely to employ the consciousness of the persistent instinct, either innate or partly ac- quired, serving him as a guide, though liable to be disobeyed. We hardly use the word ought in a meta- phorical sense when we say hounds ought to hunt, pointers to point, and retrievers to retrieve their game. If they fail thus to act, they fail in their duty and act wrongly." f He expresses the following doubt as to whether habit may be inherited or not. " My chief source of doubt with respect to any such inheritance, is that senseless customs, superstitions and tastes, such as the horror of a Hindoo for unclean food, ought on the same principle to be inherited. Although this in it- self is perhaps not less probable than that animals should acquire inherited tastes for certain kinds of food or fear of certain foes, I have not met with any * Descent of Man, Vol. 1, p. 93. t Ibid, p. 88. 244 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED evidence in support of the transmission of supersti- tious customs or senseless habits." If the doctrine of heredity, as insisted on by Dar- win and Spencer, is true, it is evident that any course of conduct long persisted in ought to become heredi- tary. And yet after diligent search he tells us that he has " not met with any evidence in support" of this necessary part of the theory of evolution. Why insist on a theory which he admits does not explain all the facts? If acquired habits of morality can be inherited, then special Hindoo habits which have been formed in successive individuals for thousands of years ought to be inherited, but they are not. Spencer attempts to explain the origin of intuitions as follows: " These all have arisen from the organ- ized and consolidated experiences of all antecedent individuals, who bequeathed their slowly-developed nervous organizations, till they practically became forms of thought apparently independent of experi- ence. "I believe that the experiences of utility organ- ized and consolidated through all past generations of the human race, have been producing corresponding nervous modifications, which, by continued transmis- sion and accumulation, have become in us certain faculties of moral intuition — certain emotions re- sponding to right and wrong conduct, which have no apparent basis in the individual experiences of util- ity." Thus, according to Spencer, the moral faculties are due to the " experiences of utility." According to Darwin, " man comes to feel through acquired, and, perhaps, inherited habit, that it is best for him to obey his more persistent instincts. The imperious word ought seems merely to imply the consciousness of the persistent instinct." TEE ORIGIN OF MAN 245 He says: " We have now seen that actions are re- garded by savages, and were probably so regarded by primeval man, as good or bad, solely as they affect in an obvious manner the welfare of the tribe." * From this I presume he means that the most useful experiences have formed the most persistent instincts, so that there is no substantial difference between his and Spencer's theory. Both seek to trace the origin of the moral faculty to useful experiences. Darwin says: "The moral sense perhaps affords the best and highest distinction between man and the lower animals." t He thus defines a moral being: "A moral being is one who is capable of comparing his past and future actions or motives, and of approving or disapproving of them. We have no reason to suppose that any of the lower animals have this capacity; therefore when a monkey faces danger to rescue its comrade, or takes charge of an orphan monkey, we do not call its con- duct moral." J Here we have the admission that no animal is a moral being. Again he says that " man alone can with certainty be ranked as a moral being." § From these quotations we see the method by which Darwin and Spencer attempt to account for the origin of the moral nature of man. The great gulf between man and brute is admitted, but it is claimed that a protracted education, supplemented by inheritance to preserve what is gained, will convert animal into man. It is easy to imagine that by infinitely small steps any two points, however distant from each other, may be traversed — that by infinitesimal changes any change, however great, maybe made, but the practical difficul- ty of applying this theory is that the gulfs on the * Descent of Man, Vol. 1, p. 101. t Ibid, p. 85. \ Ibid § Ibid. 246 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED road of evolution are so many and so great that we see no possibility of passing over them. Take Darwin's definition of a moral being and see what an infinite distance it elevates man above the brutes. "Amoral being is one who is capable of comparing his past and future actions or motives, and of approving or disapproving of them." This defin- ition involves the consciousness of one's own exist- ence, the knowledge that he existed in the past, that he acted from motives, that he now has motives, that he can compare these two sets of motives and apply the "imperious word ought" or ought not, to his con- duct, that conscience approves or disapproves, and that he expects to exist in the future. Are we to be told that these high powers, which animals do not possess, are the fruit of animal in- stincts? On what ground 'are we to believe it? The evolution of the mind of man from the in- stincts of animals involves ultimately the evolution of all psychic phenomena from simple sensations of low forms of life, and these again from matter desti- tute of sensation. Mr. Spencer's " experiences of utility" began, I presume, with the inorganic matter involved in spon- taneous generation, and pushed on up to man. Are we to regard all psychic phenomena as one in quality, so that one faculty may be derived from an- other? Are touch, taste, sight, hearing, memory, imagination, the power of abstract reasoning, self- consciousness, conscience, faith, hope and love, all essentially alike, and can one be evolved from the other? Evolution assumes that they are essentially the same, and it is her task to prove it or fail. How can memory, or conscience, or reason be evolved from any or all the senses? If the power to reason is dif- THE ORIGIN OF MAN 247 ferent in quality from other powers, then it could not have been evolved from those powers. Spencer seeks to account for the origin of the moral faculty by " experiences of utility," but it is evident that experience can only educate and improve a faculty that exists, and not form a new one that is different in kind. Educating the special senses can- not create a mental power, nor can experiences of memory create the power to reason, nor do we know that any one faculty can create another, although the various powers may be of mutual benefit to each other. The question is not, how can a faculty be improved? but, how can it be created? If evolutionists can prove the identity of all psychic phenomena, then their theory may be true. If, on the other hand, these are so distinct in kind that one cannot be changed into another, then the theory fails. Spencer's " experiences of utility," accumulated and inherited for many generations, explains, if true, at most, the improvement of existing faculties, and not the creation of new ones. Take, for example, the special senses. Would it be possible by using the eye to evolve an ear? Or could taste or smell or any other sense give birth to sight? It is easy to talk about accumulating experiences through many generations, in the nervous system, and thus evolving all senses and all mental powers, but experiences can be such only in relation to faculties that exist. Again, could the diligent use of memory — a faculty necessary to all high mental operations — produce the power of abstract reasoning, or conscience, or the knowledge of right and wrong? However necessary memory may be to the reasoning faculty, yet how widely different they are in kind ! The latter faculty 248 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED implies the existence of the former, but memory does not imply the existence of reason. Many persons with great memories have been very deficient in power to reason. I speak especially of memory here, because, if the mental powers were evolved, it must have been one of the first that appeared. This would seem to be true both on account of its relations to the other mental faculties, and, because, in some form, it is manifested in a large part of the animal kingdom. We would, therefore, naturally look to memory as the faculty from which, or by the exercise of which, other mental powers might be evolved. Memory is the conscious record of the past. It is entirely different in kind from reason, will, or con- science, and, therefore, they cannot be the offspring of memory. Granting that there are definite relations between the nervous system and psychic phenomena, still it would seem that there would be no tendency of nerv- ous matter with which memory is connected to organ- ize nervous tissue that could perform other functions. The effect of cultivating memory is to strengthen memory in the individual, and not to create imagina- tion or any other power. The power to recall past experience is totally differ- ent in kind from the powers which plan with regard to the future. The memory of the fact that an apple fell on his head is different in kind from the reason- ing power which enabled Newton to discover the law of gravitation. Spencer says: "The proximate components of Mind are of two broadly-contrasted kinds — feelings and the relations between feelings. Among the mem- bers of each group there exist multitudinous unlike- nesses, many of which are extremely strong; but such THE ORIGIN OF MAN 249 unlikenesses are small compared with those which distinguish members of the one group from members of the other." * He also claims, "that the multitudinous forms of Mind known as different feelings, may be composed of simpler units of feeling, and even of units funda- mentally of one kind." t From the above it is seen that Spencer admits that there are " multitudinous " and " extremely strong " " unlikenesses " between mental phenomena, but he attempts to explain away the differences by assuming that each feeling is composed of simple units of feel- ing fundamentally of one kind. As a supposed analogy for this argument he refers to the fact that most substances in nature are com- pounds made up of a few simple substances, and that different compounds may be used by grouping the atoms differently and by taking different relevant numbers of the same atoms. It is evident, I think, that the supposed analogy will not hold good unless we assume Hatter and Mind to be fundamentally alike, a proposition which Mr. Spencer himself would not affirm. We see in the above the usual method which the evolutionist adopts in deriving the most diverse things, one from the other — namely, the addition or subtraction of atom by atom till the change is wrought. This subtle way of proceeding always leaves one in doubt as to just which atom he ought to strike out from the imaginary chain of evolution. To simplify the subject he makes use of the suppo- sition which has been made by others, that there is "but one ultimate form of Matter," — so there may be "units of feeling " " fundamentally of one kind." * Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1, p. 163. t Ibid, p. 156. 250 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED These are mere assumptions. Besides, if true of matter, it might not be true of mind. Judging from psychic phenomena, the indications are that if faculties are compound, they are composed of many unlike units instead of simply one kind. The many powers of the mind stand out sharply and distinctly from each other, and we are totally unable to explain one in terms of another. If, with Spencer, we say that all states of conscious- ness are feelings, yet this does not identify them. The question is, whence these feelings? Can one feeling originate another? Can the nerve center of one feeling produce a nerve center that can perform an entirely different function? Unless it can, the theory of evolution fails. The assumption that mind is made up of simple units of feeling that are fundamentally alike has nothing to justify it except the necessities of the theory which it is made to support. The fact that the mental powers work in harmony and bear certain relations to each other is not proof of their fundamental identity, nor that the one can originate from the other, — no more than can the eye from the ear, or the foot from the head. I cannot emphasize too strongly the fact that Mr. Spencer's theory of the evolution of the various pow- ers of the mind is built on the assumption that all mental powers are made up of " units of feeling " that are " fundamentally of one kind." By this mere assumption he sweeps away all essen- tial differences between psychic phenomena. He in- troduces us to his psychic laboratory, where by the. use of the simple " units of feeling " as agents and reagents, he proceeds to form as compounds all the wonderful and widely different faculties of the mind. I may say just here that, so far as we know, the THE ORIGIN OF MAN 251 chemist with " units " of matter, or atoms, " funda- mentally of one kind," can make little progress in building up material compounds. Allotropic condi- tions are few and comparatively unimportant, so that there is no certain foundation in material units for the assumed units of feeling of one kind only. Spencer assumes that all the atoms of different kinds of matter are probably fundamentally alike. The positive teaching of chemistry is that there are many kinds of atoms fundamentally unlike. He then assumes that all mental phenomena are made up of " units of feeling," and then further assumes that these units of feeling are "fundamentally of one kind." By calling all psychic phenomena feelings, and then resolving feelings into " nervous shocks " the science of Psychology is immensely simplified, if indeed it is not rendered more luminous. He tells us: "Mind is, certainly in some cases and probably in all, resolvable into 'nervous shocks.' "* And yet he says, " That a unit of feeling has nothing in common with a unit of motion becomes more than ever manifest when we bring the two into juxta- position." This admission, it seems to me, renders it impossi- ble to account for the origin of even the simplest feeling, from inorganic matter by the process of evo- lution. And yet it is necessary that the chasm be- tween the dead unconscious world and the living conscious world should be bridged. There is no mental process by which we can con- ceive the origin of any feeling from matter or from matter and motion. Mind persistently refuses to be identified with mat- ter. The Ego and the Non-ego — the subject and the * Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1, p. 156. 252 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED object — the thinker and the object of thought stand forever apart. Mr. Spencer says: "Nevertheless, it may be as well to say here, once for all, that were we compelled to choose between the alternatives of translating men- tal phenomena into physical phenomena, or of trans- lating physical phenomena into mental phenomena, the latter alternative would seem the more acceptable of the two."* Matter and mind cannot be identified with each other. Mind cannot spring from matter nor be explained in material terms. Of course, I do not deny that there are intimate and definite relations between mental phenomena and the nervous system, but I do deny that matter alone or matter plus motion constitutes mind. Mr. Spencer admits that " a unit of feeling has nothing in common with a unit of motion," so that all effort to identify mind as matter falls short of the truth. They stand at the two poles of thought. The theory of evolution fails to account for tne origin of even simple units of feeling; it fails to prove its assumption that the various widely-different mental powers are composed of simple units of feel- ing that are "fundamentally of one kind;" it fails to show how the higher mental powers could have been evolved from the lower powers which must have pre- ceded them, and, above all, it fails to explain the evo- lution of the moral faculty in man. Spencer claims that the "faculties of moral intui- tion " have been produced by " experiences of util- ity." I need not say that right and useful are not equivalent words. How widely different might be conduct when determined by the word ought, on the one hand, or by the word useful, on the other ! It * Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1, p. 159. THE ORIGIN OF MAN 253 might be useful to put to death the aged, the insane, the deformed and helpless, and thus to relieve socie- ty of great burdens, but no one claims that we ought to do this. Duty may not be useful to the doer; it may demand great sacrifices and even death, and yet it speaks with no uncertain voice. Duty looks to no earthly power to give it authority, nor does it seek the paths of pleasantness. Conscience sits enthroned in the soul, ever active, ever seeking to guide the life in the way of righteous- ness. No external threats nor internal decrees can silence its voice. When we would have it silent, then it speaks loudest; if we would deceive it by false logic, it laughs us to shame; if we would flee from it, it goes with us ; when we awake, hoping that it may have departed while we slumbered, we hear it whis- pering in the soul. It is ever present, ever clamoring to be heard — the voice of the Infinite calling us to duty. Spencer uses the expression, " experiences of util- ity," in trying to account for the evolution of con- science. This does not necessarily involve even the existence of mind, much less any mental conception of the useful. Plants have for millions of years been unconscious- ly doing work useful to the individuals, doing the work and serving to propagate their species. All ani- mals have of necessity been having " experiences of utility " throughout the long history of animal life on the earth. Are we to conclude that " experiences of utility" have organized the various nervous systems of all the different kinds of animals? How can the experience of an animal that has no nervous system whatever enable it to give birth to an animal that has a nervous system? 254 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED How can the useful experience of animals that are destitute of all mental powers produce animals that have these powers? No animal acts with a clear mental conception that what it is about to do will be useful to itself or oth- ers, and, having acted, it can not understand that what it has done is useful. The moral sentiment could not, therefore, have been evolved in animals from the idea of the useful, for this idea does not exist in animals. It is evident that not only experience of the useful, but also that a clear mental conception of the useful, must precede the moral sentiment if the latter has been evolved, as claimed. We do not know that animals do things from a knowledge that what they do will be useful. They are driven by instinct, not knowing why they act, nor what will be the results of their conduct. A wild fox hunts because he is hungry, and not be- cause he feels or knows that it will be useful. He does not say before starting that if he does not hunt he and his offspring that are dependent on him will perish. Nor is there evidence that he hunts because he anticipates that it will give him pleasure to eat what he may capture; but he does so because he is driven by blind instinct. Therefore, before talking about evolving conscience from useful experience, it would be well to prove that animals have well-defined ideas of the useful, and that these ideas, aside from instinct, are motives to action. The instincts of animals are sufficient for them in their narrow spheres. They enable them to compete with other forms that are endowed with instincts, and, consequently, there was no demand for animals TEE ORIGIN OF MAN 255 to rise above instinct, and to acquire the high mental powers of man. Even if animals had clear ideas of the useful, it is not at all evident that they would ever be able to apply them except to themselves as individuals. But I do not think that it can be shown that they have any abstract conception of the useful, and much less can it be true that they have a conscience which has been evolved out of their ideas of utility. I quote again the following from Darwin: "It is possible, or, as we shall hereafter see, even probable, that the habit of self-command, like other habits, be inherited. Thus at last man comes to feel, through acquired, and, perhaps, inherited habit, that it is best for him to obey his more persistent instincts. The imperious word ought seems merely to imply the con- sciousness of the existence of a persistent instinct, either innate or partly acquired, serving him as a guide, though liable to be disobeyed. We hardly use the word ought in a metaphorical sense when we say hounds ought to hunt, pointers to point, and retriev- ers to retrieve their game. If they fail thus to act, they fail in their duty and act wrongly." * He thus uses the word ought, which expresses in the fullest way our sense of moral obligation. In hunt- ing, hounds follow a persistent instinct, and this in- stinct constitutes the moral faculty, and yet Darwin admits that no animal is a moral being. They hunt without any intelligent purpose, and without freedom of choice, for instinct is blind and can not reason. If the instinct to hunt is similar to the moral quality in man, then all instincts are moral, and ought to be obeyed. If the hound ought to follow his instinct and hunt, then man ought to follow his instinct and slay his enemies. * Descent of Man, Vol. 1, p. 88. 256 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED If instinct may use the word ought, then why should one instinct have more authority than another? for each is entitled to the use of the word. When we have followed one instinct and committed a deed, why should a "more persistent instinct" afterwards condemn us? Both are armed with the word ought. Why do we not reason thus concerning murder? I ought to follow my instinct. My instinct told me to murder an enemy, and I obeyed. I did my duty and my conscience is clear. Therefore, if another instinct says that I ought not to have done so, I answer that my instinct to murder ought to fulfill its purpose. Thus, according to conflicting instincts, I ought and I ought not to have committed murder. Thus morality annihilates herself — moral quality is gone — conscience has no right to exist — the whole matter of moral obligation is a delusion — a delusion, in fact, on the belief of which, more than on all else, depends the welfare of the human race. With instinct as the basis of morality, there can be no freedom of choice, no deliberation, no fore- thought, and there ought to be no pangs of con- science. The high mental powers, which Mr. Darwin himself acknowledges are necessary to constitute a moral being, are absent from instinct, and by making the latter the foundation of the moral faculty, irre- sponsibility and fatalism are substituted for responsi- bility and freedom of the will. If the instinct of morality is wholly inherited, then its possessor cannot be responsible for possessing it, nor for following where it leads, if it carries the word ought as authority. If, on the other hand, the instinct may be acquired by cultivation, and we say that a person ought thus to gain it, then the word ought precedes instinct and exists independently of it. THE ORIGIN OF MAN 257 In either case there is no foundation in instinct for morality. Intelligence and freedom of choice alone, and not blind instinct, give moral quality to conduct. It is evident that the word ought is used in a highly " figurative sense " when applied to the instinct of a hound to hunt. The failure of the hound to hunt awakens no pangs of conscience. Conscience and instinct stand widely apart. The exercise of the former demands the use of the highest mental powers, while the action of pure instinct is independent of such powers. Instinct may exist forever, as it has existed in all animals, without giving birth to conscience. I see no probable method of transition from the former to the latter. To call the moral faculty in man an in- stinct is not to show how it can be evolved from the instincts of animals. The great gulf between the moral nature of man and the instincts of animals remains unbridged. I quote again what Darwin has said: " A moral being is one who is capable of comparing his past and future actions or motives, and of approving or disap- proving of them. We have no reason to suppose that any of the lower animals have this capacity." Nor do we have reason to suppose that the infinite chasm between man's moral and intellectual nature and the capacity of the highest animals could ever have been bridged by the process of evolution. Mr. Darwin's admissions, in speaking of the evolution of man's high powers, are sufficient to show the weakness of the evidence on which he relies. Keason, the power to compare ideas and draw con- clusions, the power to think about our past and pres- ent mental conditions, the power to form abstract ideas, the use of language, conscience, faith, hope and disinterested love — love for country, for human- 17 258 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED ity, for generations yet unborn — these high qualities are so different from anything that we find in the brutes, that it is impossible for me to believe that they could have been evolved by natural processes. If it could even be shown that the physical man has been evolved from some lower form of animal, still this fact could not remove the difficulty of evolv- ing man's mind from the few and feeble powers of brutes. We may speak, if we please, of the continuity in the chain of natural processes, which is indeed well so far as we can show it to be true, but when we come to the creation of the mind of man, I believe that there was a break in the chain, and that it required the special act of the Supreme Intelligence. I can the more readily believe this when I see that it is the prerogative of mind to interfere with the works of nature and produce results that could never have taken place if it had not been for mind. " Will counts for something." The mind of man moving his body has modified the earth in infinite ways that never could have been, if they had not been pro- duced by intelligence. The building of a locomotive is an interference in numerous ways with the course of events and with the arrangement of things as they would have been if it were not for the control of mind. And yet we are well aware that in constructing a locomotive no law of nature is interfered with. On the other hand, we know that in order to build it the laws of nature must be strictly complied with. Man produces his results by the intelligent use of his own body and by guiding the forces of nature so as to ac- complish his purposes. He avails himself of chem- ical and mechanical laws — he uses some forces as in- struments with which to overcome others — he, by his intelligence, produces conflicts between materials and THE OBIGIN OF MAN 259 forces where otherwise they could not exist — thus ful- filling his purposes. And so it is the prerogative of mind to interfere with the course of events, and this in conformity with nature's laws. We cannot say that the creation of the mind of man by the Supreme Intelligence would be an interference with the laws of nature. To crown the earth with a ruling intelligence capable of high attainments is the one thing which above all else could give meaning to creation. The accomplish- ment of this highest purpose, by which a new quality of existence was introduced into the earth, could only be done by a special act of the intelligent, creative Power. We are driven to this conclusion not only by our inability to explain the evolution of man's mind from the powers of the lower animals, but also by the fact that we cannot explain mind in terms of the physical factors in the universe. If we attempt to account for mind by physical agencies alone, we are confined to matter, ether and force. The only known effect of force upon matter and ether is to impart motion to them. Given, atoms and molecules in motion^ can we derive the phenom- ena of mind? Is mind simply matter in motion? Is the conscious Ego equivalent to moving molecules? Are reason, memory, will, love and all mental powers simply molecules in motion? Evidently to ask these questions is to answer them. We can see no resem- blance between memory and heat, or between reason and electricity, or between imagination and gravity. When one physical force is converted into another, as heat into electricity, light, or mechanical motion, there is always a definite qualitative and quantitative relation between them, but we cannot affirm that any 260 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED such relations exist between mental phenomena and the forces of nature. If a definite quantity of heat can be converted into a definite quantity of will, then will may be converted back into heat. We do not know that heat and elec- tricity are generated by mental activity. The only known effect of applying force to matter is to impart motion to the latter. We cannot by warming the brain artificially increase the power to think. The phenomena of mind are entirely different from mole- cular motion. Motion of little pieces of matter is not thought. Force and matter are related to each other, but they are not identical; and so mind is related to matter and force, but it is not identical with them. We have already stated that modern physicists look upon the existence of ether as a fact, and yet ether is so subtle that we cannot discover its existence as mat- ter. If we must assume the existence of an all-per- vading form of matter in order to explain natural phenomena, is it more unreasonable to assume the ex- istence of an all-pervading mind in order to explain mental phenomena? If we cannot explain mind in terms of matter, ether and force, i. e., in terms of molecular motion, we may logically assume the exist- ence of a cause sufficient to explain it — the existence of an intelligent cause. The great forces of nature are ever at work silently and unseen, and the universe without them would be motionless. We judge that they exist by examining the results produced. We have better reason to be- lieve in the existence of mind than of heat or light, for our knowledge of mind is direct and immediate. For the thinker to dispute his own existence is to an- nihilate the universe. The mind must judge of its own qualities first, and its decision in respect to the nature of its powers must b.e accepted. Looking at THE ORIGIN OF MAN 261 itself alone it might be constrained to believe that all existence is conscious, — that the universe is mind alone ; but looking also at the extenal world, it invari- ably contrasts itself with matter and force, and judges itself to be essentially different. It is not difficult for even the most untutored savage to believe that his soul is different from his body and from all the exter- nal world. The common sense of mankind in all ages has given a uniform decision in the matter of the ex- istence of the soul, and it has ever thought it neces- sary to explain mind by referring to some power beyond the physical forces of nature. After all, if we were to affirm that matter is con- scious it would be saying that mind is, so far as we know, indestructible and eternal. If mind and mat- ter ape identical, then mind is secure through eternity. If moving molecules are mind, then moving atoms are also mind. If molecules of brain composed of carbon, hydro- gen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus are conscious and think and will, then each of these five simple sub- stances must embody in itself or be in itself a certain portion of consciousness, for the sum cannot be greater than all the parts that compose it. To affirm that organized matter is conscious — that mind is a property of organized matter — is at bottom to affirm that simple forms of matter also are con- scious. So far as it can be traced in the laboratory, organized matter consists of molecules made by the union of elementary substances, Mind has a scope of conscious relations to time, space, matter, force, and to mind, that are entirely different, so far as we can ascertain, from the rela- tions of matter and force to each other. Mind alone looks backward and forward in time, searches space, determines the qualities of matter, 262 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED studies the forces of nature, and understands the great multitude of its own conscious conditions. To attempt to resolve all mental phenomena in£o mole- cular motion, or into the properties of molecules, is entirely beyond all analogy. To say that a train of reasoning or a pang of conscience is due to the mo- tion of small pieces of matter which compose the brain, is to affirm that which is beyond the power of thought and beyond belief. That mind is in some way related to matter and force is beyond question, but it does not follow that it is identical with them. The physical organism, with its mechanical powers, is but the servant of the mind. The dominion of mind is one of the. most apparent facts in nature. That the ruling power is the offspring of that which it rules would seem to be impossible. That the soul is only "dust and ashes" it persistently shrinks from believing. There is a deep-set and ineffaceable repug- nance — a rebellion of the soul against every attempt to identify it with matter, or to bring it under the con- trol of matter. Consciousness of its supremacy is ever present and persistent. Our consciousness is that mind is different from all else, and that mind is supreme over all else, by reason of its ability to plan and to execute. This conscious dominion of mind over matter and the forces of nature and over all organic beings places it in a class distinct from the rest of the world. It realizes that it is the right- ful and sole heir to the throne which it occupies. Material phenomena are made known to the soul through the avenue of the senses, but we are con- scious of mental phenomena that are not due to sen- sation. An apple fell on Newton's head, producing a sensation, and this was followed by a course of reason- ing which resulted in the discovery of the universal THE ORIGIN OF MAN 263 law of gravitation. The pain produced by the stroke of the apple, together with all the other sensations aroused by the external world which Newton ever ex- perienced,werenot equivalent to the process of reason- ing by which he deduced the law. The faculty with which we reason is not sensation. Ten years ago we saw an object : an image of the object was formed on the retina of the eye, and the mind perceived the image and recorded it. To-day we remember that we saw the image ten years ago. How can we explain the act of remembering? The act of remembering is not simply the reproduction of a former mental condition, but it is also a recognition of the fact that the former mental condition existed. If the original impression made by seeing the object could be regarded as simply a sensation, still the sub- sequent act of remembering involves more than sensation. If we claim that. the sight of the object left a mate- rial record on the brain, and that this material record is memory, we are in total darkness. Granted that a material record is kept, what reads the record? Does the record read itself? Memory is the power which reads and identifies the record. If we try to explain memory by supposing it to be the vibrations of molecules of nerve matter, we must suppose that molecules which vibrate to-day recog- nize the fact, by vibrating, that ten years ago entirely different molecules vibrated in a similar way. This theory of molecular motion is entirely inadequate to explain any mental condition whatever. If we explain memory by saying, in general terms, that it is the recurrence of a former condition of the nervous system, this is insufficient, for the evident rea- son that memory is more than this. To explain memory, therefore, it is necessary to 264 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED assume more than molecular motion and more than sensation. It is a faculty which cannot be derived from matter, nor even from the senses of man. Eeason makes use of materials furnished by the senses — compares, corrects and often rejects the testi- mony of the senses. Therefore, reason is not the off- spring of sensation. The will is frequently exercised in opposition to the strongest desires of the senses, thus showing that it is essentially different from sensation. If these high mental powei-s are more than sensa- tion, then they could not have originated from the senses, and we must conclude that they have had a different origin. In conclusion I need hardly say that I see no possi- ble method by which the mind of man could have been evolved. Its highest powers, I think, are essentially different from the faculties of animals. They could not have been evolved from instinct nor from sensa- tion, for they are vastly more than these; nor could they have been evolved from experiences of utility, for such experiences imply the existence of faculties, and can therefore, at most, only account for the improvement of existing faculties; nor can they be explained in terms of molecular motion, for the rela- tion between mechanical motion and. conditions of the mind are totally inconceivable. I therefore refer the origin of the mind to the Infinite Intelligence which has created the universe. Mind, which believes in the existence of the Infinite and the Eternal — which believes' the universe to be tinder the control of a Supreme Intelligence, is more than a handful of dust — more than a transient breath. To put mind on a level with matter and the forces of aature, or with instincts and sensations is to drive it THE ORIGIN OF MAN 265 from its throne of conscious supremacy — it is to ignore our most certain experiences. I see no reason why the human mind — the conscious king over matter and force, over instincts and sensa- tions — should abdicate and descend from the throne. Mind alone can give meaning to the universe. Without its presence flowers would bloom, stars would shine and worlds would revolve in vain. By mind and in the interests of mind all things are to be interpreted; it is the beginning and the end. Mind, which declares the existence of an intelligent Creator, who has made and who sustains all things, must occupy as mind more than transient relations to this Creator. I cannot close this chapter in a more appropriate way than by quoting the closing paragraph of the great Geology finished by Dana shortly before his death. It comes as the parting word of one of the greatest scientists and one of the noblest characters that the world has produced. It is as follows: " Whatever the results of further search, we feel assured, in accord with Wallace, who shares with Darwin in the authorship of the theory of Natural Selection, that the intervention of a Power above Nature was at the basis of Man's development. Be- lieving that Nature exists through the will and ever- acting power of the Divine Being, and that all its great truths, its beauties, its harmonies, are manifes- tations of His wisdom and power, or in the words nearly of Wallace, that the whole Universe is not merely dependent on, but actually is, the Will of one Supreme Intelligence, Nature, with Man as its cul- minant species, is no longer a mystery." * * Manual of Geology, p. 1036. XVI. A EUTUKE LIFE. It has been claimed that it is beyond the province of science to deal with the question of a future life. It seems to me that science may deal with all facts of nature within our reach and draw such conclusions as- these facts may justify. In the preceding pages I have endeavored to show that the existence of the human mind can be ac- counted for only by assuming the existence of an In- telligent Cause; that it cannot be explained in terms of matter, ether and force; and that being dif- ferent from these, its existence cannot be determined by them. The physicist is driven to assume the existence of ether as a universal physical medium, and I think that it is no less imperative to assume the existence of God as a Universal Spirit. The present existence of mind is the most certain fact in the Universe, and the present may give assur- ance for the future. The human race has looked with steady gaze into the future, and has believed and hoped that death will not end all. This universal belief and desire to live in the future are an assurance that the soul may sur- vive. Why and " whence this strange desire, this longing after immortality" if it must remain forever unsatis- fied? Does nature mock herself? Does she promise 266 A FUTURE LIFE 267 more than she can fulfill? That she has made the promise of a future existence in which the soul shall preserve its conscious identity is written in the uni- versal desire and belief of the human race in all ages. Nature affords the means for gratifying, in the most ample way, all of man's natural desires. If he is thirsty, she gives him water to' quench his thirst. If hungry, she offers him nourishing and delicious food of a thousand kinds to satisfy his hunger. If he would enjoy the beautiful, the world abounds in objects that gratify his love of the beautiful. If he seeks and longs for immortality, it would seem to be in harmony with the general workings of nature's laws that this greatest and most cherished of all ' desires should be gratified. Matter and force do not perish; they may change their relations to each other, but not their essential nature. Why shall we assume that mind, the ruler of all, is an exception to indestructibility? Why shall we say that the highest product of creation — that Without which creation would have been a failure, so far as we can judge — must perish, while thoughtless, senseless matter and force remain through the eternal ages? "I hold it truth with him who sings To one clear harp in divers tones, That men may rise on stepping-stones Of their dead selves to higher things." Must we believe that mind which declares the ex- istence of an Infinite, Intelligent Creator is the most transient of all things? The mind feels that it was not born to die. It turns with abhorrence from the thought of annihila- tion and seeks refuge in the hope of a happy exist- ence through endless ages to come. 268 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED How can we explain the inheritance of these senti- ments which are a part of our nature? How have they originated and how have they been transmitted from age to age? How are mental characteristics transmitted from parents to offspring? Have the traits of father and mother combined been handed down through long ages by means of the few mole- cules of matter that constitute the beginning of each material organism? And what theory can satisfactor- ily explain the formation of the organic germs of living beings? I need not say that heredity is one of the profound- est mysteries of nature. To explain it baffles the powers of the imagination. While we may look upon it as a natural process, yet in the deepest and truest sense I regard it as a constantly recurring exhibition of the Divine power. No miracle can be more won- derful nor incomprehensible than the results of heredity. Nature is crowded with mysteries. Life is a mys- tery. We know that we live, but how or why we know not. That we may live in the future may as well be a part of the great plan as that we live now. Unless it can be shown that mind is necessarily de- pendent for its existence on organic matter, a thing which it is impossible to prove, then it may be possi- ble for mind to exist after the body perishes. A future life seems necessary in order that the soul may make the endless progress of which it is capable. The beast eats and lies down perfectly sat- isfied. It soon makes the limited progress of which it is capable. But the inquisitive mind of man is never satisfied. It searches the universe in quest of truth, and is ever anxious to enlarge its store of knowledge. It would seem probable that future opportunity A FUTURE LIFE 269 might be granted to enlarge the work begun here but left so incomplete at the close of even the longest life. " Then we shall know," expresses an infinite long- ing of the mind of man. The mind seeks to exhaust the treasures of the universe. Has it been ordained that this insatiable desire which would search out God and bring to light all mysteries shall be buried in the dust at the end of the few brief years of our earthly pilgrimage? Would this not indicate an in- completeness that does not elsewhere exist in nature? " Thou wilt not leave us in the dust, Thou madest man, we know not why; He thinks he was not made to die, And thou hast made him, thou art just. "My own dim life should teach me this, That life shall live forevermore, Else earth is darkness at the core, And dust and ashes all that is.'.' Faith, hope, love, reason, conscience, imagination, all look to the future for the fulfillment of their desires. The boundless desires of the mind demand further time and opportunity for the accomplishment of their purposes. We labor to-day that we and others may have future material blessings in this life. The present is made to serve the future. Man's superiority con- sists largely in the faet that his faculties cause him to store up knowledge and materials for future use. The man who lives for to-day only we count of little worth, and he is very liable to be a reckless and dan- ous man to society. Human life is dignified and en- nobled by making present conduct administer not only to present, but also to future good. If the human race held the belief that death would end all, what a change would be wrought in human conduct! The belief in an infinite future for the soul ■270 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED has been most invigorating to mental and moral life. And shall we hold that this belief is but a dream, and that a dream, never to be fulfilled, has been nec- essary as a means of lifting man higher in the scale of being? Has the Creator of the Universe so ordered things that we must believe a falsehood in order that we may go forward on the road of prog- ress? I think it safer to hold that man's belief in a future state of existence is ennobling because it is a prophecy of the life to come. Nature is not out of joint, nor false to her most sacred promises. If we hold the universal belief in a future existence to be but the result of an instinct inherited through countless generations, yet must we account for the instinct. The love of life is one of the strongest instincts, and instincts are quite infallible. Instinct comes by birth, and harmonizes with the facts of the nniverse. Whatever be the origin of the universal belief in a future state of existence — whether instinct, reason or revelation — the fact that this faith exists shows the profoundest yearnings of human nature, and, from analogy, we may believe that the future holds in store the means of satisfying the boundless aspirations of the human soul. Life and death go hand in hand. The Power that made life also ordained death. If life is good and desirable, we may also trust that death is equally good and not to be feared. Both are parts of the uni- versal plan. We may trust that the Power that rules will make no mistakes — that all things through the endless ages will be wisely adjusted. Time flows eternally, and events succeed each other without intermission; among these events are life and death, and they must be in harmony with A FUTURE LIFE 271 ■each other. Death cannot be the contradiction of life. In the endless chain of events death can only be one link — a brief transition from the life that now is to the life that is beyond. The stream of life flows forever on. Death is not its end, but only the closed door that shuts it out from mortal view. Nature proclaims with universal voice that things which are shall be. Change is not annihilation, but the establishment of new relations. Matter, force .and mind exist for eternity. The upward progress through the long ages indi- cates that there may be other steps in the future. Matter, plant life, animal life, grading from the sim- plest organism, a single cell, with no sense except that of touch, and that but feebly developed, on up through more and more complex form3 till we reach the highest vertebrates, with all the senses highly developed and with marvelous instincts; thence on by the greatest of all steps of progress in creation to the mind of man — this upward march of purpose in crea- tion speaks of something higher yet to come. The purpose of the Creator, it seems to me, cannot be fulfilled by blotting out his noblest work, but rather may it be by advancing the soul to other opportunities for which the experiences of this life have prepared it. XVII. DESIGN IN NATUEE. Does nature furnish satisfactory evidence of de- sign, and, therefore, of the existence of an intelligent Creator? Nature seems to be a vast machine with infinitely complicated parts — with springs, and levers, and wheels within wheels, all nicely adjusted and lubri- cated, and seemingly capable of perpetual motion. We know not when its operations. began, nor can we tell when they will end. Through the long ages of the past it has been ceaselessly at work producing a series of results varying much in their nature. As the ages have passed slowly by her spindles have drawn out finer threads and her looms have woven more wonderful fabrics. The stream of creation has flowed upward. Begin- ning in matter, it ended in mind. Matter and force, vegetable life, animal life, animal instincts, and mind constitute a series of steps upward that cannot be explained in terms of matter, motion and force. This upward movement in creation, culminating in mind, which persistently refuses to be identified with all else in creation, gives the broad assurance that the Creator of all things is a God of Intelligence. It seems reasonable to believe that the Creator is not of a less exalted nature than the mind of man which he has made. " He who hath made the eye can he not see? He who hath made the ear can he not 272 DESIGN IN NATURE 273 hear?" He who hath made the mind of man can he not think? I am aware that this is poor logic to those who attempt to explain all things in terms of matter, motion and force. If they choose to explain the highest by means of the lowest factors in creation, I can say that I prefer to explain all by means of the highest known power. Creation, as I believe, begins in mind and ends in mind, while all things are to serve the purposes of intelligence. • The creation of matter alone, with nothing further in view, would hardly seem to be an object. But a world crowned with a being of noble mind, of far- reaching intelligence, with capacities for interpreting and enjoying all things, would seem to be an object worthy of and demanding an intelligent Creator. I will now present some of the facts pertaining to the existence of living beings upon the earth which are evidence of design. The existence of the sun for many millions of years at a temperature favorable to life upon the earth, as shown by the presence of tr^e great multi- tude of forms of animal and vegetable life through the long ages of geology, together with the proba- bility that this condition will continue for millions of years to come, is a mark of intelligence. The fact that plants and animals have lived upon the earth for millions of years is conclusively shown by the geo- logical record. Sir William Thomson thinks that the sun has not probably illuminated the earth for more than 100,- 000,000 years, and that it has enough heat and light to supply the earth at the present rate of radiation for from 10,000,000 to 50,000,000 years to come. When we remember the great extremes of tempera- 18 274 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED ture to which different parts of the universe are sub- jected — the almost absolute zero of interstellar space, the frigid moon, the sun with a temperature of thous- ands of degrees — and when we remember that a change of temperature of comparatively few degrees would destroy all known forms of life, and that for many millions of years the earth's temperature has been so uniform that life has existed in abundance, nothing short of intelligent purpose can explain these facts. Even if we accept the theory that the sun's heat has been generated by the bombardment of me- teors, which is, indeed, the most plausible physical theory, yet it would seem to require Divine intelli- gence and power to keep the supply uniform. In addition to the quite uniform temperature of the sun during this long period, certain conditions were necessary upon the earth in order to prevent its temperature from undergoing much greater variation than has taken place. The existence of the atmos- phere around the earth and of moisture in the atmos- phere is of the greatest importance in retaining the heat of the sun which has reached the surface of the earth. The rays of heat of high refrangibility readily pass through the atmosphere to the earth, but on striking the earth they are changed to rays of low refrangibility, which do not readily escape through the atmosphere into space. Also, the large quantity of water upon the surface of the earth has much to do in rendering the climate uniform. The high specific heat of water enables it to absorb a large quantity of heat without undergoing much change of temperature, and this heat is slowly given up by the water to render the climate more uniform. The production of a uniform climate through long periods involved not only a sun of uniform tempera- DESIGN IN NATURE 275 ture, but also the existence of an atmosphere and of a large quantity of water on the earth. In addition to these things, the fact that water expands on cooling from 4° Centigrade until it reaches 0° and freezes, thus rendering the ice con- siderably lighter than the water, so that it floats on the surface, is a matter of much importance. If, instead of expanding when it freezes, it were to fol- low the almost universal law and contract on cooling to the freezing point, the ice formed would be heavier than water and would sink to the bottom of rivers and lakes, thus causing it to accumulate in much larger quantities than at present; so much would probably be formed, owing to the fact that the sur- face water would not be protected by ice as it now is, that it would probably destroy all life, at least in the fresh waters of the globe. These large provisions in nature, adapting the earth to the existence of a countless number of or- ganic forms, we cannot regard as having been pro- duced by chance. The distance of the earth from the sun is such as to give a temperature favorable to life. If ether exists, its resistance to the progress of the earth in its orbit is causing the earth to slowly approach the sun in a spiral orbit, and this gradual approach may pos- sibly compensate for a decrease in the radiant energy of the sun. The length of days and nights on most parts of the earth is of great importance in helping to preserve a uniform temperature which favors the existence of living organisms. If the days and nights were much lengthened, it is evident that this would produce much greater extremes of temperature than at pres- ent. The fact, also, that the northern hemisphere of the 276 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED earth, in which is much the greater part of dry land, is nearer the sun in winter than in summer, and that the reverse is true of the "southern hemisphere, in which most of the water exists, is a wise provision for preventing those extremes of temperature which would occur if the sun were in aphelion in our win- ter and in perihelion in our summer. Also, the various seasons of the year are well adapted to the growth of vegetation and to the wel- fare of animals. The seasons are due to inclination of the earth's axis to the ecliptic, and their length is determined by the time required for the earth to revolve round the sun. The wonderful chemical laws to which atoms are subject — the law of combination according to atomic weights, and the law of multiple proportions, show the infinite wisdom and power of the Creator. Each atom of matter is stamped with power that is definite and invariable, so that it acts with absolute precision in all that it does. Thus the primary building mate- rials of the universe show that they are the workman- ship of an Infinite Intelligence. Can the chemist who understands the great multitude of ways in which elements combine according to well-known and invariable laws doubt that behind these laws there is a ruling Intelligence? I have already sufficiently con- sidered these laws in the chapter on Matter. If we consider the kinds and relative quantities of simple substances that are found in the earth, with reference to the existence of living beings, and finally of man upon the earth, I think that the evidences of design are unmistakable. It is evident that many material conditions must be ~ fulfilled before it is possible for any living thing with which we are acquainted to exist, and vastly greater must be the number, of such conditions before a DESIGN IN NATURE 277 world, adapted not only to the existence of man, but also to the gratification of his innumerable desires, could be established. A world which contains an almost infinite number of different objects which may contribute to the physical and mental well-being of man — a world fur- nished with many forces which he can use as instru- ments to accomplish his purposes — a world of infinite but harmonious complications of materials and forces, which, the better they are understood, the more they serve the highest purposes of intelligence — such a world cannot be separated from the idea of an intelligent Creator. If we inquire concerning the possibility of the ex- istence of living beings upon the earth, and more especially as to the possibility of man's existence and welfare here, with the idea of creation by chance on the one hand, and according to intelligent purpose on the other, I feel sure that we shall find the weight of facts to be greatly in favor of the latter. For this purpose I will now consider the kinds and relative quantities of simple substances that enter into the composition of the earth. About seventy elements are well known to the chemist. Of this number, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen are necessary in the composition of every living organism. In addition to these, in most animals, calcium, iron, sodium, phosphorus, sulphur, chlorine, and, perhaps, some other elements are nec- essary. In plants additional elements are found. The human body contains sixteen elements, most of which exist in very small relative quantities. The soft parts of animals are composed almost exclusively of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. In addi- tion to these four elements, the earthy part of bones contains calcium and phosphorus, while shells are 278 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED composed of calcium combined with carbon and oxygen. Plants are composed mostly of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, with a small per cent of nitro- ■gen, together with the ingredients of the ash. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen are pre- eminently the most important elements in the organic world. If any one of these elements had been left out of the earth, or if it had been bound up in cer- tain compounds in the earth's crust, so that it could not be used by living beings, then life could not exist. Considering them in detail: Oxygen constitutes more than one-fifth of the volume and nearly one- fourth the' weight of the air, in which it is mixed, but not chemically combined, with nitrogen. It com- prises eight-ninths of the weight of water, and from forty to fifty per cent of the solid crust of the earth. It is by far the most abundant element in the surface of the earth ; and when we consider the fact that it combines with each of the seventy elements .except one, we at once see the necessity for its great abun- dance. If there had been only enough to aid in form- ing the solid crust of the earth, then water and the free oxygen of the air would not exist, and life would be impossible. If to the oxygen entering into the solid part of the earth there had been added the enormous quantity that is found in water, and no more, then the free oxygen of the air would be absent, and animal life could not exist, for all animals require free oxygen. Hydrogen is another element that is necessary in the structure of every living thing. Its absence would mean the absence of life. It constitutes one-ninth of the weight of water, and it forms a part of certain other compounds that serve as food for plants. If it existed in only small quantity, as is the case with most elements, then it would all be locked up in com- DESIGN IN NATURE 279 pounds that compose the crust of the earth, so that there would be no free water, and life could not ex- ist. If it had existed in much greater quantity than at present, it would have combined with all the free oxygen of the air, thus forming more water, and ren- dering animal life impossible. Carbon is a third element that is necessary in every living being. It exists largely in carbonates, of which limestone is the chief; also, in coal, coal-oil, and "natural gas." One of its most important com- pounds is carbon dioxide, or carbonic acid, which ex- ists in small quantity in the air, and from this gas plants obtain their supply of carbon. If the quantity of carbon had been largely increased it would have combined with all the free oxygen of the air, converting it into carbon dioxide, thus ren- dering life impossible. If the quantity had been much smaller than it is, then none would have been stored up in the form of coal for the use of man, and the supply in the atmos- phere would long since have been exhausted by plants, thus rendering the earth lifeless. Nitrogen is a fourth necessary element. Free nitro- gen comprises about four-fifths of the volume of the air. It also helps to form certain compounds which exist in small quantities in the soil, and which are nec- essary food for plants. These compounds do not accumulate in large quantities in the soil, owing to the fact that they are very soluble and are conse- quently carried away by running water into the oceans. Besides, their presence in large quantities in the soil would be destructive to vegetation. To keep up the necessary supply of nitrogen com- pounds in the soil, it is claimed that the free nitrogen of the air is, by the process of nitrification, being slowly converted into food for plants. The supply of 280 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED free nitrogen is, however, so great that it will, no doubt, last for millions of years. If the supply of this element had been very small, its compounds would long since have been washed into the oceans, thus rendering the growth of plants, and, consequently, animal life on the dry land, impos- sible. Besides, if the quantity of nitrogen in the air were greatly decreased, thus leaving the atmosphere mostly oxygen, the destructive effect of conflagrations would be so great that cities could not exist, and the perils to property and to human life would be greatly mul- tiplied. If, the quantity of nitrogen in the air were largely increased, then the oxygen of the air would be too much diluted to serve, in the best way, the purposes of breathing and combustion. Phosphorus is a fifth element that is necessary to the organic world. It is found in greatest abundance in the seeds of plants and the bones of animals. It exists in small quantities, as phosphates, in all fertile soils. In the free state it is extremely poisonous, and its preponderance, as an element, in the structure of the earth would destroy all life, either directly, as a poison, or indirectly, by uniting with all the oxygen of the air. The metal calcium is a necessary part of bones, and of the shells of animals. There is nothing, so far as we know, that could take the place of phosphate of calcium in the growth of bones, or of carbonate of calcium in shells and corals. In addition to the above, iron, chlorine, sulphur, sodium and other elements are important and prob- ably necessary in most plants and animals. If any one of the various metals of the alkalies had greatly preponderated in the composition of the earth, then DESIGN IN NATURE 281 its waters might have been alkaline and its surface an alkaline waste. If chlorine were as abundant as oxygen, then the air would be laden with a deadly gas; or if bromine were as abundant, the streams on the surface of the earth would be liquid poison. The various poisonous elements exist in such small quantities that they are all locked up in harmless and useful compounds. Many of the most useful com- pounds contain elements which, in the uncombined condition, would be destructive to life. Common salt, for example, is composed of two deadly ele- ments. Again, it was necessary in order to form stable con- tinents that would remain permanently above the water of the oceans, that most of the minerals on the surface of the earth should be quite insoluble in water, otherwise the land would soon be carried in solution into the oceans. This object has been well accomplished by the great abundance of especially a few elements, such as silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, iron, carbon, oxygen and others, which form harmless, insoluble compounds, and which are adapted, not only to give permanence to the conti- nents, but also to form proper soils for the growth of plants. I might continue indefinitely with regard to the kinds and relative quantities of elements in the earth as related to the existence and welfare of plants, animals and man. The number of relative quantities in which the seventy known elements might exist so as to render life impossible is inconceivably great, and when we add to this the probability that some one or more of the various elements necessary to life would, if left to chance to select, have been omitted, it amounts, I think, to a certainty that the creation of 282 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED the earth cannot have taken place without the guid- ance of a Supreme Intelligence. Let him who believes in the doctrine of chance in creation, calculate the probabilities for and against the proposition that matter, assuming it to exist, could be collected by chance, of such kinds and in such relative quantities that life of any kind would be possible, and then let him calculate the additional contingencies that are involved in the existence of man as an animal, and then of man as a being of lofty intelligence with many desires to gratify, and then let him add the difficulties involved in the exist- ence of the sun at the proper temperature for mill- ions of years, and of the earth's motions and rela- tions to the sun, and I think that he will agree that the probabilities of creation by chance are few com- pared to those in favor of creation by an Intelligent Cause. It will be noticed that I have been speaking of a very complex condition of things that must exist be- fore living organisms, such as those with which we are acquainted, could originate and continue to live on the earth. These complex inanimate conditions could not have been evolved from each other. We know of no method by which any one of the seventy elements found in the structure of the earth can be produced from any other one. The kinds of primary building materials and their relative quantities, as found in the earth, could not have been determined by the process of evolution. If the doctrine of evolution is true aside from a con- trolling Intelligence in the creation of the earth, then evolution must account for both the kinds and the quantities of the elements that exist in the earth — a thing which, I think, it is totally incapable of doing. I cannot too strongly emphasize my conviction that DESIGN IN NATURE 283 the extremely complex nature of physical condi- tions which must precede life, and which are well adapted to the existence of countless forms of living beings, and to the gratification of the innumerable desires of an intelligent, moral being, such as man, could not have been produced by chance nor by an evolution destitute of a controlling Intelligence. The argument in favor of design, I think, might safely rest on this branch of the evidence. I will now consider the evidence of design as seen in the existence of man under present conditions. The doctrine of evolution is not opposed to the idea of design, unless evolution is atheistic — a thing which most evolutionists do not claim. The same intelligence would be required to make a machine in a year that would be necessary to con- struct it in a day. The length of time occupied in creation cannot affect the answer to the question of design, one way or the other. That the body of man is composed of matter there can be no dispute. That man would be just as noble if evolved from a gorilla as if created directly from inorganic matter, is also true. The question as to how long it took to make man from inorganic matter — whether one minute or a hun- dred million years — would not seem to be a matter of great importance, and yet this question, I think, involves the essential difference between those who believe in creation by fiat and by evolution. To lift a hundred pounds a thousand feet high in a vertical line requires the same amount and kind of force as to lift it a thousand feet high by rolling it up a long inclined plane. If it would require intelligence to construct a full- grown living man in an hour from earth, water and 284 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED air, it would require equal intelligence to make him in a million years. Unless time and intelligence are essentially the same, it is futile to attempt to substi- tute the former for the latter as a factor in creation. If I were the only human being known to myself on the earth, and should go out some day and meet a man, and then begin to inquire and reason concerning his origin, what would be the logical conclusion to which I might come? Was he created by chance or by design? For the purpose of answering this question I pro- ceed to obtain all the possible facts. I examine him as a piece of mechanism, and find him exceedingly complex — composed of bones, muscles, nerves, carti- lage, and various other tissues; I find that the mus- cles are more than five hundred in number, of many shapes and sizes, and so attached to the bones and other parts as to give infinite varieties of motion, and so arranged as to furnish strength and beauty. I look more closely and see that each muscle is composed of fibers of microscopic size, each fiber of cells, and each cell of molecules formed by the union of many atoms of several elements. I examine the frame- work of his body and find it composed of more than two hundred bones, differing much in size and shape, and joined together so as to permit the most varied motions, or firmly united in order to furnish the best protection to the most deli- cate organs. I find them to be of such shapes and sizes, and composed of such materials and occupying such relations to each other as to constitute a perfect mechanism for motion and protection. I look with the microscope, and see that what be- fore seemed to be solid bone is permeated by tubes and by small openings in all directions, which serve as highways for the passage of nourishment. DESIGN IN NATURE 285 I find in him a complex alimentary canal, for the reception and digestion of food, connected with which are various complex glands which secrete from the blood peculiar juices that are capable of preparing the food to enter the blood. I see all these organs working in perfect harmony, both by mechanical means and by the wonderful chemical processes of digestion, to prepare the food for the nourishment of the body. I follow the digested food through certain organs which help to prepare it, into the blood. Then I see the heart, a double force-pump of wonderful struc- ture, pump this life-giving blood through a most intricate system of channels into every part of the body, in order that every nerve, and fiber, and cell may renew its life. I see each separate tissue take from the blood, as if by instinct, just what it needs to renew itself, and nothing more, and transform it into new living tissue like itself. I see the blood gather and carry from all parts of the body the worn-out tissues that have been rendered useless by dqing their work, and carry them to the lungs, kidneys, and skin, in which complicated organs the waste materials that would soon poison the body to death are removed from the blood and cast into the external world. I see the lungs constantly at work pumping out deadly materials and pumping in oxygen to be used in liberating heat and other forms of energy for the use of the body. I see the brain, an organ of most delicate and com- plex structure, connected with its intricate system of nerves, with their countless fibers, extending, like a system of telegraph wires, to every part of the body. I see the various organs which compose his ex- tremely complex body performing their numerous functions in perfect harmony. Each organ knows 286 ORGANIC EVOLVTION CONSIDERED when and how to work, and how much to do. Each works for itself and for all the others. They con- stitute a well-organized, well-trained society of work- ers in which the division of labor is carried to per- fection. They are so well trained that most of them perforin their work without being under conscious control. I look again and see within, seated upon the throne of the brain, a king of wondrous power and wisdom. I hear him say, " I see and know myself. I am kiug within this realm." I see numerous messages of various kinds gliding noiselessly into him through the delicate nerve fibers, and I see him send back swift and unerring answers. Again I hear him say, " I rule also a realm outside of myself, and receive tribute from all things on earth and from afar." I see him looking out throngh the windows and doors of his soul and holding communion with the external world. The morning breeze touches his brow and he smiles in recognition. The sense of taste adds enjoyment to the eating of his food. The ear reveals to him the world of sound and of har- mony, and the eye that of form and color and of end- less activities and beauties. I see him with instruments of his own invention measure the distance to the sun, moon and planets, and hear him declare with mathematical precision the times of their coming and going in the heavens. I see the streams of past experience flowing into his soul through the channel of memory, and the future brought near by the exercise of his imagination. I see his heart glow with love for his fellow-men, his eye kindle with righteous indignation at the sight of outrage, and his conscience tremble at the thought of sin. DESIGN IN NATURE 287 I see him going forth over the face of the earth and bringing all things into subjection to himself. The beasts of the field are conquered and made to serve him. By his hands forests are leveled, and the soil is made to yield her increase in a thousand useful fruits and grains. By his hands cities rise, railroads " annihilate space," telegraphs dispense with time, and ships bridge the oceans. I see him leading in captivity at his chariot-wheels all the forces of nature, and sending forth the deadly lightning on messages of mercy and love. I press to my ear an instrument which he has in- vented, and recognize his voice through a thousand miles. Through the phonograph I may hear the songs of the departed, or listen to the embalmed elo- quence of orators who have been dead a thousand years. •I see this man reaching out in all directions, and with conscious intelligence laying hold on all kinds of matter and all the forces of nature, on infinite worlds and infinite time and infinite space, and binding them together into a harmonious universe. I hear him declare that behind all that human eye has ever seen, or human ear has ever heard, there is one Power which has made all and which works in and through all. In a word, I see in man a body most intricate in the construction and arrangement of its parts, all delicately adjusted to each other so that they work in perfect harmony; self-regulating, capa- ble of repairing themselves as rapidly as they are worn out, and of making known their need of rest; a body which, in structure and functions, is highly adapted to the wants of the soul that dwells within. I see in him a soul of many powers, of unbounded desires, a seeker after infinite knowledge, a believer in the infinite and the eternal, with a hope that 288 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED reaches within the veil, with aspirations as high as the heavens, with a faith that must ever outrun knowledge, and with a Christ-like love. If we knew that this man was made from inorganic matter in a day, could there be any doubt of design by the Creator? If the power that made him pro- longed the miracle through a million years, could this fact decrease the evidence of design? Is it pos- sible that time alone may become a substitute for intelligence? If not, then the evidence of design is complete. But the objector may claim that the creation of man in a day from inorganic matter would be a mir- acle, which implies the existence of a designing Intel- ligence, and that, on the other hand, the evolution of man in a million years requires the action of second- ary agencies alone. To this I reply that the creation of man in a short time does not exclude the use of secondary agencies, nor does his creation in a long period exclude the action of the primary Cause. We cannot know whether the creation of living beings was by means of secondary agencies or not, nor can we know the length of time occupied in the creation of any organism. Whether I do a given work without tools or with them cannot exclude my design in doing the work. Whether the Creator of man employed secondary agencies or not cannot affect the necessity of design. There stands a magnificent temple composed of a, million stones. If the architect built it in a day, it shows design. If he set in motion machinery which prepared and put in place one stone a year for a million years, the evidence of design would seem even more wonderful. And so it is true, I think, that the questions as to the length of time and as to DESIGN IN NATURE 289 secondary agencies in creation can have no bearing on the question of design. I dwell on this for the reason that some people seem to imagine that by beginning with nothing, and adding little by little through the ages, we may obtain a given product from factors different from those that would be required if the work were done in a short time. Time alone cannot change the qual- ity of the factors involved. Design is not only seen in looking at man as an isolated individual, but also in his multitudinous rela- tions. All things visible are made to contribute to his physical well-being or his intellectual growth, and the unseen powers of nature are his servants. The world without him would, as a matter of ulti- mate design, seem to be incomplete. He fits into the place which, through the long ages, the Creator had been preparing for him. He ■ came as the crowning act of creation to control and enjoy a world of con- ditions and objects which it had required ages to prepare. Creation through its long geological history was a perpetual prophecy of something higher and better to come — a constant march upward toward mtud as the goal. Each of the ten thousand things that could be of use to an intelligent being only, was a prophecy of the coming man; and when he came and converted these things, which had been so long in waiting, to his use, the prophecy was fulfilled. Many things upon the earth are useless to all organ- isms below man. This is true of most elementary substances and minerals, and largely true of most plants and of many animals. Man's appearance completed the divine purpose of bringing under the control of intelligence all created things. Design was fulfilled in the creation of a new 19 290 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED designer. In him is fulfilled at once a multitude of the highest purposes, in that he possesses powers by which he can understand and bring into use all things, and make them contribute to the welfare of mind. The existence of beauty in many forms, in every department of nature, and man's capacity to enjoy the beautiful, are marks of design indicating the wis- dom and beneficence of the Creator. The world might have been created by design, and everything made with a view to utility alone, but we find that creation goes far beyond this by furnishing the capacities and the means for enjoyment to a far greater extent than the existence of an intelligent being strictly demands. Man has been endowed with a great wealth of capacities which not only enable him to exist as an intelligent being, but also to enjoy to the fullest extent the countless beauties that fill the earth. In whatever direction he turns his eyes, beauties of some kind greet him. The earth is clothed with beau- tiful green vegetation. Innumerable forms of plants bear flowers of infinite varieties of shapes and colors and sizes — flowers of delicate fragrance, and fruits delicious to the taste. The forests are composed of beautiful trees, among whose branches are birds of beautiful plumage. The earth yields her many gems of beauty which vie with the rainbow in the delicacy of their tints. The sea abounds in beautiful corals, delicately-tinted shells of beautiful forms, and in objects innumerable that can delight the eye. The heavens are flooded with clouds painted by the setting sun with crimson and purple and gold, and with a multitude of other rich and delicate colors, forming pictures so variable, gorgeous and sublime, DESIGN IN NATURE 291 that their imitation is beyond the dreams of the painter. From the countless worlds that sparkle in the heav- ens at night, the eye, aided by the spectroscope and the telescope, gathers wondrous beauty, while the microscope reveals the beautiful workmanship of a world of objects that are almost infinitely small. Beauty reigns everywhere — in the heavens above, on the earth, in the earth, and beneath the waters. In the world of beauty, and in the capacity of man to enjoy this beauty, is manifested a quality of work- manship that points to the existence of an intelligent Creator. Design in the creation of man is also shown in his moral nature, — in his adaptations as a moral agent to his fellow-men, and in his ability to comprehend an ideal system of truth by which he can regulate his conduct. Without the moral nature, human life, even with all of man's intelligence would be a failure. Again, design appears in the fact that man is a religious being, who seeks to know the Creator and to bring his thoughts and feelings and conduct into har- mony with his purposes. I am aware that there are those who regard man's religious nature as simply long-inherited superstition, which serves, perhaps, a very good temporary purpose in his present condition, but I look upon it as a fact which points to an intelligent Creator with whom man sustains spiritual relations. The fact that law prevails everywhere in nature, and that man can understand and obey it, is evidence of intelligent purpose in creation. A lawless world would be a godless world. In such a world life could not exist. The laws of nature are the methods by which 292 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDEEED nature does her work. The forces of nature do their work in certain definite and uniform ways, so that we can predict with certainty the results of a given set of physical conditions. In every law of nature is implied the idea that like causes produce like effects, and that unlike causes produce unlike effects. As the cause varies so must the effect vary. Law prevails from atom to world. All true science is the embodiment of law. The natural sciences show nature's methods of doing her work. Man's exist- ence depends upon the fact that the laws of nature are quite uniform. When he has learned them once his knowledge holds good for an indefinite time. They furnish a permanent basis for conduct and en- able him to prophesy future results. Armed with the knowledge of law, man is prepared to live in the world and to make further progress. The succession of events in nature is uniform only so far as the causes producing them are uniform. The causes of certain classes of events are uniform, and results in these cases may be repeated with math- ematical exactness — as is the case with chemical actions which produce compounds that are absolutely alike. In other cases the causes vary, thus producing unlike results, even where it might be supposed that they would be alike. This is seen in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, in which no two individuals of even the same species are alike. Parent and offspring always differ from each other. In the organic world there is no such thing as uni- formity in nature in the sense that nature repeats herself with absolute exactness. When we speak, therefore, of the laws of nature, we do not mean that the results of the operations of nature are neces- sarily uniform. DESIGN IN NATURE 293 Events are chained together as cause and effect. When we see unlike effects we infer unlike causes, or if we know the causes to be unlike, we may predict that the effects will be unlike. Uniformity in the laws of nature means that like [causes produce like effects — and this in turn means that matter and force are indestructible — that they are neither increased nor decreased. If nature had methods by which she could either increase or decrease her quantity of en- ergy, then we could have no means of knowing what results would be produced, even approximately, for causes of events might constantly vary. The fact that the events of nature succeed each other according to uniform principles is of the great- est importance to the welfare of man, and I regard this as evidence of the intelligence and wisdom of the unseen Power that controls all things. I have considered man in relation to design, because I believe that in him as an isolated being, and also in his infinite relations of body and mind to the external world, it is most comprehensively manifested. While this is true, it is none the less evident that every living organism shows by its structure, which adapts it to its peculiar mode of existence, the evidence of adaptation of means to ends, so that by consider- ing these, the force of the argument is vastly multi- plied. The earth is crowded with organic beings, mixed in endless ways, yet all are capable of obtain- ing food and they are nicely adapted to their environ- ments. That we do not understand why some of them were created is no evidence of the absence of design. It is only within recent times that man has learned much concerning nature, and the more he learns the more evident the fact of design becomes. This is true especially in the relation of things to 294 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED himself. Many things that were formerly regarded as worthless, have, in recent times, been made to minis- ter to his welfare. Many organisms that would seem to be useless serve to advance the general good of the organic world. Numerous humble forms, such as worms and insects, loosen the soil, thus adapting it the better for the growth of plants, while all organic beings by the decomposition of their bodies render the soil more fertile. In fact, the fertility of soils depends largely upon the decomposition of organic remains. Many organisms act as scavengers, thus helping to purify the earth and to render it a more fit dwelling- place for man. The relations between minerals, plants and ani- mals show a wise economy in the use of materials. Minerals serve as food for plants, and plants as food for animals; and when these organisms decay they give back to the air and the soil the materials of which they are composed, mostly in such inorganic forms as serve for the food of plants. In this way the same matter may enter in succession into count- less organic beings. Plants purify the air for animals by removing from it carbon dioxide, and animals exhale this gas for the use of plants. During the Carboniferous Age, the amount of carbon dioxide which plants removed from the air was enormous, as is shown by the great depos- its of coal in many parts of the world, and in this way the air was the better adapted to the use of the higher animals, and coal was stored up in anticipa- tion of the coming man. Organic matter has also, by its deoxidizing power, played an important part in storing up in many places beds of iron ore for the use of man. The wonderful adaptations of many flowers and in- DESIGN IJST NATURE 295 sects to each other, as to the fertilization of the former, and as to the life of the individual insect and 'the propagation of its kind, are evidence of design. For example, there are certain species of plants that are dependent for their fertilization on certain species of moths which live in the flowers, and the moths, in turn, are dependent on the plants. They deposit their eggs in the ovaries of the flowers where the young are hatched and nourished. The moths in some cases carry the pollen and place it on the stigmas of the flowers, as if guided by intelligence. Their action is a most marvelous case of instinct. We might consider the subject of adaptations in- definitely. The world is full of them. Every organ- ism, viewed with regard to its own existence, is an example, for it has the capacity to obtain its food and to contend with other organisms in the struggle for existence. Every organism has also the capacity to adapt itself, to a certain extent, to varying conditions, and many of them exhibit it in remarkable ways, as is shown by the various methods by which they adapt themselves to different periods of their development and to the different seasons of the year. Taking the great mass of facts bearing on the ques- tion of design, while there are some things that we do not understand, yet there is so much that is plain — so infinite are the adaptations in nature, many of which, especially the adaptations of the inorganic to the organic world, cannot be explained by the theory of evolution, — that it would seem to leave but little room for doubt. Like other questions with which we have to deal, it must be decided by the weight of evidence, and one is not called upon, before making a decision, to an- swer every conceivable objection. If this were re- 296 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED quired in a court of justice, few cases could ever be decided. I will now consider certain objections that have been offered against the theory of design in nature. One very commonly urged is, that design will not account for rudimentary organs. It is asked, for ex- ample, why is it that unborn calves have teeth in the upper jaw which never cut through the gums? I would answer this question by asking and answering this larger question, namely, why is it that the calf is here at all? There are hundreds of parts in a calf which are not rudimentary and which are marvelously adjusted to each other in structure and function. In deciding the case as a juror, as to whether or not the calf is an in- dication of design, shall the fact that it has several rudimentary teeth in the upper jaw during the early period of its existence outweigh the hundreds of facts of perfect structure and function and adaptation on the other side? Is it not safe to say that the hun- dreds of facts which indicate design, ought to deter- mine my decision in the face of the one fact in which I may not be able to see any design? If not, then the rules of evidence must be reversed. Again, we are told that man has a vermiform appendix, which seems to be useless, and into which hard substances sometimes find their way and pro- duce disease and death. Therefore, Grod did not make the vermiform appendix nor (by implication) did he make any other part of man. And so it hap- pens again, that the thousand well known facts in favor of design are made to weigh less than one fact which might seem to be opposed to it. If the thousand facts can be satisfactorily accounted for without assuming design, then the theory sug- DESIGN IN NATURE 297 gested by the one fact may stand, otherwise it must fall. Rudimentary organs constitute one of the principal strongholds of the evolutionists against the theory of design. It is evident, however, that if an organ should become rudimentary by disuse, this fact is not opposed to design. On the other hand, it would seem to be in harmony with design, that, as a useful organ becomes useless, if this ever happens, it would gradually disappear. If this were true, however, it is no evidence that organs can arise de novo and be brought to perfection by the process of evolution. Again, we are told that there are defects in nature which show the absence of design. The question as to whether anything in nature should be regarded as an imperfection or not, can arise only in regard to the relation of living beings to their environments. So far as the relations of the different kinds of inorganic matter to each other are concerned they are equally perfect, whatever they may be. The world is adapted in infinite ways to the exist- ence of countless forms of living beings. The fact that each organism is so well adapted to its environ- ment shows the lack of imperfection. The great length of time through which many forms have ex- isted with little change in their structure — the fact that animals and plants, similar to those now living, have lived through the long geological ages, shows the completeness of the adaptations of the earth to organic beings. Conditions which may be perfect for some organ- isms may be imperfect for others. If the million species of living organisms could speak with regard to the conditions most favorable to their existence, there would be a great multitude of different answers. Some would declare the land, others the water, and 298 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED others still the air, to be the only perfect place irr which to live; and there would be an endless number of voices from every nook and corner and crevice of the earth — from under rocks and logs, from holes in the ground, from inside and outside of every species of vegetation, from caves and mountain tops, from the hottest desert and from the temperate and the frigid zones, from deepest ocean and from shallowest pool — each creature, from the smallest microscopic form to the huge whale a hundred feet in length, would declare that its mode of life and its place of existence are the most desirable. According to these answers there would be a countless number of stand- ards of perfection. We, however, are accustomed to judge of the per- fection of nature from its relations to man. The infi- nite adaptations of nature to all organisms below man are presumptive evidence that nature is quite per- fectly adapted to him. The fact that he has been here for thousands of years, and that he has made, and is still making, prog- ress — the fact that whatever work he desires to under- take, he finds the means for its accomplishment at hand, whether it is to lay an Atlantic cable, cut a Mount Cenis tunnel, suspend a Brooklyn bridge, blow up Hell-Gate, talk around the world, or bring distant worlds into view, the materials and forces for the accomplishment of these purposes have been prepared in advance. The Creator has anticipated all the wants of man's highest intelligence. The more fully his intelligence is developed the more perfect nature appears in her adaptations to him, and, judging from the past, we may well believe that in the future, as his knowledge becomes more perfect, the perfections of nature will be more and more revealed, until what now seem to be imperfections will wholly disappear. DESIGN IN NATURE 299 The savage, judging from his low standpoint of knowledge, would probably decide that most things in the world are useless, many of which the civilized man has found to be of the greatest use. Our adverse judgments of to-day against nature may be reversed by future generations. Because we do not understand the importance of certain things now, it is no evidence that they are useless. If we had lived in the Carboniferous Age, when the coal was being formed, we might have thought its forma- tion a useless waste of vegetation ; or if we had lived in the Silurian Age, we would have thought that the earth as a place for man was a failure, and that it would always remain a failure. It has required whole geological ages to reveal some of the [purposes of the Creator, and, doubtless, the process of revelation, made possible by the progress of man, will continue for ages to come. The wisdom and purposes of the Creator in the things created are unfolded as rapidly as man is pre- pared to receive them. It is, doubtless, not the lack of perfection in the things created, but man's'lack of ability, that causes the seeming discord. With regard to man, it might seem that it would have been better for him if the world had been made so that it would require less effort on his part, and yet we do not know that this is true. The countless difficulties with which he must contend develop his physical and intellectual powers, and enable him to rise higher. If the physical blessings of life were all given to him without any effort on his part, there would be little incentive to progress. We know that man is made happiest, wisest and best by engaging in neces- sary employments. The fact that blessings are made 300 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED to depend on individual effort is one of the wisest provisions in nature. Intelligence and virtue are the necessary attain- ments of him who would best adapt himself to the affairs of this world, and the greater his attainments in these things, the more perfect are the blessings that are meted out to him. And so it happens that in and around us is an ever present power " that makes for righteousness." Things are so ordered and arranged that they help draw man upward by holding out incentives to effort. The perpetual struggle for existence results not only in the preser- vation and propagation of the strongest, but also, on the average, of the wisest and best, so that humanity moves upward. Thus it happens that the great end attained, and, as I believe, design fulfilled, is the development of man and the formation of human character. The greatest design of all this vast machinery of earth is to serve in the widest sense the well-being of man — a design that is consistent with the highest concep- tions that we can form of the Creator. XVIII. EVIL AND ALTRUISM IN NATURE. The existence of evil in the world is a problem that has taxed the greatest minds in all ages. What is evil? Can we reconcile its existence with the pur- poses of an all-wise, all-powerful and beneficent Creator? We do not apply the word evil to the inorganic world. Whatever may be the conditions and rela- tions of inorganic materials to each other, we cannot think of them as being the subjects of evil. Nor can we apply the term to plants, although their environ- ment may be such as to dwarf or to kill them. Nor does it seem appropriate to apply the word evil to the lower forms of animal life, such as sponges, polyps, etc., which have no nervous system and which are capable of only the dullest sort of feeling. The word is applicable in the case of all organisms which are capable of experiencing pain, especially in acute forms. By evil I think we commonly mean suffering, and we speak of an environment as being evil when it produces suffering. Is the mission of suffering wise and beneficent? Could not animals and man have been made without the capacity to suf- fer? is sometimes asked. Organic beings may be graded according to their capacity to enjoy and to suffer. These two capacities increase and decrease together. The more elevated the animal in the scale of existence — the more highly 301 302 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED organized its nervous system — the greater are its capacities for pleasure and pain. Enjoyment arises largely from the adaptation of the organism to its environment, and suffering from a lack of such adaptation. Suffering comes, therefore, as an incentive to the animal to adapt itself to its environment. Without hunger the animal would starve without knowing it; without thirst it would perish even in the presence of water; without pain from cold it would freeze; without suffering from heat it would be destroyed by fire; and without pain from pressure the body would be crushed, with no warning. Pain from disease and injury is a warning that the body needs rest and change of environment. Suffering in our present condition is absolutely necessary for our protection and preservation, and to this extent it must be pronounced good, and not evil, in a moral sense. Suffering also arises out of man's ignorance of events that are to occur. Accidents are not foreseen, and injury and death follow. It should be remem- bered, however, that the laws of nature are invari- able, and that in the true sense there are no accidents, but only results produced, according to fixed laws, and that such laws are necessary for man's welfare. Gravity by its action produces much suffering and many deaths, and yet it is the force which holds the stars and planets in their orbits, and it produces suffering only when sentient beings fail to recognize the universal law of its action. Would we banish this force and thus wreck the universe because of the suffering it produces? or would it not be better that we heed its existence and strive to regulate our conduct accordingly? Fixed laws of nature are neces- sary for man's preservation. They work injury only when they are violated, and the consequent suffering EVIL AND ALTRUISM IN NATURE 303 is necessary to induce man to acquaint himself with them. If it were not for this inducement he would make little effort. The fact that the laws of nature are uniform enables man to determine future results, and thereby to regulate his conduct. If they changed from day to day he would never be able to tell in advance what would be the result of any course of conduct — his labors would be fruitless, and he-would speedily perish. If, therefore, fixed laws are neces- sary for man's existence, and if the failure to comply with these laws produces suffering, it cannot justly be claimed that the Author of Nature's laws acted un- wisely in establishing them, nor that he was destitute of love for those who suffer. Suffering is incidental to the operation of laws that are necessary for man's •existence and well-being. Besides, it is the school- master who compels him to search out and obey these necessary laws. The total amount of suffering is small compared to the amount of enjoyment among sentient creatures. Imagination, I believe, greatly exaggerates the real sufferings of humanity. Those who are most sensi- tive to pain interpret the sufferings of others through their own natures as standards, thus greatly exagger- ating the facts. The man who has always been rich misinterprets the sufferings from poverty of the man who has always been poor, and if the rich man is suddenly reduced to poverty, his suffering is fre- quently so keen that he is led to commit suicide. The gratification of desires becomes painful when carried to excess, and this pain is necessary to save the organism from complete exhaustion and death. If any finite creature — man, for example — were incapable of suffering, and if all its acts resulted in pleasure only, then its powers would speedily become ■exhausted. Suffering, therefore, seems to be the 304 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED most effectual check to conduct that would lead to destruction, and is a consequent means of salvation. The office of pain is not to destroy, but to save. Its introduction, therefore, into the plan of nature ought not to be regarded as due to moral obliquity on the part of the Creator; it is but a part of the universal plan which works general good. But it is urged that the ignorant suffer. This seems to be a necessity due to the establishment of general laws in nature, and such laws, we have seen, are nec- essary for the existence of man. Besides, if the ignorant were exempt from the penalties of nature's laws, while those having knowledge were punished for their violation, this would be the highest possible premium on ignorance, and the greatest possible dis- couragement to the acquisition of knowledge. If such were the case, man would feel it to be his inter- est to remain in ignorance — the wheels of progress would be blocked, and man would remain the most ignorant and degraded savage. According to the present arrangement of things the Creator has placed the highest possible premium on knowledge, thus introducing a motive that is capable of leading man to the fullest development of all his powers. Again, it is objected that the innocent suffer. Children, for example, inherit diseases and tenden- cies towards diseases from their parents. This, of necessity, arises from the fixed laws of inheritance, and we have reason to believe that these laws are beneficent. That the offspring shall closely resemble in structure, and partake of the qualities of the par- ents, is an organic law of the highest importance to man in enabling him to foresee and produce definite results in the propagation of plants and animals. The law of inheritance in the human species is cer- EVIL AND ALTRUISM IN NATURE 305 tainly as important as it is among animals. Much of the suffering and imperfection due to inheritance among men may be avoided by the application of pos- sible knowledge to the subject. When man learns to give even as much attention to the propagation of his own species as to that of the domestic animals, human suffering will be greatly decreased. It is not necessary that the laws of inheritance be changed, but it is of primary importance for the human race to increase its knowledge of these laws, and to regulate its conduct accordingly. The time will come, I have no doubt, when this subject will, of necessity, receive the attention which its importance demands. Man himself, and not the Creator, is mor- ally responsible for the propagation of known hered- itary diseases, and for the consequent entailment of suffering. A large proportion of human suffering is produced by mau's willful transgression of the law. Is this fact consistent with the existence of an omnipotent, beneficent Creator? It has been stated that the Creator has established laws which are undoubtedly for the well-being of man. He has created man, who is the highest known work of his hands. Man is superior to all other creatures, not only physically, but especially by reason of his mental and moral powers. The fact that he is a moral agent implies that he knows the difference between right and wrong, that he is free to choose his course of conduct, and that he has a conscience which approves or disapproves his motives. If he were capable of only one course of conduct, he would not be a moral agent, he would have no con- science — he would be simply a machine. Can it be doubted that he is a far nobler being constituted as 20 306 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED he is, with the power of doing both right and wrong, than he would be if he were not a moral agent? Sin is the transgression of law. The power to obey im- plies, in a free agent, the power to disobey. Man's sole duty is to acquaint himself with the laws of the Creator and to obey them. But it may be objected that man would have been more perfect and elevated if he had been created with less disposition to transgress. In answer to this it may be said that all of man's powers are intended for good, and they serve good purposes when properly used, and that it is possible for him to govern them. The appetites and passions which stand on the lower plane of human nature, when made the ser- vants of reason and conscience, serve noble and neces- sary purposes in human life. If, however, they be- come masters, and the higher powers become their servants, then human nature is debased. It is man's duty not to eradicate the appetites and passions, but to subdue and govern them. There can be nothing irretrievably bad in the works of God. Our own moral natures tell us that there can be no wrong which shall not be righted. It is not conceiv- able that the moral qualities of the Creator are of a lower grade than those of man whom he has created. "To them that love God, all things work together for good." It has been claimed that the struggle for existence has determined the course of organic evolution, and that this principle is one of selfishness, which causes much suffering. The weak are destroyed in countless numbers by the strong. Throughout the kingdom of living things, organisms not only contend with each other, but they destroy and devour each other as food. A large part of the animal kingdom lives ex- EVIL AND ALTRUISM IN NATURE 307 clusively by preying upon the bodies of other ani- mals. Judging from this, it might be concluded that " might makes right," or, rather, that there is no principle of right in nature. As to suffering, it may be said that most animals are not capable of suffering to any great extent. The lowest forms have no nervous system, and a great mul- titude of others have only a slightly developed ner- vous system, so that sensation is dull, and acute pain is impossible. It seems very probable that consciousness of pain is confined to the higher forms of life, and only the highest vertebrates, such as birds and mammals, have great capacity for suffering. As already stated, the capacities for pleasure and pain increase and decrease together. This being true, man, by the greatness of his nature, far excels all ani- mals in happiness and misery. If the life of the individual organism be considered as a whole, on the average the amount of pleasure greatly exceeds the pain. Throughout the animal kingdom the duration of suffering is short compared to the length of life, and the amount of pain is small compared to the pleasures of existence. This of it- self would be sufficient justification for the creation of such beings. But I have already shown that suffering is benefi- cent, in that it is necessary for the preservation of the life of the animal. Many organisms perish for lack of food. But little pain results from the deficient nourishment of the body, even in man. The body gradually wastes by the oxidation of its tissues until a painless death results. Perishing of cold is but a brief and painless process. As a rule, the duration of the pains of fatal disease is short compared to the length of life. 308 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED When death results from destruction by enemies, — as the killing of the bird by the hawk, or the antelope by the tiger — it is believed to be quite painless, owing to a partial paralysis of the nervous system. If, therefore, in the great and ceaseless struggle for existence, many speedily, and all, finally perish, yet it is true, 1 believe, that when we look at the individual animal, or at the animal kingdom as a whole, we find that the amount of pain is small compared to the great amount of enjoyment. As to man, the actual pains of life and the fear of pain are great incentives to the acquisition of knowl- edge and to right conduct. It is, perhaps, a necessary schoolmaster to man in his present condition. Remove from his mind the fear of suffering for disobedience of law, and the results would be most disastrous. Pain chastens the spirit, and it heightens pleasure by way of contrast. The present enjoyments of life are heightened by the memory of past hardships and sufferings. Looking at suffering, therefore, in its various as- pects, I think that we may rightly conclude that it serves beneficent purposes, and that therefore its existence is consistent with the idea of a Beneficent Creator. Beyond and above the selfish struggle for existence, which, it has been commonly claimed by evolutionists, is almost the only means of progress, is the principle of Altruism — a regard for the ^welfare of others — which is inseparably woven into the warp and woof of Nature. This great fact has been dwelt on with emphasis by Shaler, Drummond, and other authors. If we would find fault with Nature because she in- flicts pain through the selfish struggle for existence, we must allow that she redeems herself and promises to yet more and more redeem herself by the unselfish EVIL AND ALTliUISM IN NATURE 309 struggle for the welfare of others which she has instituted. The process of reproduction throughout the organic world, by which the parent gives part of its own sub- stance for the propagation of its kind, is a prophecy of the great spiritual gifts that follow. The preservation of the life of the young, in a large part of the animal kingdom, and especially in its highest part, is due to the care and affection of the parents — especially of the mother. Many of the animals of the lower sub-kingdoms deposit their eggs in secure places, and in localities where food will be convenient, while many others protect them by cocoons or webs of silk. Others exercise great patience and care in feeding their larvae. Among bees the great care and anxiety for the in- terests of the queen seem to indicate an exceptional wealth of affection. Some of the lower vertebrates, especially those which lay but few eggs, deposit them in places of security, but it is the rare exception that they care for their young. It is not till we reach birds and mammals that pro- longed care and great affection for the young are manifested. These animals are so helpless when born that they would speedily perish if it were not for the care of the mother. Among these highest forms, therefore, Altruism in action, if not in motive, is a necessity for the preser- vation of the species. Helplessness and help must go hand in hand. If Nature ordains that the infant shall perish if left to itself, she with equal certainty ordains that help shall be furnished. With what unceasing labor does the mother bird gather food for her nestling young, and with what affection does she protect thetn with her own body 310 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED from rain and storm ! Although by nature extremely- timid, yet she will frequently imperil her life in their defense. Our domestic animals often exhibit a strength of attachment to their offspring that might well be emu- lated by man. Who can say that the affection of the cow for her calf is not purely unselfish and Divine? Her grief when she is forcibly separated from her offspring is of the intensest kind, and she can only be pacified by the restoration of her young. She will stand in its defense against the beasts of prey. By her caresses she shows a tenderness of feeling that seems to be truly human. In this unselfish affection of the lower animals we see something of the great power which, working in man, can alone redeem the world from selfishness and glorify man. Altruism alone can found a true home and give permanence to a state. Homes are built in hearts, and hearts alone can give security to government. The mother's love is the strongest bond in human society. Selfishness has seemed to hold almost universal sway in the animal kingdom, and it is still a great motive in man. But its right to rule over man is now disputed with new vigor. Altruism and Hedonism, Unselfishness and Selfishness, are the two gods which face each other on the battle-field for dominion over the human heart. The contest has been long and painful, but we have every assurance that the redeeming power embodied in the Son of man will triumph. Love will ever be the golden rule — the supreme organic law of the Universe. XIX. AGNOSTICISM. The human mind believes and affirms that space is infinite. Of this we feel absolutely certain and noth- ing can convince us to the contrary. If, in imagination, we travel to the most distant star, we feel certain that space extends beyond, and if we could repeat this process an endless number of times in all directions, we feel certain that we could nowhere find a limit to space. Can it be said that we have no true conception of the quality of infinite space? The mind feels certain that all space is alike. This unalterable belief concerning infinite space is justly founded on our knowledge of a limited portion of space. It can be truthfully said that the human mind cannot form an image of infinite space or of anything that is infinite. It may be said that the laws of pure logic forbid that we should declare space to be infi- nite. But the experiences of the human mind are greater than the laws of logic. The legitimate beliefs of the mind are not limited to things acquired by the logical process. Mr. Spencer says: "But of Space and Time we cannot assert either limitation or the absence of limit- ation. We find ourselves totally unable to form any mental image of unbounded space; and yet totally unable to imagine bounds beyond which there is no space." * The mind feels conscious that it might take any * Synthetic Philosophy, p. 48. (311) 312 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED finite unit of volume and multiply it by any finite number, and that it would not occupy all space. Our inability to set bounds to space is, I think, regarded by the mind as conclusive that space is infinite. For a similar reason we regard time as infinite. The belief that space and time are infinite is so firmly fixed that we rightly regard it as positive knowledge. Again, Mr. Spencer says: "It results, therefore, that Space and Time are wholly incomprehensible. The immediate knowledge which we seem to have of them proves, when examined, to be total ignorance. While our belief in their objective reality is insur- mountable, we are unable to give any rational account of it."* I think it will occur to the common sense of man- kind that an "insurmountable belief" is quite good enough to be accepted as a part of any philosophy. Why waste words in talking about time and space, doubting their existence and declaring total ignorance as to their nature, if we have an "insurmountable belief " that they exist, that we know their qualities, and that they are infinite? Why use the words time and space if they are simply expressions denoting total ignorance? The fact is, that the attempt to subject all phe- nomena and all faculties and all human experiences to logical processes is a failure, for the reason that logic cannot comprehend all of them. The logical faculty has no rightful claim to absolute supremacy over all other powers of the mind. When we are told that we have an "insurmountable belief " which we dare not assert to be true according to the laws of logic, then the common sense of mankind will say that logic must stand aside. A universal "insurmountable belief" is all that * Synthetic Philosophy, 'p. 50. AGNOSTICISM 313 inan needs for any legitimate intellectual purpose. Logic does not make the facts with which she deals. There are certain primary facts that must be accepted as true before logic can have any material with which to work. Many of our " insurmountable beliefs " are formed without reference to any logical process, and they are in no wise dependent on reason for their existence ; nor can we form any mental picture as to the exact methods by which these beliefs are produced. If we are required to form a " mental image " of infinite space before we can count our belief as knowl- edge, then it must be admitted that we fail, and that our belief is a phantom. It is also evident that if we can accept nothing but mental images as knowledge, then we have no claim to any valid knowledge what- ever; for our knowledge consists of mental condi- tions, the formation of which we are totally unable to form a " mental image " of. It is not for reason to say that because she cannot understand and explain the methods by which the other faculties are enabled to do their work, therefore their conclusions are illegitimate and to be banished from the realm of knowledge. Notwithstanding Mr. Spencer's statement that we are in "total ignorance" as to the objectivity of time and space, yet practically he is obliged to pro- ceed as if his "total ignorance" and "insurmount- able belief" were valid knowledge. Practically we must act from data that cannot be compassed by logic and reason. Time and space are objective realities, and the be- lief that they are infinite is as firmly fixed as is the belief that they are objective. We do not need to comprehend the infinite before we may legitimately declare its existence and its quality. Missing Page Missing Page 316 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED the death-blow to all worship, for what human being would erect an altar to the Unknowable, and how could he engage in any act of worship whatever? What could he think or say or do more than to repeat this short creed expressing his hopeless ignorance? But Mr. Spencer tells us that this creed is the recon- ciliation of religion and science — that by it the essen- tials of both are saved to humanity. I need not say that a more universal slaughter of religious could not have been devised. It reminds me of Nast's cartoon showing the reconciliation of the lion and the lamb in fulfillment of the Scripture which says that " the lion and the lamb shall lie down together." The lion was represented in the picture, while the statement was appended that the lamb was inside of the lion. This creed may do for science, but it swallows religion. If reconciliation means death, then it would be best not to be recon- ciled. His method of reconciliation is stated as follows: " This method is to compare all opinions of the same genus ; to set aside as more or less discrediting one another those various special and concrete elements in which such opinions disagree; to observe what re- mains after the discordant constituents have been eliminated; and to find for this remaining constituent that abstract expression which holds true throughout its divergent modifications." Religion being asked her creed, says, " I believe that there is an inscrutable Power." Science says the same. How can we know that the inscrutable Power is identical in the two cases? I submit that this is no reconciliation, but only an expression of inability to reconcile — an expression of total ignorance. The assumption underlying it all is that there is an irreconcilable conflict between Religion and Science, AGNOSTICISM: 317 and that by pushing the two off into a region of ab- solute darkness, of which the human mind can know nothing whatever, they will discuss their differences, shake hands and agree to dwell in peace. In deriving this creed, Mr. Spencer claims to have eliminated from Science and Religion everything that , they could not hold in common. It is evident, I think, that his eliminations were too numerous. Those things only ought to have been eliminated that were clearly in conflict. Those that were not in con- flict needed no reconciliation. Science and Religion occupy different fields and embody different facts, and, for the most part, they need no reconciliation. So far as the most of the facts embraced in them are concerned, we might not be able to see either har- mony or discord, and yet both sets of facts might be true. Chemistry and astronomy are two well-defined sciences, and yet the two classes of facts with which they deal are so different, and there is such little relation seemingly between the two, that if we affirm harmony, it might be very difficult to determine in what the harmony consists. It is evident that the unifying of all natural phe- nomena must be done by tracing all to a common cause, but when the sciences do this, as I think they have fairly done, must it be by ignoring the special facts that compose each science? So if religion traces herself to the same origin, must she, of necessity, ignore all of the special facts that have been sacred to man through the ages? If, for example, the facts of science may be har- monized without referring them to an intelligent, final Cause, is it necessary that religion should sacri- fice her belief that the Ultimate Cause is intelligent? Intelligence in the Creator is not inconsistent with the facts of science, although science might deem it ex- 318 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED pedient to stop short of affirming this attribute. It may be that the attribute exists, although she fails to affirm its existence. Keligion may demand attributes in the Creator over and above those that answer the purposes of science, and still both may be right. Science is generally satisfied with secondary causes, while religion always seeks the primary Cause. If religion believes in supernatural acts — such as mira- cles and revelations — we do not know that they are in conflict with the facts of science. The possibility of miracles is simply a question of fact. If the evidence shows that miracles have been performed, it is not for science to deny the possibility of miracles on any ground whatever. We do not know that miracles are opposed to the processes of nature, or that they are a break in the continuity of the processes of the universe. They may be a part of the plan of the Creator. The question as to whether miracles have been per- formed or not depends for its solution on the value of human testimony, and not on a priori affirmation as to the continuity of natural processes. The scien- tific method of determining whether miracles have been performed or not, is not to declare, without investigation, that miracles are impossible, but to examine the evidence, pro and con, in each particular case, and to decide accordingly. Our knowledge of the universe is not so complete as to enable us to de- clare that miracles are impossible. Even if we believe in the Unknown and Unknowable Power, I do not know on what ground we might affirm that it is impossible for that Power to perform a miracle, or to reveal truth to the human mind. Science becomes dogmatic when she affirms the impossibility of a mira- cle or of a revelation. It may be possible to believe in the continuity of AGNOSTICISM 319 natural processes and also to believe in miracles. I do not see that the raising of the dead by supernat- ural power would be any more of a break in the con- tinuity of the action of natural forces than would be the lifting of a stone by the hand of man. In each case a superior force is introduced to overcome phys- ical forces and to produce a result that would not otherwise have been produced. When we lift a stone there is no break in the con- tinuity of the action of gravity, and in raising the dead there would be no break in the action of the forces of nature, but, in spite of the action of these forces, a new result would be produced by the action of the superior force. Miracles, special providences, and revelations, may, for ought we know, have a place in the universe with as much consistency with the laws of nature as has the mind of man in the affairs of the earth. Nor is it necessary to regard these things as " patch-work," or " tinkering " with the laws of nature, or "after- thought," but they may be a part of the infinite plan and consistent with all else. These things are consistent with the indestructibil- ity of matter, with the correlation and conservation of energy, and with the uniformity of law, and the continuity of natural processes. The action of mind destroys neither matter nor force, nor the laws of, nature, nor continuity of action of the forces of nature; and yet, mind, by its control of matter and force, produces an endless number of diversified . results. Agnosticism, by denying our right to affirm the ex- istence of an Intelligent. Creator, sweeps away at one stroke all that flows from a belief in the existence of such a Power. Eevelations, miracles and special providences — all are impossible. All human testi- 320 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED mony that has been given to prove the truth of these things is not answered, but is simply ignored, because it is regarded as testimony advanced to prove that the impossible has occurred. That man can comprehend the infinite no one would affirm. But this does not preclude the belief that the Creator might reveal truth with regard to himself to a finite mind. Mr. Spencer, in speaking of the Ultimate Cause,. says: "And may we not therefore rightly refrain from assigning to it any attributes whatever, on the ground that such attributes, derived as they must be from our own natures, are not elevations but degra- dations?" * Mr. Spencer here shows a due spirit of reverence for his Unknown and Unknowable God, and he advises us not to degrade him by assigning to him any attributes. Are we to refrain because it will degrade the Unknowable? or because it will degrade us? I presume he means the latter. Our highest duty is, according to his creed, to wor- ship " The Unknowable." But to worship such a power would be folly, for we cannot know how to worship the Unknowable. And yet we are told that this worship is elevating, compared to the worship of a God to whom we attribute omnipotence, omnis- cience, justice, mercy and love, — that the worship of a God with these attributes is degrading to human nature. I think the facts of history show that the belief in a God with these attributes has done more to elevate the human race than all other beliefs. Mr. Spencer professes to have great respect for the wide-spread and long-standing beliefs of mankind, and for this reason he gives religion a place in his philosophy. * Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, p. 109. AGNOSTICISM 321 He, however, ignores this great fact in history, namely, that the human race has universally and per- sistently attributed intelligence to their objects of worship. It is just as natural for man to attribute in- telligence to his god, of whatever kind, as it is to worship at all. Why eliminate this universal testi- mony of humanity in formulating a creed? The belief in a God with attributes is not opposed to science. Science may not affirm the existence of such a God, but it cannot deny it, and, therefore, there can be no conflict. By the. Agnostic creed man's duty is as follows: " By continually seeking to know and being continu- ally thrown back with a deepened conviction of the impossibility of knowing, we may keep alive the con- sciousness that it is alike our highest wisdom and our highest duty to regard that through which all things exist as The Unknowable."* The highest wisdom and the highest duty of our lives is to continually strive to know " The Unknow- able," with the ever-growing consciousness that the task assigned is utterly impossible to be accomplished. Why this hopeless task should be regarded as the highest wisdom and duty of humanity I feel sure that the great mass of the race will never be able to com- prehend. Mr. Spencer admits that "An immense majority will refuse, with more or less of indignation, a belief seeming to them so shadowy and indefinite, "f Also that "Very likely there will ever remain a need to give shape to that indefinite sense of an Ulti- mate Existence which forms the basis of our intelli- gence. We shall always be under the necessity of contemplating it as some mode of being; that is, of representing it to ourselves in some form of thought, * Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, p. 113. t Ibid, 21 322 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED however vague. And we shall not err in doing this so long as we treat every notion we thus frame as merely a symbol, utterly without resemblance to that for which it stands."* From this it would seem that he thinks that the constitution of the human mind is such that it must represent the Ultimate Existence as being like things that are known, and that this is very good mental exercise, and innocent if we only remember that there can be no truth in what we think. But how can h« know that our symbol is "utterly without resemblance to that for which it stands?" The most that Agnosticism would be justified in affirming is not lack of resemblance, but that we can not know that there is any resemblance between our symbols and the Ultimate Existence. But Mr. Spencer admits that his creed is adapted only to man in a highly developed condition, and that the religions of the world have served and are still serving a good purpose. He says that the imperfections of religion " have been imperfections only as measured by an absolute standard, and not as measured by a relative one. Speaking generally, the religion current in each age and among each people has been as near an approxi- mation to the truth as it was then and there possible for men to receive." I think that this last statement is incorrect. Accord- ing to this the various savage tribes scattered over the earth at present have religions which embody as much truth as they are capable of receiving. The fact is, however, that the lowest tribes of men are sufficiently developed to receive the Christian relig- ion; and there is nothing more remarkable in history than the changes wrought by Christianity among such jDeople. * Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, p. 113. AGNOSTICISM 323 Again he says: "Even now, for the great mass of men, unable through lack of culture to trace out with due clearness those good and bad consequences which conduct brings round through the established order of the Unknowable, it is needful that there should be vividly depicted future torments and future joys — pains and pleasures of a definite kind, pro- duced in a manner direct and simple enough to be clearly imagined."* Thus he settles the long-mooted question as to whether a lie is ever justifiable or not. The preacher, if he finds it necessary to move his hearers, is, in duty, bound to threaten them with the tortures of fire and brimstone, for the reason that the end justi- fies the means, and at the same time he knows that what he threatens is utterly false. Thus, systematic lying may be the best possible practical teaching and the highest morality. I do not see why Mr. Spencer might not consist- ently and conscientiously become a preacher under ( any existing religious creed whatever. If, as he con- tends, each people has a religion as near an approxi- mation to the truth as it can receive, and if each religion is practically best for the people professing it, then it would be the duty of every missionary to forsake Christianity, and to proclaim the religion of the heathen to whom he is sent. His claim is that all religions are practically good, but that their fundamental teachings are utterly false. These conclusions are the logical results of Agnosticism. The Agnostic creed, he says, is the only true one, but we must abandon this absolutely true creed until, by the teaching of false creeds, we have elevated humanity to a position where it can accept the one true belief in The Unknowable. * Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, p. 117. 324 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED It would seem that there must be something funda- mentally wrong in the structure of the universe when it is necessary to systematically teach falsehoods in the form of religion, for ages, inorder to elevate man morally, religiously and intellectually. If this is true for Eeligion, it is strange that the teaching of untruth has not been best in Science. Mr. Spencer says again: "Indeed, were it not that throughout the progress of the race, men's experi- ences of the effects of conduct have been slowly gen- eralized into principles — were it not that these princi- ples have been from generation to generation insisted on by parents, upheld by public opinion, sanctified by religion, and enforced by threats of eternal damnation for disobedience — were it not that under these potent influences habits have been modified, and the feel- ings proper to them made innate — were it not, in short, that we have been rendered in a considerable degree, organically moral; it is certain that disastrous results would ensue from the removal of those strong and distinct motives which the current belief sup- plies. Even as it is, those who relinquish the faith in which they have been brought up, for this most ab- stract faith in which Science and Eeligion unite, may not uncommonly fail to act up to their convictions."* Here we have again the unqualified admission that the creed of Agnosticism is not adapted to the human race in its present condition. The most that can be claimed for it is that it might be adapted to an imagi- nary world of philosophers. For practical, efficient work in elevating humanity he admits that we must fall back on the old false, creeds. He also admits that a general acceptance of Agnosticism would be very destructive to morality. • What is truth? and why should truth be demoraliz- * Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, p. 118. AGNOSTICISM 325 ing? Are the affairs of the universe so out of joint — is mind so distorted in its relation to facts that fic- tions must be substituted for them? I cannot believe that this has been made necessary through the long history of man, and that it must continue through the ages to come. Mr. Spencer's teaching is that the race cannot be elevated by Agnosticism, but that this can be done only by the other creeds. Agnosticism is the only true doctrine, but we must not teach it because it would be destructive to morality. The creeds are false, but we must teach them to save humanity. The moral quality of teaching, according to this, does not consist in its truth, but in the fact that it will accomplish a certain purpose. Truth and falsehood are equally good if they perform a certain work. If practical results are to determine the nature of the teaching, and if Agnosticism would be demoraliz- ing to the great mass of humanity, on what ground can Mr. Spencer justify his teaching? Why not seal the creed of Agnosticism up and lay it away in the heart of an Egyptian pyramid until humanity is pre- pared to receive it? Even if the creed should be lost sight of for -some millions of years, the mind of man will discover it at the proper time, for, according to his theory, all religions are evolved, and every people has as much truth as it is prepared by evolution to assimilate. Why, then, should the demoralizing creed of the Agnostic be introduced into the world at pres- ent? Looked at in relation to duty to humanity, I do not see any justification for the introduction and defense of Agnosticism. Mr. Spencer justifies its announcement at present as follows: "He must remember that while he is a descendant of the past, he is a parent of the future; and that his thoughts are as children born to him, 326 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED which he may not carelessly let die. He, like every other man, may properly consider himself as one of the myriad agencies through whom works the Un- known Cause; and when the Unknown Cause pro- duces in him a certain belief, he is thereby authorized to profess and act out that belief." * Let us see what these statements logically mean. All beliefs in the mind of man are produced by the Unknown Cause. The fact that a belief is produced by the Unknown Cause, gives authority not only to profess, but to act it out. These propositions being true, man is not responsi- ble for his beliefs nor for his acts ; and, therefore, no belief nor act can have any moral quality. In other words, all beliefs and acts are equally good and true, even when they are opposed to each other, and when they produce the most dreadful results. We have here the doctrine of fatality — the denying of human responsibility — the annihilation of moral- ity — the responsibility of all beliefs and actions is thrown on the Unknown Cause. This is the justifica- tion for the promulgation of Agnosticism. He may remember that " he is a descendant of the past," but he does not necessarily become a " parent of the future." It is in his power to determine whether he will leave progeny or not — and if children of the mind are born, he may determine whether they shall live or die. Nor can he escape the responsi- bility of destroying intellectual monstrosities by throwing the responsibility of their birth on the Un- known Cause. He owes no duty to the Unknown Cause which requires him to murder the moral natures of his fellow men by promulgating a destruc- tive creed. If Agnosticism is true, then its truth is a calamity * Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, p. 123. AGNOSTICISM 327 to the human race, not only for the present, but must be for countless generations to come. If accepted, it would become the disorganizer of the most enduring and sacred human institutions, and the destroyer of human happiness. It takes away from life all that is dearest and best, and leaves humanity to gaze eter- nally into " the blackness of darkness," with no hope of ever receiving a single ray of light. It is impossible that the human mind should ever make the Unknowable the ultimate foundation of a philosophy of life and duty. What have I to do with thee, O thou Unknowable, thou impenetrable darkness, destroyer of my hopes and joys ! — what canst thou'demand of me or I of thee? Thou art darkness, and in thee is no light at all. Why should I prefer thee to the faith that "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all? " Surely the way of darkness is the way of death, but the way of light leadeth unto life. So far as human duty is concerned, the Unknowable must be to me as though it were not. To make, as Mr. Spencer does, man's highest duty to consist in a ceaseless effort to know The Unknowable, is a totally impracticable creed, for the moment the creed is adopted, all effort would cease, unless man is so fool- ish as to regard wasting his time in an absolutely fruitless search after truth as the chief end of life. If the creed of Agnosticism is good, it must be so for a race of beings that we know not of. If it is true, then its truth and human nature are eternally at war with each other. To call Agnosticism a reconcil- iation of all things is to make for it claims without foundation, for it is opposed to human nature itself. That which is fundamentally irreconcilable with the nature of man cannot be the reconciler of things which involve the highest interests of humanity. 328 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED Agnosticism is a negation — a destroyer. It tears down the house in which humanity dwells, robs man of the intellectual and moral fruit of ages, and leaves him in his individual helplessness to perish. It sweeps away the foundation of his religion, destroys his brightest hopes and most sacred beliefs. It tells him not only that knowledge is impossible, but that faith and hope are in vain. It breaks the backbone of morality by denying the divine authority of its precepts; and it abolishes religion by counting all acts of worship as due to ignorance and superstition. It destroys the highest incentives to virtue and truth by denying the possibility of a revelation from the Creator to man. Its mission is that of the cyclone— destruction and death — while it brings naught of good in return. It constructs no system of religion, no system of mor- als, but denies the validity of our knowledge and abolishes faith and hope. It comes like the Arctic current in the ocean, leaving death in its track — freez- ing the noblest sentiments and aspirations of the soul. Over against this most destructive creed of Agnos- ticism we place Christianity, which is not a negative but a positive religion, adapted to man in all places and in all possible conditions. It does not, like Agnosticism, demand a world of philosophers before it can be of use to man, but it comes to man as he is, and inspires him with infinite motives. It does not paralyze all effort by telling him that he cannot know, but it says, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." " And this is life eternal, that they should know thee, the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ." If there is one thing that seems plain above all AGNOSTICISM 329 ■else, it is that the only inspiration which can cause humanity to move forward on the road of progress until it reaches the fullest possible development of all that is best in human nature, is the positive teach- ing of the Christian religion. In conclusion, I repeat that no sane mind claims to comprehend the infinite, but we believe in the infinite — as shown by our belief that time and space are in- finite — and we believe that we may know something of the quality of the infinite. And above all, we believe that it is possible for the Creator of the universe to reveal his nature to the mind of man: for "God created man in his own image, in the image of God ■created he him." XX. RECAPITULATION. I will now briefly recapitulate some of the con- clusions reached in the preceding pages. In the first place, I have called attention to some of the chemical properties of matter, showing that the elements act according to definite laws; that in combining they produce compounds, the nature of which could not have been predicted, and that the carbon compounds especially are indefinitely numerous and wonderful in their properties. We have seen that the chemist can prepare from the elementary substances certain carbon compounds which are produced by animals .and plants, but that he is not able to produce matter in the organized form, such as protoplasm, in which life manifests itself. I next considered energy, or the forces of nature. Energy was defined as being that which can put mat- ter in motion. It was seen that the transmission of energy seems to demand a medium of some kind, and that ether is believed by physicists to be a universally distributed medium. The existence of this medium does not explain the action of the force of gravity. It is believed that matter and ether fill all space, and that they are in constant motion ; but the inten- sity of their motion varies at different times and in different places. The energy stored up in matter is being gradually imparted to ether, and unless there is some method (330) RECAPITULATION 331 by which it can be concentrated in matter again, nearly all the energy of the universe will be imparted to the ether and dissipated through infinite space. Assuming an infinite past existence of matter, it ought, according to the theory of the dissipation of energy, to be at present destitute of energy and, con- sequently, to account for the concentration of energy in matter requires more than a dynamical theory. It is evident that with matter, energy and ether, the condition of the universe is that of mechanical motion, and nothing more. In order, therefore, to account for the present con- dition of the visible universe, it is necessary to as- sume the existence of some power other than the known dynamical agencies. As to the theory of abiogenesis, or spontaneous generation, evolutionists admit that it has not been established, and they begin by assuming the existence of life. As a dynamical theory it involves nothing but mat- ter and energy, and these cannot account for the origin of even the humbler forms of organic beings, and much less for mind. If abiogenesis has taken place once, then it ought by means of the same agencies to have occurred a count- less number of times. The creation of the first living being was an extraordinary act, for which we find no analogy in nature, and it must have required an extra- ordinary agent. The evidence derived from numerous experiments by Professor Tyndall and others is all against the theory of spontaneous generation. Next followed a discussion of the theory of natural selection. It was seen that this theory involves two factors, namely, the fact of variation and the preser- vation of favorable variations. Mr. Darwin admits 332 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED that the causes of variations are almost totally un- known. This being true, the most that could be claimed for natural selection is that it preserves certain forms at the expense of others. Mr. Darwin assumes that life was " originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one." This admission opens the way for other mira- cles. He denies that in nature there is any " innate ten- dency toward perfectibility or progressive develop- ment." If this is true, then I think that the evolu- tion of man would have been impossible, involving as it would the preservation in "all cases of the most perfect forms of an. infinite series. It has been seen that Mr. Darwin's argument has been founded mostly on facts derived from the study of animals under domestication, involving the selects ive agency of man, while in nature there is no such agent to separate and propagate new varieties. Even under domestication, his argument proves, at most, that new varieties which freely mingle and pro- pagate the species can be produced, whereas, the theory demands the production of separate species which are cross-sterile. I have endeavored to show the impossibility of the formation of such species in a state of nature, and have called special attention to the weakness of the assumption that varieties are born, the individuals of which are fertile with each other but sterile with the parent form — all the known facts being opposed to this view. The necessity for such an assumption shows that the theory is very " hardly pressed." I have called attention to the fact that the number of instances of cross-sterility between parent and offspring would, according to the theory of slight RECAPITULATION 333 variations, have been almost infinite, and that, there- fore, this explanation of the preservation of varia- tions cannot be correct. I have claimed that isolation by barriers cannot account for the preservation of new varieties, for the reason that it is just as difficult to account for the preservation of a variety when formed from part of a species as when formed from the whole species. I have enumerated the several things which must occur simultaneously before cross-sterility between parent and offspring could occur and become effective, namely, that a number of individuals must be born at the same time possessing the same variation, that the variation must be useful, that these individuals must be fertile with each other, that they must be cross- sterile with the parent form, and that, [finally, the few, if any, individuals thus produced and being widely scattered through the species, must find each other before they could propagate. I regard it im- possible that these things could all occur simultane- ously. I have quoted from Mr. Spencer, showing that " either there has been inheritance of acquired char- acters, or there has been no evolution." He admits, however, that there are but few known facts which go to support his theory. It is evident that the diffi- culties of preserving and propagating an acquired character are those already pointed out. I see no reason why acquired characters would not, in a state of nature, be speedily merged. The lack of harmony in the teaching of evolution- ists shows that there is much vagueness as to the details of the theory. I next called attention to the difficulties arising from paleontology. The theory of evolution must assume that the first half of the history of life is en- 334 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED tirely lost, for among the earliest fossils are found trilobites and cephalopods — " animals which can , hardly be regarded as lower than the middle of the animal scale." It must also assume that nearly all of the record since the Primordial period has been obliterated, so that the fossils which are known or can ever be known, constitute but a few links in the chain of evo- lution. Species succeed each other, even where the rocks are continuous and without any evidence of breaks in their formation, as if by substitution and not by transformation, although the rocks may be full of well-preserved fossils. For this reason Professor Le Conte deems it necessary to assume that species have been formed suddenly — perhaps in one or two or a few generations. In the preceding pages I have endeavored to show that throughout the various classes of the animal kingdom there has been little progress in structure during the whole of geological time, and I have in- sisted that this almost total lack of progress is entire- ly inconsistent with the enormous advance in struc- ture and intelligence involved in evolving man from protoplasm. I have called attention to the fact that many species of plants and animals have undergone but little change through long periods of time. Professor Huxley says: " The significance of per- sistent types and of the small amount of change which has taken place even in those forms which can be shown to have been modified, becomes greater and greater in my eyes, the longer I occupy myself with the biology of the past." The long endurance of many species, the persist- ence of types, the absence of generalized structures RECAPITULATION 335 from which groups could have branched, are all opposed to the theory of evolution. The absence of progress in structure in the various •classes of the animal kingdom within the geological period, indicates a sudden and general arrest of progress inconsistent with the theory of evolution. Enormous progress is implied, the record of which in every instance is lost, in order to reach the oldest known members of any class, yet the rule is that from the time when such fossils are found till the present, little, if any, advance in structure has taken place. Evolution must assume enormous advance in structure, but lost record, in the history of almost •every class till the times of the oldest known fossils, and then a sudden halt in progress through all subse- quent geological time. The suddenness with which many kinds of highly organized fishes appeared, with no geological record showing their evolution and the appearance of most of the orders of mammals in the Tertiary, with no geological evidence as to their method of evolution, are remarkable facts. The evolutionist must assume that the early his- tory of every class and order of vertebrates has been wholly lost, although each must have begun within the authentic geological record, and at times when fossils are abundant. The survival through long periods and geological ages of the lowest members of classes has been dwelt upon to show the inability of such forms to progress or to produce offspring which could. make the enor- mous strides of progress implied in the evolution of man. Forms which are pointed out by evolutionists as being extremely archaic and closely like certain links in the chain of the evolution of man are still living, having made little change and no progress 336 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED through the ages, and these facts I regard as con- clusive that man could not have sprung from such progenitors. Under the subject of Embryology, on which some evolutionists rely largely, I have considered some of the difficulties attending the application of the theory. Embryology does not bridge the wide chasm between the Protozoa and the Metazoa, nor between the Inver- tebrates and the Vertebrates, nor between the three divisions of the vertebrates. The claim that the changes in the embryo of the individual are an epitome of the history of the class to which it belongs is simply an assumption, and it cannot, therefore, be evidence to establish the theory of evolution. The theory of embryology as applied to evolution is weak also in that it eliminates the unseen but essential differences between eggs and embryos, and magnifies the importance of certain transient resem- blances. I next called attention to some of the special objec- tions to the theory of evolution. This theory must account for every part of every organism. Mr. Dar- win himself acknowledges the great difficulty of try- ing to account satisfactorily for the origin of the many complex organs of animals. The electric organs of certain fishes, the various kinds of wings which had separate origins, the nu- merous kinds of eyes and eye-spots which could not have had a common origin, the several kinds of ears differently located, the varieties of apparatus for breathing, including different kinds of gills, trachea and lungs have been considered. The general con- clusion which I have drawn from these and other organs is that it is impossible to account for the pres- ervation, by natural selection, or by any other plaus- RECAPITULATION 337 ible theory of evolution, of organs through their incip- ient and long rudimentary stages, during which time they could have served no useful purpose. I regard this as fatal to the theory of evolution. I have claimed that the rudimentary mammae of males could not have been evolved by natural selec- tion, nor by any known method, and that, therefore, Mr. Darwin's claim that "Rudimentary organs de- clare their origin and plain meaning in various ways" is not correct in this case, and may not be in others. The rudimentary mammae in males could never have been functional. They have undoubtedly existed through an immense period of geological time as the merest rudiments. This fact shows that it is impos- sible for such organs to totally disappear, and yet evolution claims that most of the mammae which have existed in females have not simply become rudi- mentary, but have entirely disappeared. If it be granted that functional organs may become rudimentary, yet this is not an argument to prove that rudimentary organs may become useful. In the chapter on secondary sexual differences I have endeavored to show that there is no probable method by which horns, spurs, and other sexual dif- ferences could have been evolved, and much less that the fundamental differences between the sexes could have been thus produced. The instincts of animals give rise to other difficul- ties. Among the most serious of these is that grow- ing out of complex instincts which require complex adaptations of structure before the instincts could be useful. That they could have been either simultane- ously or successively formed in many cases seems impossible, since the instinct and the adaptive struc- ture are not related to each other as cause and effect. It seems to me impossible that chance could 22 338 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED have produced the wonderful instincts of bees and the various peculiarities of structure which render them useful. In the case of the workers I have called attention to the fact that many of their instincts, if evolved, must have been produced after they had be- come sexually imperfect, and that, consequently, the transmission of the instincts by heredity was impossi- ble, and that, therefore, they could not have been perfected by natural selection. The instincts of birds with regard to incubation and the structure of their eggs, rendering these instincts necessary, present similar difficulties. Other instances have been given to show that in- stincts and their adaptive structures could not have been evolved. As to the origin of man, we have seen that he is of very recent geological origin, that no fossils have been found which connect him with any lower form, and that his various physical peculiarities render it improbable that he has been evolved. But I have dwelt .especially on the psychic differ- ences between man and the lower animals, and have endeavored to show that man possesses faculties which do not belong to the lower animals. I have called attention to the fact that Mr. Darwin proceeds with great caution with regard to the evolu- tion of the higher powers of man, as is shown by his language when he says that he will "hazard a few remarks" concerning them. He admits that "man alone can with certainty be ranked as a moral being." This puts an impassable gulf between man and animals. The effort to evolve the moral or any other faculty from experiences of utility, fails, for the reason that experience can, at most, strengthen existing faculties, and cannot, therefore, create new ones. RECAPITULATION 339 I have called attention to Mr. Spencer's theory, that all psychic manifestations are composed of "units of feeling" that are "fundamentally of one kind." By this assumption he attempts to account for the origin of all the faculties of the mind. I have endeavored to show that there are essential differences between the faculties, so that one could not have been derived f rom another. The theory of evolution fails to show the possibility of evolving psychic phenomena from the inorganic world. These phenomena cannot be explained in terms of matter and motion, which are the only fac- tors in the ontology of the dynamical theory of the universe. Starting with inorganic matter, evolution must ex- plain the origin of life, of sensation, of the special senses, of instincts, and of the various powers of the mind. The evidence along this line is, I think, extremely inadequate. I have called attention to the fact that our knowl- edge of mind alone is immediate, and that mind has persistently refused to recognize itself as matter. Mind is a cause, as is shown by its ability to con- trol matter, and from this we may conclude that there is a Supreme Mind which controls the material uni- verse. The future and eternal existence of the soul is assured by the fact of its present existence and. the eternal existence of God. The indestructibility of matter and force serves as a foundation for the faith that mind, which can con- trol these things, is itself indestructible. Mind is not matter, but a controlling power in the universe, and we can form no conception as to how it may cease to exist. God cannot die, nor can the soul of man, made in his image, cease to be. The persistent and universal desire for a future existence 340 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED of' larger opportunities is a divine assurance of a future life. Change is not annihilation, but the unfolding of the universal plan* In the chapter on Design in Nature I have called attention to the comparatively uniform temperature of the earth during the whole geological period, cov- ering possibly fifty millions of years, without which life could not have existed. A change of only a few degrees in the climate of the earth would destroy all living things. We have seen that the movements of the earth and the inclination of its axis to the ecliptic are favorable to the existence of living organisms. As indicating design, I have dwelt with emphasis on the fact that the simple substances which consti- tute the earth are of such kinds and are found in such relative quantities as not only to render life pos- sible, but also to contribute to the well-being of man as an intelligent and moral agent. I look upon the concurrence of all these things, according to any theory of chance, as being entirely impossible. The conditions that must be fulfilled before living beings are possible are so complex that nothing short of the wisdom of a Supreme Intelligence could have pro- duced them. 1 have claimed that the existence of man with his wonderful physical structure and his marvelous powers of mind, whether he was created suddenly or by the slow process of evolution, is unmistakable evi- dence of the existence of God. The question as to the length of time involved in his creation does not .affect the question of design in his creation. The adaptation of man physically and mentally to na t ur e — of man as a being of unfolding desires and growing intelligence— has been dwelt upon. RECAPITULATION 341 And so the countless adaptations throughout the organic and inorganic worlds furnish an infinite num- ber of arguments in favor of design. Each species is perfect with regard to its environment. "With regard to suffering, it has been claimed that the amount is small compared to that of pleasure and happiness; that it is necessary for the protection of the body; that it results from disobeying the laws of nature which are themselves beneficent; that it is a great and, perhaps, necessary incentive to improve- ment; and that man by elevating himself physically, mentally and morally by more perfectly obeying the laws of nature, can continually decrease the amount of suffering. We have seen also that Altruism is woven into Nature, and that it is the great redeeming power of moral creatures. Lastly, I have called attention to the creed of the Agnostic as presented by Mr. Spencer. I have claimed that a belief in the existence of infinite time, infinite space, and an Infinite Intelligence are legiti- mate. I have endeavored to show that his effort to recon- cile religion and science by referring them to The Unknowable is not a reconciliation, but the destruc- tion of all religion; that his method of elimination is too sweeping, for the reason that it eliminates es- sential parts of religion with which science is not in conflict. Agnosticism confesses its own worthlessness as a creed for man in hi3 present condition, and Mr. Spencer adopts the theory of fatality in order to jus- tify himself in defending it. Finally, it is an infinite negation which, if accepted, would reduce the human race to a helpless condition, 342 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED by destroying the high faith and sacred hopes which alone can inspire man to the noblest living. In conclusion, I will say that whether or not the doctrine of evolution be accepted, yet to my mind the universe as it exists is but the expression of the thought, wisdom, power and will of the Divine Archi- tect whose working extends through the eternal ages. That the theory of Theistic evolution by which through the long ages God is represented as perpet- ually creating new forms of living beings from those already existing is fascinating and sublime I can easi- ly admit, and the force of the arguments in favor of this view I have deeply felt, yet the difficulties in- volved in creating the present order of things are, in my estimation, too great to be explained without assuming miracles, or exceptional acts, which cannot have been caused by the ordinary agencies of crea- tion. The vital question at issue in this whole matter is not the method of creation, but the nature of the power that creates. Method is of interest in so far only as it reveals the Creator. Miracles, to my mind, are no more divine than the ordinary events of nature, for both are due to the power of the Creator, yet, as evidence of the exhibi- tion of such power, the miracle is far more convinc- ing. Lastly, I cannot hold to any theory of the universe that degrades man and burdens his soul with darkness and despair. I do not, of course, charge that Theis- tic evolution does this, but I do believe that this is the result of Atheism and Agnosticism. I believe that the facts of the universe must tend to man's highest good; that they are consistent with RECAPITULATION 343 the joyful hope and the boundless faith; that the end- less future is fraught with good for man, — in a word, I believe that the facts of nature are in harmony with the nature of man, and that the existence and workings of the Universe are due to the Divine Will. XXI. GENESIS AND GEOLOGY. Does the account of creation given in Genesis conflict with the geological record? I shall not enter upon a lengthy discussion of this much-debated ques- tion. To begin with, I will state that I do not think that the known evidence will justify the conclusion that there is a conflict between these two records. It must be admitted that the geological record of creation extends over millions of years, and this ren- ders it necessary to interpret the word "day," in the first chapter of Genesis, as an indefinite period. It is so used, I think, in the fourth verse of the second chapter, where it is said, "These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were cre- ated, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Our knowledge of the geological record is very imperfect. As already stated in the chapters on Pale- ontology, Darwin, Romanes and other evolutionists insist that the known part of the record is as nothing compared to the unknown. According to their the- ory, the entire first half of the record, that preceding the Primordial period, in geology, is entirely lost. Romanes speaks of the whole geological record as being so imperfect that it merits the name, " a chap- ter of accidents." We have seen that, according to the theory of evo- lution, it is necessary to assume that every class and order of animals originated at a much earlier period (344) GENESIS AND GEOLOGY 345 in geology than that in which the oldest remains of such class or order have been found — that they orig- inated, in fact, at unknown times. It is probable that, within certain general limits, we may be justified in drawing certain conclusions as to the chronological order in which some kinds of plants and animals were introduced. It seems to be quite probable that water plants pre- ceded land plants, that nothing higher than conifers existed in the Paleozoic, and that the highest type of plants first appeared in the Mesozoic. It is also prob- able that the invertebrates preceded the vertebrates, and that the latter began as fishes; that, after the lat- ter appeared, amphibians and reptiles were intro- duced, and later, mammals and birds. Finally, man came in at the close of the geological record. The evolutionist assumes that most of the organic forms that existed during and since the Primordial are lost. If this is correct, it is impossible for us to tell what those lost forms were, and it is, therefore, evident that he is in no position to assert that an un- known lost record conflicts with one that is known. The evolutionist admits — and he must do so, for it is vital to his theory — that nearly all of the geological record has not been discovered. It is evident that, if this is true, the small amount that is known cannot be used as a substitute for the vast amount unknown. If one makes use of this frag- mentary account in this way, the burden of proof is on him to show that the small fragments of geological history which he uses give a correct idea of the enor- mous lost volume. If we are told that this or that conflicts with the geological account of creation, we may well ask, what is the geological account? To this the answer must follow, most emphatically and heartily by the evolu- 346 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED tionist, "I do not know." He can tell you that he has small samples which he believes represent more or less fairly the great unknown record. At the same time he must tell you that the unknown is unlike the known, and that it consists largely of the lost links in the chains of evolution. It is evident that there might be a conflict between the known geological record and some other account of creation, owing to the incompleteness of the for- mer, whereas, if it were complete, such a discrepancy might not exist. He who asserts a conflict between the account in Genesis and the geological record, must show that his knowledge of the latter is quite complete and correct. This he will be both unable, and, generally, unwill- ing to do, for the interest of his theory, if he is an evolutionist, demands a most fragmentary known record. It is evident, therefore, that no one is in a position to prove that there is a conflict between the cosmog- ony in Genesis and the great unknown cosmogony of Geology. The cosmogony in Genesis is very general. It is an outline painted with a few bold strokes. It was given to a people who were in the infancy of civilization, the masses of whom were ignorant and illiterate. A complete history of creation, as it occurred through the long geological ages, would have been useless to them. They could not have understood it because of its length and complexity, and because they were totally ignorant of the facts on which the geological account must be based. If it had been fully written for them, it would have been bewildering. What object could have been accomplished by tell- ing that people that Trilobites and Brachiopods abounded in the Silurian, that Fishes of many kinds GENESIS AND GEOLOGY 347 were very numerous in the Devonian, that Laby- rinthodonts basked in the sunshine on the shores of Carboniferous swamps, that mighty Frogs croaked in the Triassic, that the Marsupial, greatest great, great, etc., grandfather of the Opossum, was then engaged in his craft of robbing the nests of the long-tailed Archseopteryx, that the Zeuglodon sported in the Gulf of Mexico, in the Eocene, that three and four- toed horses of various kinds played base-ball with boulders in the Rocky Mountain region, thus ridding themselves of their surplus toes, during the Tertiary; that Bears, Tigers and Lions of huge size fought each other like the Kilkenny cats in England during the same period ; that Monkeys chased each other up and down the trees and played "hide and seek "in the forests of the Pliocene, and that, by accident or oth- erwise, the Anthropomorphous, Gorilla-like Ape lost his tail and took to intellectual and moral habits, so that some time during the Quaternary Period he became Adam? All of these things, with a great multitude of simi- lar facts, which can hardly be numbered, are of inter- est to the geologist and the evolutionist with their knowledge of modern science, but to the people of the time of Moses it would have been unprofitable reading. The cosmogony of Genesis had an infinitely higher and nobler aim than the teaching of the long list of incomprehensible facts contained in the geological record. It was given to impress upon the minds of , that people and of the world, the fact of the exist- ence of the One omnipotent, omniscient, righteous God as the Creator of all things, and to whom all men are responsible for their conduct. This teaching of Monotheism came upon the infant race as a revelation, as a flash from Heaven, more 348 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED marvelous than the creation of physical things. It was the one great fact that, above all others, must be driven into the heart of the race — branded upon its mind. The account in Genesis was for moral and religious purposes. To serve these purposes in the best possible way, it was necessary that the account should be but an outline. Some writers have attempted, in elaborate ways, to place the cosmogonies in Genesis and Geology side by side in detail. I regard such efforts as a waste of labor. The one record is so general, and the other so imperfect, that we have no certain basis for detailed comparisons. If we cannot see that they perfectly harmonize, still, as shown above, we are not justified in asserting that they conflict. It being impossible to show the existence of a conflict, an attempt at recon- ciliation becomes unnecessary. The conception of Monotheism, comprehending the origin and the control of the infinite Universe, is the most comprehensive that can enter the human mind. It came of necessity by revelation — I say, of neces- sity, for there is no other conceivable way by which it could have entered the human mind, especially in that early age. The broadest conclusion of the most perfect science is, I think, that there is One Cause in the Universe. The people of that age knew no science, and, there- fore, their Monotheistic belief could not have been based on science. Philosophers are still disputing as to the nature of the Final Cause. There was no con- gress of scientists and philosophers who agreed that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The minds of the great masses of mankind in all ages, ignorant of the laws of nature, have invented a multitude of gods in order to account for the many GENESIS AND GEOLOGY 349 seeming conflicts among natural phenomena. Poly- theism has been the inevitable result of the ignorance of the laws of nature, from which there could be no possible escape except revelation. Monotheism was born into the human mind from above. It came early in the authentic history of the race. It has survived through the darkest periods of human history against all the assaults that could be brought against it, — survived as the central idea of religion and ethics, and this in the minds of a people, the masses of whom were extremely ignorant, and who, at every' opportunity, lapsed into polytheism. But the holy fire of inspiration, kindled from above, ever burned on the altars of the hearts of the chosen few, by which the fact of Monotheism, with its all- important consequences, was kept and nourished in the minds of the people. The Monotheism of the Bible came by revelation, for the reason that it could have originated in no other way. The highest civilizations of antiquity did not reach it. There is no reason to believe that the learned men of any age within the historic period originated the idea. The belief in One God as the Creator and Moral Governor came suddenly in all of its perfection and splendor. There is no effort in Genesis, nor in the Bible, to prove by methods of logic, science or philosophy, the existence of God. And yet the writers speak with unwavering faith in the existence of the One God. They write as if it were not at all a matter of faith, but a matter of immediate knowledge, that God spoke to them and through them. " Moreover, the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou?" " The word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel, the priest." "The word of the Lord that came to Joel." "The burden of the word of the Lord to 350 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED Israel by Malachi." These are the unqualified ex- pressions by which the great teachers in Israel begin their teachings. No shadow of suspicion that there is no God, or that there is a multitude of gods, is ever expressed. Their minds, one and all, from the beginning to the end of their writings, are clear and most emphatic as to the One God, and his relation to them and to humanity. As witnesses of their divine knowledge they were ready to surrender their lives. They rightly have their places in history among the heroes who have forsaken all else for the truth. If, therefore, the idea of Monotheism originated and survived by revelation through the long, dark periods of the world's history, the oldest record that contains this greatest of all facts, the revelation of the One God, may be regarded as true in other respects. If the cosmogony in Genesis needed confirmation, which, so far as we can probably ever know it does not, the Monotheism of the record would be sufficient. He who in the first sentence could write " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," could from the same source of knowledge write that on the third day, or period of creation, "the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit;" and that on the fifth day the waters were made to " bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life," and that the earth brought forth " the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind," and that, finally, "God created man in his own image." As in Geology, so in Genesis, life begins with plants and moves upward to higher forms till it culminates in man. A multitude of details which would have been burdensome to the minds of the people is omit- GENESIS AND GEOLOGY 351 ted, while the great central fact of the existence of God and his creative, ruling and moral power are emphasized. His fatherhood is implied in the language, " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." "And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him." It has been said that the author of the cosmogony in Genesis made an evident mistake in representing that the sun and moon were not created till the fourth day, while light was created on the "first day. This may be answered, as has been done, by claiming that the Mosaic account represents creation as it would have appeared to an observer stationed upon the earth and viewing the process as it took place. That the earth was once melted is shown by the facts of science. At that stage of its existence all the water now in the oceans was in the form of steam and clouds above the surface of the earth. The sun, for a long period, was obscured by dense clouds. Long before it could have been seen, the light, at first small in amount, but ever increasing, owing to the constant cooling of the earth, and the settling of the condensed waters upon the land, pierced in visible quantity through the clouds, so that it could have been seen by an observer on the earth. To such an observer, it could then, for the first time, have been said in language that he could have under- stood, " Let there be light." As the earth cooled more and more until the air lost most of its moisture, a well-defined, visible region appeared between the earth and the clouds. "And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament." While a permanent sheet of cloud still covered the 352 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED earth, and while the sun was still invisible, there was sufficient light for the growth of plants, and they were created on the third day, while the sun and moon were still invisible. The waters, according to both Genesis and Geology, at first covered the whole earth. "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so." Thus, beginning with an earth that " was waste and void," shrouded in dense darkness by means of im- penetrable clouds and vapors, as time passed slowly on the waters settled by condensation, the light that found its way through the cloud increased more and more, the visible firmament appeared, dry land was permanently established above the waters, land plants were created, and then, on the fourth day, after the lapse of the long periods that had gone before, the sun and moon first became visible between the rifted clouds. It seems proper that the inspired seer of the pano- rama of creation should state that the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day, or period, the earliest time at which they would have been visible to a person on the surface of the earth. It may be, however, that the creation of the sun and moon is included in the language of the first verse, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," and that on the fourth day, becoming vis- ible upon the earth, they were designated as being from that time the rulers and sources of light for the earth. I cannot consider the various theories which have been advanced in connection with cosmogony. Vol- umes have been written on the subject. I know of GENESIS AND GEOLOGY 353 no reason why it can with truth be asserted that Geology and Science conflict with the cosmogony in Genesis. The latter is certainly marvelous, consider- ing the time of its origin, and its great central truth, Monotheism, stamps the whole as of Divine origin. 23 APPENDIX. " THE PRIMARY FACTOES OF ORGANIC EVO- LUTION," BY E. D. COPE, EXAMINED. Since writing the preceding, I have examined the volume entitled, " The Primary Factors of Organic Evolution," by E. D. Cope, recently issued. This book having been written by a leading author on paleontology, endeavors to throw new light upon the subject of evolution derived from that source. It also endeavors to explain the origin of variations. For these reasons, especially, I deem it proper to re- view the volume at some length. In the introduction the author says: "The doc- trine of evolution may be defined as the teaching which holds that creation has been and is accom- plished by the agency of the energies which are in- trinsic in the evolving matter, and without the inter- ference of agencies which are external to it. It holds this to be true of the combinations and forms of in- organic nature, and those of organic nature as well. Whether the intrinsic energies which accomplish evo- lution be forms of radiant or other energy only, act- ing inversely as the square of the distance, and with- out consciousness, or whether they be energies whose direction is affected by the presence of consciousness, the energy is property of the physical basis of tridi- mensional matter, and is not outside of it, accord- ing to the doctrine we are about to consider. (354) APPENDIX 355 " As a view of nature from an especial standpoint, evolution takes its place as a distinct science. The science of evolution is the science of creation." As to the "energy of evolution," he says: "If the tendency of the catagenic energies is away from vital phenomena, it is impossible that they, or any of them, should be the cause of the origin of living matter. This logical inference is confirmed by the failure of all attempts to demonstrate spontaneous generation of living organisms from inorganic matter. Further, the principle of continuity leads us to infer that the energy which produced organic matter must be identical with or allied to that which is the efficient agent in progressive evolution of organisms, and is, therefore, anagenetic. Such a conclusion may seem to lead to a dualism which is itself opposed to the principle of continuity or uniformity, and which is opposed to experience of the phenomena of energy in general. "Since facts and logic do not support the derivation of the anagenetic from the inorganic energies, can the reverse process, the derivation of the catagenic from the anagenetic be and have been the order of nature? In support of this hypothesis, we have the universal prevalence of the retrograde metamorpho- sis of energy in both the inorganic and organic king- doms. Phenomena of structural degeneracy are well known in the organic world, and purely chemical phenomena in both organic and inorganic processes are degenerate. It appears then much more proba- ble that catagenesis succeeds anagenesis as a conse- quence, and does not precede it as a cause. In other words, it is more probable that death is a con- sequence of life, rather than that the living is a product of the non-living." * * Page 482. 356 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED With regard to the function of consciousness, he says: "The relation of consciousness to the phys- ical basis is as yet a profound mystery, but that they exercise over each other a definite mutual control is unquestionable. The processes which produce thought, as conception, judgment, etc., are however, not qualitatively related to the amount of nutritious proteids consumed in the central nervous system, but only quantitatively; yet it is the outcome of these processes that directs animal movements, when they are not automatic. "In other words, the forms of thought, which have no weight, direct the movements of muscles which have weight. This is not in accord with the doctrine of the correlation of energy. But what has the formation of a concept or the development of a judgment to do, per se, with the correlation of en- ergy? " While, therefore, every mental process is expen- sive as a whole, the mental content is obedient to the forms of thought rather than to the correlation of energy. This is what mind is." * Again, "The formal statement of this phenome- non may be found in the thesis, that energy can be conscious. If true, this is an ultimate fact, neither more nor less difficult to comprehend than the nature of energy or matter in their ultimate analyses. But how is such a hypothesis to be reconciled with the facts of nature, where consciousness plays a part so infinitesimally small? The explanation lies close at hand, and has already been referred to. Energy be- come automatic is no longer conscious, or is about to become unconscious. That this is the case is a mat- ter of every-day observation on ourselves and on other animals. What the molecular conditions of * Page 506. APPENDIX 357 consciousness are, is one of the problems of the future, and for us a very interesting one. One thing is certain, the organization of the mechanism of habits is its enemy. It is clear that in animals, ener- gy, on the loss of consciousness, undergoes a retrogade metamorphosis. " To regard consciousness as the primitive condi- tion of energy, contemplates an order of evolution in a large degree the reverse of the one which is ordi- narily entertained. The usual view is that life is de- rived from inorganic energies as a result of high or complex molecular organization, and that conscious- ness ( = sensibility) is the ultimate outcome of the nervous or equivalent energy possessed by living bodies. The failure of the attempts to demonstrate spontaneous generation will prove, if continued, fatal to this theory. With our present evidence it may be affirmed that not only has life preceded organiza- tion, but that consciousness was coincident with the dawn of life." Again he says: " I think it possible to show that the true definition of life is, energy directed by sensi- bility or by a mechanism which has originated under the direction of sensibility ." * The above quotations with regard to final causes, life and its origin, indicate that the author is not a materialist. As to the object of the volume, he says: "My aim will be to show, in the first place, that variations of character are the effect of physical causes; and second, that such variations are in- herited." f In this view he follows Lamarck. Darwin thought that, for the most part, the causes of variation were unknown. The first chapter in the book treats of variation. * Page 507. t Page 14. 358 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED In this he considers the variations in color of closely- related species of beetles, snakes, and lizards. If all that he claims here be true, yet it would be of little importance in establishing the truth of the theory of evolution, for it is well known that color has little, if any thing, to do with structure, and that it is with changes of structure that evolution is concerned. He next considers variations in North American birds and mammals in relation to locality. He shows that certain species of birds and mammals vary in the size of the individuals composing them, and that the latter vary somewhat in the relative size of certain organs. Size alone of individuals does not determine species. Then follows a brief statement of a few variations in structural characters, in which it is shown that among dogs the number of teeth varies somewhat, and, also, that their structure varies slightly. The same things occur among the teeth of different men. It is not certain that the different kinds of dogs have all been derived from one species, and this may help to account for fewer teeth in some. He endeavors to show, by comparing their skele- tons, that the various species of Batrachia (= frogs, toads, etc.), have had a common origin. The origin of species cannot be determined by simply comparing skeletons. Such comparisons are, of course, neces- sary for the theory of evolution, but much more is required than this in order to account for new species. He attributes to isolation a large share in the for- mation of species. He says: "That existing types of all grades are the result of the isolation of varia- tions of species, is shown by the frequent examples of incomplete isolation, which follows inconstancy of the definitive characters." * * Page 62. APPENDIX 359 To have thus formed all species would have re- quired hundreds of thousands of isolations, which were impossible. Besides, it is evident that isolation could not produce variations, but could simply keep varieties apart after they were formed. Chapter II. treats of the " phylogeny or genealogy of organisms," which, he says, " can only be deter- mined by paleontologic research." In making out the general phylogeny for the animal kingdom,* he depends on embryology, and not on paleontology. He claims that embryology shows that such animals as star-fishes, oysters and snails, craw- fishes and beetles, and all animals with backbones, in- cluding man, have been derived from worms, — hence the truth of the claim by theologians, that " man is but a poor worm of the dust." Again he says: " If we could study the embryology of the many extinct forms of life, the missing stages would be found, but as we have not the opportunity of pursuing this important research, we have to rely on paleontology for our phylogeny. Paleontology is, and always will he, imperfect, but all that we get is palingeny, or the phylogeny itself, and not an inverted and distorted record of it." t It would seem from this language that the author discards embryology in determining phylogeny, and that he would depend exclusively on paleontology, and yet, as stated above, he bases general phylogeny on embryology. The reason is evident, and that is, paleontology furnishes no evidence whatever as to the origin of the sub-kingdoms of animals, and consequently, he must lean upon the mere assumptions of embryology. The author shows % some of the shortcomings of embryology. It should be remembered that the old- * Page 81. t Page 210. % Page 209. 360 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED est known fossil representatives of the different sub- kingdoms are widely apart in structure, and paleon- tology has furnished no evidence, whatever, in the form of fossils, to show that they had a common origin. Nor is there any hope that she will be able to do so. , He next proceeds to manufacture a phylogeny for the vertebrates. He remarks that, " Embryologists are especially apt to construct impossible phytogenies, as they are generally not systematists, and frequently not anatomists."* The first half of this is, no doubt, true. He continues: " The Amphioxus (genus Branchi- ostoma) is generally regarded as the ancestral verte- brate. There are many reasons why this position must be accepted, although it possesses a few second- ary modifications. Whether Branchiostoma derived its descent from an annelid worm, or from a tuni- cate, is a vexed question." f I suggest that the degraded tunicate, grown fast to a rock by what was once his head, be relieved of the responsibility of having been the ancestor of man. He evidently saw that the worm was ahead of him in the race, and he attempted suicide by jamming his head against a rock and holding it there till it grew fast and, finally, disappeared, while he lived on. But the origin of the Amphioxus,. our oldest verte- bral ancestor, is uncertain — the honor of having been his father being divided between the writhing, wrig- gling, squirming worm on the one hand, and the leathery, stupid, motionless tunicate on the other, with odds in favor of the former. I am sure that Amphioxus, if called on to-day, would hardly be able to recognize his own father, so much has he grown away from him in appearance. * Page So. t Page 86. APPENDIX 361 This doubt as to the pedigree of our most ancient back-boned ancestor, will, no doubt, wound the pride of some of the blue-bloods, but they may console themselves with the knowledge that this slight doubt as to the record arose some fifty, or, possibly, a hun- dred million years ago. As to the origin of mammals he says: "It is evi- dent that Mammalia were derived from some type probably referable to a Permian reptilian order of the Theromerous series, although to which one is not yet known." * Why the above " is evident," is not at all clear to me, except that the necessities of the theory of evolu- tion make this claim necessary. So far as we know, reptiles were the highest animals that preceded mam- mals, and, granting that the theory of evolution is true, it follows that mammals were probably derived from them. But paleontology has little, if anything, to show as to the origin of mammals. How a cold- blooded reptile with nucleated red corpuscles and no milk glands, could have become warm-blooded with non-nucleated red corpuscles and have acquired milk glands, is not even guessed at by the author. Cope does not agree with Haeckel in deriving Batrachia from Dipnoi, but he is in doubt as to their origin. As to reptiles: " The Eeptilia have been supposed by Hseckel to have taken their origin from the Batra- chia." t With this opinion the author agrees. "And it is from the Triassic Dinosauria that I suppose the birds to have arisen." Thus it is seen that paleontology furnishes no con- clusive evidence as to the origin of either fish, am- phibian, reptile, bird or mammal. A great multitude * Page 88. t Page 88. 362 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED of intermediate forms necessary to connect these classes has not been discovered. Concerning reptiles, " The vertebrae are not intro- duced into the definitions of the orders, since they are not so exclusively distinctive as many other parts of the skeleton." * Besides, it is not certain how their various kinds of vertebras could have had a common origin. Again, " The paleontology of the birds not being known, our conclusions respecting the character of their evolution must be incomplete." The derivation of feathers from scales of reptiles needs to be ex- plained. He claims that the monotremes, the lowest known mammals, have lost their teeth and " their condition is evidently one of degradation." How did they lose the numerous well-developed teeth of their reptilian progenitors? Again, "In the marsupial order we have a great range of dental structure, which almost epitomizes that of the monodelph orders. The dentition of the carnivorous forms is creodont; that of the kangaroos is perissodactyle, and that of the wombats is rodent. Other forms repeat the Insectivora." How was it possible for so many independent evolutions of teeth to have taken place in which similar teeth were pro- duced in marsupials and true mammals. The fact that they were independently formed is the strongest possible argument against the theory that they were evolved. The author, in another place, tries to solve this difficulty, and many others, on mechanical prin- ciples. He admits that the phylogeny of Cetacea, Sirenia, Edentata and Marsupials has not yet been cleared up, * Page 121. APPENDIX 363 but he claims that the phylogeny of most of the other orders is known. The earliest known mammals (of the Triassic and Jurassic) " are already highly specialized. They probably represent the Monotremata of their time." The fact that they were then " highly specialized " is very significant. How long had it taken them to be- come so? When did they depart from the reptilian type? Paleontology is silent as to their origin. Again, he says, " The immediate didelphian ances- tors of the monodelphous Mammalia have not yet been certainly discovered." How do we know then that the ancestors were didelphian? Again, " The history of the Monotremata is not made out, but the earliest forms of which we know, the skeleton, Polymastodon (Cope) of the Lower Eocene, is as specialized as the most specialized recent forms. The dentition of the Jurassic forms, Plagiaulix, etc., is quite specialized also, but not more than those of the kangaroos. The premolars are more specialized, the true molars less specialized than in those animals."* From this it is seen that the oldest known mono- tremes are found in the Eocene, and yet it is assumed that monotremes were the ancestors of marsupials a whole long age before the Eocene began. The oldest known forms of monotremes and mar- supials were as specialized as living ones of the same orders. Again, he says: "In conclusion, the progressive may be compared with the retrogressive evolution of the Vertebrata, as follows: In the earlier periods and with the lower forms, retrogressive evolution has pre- dominated. In the higher classes progressive evolu- tion has predominated." t * Page 142. t Page 146. 364 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED It is remarkable that it must be assumed that re- trogression in the animal kingdom has been quite as general as progression. This principle is called in to explain the existence of the various rudimentary or- gans and numerous modifications of organs that exist among animals. By adding and subtracting organs and parts of organs from assumed ideal forms, it becomes easy to derive any known form by the use of the imagination. As to the origin of man, he says: "I have ad- vanced the further hypothesis that the Anthropo- morpha (which include man and the anthropoid apes) have been derived directly from the lemurs, without passing through the monkeys proper." * " The frequent presence of the tritubercular molar in man suggests the superior claim of the lemurs over the monkeys to the position of ancestor." A great consolation. But man " cannot be traced through any existing type of Lemuridse, but through the extinct forms of the Eocene period." He then gives a picture t of the lower jaw of our possible ancestral lemur. It dif- fers much in shape from man's jaw. It contains ten teeth on each side, there being but eight in man. [The teeth, for the most part, look very different from those of man. It will be noticed, however, that the author only advances a hypothesis, and- that he does not claim positive knowledge that man was derived from lemurs. Concerning man and anthropoid apes he says: " The sole difference between these families is seen in the structure of the posterior foot: the Simiidse having the hallux opposable, while in the Hominidae * Page 154. t Page 156. APPENDIX 365 the hallux is not opposable. This is not a strong character," etc. If this is true, I suggest that a slight surgical oper- ation will convert gorilla into man, and then he can be put on the high-road to civilization. When his big toe is made to grow in human fashion, he will, of necessity, abandon his arboreal habits, and he can be kept within bounds by his teachers. But Huxley claimed that the structural differences between man and apes were many and great, instead of being confined to some little difference between the big toes. He says: " I find, in fact, that those who endeavor to teach what nature so clearly shows in this matter, are liable to have their opinions misrepresented and their phraseology garbled until they seem to say that the structural differences between man and even the highest apes are small and insignificant. Let me take this opportunity then of distinctly asserting, on the contrary, that they are great and significant; that every bone of a Gorilla bears marks by which it might be distinguished from the corresponding bone of a man; and that, in the present creation, at any rate, no intermediate link bridges over the gap be- tween Homo and Troglodytes." * Cope has, in this instance, saved his imagination the slight trouble of bridging the chasm between man and the apes by denying its existence, while Huxley, equally distinguished as a comparative anatomist, emphasizes its existence. Again, the author says: " It is then highly prob- able that Homo is descended from some form of the Anthropomorpha now extinct, and probably unknown at present, although we do not yet know all the char- acters of some extinct supposed Simiidte, of which * Cyclopedia of Science', Vol. 2, p. 232, 366 OBGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED fragments only remain to us." Here we have it " highly probable " that man originated from some unknown ape. He next considers the remains of man that are re- garded as being the oldest known, and attempts to bridge the chasm. The skulls of "the man and woman of Spy," are compared with the Neanderthal skull, and he concludes that they all belong to the same race. He concludes that the peculiar characters of these skulls, their jaws and teeth, "go a long way toward justifying the separation of the Neanderthal race as a distinct species, as has been done by some author under the name of Homo neanderthalensis." He afterwards speaks of it as a distinct species. In this case comparatively small variations in structure are given sufficient weight to separate part of the genus Homo as a distinct species, while between man and apes, " the sole difference " is in the position of the big toe. To fill the gap between man and ape, the ape is lifted in structure by ignoring the differences. When he comes to consider the remains of man, a similar purpose is served by degrading individuals that are well known to have been human, so as to form a lower species. Differences in structure be- come great or small according to the necessity of the theory of evolution. The Neanderthal and Spy skulls are of good capacity, a fact which the author neglects to state. The capacity of the former is 75 cubic inches, or about 1,053 cubic centimetres, which, Hux- ley says, "Is the average capacity given by Morton for Polynesian and Hottentot skulls. So large a mass of brain as this, would alone suggest that the pithe- coid tendencies, indicated by this skull, did not ex- tend deep into the organization; and this conclusion is borne out by the dimensions of the other bones of APPENDIX 367 the skeleton given by Professor Schaffhausen, which show that the absolute height and relative proportions of the limbs were quite those of an European of mid- dle stature. The bones are indeed stouter, but this, and the great development of the muscular ridges, noted by Dr. Schaffhausen, are characters to be ex- pected in savages. Patagonians, exposed without shelter or protection to a climate possibly not very dissimilar from that of Europe at the time during which the Neanderthal man lived, are remarkable for the stoutness of their limb bones. In no sense, then, oan the Neanderthal bones be regarded as the remains of a human being intermediate between Man and Apes. In conclusion, I may say, that the fossil re- mains of man hitherto discovered do not seem to me to take us appreciably nearer to that lower pithecoid form, by the modification of which he has, probably, become what he is." * Such were Huxley's views with regard to men and apes, and no fossils have since been discovered which, if he were still living, would cause him to change these views. The latest discovery of the supposed connecting link was made by Dr. Dubois, in Java, near Trinil. With regard to these bones, Cope says: "The characters of the skull are closely similar to those of the men of Neanderthal and Spy, but the walls are not so thick as those of the former, and more nearly resemble those of the latter." t The cranial capacity of the gorilla i3 500 cubic centimetres, that of the man of Java 1,000, and that of the lowest normal man 1,500 cubic centimetres. This last statement, with regard to the least capacity of the normal skull of man, is not correct, as the author himself shows on the same page. * Cyclopedia of Science, p. 253. t Page 169. 368 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED But, alas for the theory of the missing link! " Vir- chow has pointed out that some of the Nigritos pos- sess a remarkably small cranial capacity, as little as 950 cubic centimetres, and an inhabitant of New- Britain only 860 cubic centimetres, a capacity even smaller than the man of Trinil. Until we learn the characters of the lower jaw, we shall be in doubt as to whether this individual pertains to the Homo sapiens or the Homo neanderthalensis." * It is admitted, then, that these bones are human, and that their possessor was not more degraded than the Neanderthal man of whom Huxley wrote. The skulls of Neanderthal, Spy and Trinil, all have a capacity of 1,000 cubic centimetres, or more, which is considerably more than that of various living men. So eager were Dubois and Heeckel to supply the connecting link between men and apes that, for the man of Trinil, they proposed "a new genus, Pithe- canthropus," "and even a new family, Pithecan- thropidse, without having shown that he is not a member of the genus Homo." It is certain, from what has been said, that paleontology has not shown how man originated. Cope, however, does not hesitate to make out the genealogy of man, extending through all the geolog- ical ages.f I will repeat this genealogy, giving mostly the common, instead of the technical names, which he uses, and I will add certain details which the author omits. Man began away back beyond the old- est known fossils as a Protozoan, which was simply a gelatinous cell, floating in the ocean. In due time he became a jelly-fish, or, possibly, a polyp, much like those that make coral. Desiring to lead a more active life, he stretched his body, in his numerous * Page 169. + Page 171. APPENDIX 369 efforts at locomotion, until it developed into a squirm- ing worm that groveled on the bottom of the sea. But, as a worm, he was discontented with his con- dition, a characteristic which the human race inherits from his wormship, and so he aspired after a back- bone to aid him in fighting the battles of life. After much meditation, he concluded that he could best acquire this new organ by shifting his habitation and changing his diet; so he moved northward into deeper and colder water, and he added to his diet, once a day, small pellets of rock which would serve as food for backbone. After endless shiftings, from place to place, and the devouring of numerous kinds and of numberless pellets, he succeeded in permanently estab- lishing a rudimentary backbone. He was then an Am- phioxus, the vertebrate ancestor of all the vertebrates. His backbone at this time was extremely weak, and he soon realized that a greater quantity and a firmer quality were desirable, and so he doubled the fre- quency of taking the calcareous pebbles, using them at both his morning and evening repasts, in as large quantities as his stomach could digest. At the same time he entered the sub-marine gymnasium and gave himself up to bending his body from side to side, in order that the rapidly forming backbone might be kept flexible while it increased in strength. By this continual exercise, the hardening bone was developed into distinct vertebrae. In this condition he was a fish. While swimming near the shore one day, he was cast by a great wave upon the beach, where he gave himself up as lost. But his partner in the sea, chancing to hear his moans of despair, encouraged him to use his fins for legs, which he immediately did, to the good purpose of soon reaching the water. The view which he obtained when cast ashore, brought to his mind the knowledge 24 370 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED of the existence of another world, with which he longed to become acquainted. So he decided that he would proceed cautiously to explore the neighboring land. Eiding upon the crest of the highest wave, he permitted himself to be cast upon the beach much higher than before. Having viewed the world from that point, he regained the water as at first. His ex- perience in trying to use his fins as legs gave him the knowledge that they would need to be changed a good deal in order to adapt them to locomotion on land, and he also felt a certain shortness of breath while on land which he desired to overcome, in order that he might remain long out of water and make extended journeys. By much flapping of his fins edgewise against the rocks he gradually narrowed and elongated them, and he also succeeded in breaking their hard parts into joints. By holding his mouth full of compressed air he succeeded in expanding a part of his gullet into a sac which finally developed into a lung. After thous- ands of generations, involving infinite labor, and skill, and patience, he was able to claim as his birthright four good legs and two good lungs; but he retained also his gills, for, as yet, he was afraid to trust his fortunes entirely to the dry land. He was then an Amphibian — a water-dog, in his habits. He reveled in luxury on land. He gorged himself day and night with fat flies and juicy bugs. He basked in the sunshine of the cool morning, and, at noon, he escaped the scorching rays of the sun by stretching his weary limbs beneath the cooling shades of the Car- boniferous ferns. When he first sought the land, he returned regularly to the sea. But by and by he be- came so wedded to the luxuries of the land, that he neglected for days and even months to return to the APPENDIX 371 water, and so his gills gradually disappeared, from disuse. He was then a Reptile, somewhat like the crocodile. But he did not lose his taste for fat flies and juicy bugs. He began .to be more human-like. He entered into contests with his fellow-crocodiles in order to determine who could eat the greatest number of a certain species of very luscious flies. In this way he so inflated his stomach with rich diet that some of the chyme oozed out through the ventral surface of his bo*dy. This leakage soon attracted the notice of the young crocodiles, and they began to lick off this rich chyme in order to prevent the waste. In this way the first milk glands were developed — so to speak, by accident — and thus originated the first mam- mal. The hot sun dried up his scales, the winds split them into threads, and thus hairs were evolved. He was then the lowest mammal, something like the duck-mole of Australia, except that he had numerous well-developed teeth. He laid eggs and hatched them, and hovered his young at night. By-and-by the youthful duck-mole, not liking to be left so much at home by the mater familias, succeeded, after much toil, through many long and weary nights, in develop- ing a projection of the skin into an udder, which he firmly grasped by his mouth, and thus he was carried from place to place, and learned " to view the land- scape o'er." The mother, being delighted with the pluck of the youthful ancestor of future man, determined to make him as comfortable as possible, and so, in order to carry him with more comfort and to shield his youthful back from the inclemencies of the weather and from the assaults of enemies, she drew the sur- plus skin of her ventral region over his body and pinned it with a thorn, and, thus, in a short time was 372 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED evolved the pouch of the oppossum, the utility and comfort of which we witness in our day. But the land became so thickly peopled with croco- diles, lizards, water-dogs, frogs, duck-moles and opossums, that it became extremely difficult to obtain enough fat insects to serve as food. This led to vio- lent contentions among these, our early ancestors, as to who should have the first choice of the most tooth- some bugs. Angry words soon led to war, and war, as usual, resulted in bloodshed. The sight and smell and taste of blood soon became familiar. Some of them, having swallowed the blood of their fellow-men by accident, learned that it would nourish their bod- ies, and from this beginning, an appetite for flesh and blood was speedily formed. From this time on, a cannibal race lived and prospered at the expense of their inoffensive neighbors. But it must be evident to the most superficial ob- server, that the opossum, weighted by carrying her numerous young, at first in her pouch, and, after- wards on her back, was not in the best condition to outstrip her competitors in the race of life. She was carrying far more than the legal burden prescribed by the modern race-course for an animal of her size. So she explained to her infant family the necessities of the case, and they, with unanimous voice, agreed to remain at home and stay within doors, while she fought the battles, captured her neighbors as prey, and ran the race of life. A few generations of disuse caused the pouch and the marsupial bones to disappear, and thus came into existence the ferocious flesh-eating animal, our great, great grandfather, who roamed through the primitive Mesozoic forests, " seeking whom he might devour." Time moved apace. The inhabitants of the earth became more and more crowded, food was more APPENDIX 373 scarce, and conflicts were so numerous and savage that to many a poor soul life seemed not worth liv- ing. In this extremity, our dog-like or creodont ancestor, exercising the usual wits for which our whole line of progenitors has ever been noted, with an aspiring mind began to look heavenward in hope of some sort of relief. He viewed the silvery moon and the twinkling stars, and was pleased with their brightness. He also observed that on the trees hung luscious fruits, some of which, partly decomposed, he had picked from the ground, and that numerous glossy, fat birds flitted by day among the foilage and roosted on the boughs of the trees by night. He said to himself, " What a feast if I could only climb!" The intense desire soon became father to the deed. He soon selected a peach tree of that Age on which there hung much golden fruit. His first effort at climbing was extremely awkward, and he fell to the ground. Again he renewed the effort with all his strength, in doing which he so jarred the tree that some of its best fruit fell to the earth. This he eagerly devoured. Encouraged with his success he repeated the process " until his stomach was fairly filled." His mind was then fully made up to seek the things that were above — to climb into a world where none of his close kindred had ever been. So he gave himself up to the severest course of training. He hugged the trees for hours at a time in order to give his arms the best shape for grasping. He patted his fore feet and hind feet against stones in order that they might be flattened into hands for grasping and feet for biped locomotion. He pulled his fingers to increase their length, and placed wedges between what are now the thumb and the forefinger, in order to make the former stand out as a thumb. In like manner he developed the big toe into a grasping Missing Page Missing Page 376 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED the characters of individual animals and plants. These influences fall naturally into two classes, viz., the physico-chemical (molecular,) and the mechanical (molar). The modifications so presented are sup- posed to be the result of the action of the causes in question, continued throughout geological time." He gives the names Physiogenesis and Kinetogenesis to the above causes. "In the animal kingdom we may reasonably suppose that kinetogenesis is more potent as an efficient cause of evolution than physio- genesis." * Under physiogenesis the author shows the effects of light and of certain kinds of food in modifying the colors of a few animals; also, the effects of changing the saltness of water on two or three spe- cies; and, finally, he considered the blindness of ani- mals that live in caves. If all that he claims in this chapter is true, yet it has but little bearing on the question of evolution. Change of color has little, if anything, to do with change of structure, and loss of vision by disuse can- not explain the origin of eyes. The chapter on Kinetogenesis occupies 140 pages. The author, relying on this as the principal cause of variations, attempts to explain the origin of organs and the great changes which have, according to evo- lution, taken place in the structure of animals. I can only refer to a few parts of this chapter, which will give some idea of the author's method. As to the origin of lungs, he says: " The habit of holding in the oesophagus large quantities of air while engaged in seeking food in foul water, or on land, on the part of vertebrates which normally oxygenated the blood by means of gills, was probably the mechan- ical cause of the development of a pouch, and after- *Page 225. APPENDIX 377 "wards of a diverticulum of the cesaphagus, which became ultimately a swim bladder or a lung."* " The segmentation of the limbs of vertebrata is a simple mechanical problem. Paleontology and em- bryology concur in proving that the limbs originated in primitive folds in the external integument, and that their connection with the internal skeleton was ■of later accomplishment, has been shown by Widers- heim." f The origin of the limbs of vertebrates, with their complicated structures, is a very difficult problem. Embryology, I believe, teaches nothing on this subject, nor does paleontology, as far as I have been able to learn, show that the " limbs originated in primitive folds in the external integument." The author claims that the original limbs were *' slender- rods which were segmented by interruptions at suitable points." Strange indeed is it that folds of the skin were developed into slender segmented rods. One would have expected that such folds would give rise to broad limbs of some kind. Again, he says that "the articulations of the fin- rays of fishes, as shown by Ryder, are fractures, due to flexures during motion in the water medium." By the process of fractures, I understand that the author intends to explain the origin of the joints in limbs. If this is true, it indeed becomes marvelous when we ti - y to account, in this way, for the origin of all the joints in the arms and hands, legs and feet of man. Between one and two hundred fractures, all made by accident, with exact regularity in the corre- sponding parts of limbs, must have occurred. If this is true, what has become of the doctrine of chances? How have four complex limbs, alike in pairs, and all four closely alike, with a great, number of corre- * Page 363. t Page 366. 378 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED sponding bones and joints, been evolved? No plausible explanation has been given. Again: "The limb of land vertebrates was derived from one of the forms of fins of water vertebrates ' * . . . "the limbs of the first land animals were segmented and flexible at the joints between the seg- ments."* The joints of the first land animals were, then, if I understand the author, the joints of the fins of fishes which had originated from accidental frac- tures. He continues: "The terminal flexure, that of the wrist or ankle, has been evidently due to a similar mechanical cause, viz., the flexure due to the pressure of the weight of the body on the terminal segments when in contact with the earth. The distal segments are the most slender in all types, and least able to maintain a linear direction under pressure, hence, they have flexed easily, and thus the line of separation, between leg and foot had its origin." He then gives a general theory to account for the origin of joints in both exo and endo-skeletons : " If we imagine that either the integuments, or an axial rod, of a worm-like animal, has become the seat of a calcareous or chitinous deposit, it is evident that the movements of the animal, in swimming or creeping, must have interrupted the deposit at definite point* of its length. -The lateral flexure of the body would be restricted to certain points, and the intervening spaces would become the seat of the deposit. At the lines of interruption joints would be formed, and if the movements were habitually symmetrical, these in- terruptions would be equi-distant. In this way the well known segmentation of the external skeletons of Arthropoda, and the internal skeletons of Vertebrata would be formed." t * Page 366. t Page 368. APPENDIX 379 He claims that a primitive backbone * was formed in this way, composed of wedges of bone, with their bases placed alternately above and below. The folds made in the thick cloth of a coat sleeve, by bending the arm, illustrate, he says, the mechanical principles involved in making this backbone. From this double row of wedges, the author imagines that two distinct kinds of vertebral columns have arisen; from the lower row, the backbone of the fish, and, from the upper, that of the higher vertebrates. Having derived these two kinds of vertebral col- umns in this way, it becomes easy, by a still more lib- eral use of the imagination, to account for the various styles of vertebrae; viz., concave in front, concave behind, concave at both ends, and plane at both ends, with various modifications of these forms. In a word, it may be said that all the joints of the body, and the shapes and sizes of all the bones, have- been deter- mined by impact, strain, friction, and torsion. The same is true of teeth: " The history of the in- cisor teeth of the Mammalia exhibits three processes, "f hypertrophy, specialization and atrophy. The " more severe, direct irritation from use than any others in the jaws," % will account for the increased diameter of the molars. " The origin of the canine " teeth " is due to the strains sustained by them." || "The pro- gressive lengthening of the incisors " § has been through use. As to the Artiodactyla, "Why the superior incisors should have disappeared in this group, is not yet clear to my mind." If It is, indeed, refreshing, to find even one case which the author can not explain readily by impact, strain, and friction, nor by disuse. It is claimed that the crowns of teeth, which differ widely in structure, have been produced by wear, and * Page 370. t Page 32S. % Page 331. fPage 331. § Page 346. 1 Page 357. 380 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED that the effects of wear have been inherited. To this it has been objected by Tomes, " that it is quite im- possible that the crowns of the teeth could have been altered by impacts and strains, since their form is de- termined in the recesses of the dental grooves, entirely removed from all the mechanical influences which affect the external surfaces of the jaws." * The existence of similar structures, which must have had independent origins, has been regarded as very strong evidence that they could not have been evolved; yet the author enumerates f nine important modifications of the skeleton, four of which have had two distinct origins; one has had three; another, four; two have had five; and one, six, and, probably, eight, separate origins. Among these " The tongue- and-groove ankle joint " " has been developed inde- pendently along four distinct " lines. This is highly improbable. The author concludes this matter by saying, " From the preceding facts I have inferred that in biologic evolution, as in ordinary mechanics, identical causes produce identical results." J That the mechanical causes in the above cases have been similar, is an assumption. Besides, it is by no means certain that mechanical causes could produce a tongue-and-groove ankle joint once, and much less, four times. Accord- ing to this theory, this kind of joint ought to have been produced in other kinds of animals also, and in the knees as well as the ankles. The principle, if true, is of general application, and it ought to have produced a greater number of similar results than we actually find. His argument proves too much. In order to make his mechanical theory of varia- tions available in evolution, it is necessary to prove that slight changes thus produced are inherited by the * Page 381. t Pages 360, 361. t Page 361. APPENDIX 381 offspring. Thus, the effects of wear on the crowns of teeth must be transmitted to offspring. We have no proof that this is the case. It is well known that mutilations of the body of the parent seldom exhibit themselves in the offspring. In a few cases of seri- ous injui-ies, the offspring have been affected. On the other hand, it is known from accidents, experi- ments on animals, compressed feet of the Chinese during hundreds of years, flattened heads, and cir- cumcision, which has been practiced thousands of years, that mutilations of parents are not inherited by the offspring. Until this is shown to be true, the theory that mechanical forces have been the principal agencies in producing permanent variations among animals cannot be accepted. In conclusion, I will say, that this volume by Cope will probably be regarded by evolutionists as greatly strengthening their theory. With most of them, however, the doctrine of evolution has ceased to be a theory, and they simply regard it as a fact to which all biological facts are to be legitimately referred, and by which they are to be explained. INDEX. Absolute zero, 14. Abstraction, 238. Acrosoma, 223. Adhesion, 30. Agnostic, 11. Agnosticism, 311. Air-bladder, 178. Air-sacs, 177. Air-tubes, 177. Allantois, 145. Altruism, 301, 307-309. Ammonium bicarbon- ate, 19, Ammoniun nitrate, 19. Amnion, 145. A moral being, 257. Amphibia, 120, 123, 178. Amphioxus, 125, 127, 128, 145, 177, 360. Anatomy, 63. Anthropomorpha,365. Ancestral line, 147. Anchenaspis, 118; Androgynous, 187. Ankle, origin of, 378, Antelopes, 199. Appetites, 306. Apteryx, 157. ArchEean, 87, 90. Archaeopteryx, 215. Articulates, 89. Artiodactyla, 112. Aspredo, 219. Atheism, 54. Atheist, 11. Atom, 16, 23. Aurignac cave, 230. Australians, 233. Avogadro, 18. Azoic, 92. Backbone, origin of, 378. Balanoglossus, 126, 127, 145. Baleen, 137. Barnacles, 168. Barker, 36. Bastion, 60. Bats, 163. Beauty, 290. Beaver, 227. Beryx, 105, 113. Beetles, 110, 226. Bible, 53, 328. Binet, 167. Biology, 63. Birds, 123, 163, 200, 361-62. Boas, 193. Brachiopods, 89, 92, 105, 106, 108, 113. Brains, size of, 233. Breathing apparatus, 177. Bushmen, 233. Calcium, 280. Cambrian, 87. Camel, 134. Canada, 87. Capillarity, 44, Carbon, 26, 279. Carboniferous, 110, 112-13. Carinitae, 163. Carnivora, 112, 121. Carpenter, 105. Cause, 51, 52. Caucasian, 231. Cave-bear, 230. Cave-lion, 230. Cave-hytena, 230. Cecilians, 128. Cells, 204. Cenozoic, 88. Centipedes, 110. Cephalopods, 89, 90, 92, 109. Cephalaspis, 118. Cervus Virgianus,198. Cetacea, 112, 121, 362. Chance, 282. Chameleon Owenii, 199. (383) Chemical action, 21. Chemical aftiuity, 30. Chemistry, 27, 63. Chemical laws, 303. Cheiroptera, 112, 121. Chimtera, 117. Chlorine, 14, 280. Choroid, 168. Christianity, 328. Climate, 274. Coccospheres, 105, 113. Cockroaches, 110. Cohesion, 30. Coleoptera, 110. Colors of birds, 201. Colors of fishes, 202. Comets, 34. Compounds, 21. Conduction, 32. Continuity, 12. Conservation, 12. Conscience, 253. Cook, A. J., 208, 210. Cope, E. D.,. 113, 354, 368. Coracoid, 161. Cornea, 168. Corpuscular theory, 46. Correlation, 12, 31, 166. Cory phodonts, -133. Cosmogony, 346. Creation, 50, 51, 346. Creator, 12, 49. Creed of Agnostic, 321. Cretaceous, 105, 113, 130-31. Crinoids, 89, 111. Critical point, 15. Crookes, 15, 17. Crocodilia, 123. Crustaceans, 89. Cupuliferas, 105. Cuttle-fish, 169. Cyatholiths, 105, 113. Cyclops, 168, 170. Cystideans, 89. 384 INDEX Dakota, 131. Dana, 88, 92, 117, 130, 134, 137, 235, 265. Darwiniana, 105. Darwin, 11, 50, 52, 63, 93, 94, 105, 106, 151- 156, 167, 169, 183, 188, 191, 202. 213, 214, 217, 224, 236-238, 241-245, 344. Dawson, 104, 113. De Candolle, 105. Deer, 199. Devonian, 110, 117. Design, 272. Dibranch, 109. Didelphia, 122, 362. Dinocerata, 133, Dinosauria, 162, 361. Dipnoi, 178, 179. Discoliths, 105, 113. Dissipation of energy, 46. Disuse, 157, 182. Divisibility of mat- ter, 16. Dolphins, 137. Dragon-flies, 110. Dynamo, 31. Dubois, Dr., 367, Ears, 175. Ears, location of, 176. Echinus, 168. Echinoderms, 105, 113. Edentata, 362. Eel, 155. Eggs, 141, 146, 219. Elasmobranchs, 120. Electricity, 30, 31. Electric organs, 155. Elements, 14, 277. Embryology, 141, 359, 360. Engis skull, 230, 233. Eocene, 112, 121, 122, 134, 135, 138. Eozoon, 57, 87-89, 91. Eskimos, 235. Esquimaux, 233. Ether, 35, 36, 38, 40. European, 233. Eukeraspis, Euripteridas, 168. Evil, 301. Evolution, 49. Experiences of utility, 244. Eyes, 167. Eyes, location of, 172. Eye-specs, 168. External influences, 375. Ezekiel, 349. Fangs, 181. Feathers, 158. Fertilization, 143. Films, 16. Fins, 159. Fire-mist, 15. Fishes, 117, 119, 123. Fluorine, 14. Food of plants, 59. Forbes, Edw., 105. Force, 12, 13, 30. Formulas, 25. Foraminifera, 105. Footprints, 123. Fort Bridger, 135. Fucoids, 89. Functions, 62. Future life, 266. Ganoids, 114, 115, 117, 120. Gallus, 191. Garden spider, 223. Gasteropods, 89, 92, 109. Genesis, 351, 352. Genesis and Geology, 344. General ideas, 238. Gegenbaur, 126. Geikie, 87, 91, 117, 131- 132. Genealogy of man, 371. Geological time, 57, 107. Geological Society, 105. Gills, 177. Gill-arches, 149. Glands, 179. Globigerinae, 105, 113, 114. God, 13, 350-352. Gorilla, 230 Graptolites, 89. Gravitation, 30, 34. Gray, Asa, 195. Green River, 105. Gregory, 91. Habits not inherited, 243 Haeckel, 125, 127, 361, 368. Hairy elephant, 230. Heat, 19, 30. Heat of sun, 273. Hedonism, 310. Heredity, 268. Hermaphrodite, 190. Hippopotamus, 134. Hogs, 134. Holoptychius. 117. Honey bee, 204. Horns, 197. Hornbill, 224. Horse, 138. Horse-shoe crab, 168 Hottentot, 366. Hound, 255. -Huronian, 87. Huxley, 105, 111-116,. 119-123, 160-162, 184, 233-235, 365. Hydrogen, 278. Hypsiprimnoid, 122. Idiot, 233. Ignorance, 204. Incubation, 214-216. Indestructibility, 12, 29. Inheritance, 305. Insects, 110, 177. Insectivora, 112, 121, 134. Incisors, disappear- ance of, 379. Instinct, 204. Insurmountable be- liefs, 313. Interference, 64. Intelligent Creator, 13. Iron, 280. Iron sulphide, 22. Irish elk, 230. Isomerism, 27. Isopoda, 168. Java, 235, 367. Jelly-fish, 169. Jeremiah, 349. Joints, origin of, 377. Joel, 349. Jourdain, M., 167. Jungle-fowl, 225. Jurassic, 122, 129, 131. Kangaroo, 363. Karyokinesis, 142. Kelvin, 20. Kinetic theory, 20. Kinetogenesis, 376. Laboratory, 61. Labyrinthodonts, 112- 115, 123, 160. Lacertilia, 123. Lampreys, 128. Lamarck, 357. Lamellibranchs, 92, 108. Laurentian, 87, 105. Lartet, M., 230. Law, 292. Law of battle, 196. Language, 240. Law of definite pro- portions, 23. Law of multiple pro- portions, 24. Le Conte, 88, 89, 94, 95, 109, 119, 120, 135, 137, 150, 160,161,230. Lepidosiren, 114, 116. Lemurs, 364. Life force, 28. Links, missing, 96, 368. Limbs, origin of, 377. Light, 30, 31. Lingula, 107, 108. Liquefying gases, 15. Lizards, 115, 158. Lodge, 35, 39, 41. Logan , Sir Wm . , 87, 88. Logger-head duck, 157. Lothibius, 169. Lungs, origin of, 376. Ludlow, 118. Lyell, 88. Magnets, 30, 31. Malachi, 350. Mammal, 184. Mammalia, 112, 131, 132. Mammoth, 230. Man-apes, 235. Man's body, 234. Man, 230. Mandibles, 179. Marsh, 131, 135. Marsupialia, 112. Marsupials, 114, 116, 131, 132, 362. Materialist, 11. INDEX Matter, 14. May-flies, 110. Media, 32, 37. Memory, 263. Mendeleefl, 15. Mentone skull, 230. 'Metazoa, 141, 143. Mesozoic, 88, 112. Milk glands, 184. Miocene, 112, 121, 137. Mind, 12. Miracles, 318, 319. Mivart, 162. Molecules, 17. Mollusks, 89. Monodelphons, 121, 122. Monotremata,122,131. Monotheism, 348, 349. Moral sense, 242, 243. Morton, 366. Music, 36. Musk, 16. Muller, 169, 234. Myriapbda, 169. Nauplii, 168. Neanderthal skull,230, 366. Negro, 231, 233. Neuroptera, 110. Newton, 33, 35, 44, 45. Nipples, 188. Nitric acid, 18. Nitrogen, 279. Nops, 168. Ocelli, 168. Ocular plates, 168. Olzewski, 14. Ooze, 113 Opossums, 132. Ophidia, 112. Ornithodelphia, 122. Orang-utan, 233. Origin of species, 50. Origin of man, 230. Ornament, 200. Orthoceras, 91, 107, 109. Orthoptera, 110. Ornithorhinchus, 129. Ornitboscelida, 112, 123 Orton, 222. Oryx leucoryx, 199. Ovum, 142. Oxygen, 14, 25, 278. 385 Pantheist, 11. Paris basin, 135. Paleontology, 87, 104, 125. Paleozoic, 107. Passions, 306. Pearly nautilus, 109. Perissodactyla, 112. Pecten, 168. Persistent types, 111, 115. Permian, 113, 115. Physiogenesis, 376. Phillips, 106. Physiology, 63. Phylogeny, 359. Phosphorus, 280. Physeter, 137. Pictet, 104. Pigment spots, 168, 172, 174. Pisces, 120. Pithecanthropus, 368. Planets, 34. Placoderms, 117. - Planarida, 169. Plectrodus, 118. Plagiaulix, 363. Pleasure, 303. Plesiosauria, 123. Polyps, 111. Polymastodon, 363. Poison, 179, 281. Polynesian, 366. Polypterus, 114, 116. Porcine, 112. Portugal, 105. Post-glacial, 104, 105. Potsdam, 87-89. Prmordial, 88, 89, 91, 92, 96, 107, 115. Primary factors, 354. Primitive vertebrate, 126. Propolis, 204. Protozoa, 89, 93, 141, 143. Protyle, 15. Protoplasm, 59, 62, 104. Pteropods, 89, 92. Pteraspis, 118. Pterodactyl, 157, 161, 162. Pterosauria, 112. Python, 158, 193. Quadrumana, 134, 139. Queen bees, 206. 386 INDEX Radiates, 89, 111. Reason, 264. Recapitulation, 330. Reconciliation, 315. Reptilia, 112, 123. Retina, 168. Revelations, 319. Retrograde metamor- phosis, 357. Retrogressive, 363. Rhinoceros, 134. Rhizopods. 89. Rodentia, 112, 121, 134. Roemer, 91. Romanes, 77, 91, 125, 141, 155, 163, 165, 170, 171, 344. Royal jelly, 206. Rudimentary legs,193. Rudimentary organs, 182, 296. Rudimentary teeth, 192. Ruminant, 112. Salamander, 114. Sauropsida, 161. Sauropus, 160. Scorpions, 110, 169, 179. Scaphaspis, 118. Science and. Religion, 317. Sea-horse, 219. Sea-urchins, 111. Sexual selection, 196. Sexual differences, 195. Seasons, 276. Shaler, 49, 50. Silurian, 93. Simiidaa, 365. Sirenia, 362. Skates, 155. Skulls, 230, 366. Sound, 32. Soap bubble, 16, 20. Snakes, 180. Sodium, 280. Sodium flame, 16. Space, 312. Sperm, 205. Spermatozoa, 142. Species, number of, 49. Special act, 58. Special objections, 153. Special senses, 247. Spectrum, 15, 35. Spencer, 52, 166, 244, 248, 251, 252, 311, 312, 315, 320, 323, 324. Spike-horn buck, 198. Spinnarets, 222. Sphagodus, 118. Spiders, 110, 168. Sponges, 105, 113. Spontaneous genera- tion, 57, 355. Spurs, 190. Spy, man of, 366. Squalodon, 137. Sternum, 161. Stars, 34. Star-fishes, 111, 169. Stings, 179. Sting-ray, 224. Suffering, 302. Sulphur, 280. Sun's heat, 273. Surinam toad, 218. Swarming of bees, 206. Table of geological ages, 86. Tapirus, 134. Tasmanians, 233. Teeth, origin of, 379. Teleology, 12. Terebratula, 114. Tertiary, 95, 105, 134. Temperature, 14. Theism, 11, 12, 34. Theist, 11. Theromerous, 36r. Teutonic, 233. Terra del Fuegians, 235 Thelodus, 118. Thomson, Sir Wm., 17, 39, 41, 44, 45, 273. Thompson, Wyville, 113. Time, 312. Tongue - and - groove joint, 380. Torpedo, 155. Tortrices, 193. Triassic, 113, 122, 129, 131. Tracheal, 178. Trenton, 119. Trilobites, 89, 90, 107, 108. Trinyl, 368. Triton, 114. Tunicata, 169. Tyndall, 60. Types, 111. Ungulates, 121, 133. Units of feeling, 249. Unknowable, 52. Vacant spaces, 19. Vertebras, origin of, 379. Vesiculse prostrati- cas, 186. Vibrations, 35. Virchow, 235. Volume, loss by cool- ing, 20. Wallace, 231, 265. Water-flea, 168. Water-spider, 220. Wax, 204. Wadsworth, 91. Waves, 32. Wasatch, 133. Webs, 179. Wealden, 130. Weights of atoms, 24. Whales, 134, 137. Whitney, 91. Will, 264. Wings, 156, 157, 164, 165. Worms, 89. Wood, J. G., 218. Wrist, origin of, 378. Wyoming, 131. Zero, absolute, 19. Zeuglodon, 135, 136. Zittel, 91. ■ -'■",■ ■■■:■■• ,■■■ :' ■ : : : ■ ■■"': • ■■ ;.■■;-; ■ ,,.■,,'■■,■■■:. ; ■•: ■■.-■:. -•■■■.■'■■; - : -.':v ■-■■:.: : .-. :■:■:■. ■;-■:. -^ -r ■ . ■..: ■ . ■;*'■■: ' i i ■ .: '". ! ■:■■-•: ' ".' : ■'■'" . ■.■■'.'.■: ""'<"■■■''■ ' ■ : v. ■■■'■: '■.■.■■'" ■ ' ; .■■■■. ■■-.:■ ■. . . ■ ■.....■■■■■ .,':■'. , : ■ • - r . i - :. ::!,■ .■■■■-■. ,:■■..■. ' : ^'V--:- ; ^/v^;. :-:'■■.■ . ■:■■ >.:■■■■ ■■■^'■'■: ■■■,•■■::■■.'"- ! ■.-,- ' • -' ' '■:•..■ y, ■■■■!.!■■; M ' .' - .