The Methodist Quarterly Review
1877

ART. V.-HUXLEY AND EVOLUTION.

The Direct Evidences of Evolution. Three Lectures in New York, September 18, 20, and 22, 1576. 1. The Untenable Hypotheses; IT. Circumstantial Evidence of Evolution; III The Demonstrative Evidence. New York Tribune Extra, No.36.

For the complete, authentic, and accessible form of the lectures cited above we are indebted to a phase of newspaper enterprise which is purely and creditably American. It is a pleasure to make acknowledgment of the great service rendered to science and literature in America by the cultured editorship of tile New York Tribune, which discovers so large resources of " news " in the events and utterances of the world of science and letters.

The lectures themselves were widely heralded; every movement of the distinguished foreigner was made a sensation, and the whole country had been lifted to the tiptoe of expectation. The theme announced was one which had already agitated every thinking circle of two continents. Professor Huxley had long been distinguished as a bold leader in the advocacy of an hypothesis which required a reinterpretation of some passages of Scripture; and a vague expectation had been awakened that some sort of a skirmish between science and theology was impending.

It is fair to record the fact, however, that no conflict with the fundamental principles of religious faith was anticipated by any holding representative positions in science; nor were corresponding representatives of theological learning fearful, to the least extent, that any phase of science so sustained by evidence as to be generally accepted by the scientific, could contravene the accepted fundamentals of religious belief. The popular apprehensions existed, as they have always existed, in the minds of one class who have no adequate knowledge of the nature and force of scientific evidence, and of another class who rather enjoy the spectacle when theology gets a pelting, even if with mere "tufts of grass." Undoubtedly it is the depraved heart which prompts to a large share of the satisfaction felt ii) such a ease; but there seems to be, also, a semi-humorous element in our nature which enjoys, as a mild sensation, any discomposure manifested by theology at being even unjustly accused of jealousy toward science.

It is fair also to record the fact that the three lectures of Professor Huxley do not contain a single expression avowing or intimating an atheistic belief; and all assertions to the effect that "he more than suggested that his aim was atheistic," have no other foundation than the opinion of their authors that the doctrine of evolution means atheism.. On the contrary, Professor Huxley has expressed himself in such terms as to clearly indicate that he reserves a place for original creative agency. He says-

Though we are quite clear about the constancy of nature at the present time, and in the present order of things, it by no means follows necessarily that we are justified in expanding this generalization into the past, and in denying absolutely that there may have been a time when evidence did not follow a first order, when the relations of cause and effect were not fixed and definite, and when external agencies did not intervene in the general course of nature.

And again:-

My present business is not with the question as to how nature has originated-as to the causes which have led to her origination, but as to the manner and order of her origination. . . This is strictly an historical question. . . . But the other question, about creation, is a philosophical question, and one which cannot be solved or approached, or touched by the historical method.

The first of the above quotations is not wholly unambiguous. It seems that the lecturer must employ the term "cause" in a physical rather than a metaphysical sense. He directs our attention to a time when the present order of nature had not begun to exist, and the orders of sequence of physical effects had not been ordained. He must have contemplated all adequate efficiency for the inauguration of the present order. In admitting the conception of a different order he at least implies the conception of a power superior to the present order, adequate to begin or end its existence. The second quotation means clearly that the evolution hypothesis maybe established, and yet leave every person free to satisfy himself in reference to both the efficient and the final cause of evolution. It means that the theist may posit a Creator at the beginning. It means, we think, more than this. If natural history cannot reveal the nature of causal efficiency at the beginning of the series, it can no more reveal the nature of the efficiency which manifests itself at every term of the series; that is, the hypothesis of evolution authorizes the believer in imminent divine power to posit such power in every term of the evolution. If the lecturer recognized such legitimate inferences from his language, it is greatly to be regretted that he was not more explicit. It would, indeed, have been a departure from strictly scientific method, (in distinction from philosophical,) but it would have been a courtesy appreciated, if not deserved, by the religious public. It; however, a scientist chooses to disguise his opinions on a theological question, it is probably his right to do so. There may be, nevertheless, a degree of reserve amounting to an affectation. But, it is to be hoped, in any event, that American dissentients from Professor Huxley's scientific or theological positions will afford him no ground to complain of contemptuous criticism and misquotation. [Those who feel curious to know more of Professor Huxley's theology may read the article entitled School Boards "in 'Critiques and Addresses." It will be noticed by the readers of Huxley's writings that he employs the word "theology" to signify a body of ecclesiastical principles and practices, and not the science of God.]

Before proceeding to the consideration of the "Direct Evidences of Evolution," as presented by Professor Huxley, we desire to enter our dissent from some of his preliminary positions:

1. The Miltonic conception of the creation is not entirely the biblical one. Professor Huxley, in his first lecture, has presented us two "hypotheses" concerning the origin of the existing order of nature, which he pronounces "untenable." The first is the theory held by many of the Greek philosophers-though not by the greatest of them, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, nor by the Stoics and Eleatics, nor indeed by Xeniades., Democritus, and Epicurus-that the order of the world is eternal. The lecturer showed, as has been done time and again by others, that the succession of events in the past history of the world, as revealed by geological science, is such as necessarily implies a commencement--a beginning of its organic history, and a beginning of its cosmical history. The second "untenable hypothesis" is that of "creation." For the purpose of making known his conception of the "creation hypothesis," he assumes that which is set forth in the epic of John Milton; and, after presenting Milton's graphic though grotesque picture of the origin. of animal forms, proceeds to show that it is not scientifically exact. This was no difficult undertaking, since there was probably not an intelligent person in his audience, or in the city of New York, who maintained that Milton's picture is a representation scientifically exact. It is doubtfull if the poet himself regarded it as a literal history of events in detail. Milton employed a warm and productive imagination, and it might be affirmed ii] advance that the poet's pen would produce a picture whose exuberance of metaphor would prove eminently distasteful to cold and rigorous science.

But the lecturer attempted also to show that the Miltonic order of creation is not sustained by paleontology. Well, if the language of Milton means and implies what the lecturer claimed, we must admit that the scientific record diverges. But what was the necessity of setting up poor old John Milton and knocking him down amid the jeers of such an audience I It would have been an equal feat to indict and convict old Bishop Burnet for the showing of his "Sacred Theory of the Earth." We can discover no explanation of this exploit, save the lecturer's belief that the Miltonic conception of creation "is that which has been instilled into every one of us in our childhood, and that it is generally accepted as tile most consistent form of the creation theory." He does not pretend that in overthrowing the Miltonic theory the cosmogony of Genesis falls to the ground. He says expressly : "I do not for one moment venture to say that it could properly be called the biblical doctrine," and admits that such assumption would " be met by the authority of many eminent scholars, to say nothing of men of science, who, in recent times, have absolutely denied that this doctrine is to be found in Genesis at all." He does give us clearly to understand, however, that the Miltonic theory is untenable, "whatever the source from which that hypothesis might be derived, or whatever the authority it might be supported by." Just so far, therefore, as exegesis may be able to show that the Miltonic hypothesis, as set forth by Huxley, is a correct interpretation of Genesis, so far the lecturer disputes the biblical record.

Now, though we do not propose to enter upon an exegetical examination, we desire to record a denial that the Miltonic theory, as held up by Huxley, does represent the teaching of Genesis, or the views of well-informed scholars as to that teaching. We need not inquire whether the lecturer correctly sets forth the Miltonic ideas. It is what he sets forth that is so clearly antagonized by the facts of paleontology. We deny that Genesis, in giving us the creation of plants upon the " third day," means "the plants which now live-the trees and shrubs which we now have." [This subject receives additional elucidation from a table which we hope to embody in a subsequent article.] The language refers to that order of existence exemplified familiarly in "grass," and "herb," and "tree." Hence, it is not necessary to infer a second creation [FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXIX.-19] of modern plants to which the record makes no allusion. We deny, again, that Genesis, in affirming the creation of terrestrial creatures familiarly exemplified in " cattle," " creeping things," and "beasts," has any reference to such an obscure, sparse, and incomplete terrestrial fauna as would be represented by a few snails, scorpions, and insects, breathing the air of Coal Measure times. Clearly, the fauna to which Genesis refers is a complete terrestrial fauna, eminently characterized by mammalia. Can Professor Huxley affirm that paleontology has found any "cattle" fossilized in our coal-beds l Now, a complete terrestrial fauna, such as included " cattle," did not appear until the period which geology has characterized as the "Reign of Mammals." Every geological tyro knows this. It is incorrect, therefore, to affirm that the biblical (or even Miltonic) "sixth day" must be held to begin "in the middle of the Paleozoic formations;" and hence the Bible does not raise a conflict with the facts by placing the advent of the cattle-fauna anterior to the advent of birds. We deny that the Bible declares the creation of "whales" upon the "fifth day," before the advent of birds. It proclaims the creation of tanninim (probably Enaliosaurs) and other marine creatures. We deny that the biblical scheme is to find its parallel-where Hugh Miller, Chalmers, Pye Smith, Silliman, et al., sought for it disastrously-in that fraction of terrestrial history which has passed since the beginning of sedimentation. We hold that its reach is co-extensive with the scientific unfolding-from fire-mist to man. We maintain, finally, that the order of the biblical record is step by step parallel with the geologic; and that the method of origination depicted by Genesis is not at all incompatible with the hypothesis of evolution. We maintain, in fact, that the origination of new forms by descent is only creation by development; and while Professor Huxley's argument is good against the "creation-theory" which he holds up, it is the very foundation of another creation-theory more in accord with the sacred Scriptures.

2. Tie evidences in support of the evolution hypothesis are not demonstrative. We think Professor Huxley has been carried away by enthusiasm in affirming evolution inductively "demonstrated," or in any way demonstrated. The final conclusion is even beyond the reach of inductive evidence. The data of induction may justify the conclusion that gently graduated series of animals have succeeded each other in past time; but this is no proof of a derivative relationship between them. The only possible inductive evidence of relationship would be examples of actual transition from species to species; but these, according to all observation, are facts of almost unparalleled infrequency, and, at best, are not of such observed frequency as to justify a generalization covering the whole field of life, past and present.

In spite of these exceptions to the breadth of Professor Huxley's claim, we are pretty strongly persuaded that the doctrine of derivative descent of animal and vegetal forms represents the truth. We have not been hasty to reach this conviction. We have pondered many a difficulty, and raised many a query; but we have seen old difficulties vanishing and new proofs perpetually arising. We have learned more of the wonderful resources of the hypothesis in explaining the current and the exceptional phenomena of life and organization. [Professor Huxley himself has undergone a similar change of opinion. In his address before the London Geological Society for 1862 be reviewed the paleontological evidences of progressive modification of types, and concluded with the following inquiry and answer: "what, then, does an impartial survey of the positively ascertained truths of paleontology testify in relation to the common doctrines of progressive modification, which suppose that modification to have taken place by a necessary progress from more to less embryonic forms, or from more to less generalized types, within the limits of the period represented by the fossiliferous rocks? It negatives those doctrines; for it either shows us no evidence of ally such modification, or demonstrates it to have been very slight; and, as to the nature of that modification, it yields no evidence whatsoever that the earlier members of any long-continued group were more generalized in structure than the later ones."-Lay Sermons and Addresses, pp. 225, 226. In his address before the same society in 1870 he says: ' When I come to the propositions touching progressive modification, it appears to me, with the help of the new light which has broken from various quarters, that there is much ground for softening the somewhat Brutus-like severity with which, in 1862, I dealt with a doctrine for the truth of which I should have been glad enough to find a good foundation. . . . when we turn to the higher vertebrata, the results of recent investigations, however we may sift and criticise them, seem to me to leave a clear balance in favor of the doctrine of the evolution of living forms, one from another." --Critiques end Addresses, pp.186, 187.] We now think it is far safer to accept the hypothesis than to reject it. If it is safer for the scientist it is safer for the Christian. It is therefore time for him to seek how to co-ordinate his essential faith with tile impending finality of science.

It is not our purpose in this article to attempt any presentation of the facts which, in our judgment, as in that of the majority of scientific men, afford a strong balance of evidence in support of the doctrine of evolution through a material continuity. We may, however, indicate in a synoptical way the nature of the argument. There is, first, what may be called the geological evidence. The discovered records of extinct life upon the earth, it must be admitted, are extremely defective, and offer many instances not in accord with the requirements of the doctrine, though there are no established facts irreconcilable with it. But there are two truths of prime importance which we must bear in mind: 1. The known record consists of but a few fragments of the actual history of extinct life. This is obvious when we consider how small a portion of the mass of fossiliferous rocks has been explored, and what rich discoveries continue to reward the exertions of geologists to extend their explorations. It is further obvious from the perishable character of organic remains subjected to the vicissitudes which the fossiliferous rocks must have undergone in the progress of the world's changes. 2. We have, in spite of these imperfections, a few instances of pretty complete graduation from type to type-as in the transition from reptiles to birds, and in the transition from the five-toed plantigrade quadruped to the one-toed and digitigrade horse; and in similar transitions to the type of the ox, the hog, the elephant, and the ape. Now, when we consider that it is a fact that every extension of our knowledge of extinct life shows a tendency to fill up the gaps which exist between known types, it seems reasonable to anticipate that if ever the lost record becomes completely restored, we shall be in possession of graduated series of forms leading from the existing highly differentiated types of life, hack to some extinct forms; and that these extinct forms, instead of standing isolated, as many of them appear to stand, are similarly connected by gentle gradations, with forms still more ancient.

Next, we have the evidence of variability of species. Late researches have shown that it is much greater than had been generally supposed. Indeed, we are now acquainted with hundreds of eases in which forms that had been generally recognized as good species arc found to be connected by intermediate forms. In fact the transmutations have recently been found to go so far as to constitute a passage from genus to genus. Thus, while the strongest geological evidence leaves us still free to deny any derivative relationship between the terms of the completed series of extinct forms, the established variability of animal forms, living and fossil, opens the way to believe that the serial terms revealed by paleontology have been genealogically connected.

Next we have the embryological evidence. This seems to the most convincing of all; for it affords not only a picture of the succession of extinct forms, but it is a picture in which the successive terms are known to be derivatively related to each other. Trace any higher vertebrate-man himself; if you will-from a primitive condition in the ovum. How marvelous, how awe-inspiring is the unfolding! We have first the yolk, with its "germinative vesicle" and "germinative dot." Then both undergo a succession of segmentations, until there results a crowded mass of cells, ("morula," or "mulberry" stage.) Some of these dissolve, and the remainder arrange themselves as a hollow spheroid consisting of a single layer of cells ("planula" stage.) The single layer becomes double, with an opening at one pole of the spheroid, ("gastrula" stage;) and now appears a thickening on one side, in the midst of which is disclosed the "primitive furrow," afterward to be inclosed and become the spinal marrow. An enlargement is seen at one extremity; this is the forming brain; and the various segments of the brain appear as gentle swellings. At the opposite extremity is a tail. Transverse marks in the middle of the neural furrow indicate the approaching vertebral structures; while certain segments along the place of the neck are seen to receive blood-vessels from the provisional heart, and to sustain completely all the structural relations of the branchial, or gill arches in the type of fishes. Arms and legs bud out-as yet without digits, or they may be viewed as unidigitate, like the limbs of Lepidosiren. Stumpy digits afterward appear, like those of the so-called Cheirotherium of Tri-assic times. The face goes by degrees through the conditions seen in low sharks, amphibious and higher vertebrates. Step by step the internal structures advance toward their destined forms, functions, and positions Thus, by a process of repeated differentiations, the complications and special adaptations of the higher vertebrate come into existence.

But what of all this? Very much, indeed. This marvelous evolution which we see the higher vertebrate pass through is absolutely identical with the embryonic history of every other animal down to a certain point in its development. Every animal begins in the egg, and the eggs (we exclude shell and other accessories) of all animals are completely undistinguishable in structure. Every animal, except some of the very lowest, presents us, in its development, the morula stage. Every animal, with a few additional exceptions, passes also through the planula stage and the gastrula stage. Thus every vertebrated animal presents us the same primitive furrow, the same cerebral enlargements, the same segmentation, the same caudal continuation, the same vascular area, the same one-chambered heart, the same branchial arches and blood-vessels, the same progressive changes in the development of the brain, the same mode of formation of the enteric and abdominal cavities, the same beginnings of the formation of tile face. This identity in embryonic histories may be unexpected; it may be amazing; it may be humiliating; but there is nothing better established in science.

This is not all. There are living creatures which represent these successive stages of embryonic development. There are some so low that they never pass beyond the structure of the egg-simple cells, often, like some eggs, capable of movement by means of prolongations of their substance. There are some which attain to the morula condition, and then are adult. Others pass to the planula stage, and still others, to the gastrula. Certain worms (Turbellaria) represent a succeeding stage, as the Ascidians are believed to picture a still later one. Thus on, from Amphioxus and the lampreys to the sharks, Amphibians, Monotremes, Marsupials, and Lemurs, at the bottom of the order of four-handed animals, we discover living forms which stand forth in the museum of Nature as pictures of the embryonic stages of the highest vertebrate.

Finally, the embryonic series finds its parallel not only in the embryonic history of other animals, and in the adult forms of animals presented as we range up and down the scale of life, but the succession of extinct types, as far as we have read it, presents us with another parallel.

Now, while we know the stages of the embryonic series to stand derivatively related, it seems reasonable to infer that the corresponding forms in the realms of actual and extinct life are also derivatively related. It would appear, at first view, that the nature of the derivation is fundamentally different in the two cases ; but even this does not impair the meaning of the fact that, in both cases, we have a material continuity from form to form; and this is all which evolution requires. On reflection, however, the mode of the continuity in the case of the embryo appears substantially identical with the assumed mode of continuity in the succession of geological types. Ordinary embryonic development proceeds through the multiplication and specialization of cells stimulated by the nutritive plasma in which they are bathed. Generative development begins in the multiplication and specialization of a cell stimulated by contact with a cell specialized spermatically in the same individual, or in an individual sexually different. Propagation, moreover, may he viewed as simply a mode of perpetuating or renewing an individual which is bisexual, either monoeciously, as in lower animals and most plants, or dioeciously, as in most animals and certain plants. The progress noted in the succession of extinct forms is assumed to have resulted from some influence exerted upon embryos in the progress of their development. The development accelerated or prolonged, would end in an organism more advanced. This would be a new specific form appearing as a stage of embryonic history; and though many generations may have intervened while the embryo was arriving at this new specific type, we may view these generations as simply nature's expedient to continue the being in existence, in spite of the wastes of physical life. So what seems, at first, a mere analogy, resolves itself into a profound biological identity.

The presentation of the facts which sustain the argument thus outlined must be waived for the present. But the question of evolution cannot be dismissed by the philosopher and the theologian even when it shall have been proved: 1. That geological history presents us universally, series of nicely graduated forms; and, 2. That these forms are all genetically related to each other, and that, consequently, all living forms are genetically connected.

Supposing both these positions well established, we have only reached the determination of a certain order of succession, and a certain derivative relation. We have not yet discovered the agencies through which the derivation is effected, and the conditions under which those agencies are operative. Nor have we discovered the efficiency which operates the agencies, and the mode of its activity; nor the reason why all these things are brought to pass as they are. In brief; after we have discovered what takes place, it remains to learn through what it takes place, and by what it takes place, and for what it takes place. These are the ulterior questions which were not touched by Professor Huxley in his lectures. He did not ignore them, but he waived them. [He says: "The cause of that production of variations is a matter not at all properly understood at present. Whether it depends upon some intricate machinery-if I may use the phrase-of the animal form itself, or whether it arise through the influence of conditions upon that form, is not certain, and the question may, for the present, be left open.-Page 23, "Tribune" ed. "My present business is not with the question as to hew nature has originated, as to causes which have lead to her origination."-Page 19.]

We shall do no more than bring these remaining questions into view, in order that the reader may have a proper apprehension of the breadth of the theme.

I. What are the Physical and Physiological Conditions (approximate causes) of Variative Derivation ?

It is in the domain covered by this question that the various theories of derivation have sprung up. At the outset, a fundamental discrimination must be made. There are the organic activities appropriating material within reach, and building the organism according to a certain pattern; and there are the external conditions in the presence of which these activities are carried on. Whatever influence the environment may exert, it can obviously be no more than a conditioning influence, since whatever is done with the organic structure, is done in the organism and through physiological processes. Now, whatever may be the nature of the forces acting within, it is conceivable that they may be conditioned or determined in their activity by the quality and quantity of food, water, air, and rest. These belong to the environment. variations in the supply of these requisites depend on two classes of influences. These are the natural influences, arising from daily, seasonal, periodical, and secular changes in the supplies, and from the movements and migrations of the animal. These variable factors have been taken into the account by the older transmutationists, Lamark and St. Hilaire, and by the later Darwinists. Then there are the artificial influences (as we may style them) arising from the contests of individuals for the possession of the requisites of life. This is the "struggle for existence," which constitutes the peculiar feature of Darwinian derivative doctrine. The effect of this struggle is always the survival of the fittest, and a consequent tendency to improvement. It is thus that the environment may condition the organic activities of animals that have come into the world, and entered upon the struggle for self-support. But the most impressible period of life is the embryonic. To what an extent must requisite supplies during ovarian and uterine existence condition the physiological activities which are making the being what it is to be. It is certainly quite conceivable that favorable conditions should so accelerate embryonic development that higher results should be reached at full term, or that unfavorable conditions should so retard development that lower results should be reached. This idea is the peculiar feature of the derivative theory of Cope and Hyatt. It seems really to have struck upon a more fundamental and productive cause of derivative variation than the struggle for existence. It accounts for regress as well as progress. It addresses itself to the tissue-making forces at the time when the foundations of the tissues are being laid, and not when the organic structure has been already cast in its mold.

But now, independently of all external conditions, it is conceivable that the organism may be the subject of an inherent and unremitting nisus-a tendency, in spite of obstacles, to accomplish certain results, and attain to titter conditions. It is our own conviction that here lies the secret force which works out the multifarious phenomena of organic life. Such a nisus was appealed to by Lamark; and Professor Huxley has more than once hinted the probability that it is a potent factor in vital phenomena.

II. What are the Efficient Causes of Variative Derivation? Plainly it may become shown that the mode of activity of the organism, either conditioned or unconditioned by the environment, is the means through which the vital phenomena of the world are brought to pass, and we may still be ignorant of the efficient cause of that activity. Now, even though an indwelling and persistent nisus should appear to be the principal impulse to activity, we have to reek after the source of the impulse. Does it originate in the tissue in which it acts ? Is it a product of the tissue? These are the bottom questions, the solution of which possesses the highest interest for theology. We do not propose to enter here into any argument; but for our part, it seems perfectly clear that the efficient cause of physiological changes is objective to the organism in which they are revealed. Our conclusion is grounded, first, on our necessary conception of efficient cause; secondly, on the discernment reflected in the mode of activity of physiological causes. Efficient-that is, primitive, original, real-cpusation is the direction of adequate efficiency, through appropriate instrumentalities (if needed) toward a preconceived and desiderated result. If any supposed cause acts in any other way, then it is itself an effect, and the real cause remains to be sought. If physiological force does not thus act, then, in tracing results to such force, we have not found their cause. Such may be the "causes" with which science deals, but they are not reason's causes. In this case, we have to seek for the volition and preconception and motive back of physiological force. But if physiological force does thus act, then volition and preconception and motive are revealed in every vital change. Thus we argue, even when force acts without adaptiveness. But vital forces act with reference to external conditions, and with reference to ideal concepts. Here is double proof; then, of intellectual discernments. Whatever results, therefore, are produced by the slow, perpetual activities of physiological forces, conditioned, to whatever extent, by the environment, are the results of an ever-present, discerning efficiency; and the more we see the organism molded to the environment, the more clearly we see reflected the intellectual element of that efficiency. If the existing world is the genealogical result of primitive conditions, then the efficiency which the cycles of the past have witnessed, in the transformation of successive terms, has been enlightened by intelligence, directed by choice and impelled by will. We cast our glances back over the awful chasm of the cosmic aeons, and contemplate it as the theater of the display of an infinity of miracles, revealed in an unbroken, sustained, adaptive, and all-embracing system of evolution.

III. What is the Final Cause of Variative Derivation?

We are properly reminded by the nescientists that we must not presume to know fully the motives which actuate an infinite will. At the same time we feel fully persuaded that no intelligence acts without some motive-not even an infinite intelligence; for motive stands correlated to intelligence as such, and not to the greatness of intelligence. We feel it, therefore, perfectly legitimate to inquire after the motives which have controlled divine activity in the ordering of the world. We shall not, however, elaborate the inquiry here. The natural reason can never divest itself of the conviction that complicated and slowly maturing results, which respond to the wants of sensitive beings, were designed so to respond. Among the wants of intelligent beings are appropriate stimuli to mental activity, and appropriate rewards for mental effort. One of the highest and noblest stimuli to mental activity is the hope of attaining to the higher laws or modes of change and succession in the natural world. The law of evolution discloses itself as the highest generalization of the phenomena of the cosmos. If we discover that this law involves not only an ideal, but a physical, continuity, we seem to have attained, in cosmical dynamics, to that unity which has been the aspiration of all science and all philosophy. This, then, is the highest possible disclosure of the Supreme Intelligence which nature can yield; and we shall expose ourselves to no just charge of credulity, in thinking such a revelation of the Supreme Mind to be one of the final causes of the all-embracing scheme of evolution by continuity.

The world and its parts may be compared to a stately dwelling; and the scientist who investigates its constitution and the mode of its origin, is like a visitor from some realm where houses are not built. This intelligent visitor studies inquiringly every accessible part. He catalogues the parts, as the naturalist catalogues the members of the animal kingdom. He discovers a unity in the conception of the edifice, and says that its style is "gothic;" as the zoologist says the style of a large portion of the animal kingdom is vertebrate." But our stranger has never seen an edifice in process of construction, and he conjectures the method in accordance with which its features might have been originated and combined. Evidently, he says to himself; one method would be the full completion of each portion of the building before beginning another portion, as a mud-wasp builds its cell. At length, however, lie discovers an edifice in process of erection ; as the biologist studies the building up of an animal from the egg. An excavation is first made for the foundations; this is the "primitive furrow." The basement walls are raised around it; the sills and the floor-timbers are laid; these are the "protovertebrae." Next the side-walls are raised and the roof is closed in. Thus the most general features of the structure first appear. The places of partitions and stair-ways are indicated by rough timbers, and the plan of the house is outlined. As the work proceeds the rough timbers are covered with flooring and lath; then the walls receive coats of brown mortar, and, lastly, a white finish. Still remain the casings and moldings, and paint and varnish. Now the house is complete, and our gratified stranger concludes that the stately edifice, the cathedral, the town hall, were all constructed according to a method of "evolution." He has discovered the method, the order of succession of the parts. Now he knows that all buildings are constructed according to a law of evolution; as the biologist has learned in reference to animals, and the cosmologist in reference to worlds. But our stranger could not for a moment imagine that the method or law of construction did the work of construction, nor can the biologist hold that the law of evolution accounts for the existence of the animal. The work in the edifice has been done by mechanics, with the use of tools and machinery. These are the physiological activities which build up the tissues and members of the animal. These mechanics act under the bidding of another will, and, in this relation, they are only a part of the mechanism which performs the work. Their hands are not the prime cause of the building-they are not the real cause. The building would never exist if there were not a prime mover in the will of the proprietor. That will is the cause of the edifice. But this will has not ordered this structure without motive. Whatever the motive-for residence, for display, for a monument, for some caprice, or for some motive undisclosed-there has been a why of his determination.

Thus, in the contemplation of the universe, it is the part of science to catalogue the phenomena and learn their mode and order of occurrence, and the physical agencies concerned in their production. But there are profounder inquiries propounded by reason, and deeper longings felt by the soul. After science has accomplished her last work in her especial domain, reason draws aside the vail which obstructs the vision of science, and discovers the Supreme Efficiency working in all things, and working out the welfare of sentient beings; and the soul arises and adores the God whose presence it before had felt, but now rationally cognizes.

Proofreading, HTML conversion, and other modifications by Brandon Boyd.

© Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes or mirrored on other web sites, provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.