Was Man Created?

Evolution

In the last chapter a description was given of the various stages in man’s development, from the microscopic monad up. It will be necessary now to describe briefly the various laws which have governed this evolutionary chain from the monad to man. But before proceeding directly to the subject, let us look at the doctrine of evolution as a whole, and trace it first in the formation of the world.

The doctrine of evolution is also called the theory of development—it must not, however, be confused with Darwinism—for they are not exactly synonymous. Darwinism is an attempt to explain the laws or manner of evolution. Strictly speaking, only the theory of selection should be called Darwinism, which was established in 1859. The theory of descent, or transmutation theory, or doctrine of filiation, should properly be called Lamarckism, who for the first time worked out the theory of descent as an independent scientific theory of the first order, and as the philosophical foundation of the whole science of biology.

“According to the theory of development (evolution) in its simplest form,” says Henry Hartshorne,18 “the universe as it now exists is a result of ‘an immense series of changes,’ related to and dependent upon each other as successive steps, or rather growths, constituting a progress; analogous to the unfolding or evolving of the parts of a growing organism.” Herbert Spencer defined evolution as consisting in a progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, from general to special, from the simple to the complex; and this process is considered to be traceable in the formation of worlds in space, in the multiplication of the types and species of plants and animals on the globe, in the origination and diversity of languages, literature, arts and sciences, and in all changes of human institutions and society.

Let us now apply this theory of evolution to the physical world. No determined opposition by the mass of people is likely to be manifested to the doctrine of evolution as applied to the physical world, or even to the vegetable or animal world up to man; but the minute man is included—then is a voice raised up against it, and it was for this reason that Darwin in his first work on the “Theory of Descent” did not mention man as being included in the evolutionary series. He knew too well the foolish human weakness that existed.

In a recent work by Prof. Challes, he states that he regards the material universe as “a vast and wonderful mechanism of which the least wonderful thing is its being so constructed that we can understand it.”

The following is a brief description of the various theories of the world’s formation:

First Theory.—By the first theory the world is supposed to have existed from eternity under its actual form. Aristotle embraced this doctrine, and conceived the universe to be the eternal effect of an eternal cause; maintaining that not only the heavens and the earth, but all animate and inanimate beings, are without beginning. To use Huxley’s illustration: If you can imagine a spectator on the earth, however far back in time, he would have seen a world “essentially similar, though not perhaps in all its details, to that which now exists. The animals which existed would be the ancestors of those which now exist, and like them; the plants in like manner would be such as we have now, and like them; and the supposition is that, at however distant a period of time you place your observer, he would still find mountains, lands, and waters, with animal and vegetable products flourishing upon them and sporting in them just as he finds now.” This theory being perfectly inconsistent with facts, had to be abandoned.

Second Theory.—The second theory considers the universe eternal, but not its form. This was the system of Epicurus and most of the ancient philosophers and poets, who imagined the world either to be produced by fortuitous concourse of atoms existing from all eternity, or to have sprung out of the chaotic form which preceded its present state.

Third Theory.—By this theory the matter and form of the earth is ascribed to the direct agency of a spiritual cause. It is needless to say that this last theory has for its basis the popular account, generally credited to Moses in the first chapter of Genesis. I say popular, for it certainly is not a scientific account, nor was it the intention of the writer to make it so. The supposed object was to show the relation between the Creator and his works. If it had been an ultimate scientific account, the ablest minds of to-day would be unable to comprehend it, as science is progressive and constantly changing; in fifty thousand years to come, it would still appear utterly absurd. It cannot be said for this fact that the account is any the less true because it is not presented in scientific phraseology; for instance, when we remark in popular language “the sun rises,” who shall say that though the expression is not astronomically true, we do not, for all practical purposes, utter as important a truth, as when we say, “The earth by its revolution brings us to that point where the sun becomes visible?” The language, also, in which the writer wrote was very imperfect; it had no equivalent to our word “air” or “atmosphere,” properly speaking, for they knew not the words. “Their nearest approaches,” according to J. Pye Smith, “were with words that denoted watery vapor condensed, and thus rendered visible, whether floating around them or seen in the breathing of animals; and words for smoke from substances burning; and for air in motion, wind, a zephyr whisper or a storm.” It must also be remembered, “that the Hebrews had no term for the abstract ideas which we express by ‘fluid’ or ‘matter.’ If the writer had designed to express the idea, ‘In the beginning God created matter,’ he could not have found words to serve his purpose” (Phin).

It is unnecessary to state how the Bible, which contains the so-called Mosaic account, is regarded by the different church denominations, as undoubtedly that is familiar to every one. But with respect to the view entertained by the scientist and critical school of Biblical scholars, represented chiefly by modern Germans, I may state briefly: “They regard the Bible as the human record of a divine revelation; not absolutely infallible, since there is no book written in any human language but must partake in a measure of the imperfections of that language. Many of this school, while admitting the Bible to contain the record of a true supernatural revelation, do not consider it to be without positive error of historical fact, not without false coloring from popular legend and tradition, but nevertheless a record as good as human hands could make a truly divine revelation.”19

There is, though, a class of thinkers that altogether reject the Bible; that is to say, refuse to believe it to be a divine revelation. Hume, whom Huxley calls “the most acute thinker of the eighteenth century,” thus ends one of his essays: “If we take in hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it, then, to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” To this Huxley says: “Permit me to enforce this wise advice, Why trouble ourselves about matters of which, however important they may be, we do know nothing, and can know nothing? We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it. To do this effectually, it is necessary to be fully possessed of only two beliefs: the first, that the order of nature is ascertainable by our faculties to an extent which is practically unlimited; the second, that our volitions count for something as a condition of the course of events. Each of these beliefs can be verified experimentally, as often as we like to try. Each, therefore, stands upon the strongest foundation upon which any belief can rest, and forms one of our highest truths.”

The first words in the Mosaic account are:20 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”21 It is seen, then, that the so-called revelation points to a beginning. The beginning referred to is an absolute beginning, for we find: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”22 * * * “All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.”23 Science points also to a beginning.

Geology points to a time when man did not inhabit the earth; when for him there was a beginning. So, too, for lower organisms; so, too, for the rocky minerals; so, too, for the round world itself. But the beginning that science points to is not an absolute beginning. Science has to start from some point, and that point must have a scientific foundation—the foundation of science is matter, which is inseparable from form and force. Natural science teaches that matter is eternal and imperishable; for experience has never shown us that even the smallest particle of matter has come into existence or passed away. “A naturalist,” says Haeckel, “can no more imagine the coming into existence of matter than he can imagine its disappearance, and he therefore looks upon the existing quantity of matter in the universe as a given fact.” “The creation of matter, if, indeed,” says Haeckel,24 “it ever took place, is completely beyond human comprehension, and can therefore never become a subject of scientific inquiry. We can as little imagine a first beginning of the eternal phenomena of the motion of the universe as of its final end.”25 It is evident, then, that the absolute beginning of the universe and its absolute end are not questions of science, and can be known only as revealed by faith. Paul says: “By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which appeared.”26

If, therefore, science makes the “history of creation” its highest and most difficult and most comprehensible problem, it must deal with “the coming into being of the form of natural bodies.” Let us look for a minute at Kant’s Cosmogony, or, as Haeckel says,27 Kant’s Cosmological Gas Theory: “This wonderful theory,” says Haeckel, “harmonizes with all the general series of phenomena at present known to us, and stands in no irreconcilable contradiction to any one of them. Moreover, it is purely mechanical and monistic, makes use exclusively of the inherent forces of eternal matter, and entirely excludes every supernatural process, every prearranged and conscious action of a personal creator.” Compare this last statement with the following: “I will, however,” says Haeckel,28 “not deny that Kant’s grand cosmogony has some weak points.” * * * “A great unsolved difficulty lies in the fact that the cosmological gas theory furnishes no starting-point at all in explanation of the first impulse which caused the rotary motion in the gas-filled universe.”

Whewell29 has pointed out, that the nebular hypothesis is null without a creative act to produce the inequality of distribution of cosmic matter in space.

It is seen, then, that according to Kant’s theory we are to suppose that millions of years ago there appeared a nebulous mass possessing a rotary motion, and unequally distributed through space. This is what science calls a beginning, and may assert that every physical event of a hundred million of ages existed potentially in that nebulous mass. But this is really no explanation of the ultimate and real cause of anything. Reason demands the cause of this beginning, the source that gave to the nebulous mass its rotary motion; the power that distributed the matter in space; the antecedents of the cosmical vapor. In absence of antecedents, what was the cause of this fire-mist—of these forces active in it? Reason will never remain satisfied until these questions are answered. But physical science can trace the thread no further back, and must be dumb to all ulterior inquiries. It is true, then, as physicists assert, “that their science does not mount actually to God.”

Fig. I.	Fig. II.	Fig. III.
Fig. I.—Represents Man-like Apes (Anthropoides). The Male Gorilla. (Natural History, by Duncan.)	Fig. II.—Represents Ape-like Men (Pithecanthropi). Imaginative. (From Scientific American.)	Fig. III.—Men (Homines). From Woolly-haired Men developed the Papuans. (Scientific American, March 11, 1876.)

To God then, in strict accordance with our reason, is to be attributed not only the origination of matter, but all its future developments. When I speak of matter, it must be understood that I mean force; for “if matter were not force, and immediately known as force, it could not be known at all, could not be rationally inferred. The operation of force could furnish no evidence of the existence of forceless matter. If force is not matter, then force can exist and operate without matter; its existence and operation are no evidence of the existence of matter. And as matter is forceless, it can itself give no evidence of its own existence, for that would be an exercise of force. If force cannot exist and operate without matter, then force depends for its existence and operation on the forceless, which destroys itself; or force depends for its existence on matter as some property or force, and so matter and force are identified, and force depends on itself only, as it must.”30 The idea, then, that force is an attribute of matter and inherent in it, is absurd, for there is not a shadow of evidence that force is or can be an attribute of matter. We have no knowledge of the origin of any force save of that which emanates from human volition. All our knowledge of force presents it as an effort of intelligent will. “We are driven,” says Winchell, “by the necessary laws of thought, to pronounce those energies styled gravitation, heat, chemical affinity and their correlates, nothing less than intelligent will. But as it is not human will which energizes in whirlwind and the comet, it must be divine will.” “In all cases, the creative power of God is an act of power, and the power does not perish with its inception, but continues to operate until the act is reversed and undone; so that everything that God has created constitutes a positive and intrinsic force, though borrowed from Him. Every incident runs back to God as its originator and real cause. The true philosophical doctrine makes God distinct from all his works, and yet acting in them. This doctrine has been held by the greatest thinkers the world has ever produced, such as Descartes, Lerbrisky, Berkeley, Herschel, Faraday, and a multitude of others.” “It seems to be required,” says Dr. McCosh, “by that deep law of causation which not only prompts us to seek for a law in everything but an adequate cause, to be found only in an intelligent mind.” “Our greatest American thinker, Jonathan Edwards,” says Dr. McCosh, (whom I can claim as my predecessor,) “maintains that, as an image in a mirror is kept up by a constant succession of rays of light, so nature is sustained by a constant forth-putting of the divine power. In this view Nature is a perpetual creation. God is to be seen not only in creation at first, but in the continuance of all things.” “They continue to this day according to Thine ordinances.”

Returning now to the history of the creation given by Moses, Haeckel says, “Although Moses looks upon the results of the great laws of organic development as the direct actions of a constructing Creator, yet in his theory there lies hidden the ruling idea of a progressive development and a differentiation of the originally simple matter. We can therefore bestow our just and sincere admiration on the Jewish lawgiver’s grand insight into nature, without discovering in it a so-called ‘divine revelation.’ That it cannot be such is clear from the fact that two great fundamental errors are asserted in it, namely, first the geocentric error, that the earth is the fixed central point of the whole universe, round which the sun, moon and stars move; and secondly, the anthropocentric error that man is the premeditated aim of the creation of the world, for whose service alone all the rest of nature is said to have been created. The former of these errors was demolished by Copernicus’ System of the Universe in the beginning of the sixteenth century, the latter by Lamarck’s Doctrine of Descent in the beginning of the nineteenth century.”

Fig. I.		Fig. II.
Fig. I.—Australian Savage.—Orton.		Fig. II.—Skull of Orang-utan (Simia satyrus).—Orton.
Fig. III.		Fig. IV.
Fig. III.—Skull of Chimpanzee (Troglodytes niger).		Fig. IV.—Skull of Gorilla.—Duncan.
Fig. V.		Fig. VI.
Fig. V.—Skull of European.		Fig. VI.—Skull of Negro.—Orton.

Prof. Huxley, in his lecture on “Evidences of Evolution,” spoke of the Mosaic account as Milton’s hypothesis. First, “because,” says Huxley, “we are now assured upon the authority of the highest critics, and even of dignitaries of the church, that there is no evidence whatever that Moses ever wrote this chapter, or knew anything about it;” and second, as this hypothesis is presented in Milton’s work on “Paradise Lost,” it is appropriate to call it the Miltonic Hypothesis. “In the Miltonic account,” says Huxley, “the order in which animals should have made their appearance in the stratified rocks would be this: Fishes, including the great whale, and birds; after that all the varieties of terrestrial animals. Nothing could be further from the facts as we find them. As a matter of fact we know of not the slightest evidence of the existence of birds before the jurassic and perhaps the triassic formations. If there were any parallel between the Miltonic account and the circumstantial evidence, we ought to have abundant evidence in the devonian, the silurian, and carboniferous rocks. I need not tell you that this is not the case, and that not a trace of birds makes its appearance until the far later period which I have mentioned. And again, if it be true that all varieties of fishes, and the great whales and the like, made their appearance on the fifth day, then we ought to find the remains of these things in the older rocks—in those which preceded the carboniferous epoch. Fishes, it is true, we find, and numerous ones; but the great whales are absent, and the fishes are not such as now live. Not one solitary species of fish now in existence is to be found there, and hence you are introduced again to the difficulty, to the dilemma, that either the creatures that were created then, which came into existence the sixth day, were not those which are found at present, or are not the direct and immediate predecessors of those which now exist; but in that case you must either have had a fresh species of which nothing has been said, or else the whole story must be given up as absolutely devoid of any circumstantial evidence.”

It is for these and many other reasons that I feel bound to omit the Mosaic account, no matter how near some portions of it coincide with the facts the earth has opened out to the scientist.