019. IV. Naturalistic Evolution.

IV. Naturalistic Evolution.

1. Theory of Evolution.—The theory of evolution has become so familiar, even to the popular mind, that for our own discussion it needs no very exact statement. The theory involves two questions: one, a question of fact respecting the origin of species in the mode of evolution; the other, respecting the law of the process, or the force or forces which determine the evolution. Respecting these forces there are among evolutionists marked differences of opinion; with which, however, we are not here concerned. Respecting the question of fact, the theory is that species arise in the mode of evolution, the higher being evolved out of the lower. The process is from a beginning up to man. The ascension is either in the mode of slight, insensible variation and improvement, as maintained by Darwin, or by leaps, as others hold. In one or the other mode, or in both, higher species are held to have been successively evolved from the lower. Thus from some incipient form or forms of life, and through successive evolutions into higher organic orders, the human species has been reached. Man is the last and the highest result of the process. Whether he is the highest possible evolution, the theory does not inform us. On the principles of the theory, there is no reason why the process should terminate with man, unless the evolving forces are already exhausted. If these forces are purely and exclusively natural, they can possess only a finite potency, and must therefore reach a point of elevation above which they cannot ascend. The evolution of an order as high above man as man is above mollusk would be a grand result. Mere naturalistic evolution can hardly promise so much.

Naturalistic evolution requires a preparation in the inorganic world for the inception and development of the organic. It is admitted that life could not exist in the primordial state of matter as known to science. Only through a long process of change could the necessary conditions be provided for the origin and progress of life. The nebular cosmogony covers much of this preparation, and is really a part of the theory of naturalistic evolution. We previously explained that theory of world-building. In the beginning all matter existed in a state of intensest heat, in the form of a fire-mist. By the operation of natural forces a process of change began therein, and has continued without interruption through the formation of the world, the origin of life, and the evolution of species. Thus the inception of change in the primordial fire-mist was theoretically the real beginning of this form of evolution.

2. Distinction of Theistic and Naturalistic Evolution.—Theistic evolution means a divine agency in the process. There are differences of opinion respecting the measure of this agency. Some posit special interpositions, as in the origin of life and in the origin of mind. Others hold the nebular cosmogony and the evolution of species, not as a process carried on by the forces of nature, but as the method of the divine agency in creation. In the view of such the divine agency is just as real in the origin of a new species as it would be in its original or immediate creation. Such theories might modify the proofs of the divine existence, but could not void nor even weaken their force. Some would claim an enhancement of their cogency. Even Darwin’s narrow limitation of the divine agency to an incipient vitalization of a few simple forms leaves the ground of theistic proofs in its full strength. In the light of reason, that agency which could endow a few simple organic forms with potencies for the evolution of all living orders is possible only in a personal being of infinite wisdom and power. The view is false to the divine providence, and to the true sense of creation, but leaves the cosmological, the teleological, and the moral arguments in their full strength. The theory of a purely naturalistic evolution is in the nature of it antitheistic. It allows no divine agency at any point in the whole process, and asserts an absolute continuity of the physical forces which initiated the movement in the primordial fire-mist. Such a theory cannot be other than antitheistic. No repudiation of materialism or atheism, or of both, can change this fact. Instances of such repudiation are not wanting; but they mean little or nothing contrary to either materialism or atheism. Materialism is denied under the cover of a new definition of matter which classifies the phenomena of mind with the phenomena of matter. The result is not the elevation of the latter to a spiritual ground, but the reduction of the former to a material ground. The mental facts are thoroughly merged into the physical process, under an absolute continuity of force. There is no escape from materialism in this mode. Sometimes the denial of materialism means simply a denial of the reality of matter, or means our utter ignorance of any such reality. After a long discussion of “the physical basis of life,” thoroughly materialistic in its process and outcome, even to the inclusion of all mental facts, Huxley says: “I, individually, am no materialist, but, on the contrary, believe materialism to involve grave philosophical error.^[158] That we correctly stated the ground of this denial appears in his words which follow: “For, after all, what do we know of this terrible ‘matter,’ except as a name for the unknown and hypothetical cause of states of our own consciousness? And what do we know of that ‘spirit’ over whose threatened extinction by matter a great lamentation is arising, like that which was heard at the death of Pan, except that it also is a name for an unknown and hypothetical cause, or condition, of states of consciousness? In other words, matter and spirit are but names for the imaginary substrata of groups of natural phenomena.”^[159] This is pure phenomenalism, and, instead of an ascent to the spirituality of mind, is a descent to the lowest level of the Comtian positivism. This level is most thoroughly antitheistic. The denial of atheism often means a nescience of God rather than any faith in his existence. This is certainly the case with some evolutionists who confess to many mysteries of nature which have no solution in any empirical mode. “They have as little fellowship with the atheist who says there is no God as with the theist who professes to know the mind of God.”^[160] Such a separation from atheism means no acceptance of theism.

^[158]Lay Sermons, p. 139.

^[159]Ibid., p. 143.

^[160]Tyndall;Fragments of Science, p. 457.

Much of the modern antitheism allies itself with the theory of naturalistic evolution. The theory itself is antitheistic. We must not here overlook the distinction of this theory from the theistic theory. The facts upon which the theory is professedly constructed are not in the line of our studies, and hence we have no preparation for its scientific discussion. Yet some questions which deeply concern the theory are open to fairly intelligent minds. Such we may briefly consider.

3. Perplexities of the Naturalistic Theory.—As we have seen, this theory begins with the nebular cosmogony. Its only material is the primordial fire-mist; its only agencies, the physical forces latent therein. With such material, and through the operation of such forces, it must build the world and originate all the forms of life, including man himself. The results are before us. Such are the assumptions of the theory. Surely they are extravagant enough to perplex the shrewdest and appall the boldest. In the light of reason insuperable difficulties beset the theory at many points.

What account can the theory give of the primordial fire-mist? If it be granted that the indices of geology and cosmogony point to such a prior state of matter, unanswered questions still remain. The fire-mist, primordial with science, is not primordial with reason. Whence the fire-mist? Reason demands the real beginning, and a sufficient cause for it, as for every transition in the upward cosmical movement. The primordial fire-mist makes no answer to these demands. The hypothesis of evolution gives us no light. “It does not solve—it does not profess to solve—the ultimate mystery of this universe. It leaves, in fact, that mystery untouched. For, granting the nebula and its potential life, the question, whence they came, would still remain to baffle and bewilder us. At bottom, the hypothesis does nothing more than ‘transport the conception of life’s origin to an indefinitely distant past.’’’^[161] The granting a potential life in the fire-mist is a pure gratuity, without any ground or proof in empirical science. The hypothesis of evolution, with its beginning in the nebular cosmogony, is, for any rationale of the cosmos, confessedly an utter blank.

^[161]Tyndall:Fragments of Science, p. 455. No theory could be in profounder need of the most certain and most certainly verifying facts than this of naturalistic evolution. On the face of it the theory is most irrational. As previously stated, there is for a beginning only the nebula or fire-mist. Through the operation of physical forces this fire-mist goes to work, forms itself into worlds and sets them in the harmony of the heavens, just as if directed by an omniscient mind. For our own world, as probably for many others, it provides the conditions suited to living beings, originates life in the many forms which swim in the waters, fly in the air, roam in forest and field. A wonderful ascent is this, but a mere starting compared with the culmination. In the process of evolution this fire-mist mounts to the grade of man and invests itself with the high powers of personality. Now it legislates in the wisdom of Moses, sings in the psalmody of David, reasons in the philosophy of Plato, frames the heavens in the science of Newton, preaches in the power of Paul, and crowns all human life and achievement with the divine life of the Christ. All this is in the assumption of naturalistic evolution. “Surely the mere statement of such a notion is more than a refutation. But the hypothesis would probably go even farther than this. Many who hold it would probably assent to the position that, at the present moment, all our philosophy, all our poetry, all our science, and all our art—Plato, Shakespeare, Newton, and Raphael—are potential in the fires of the sun. We long to learn something of our origin. If the evolution hypothesis be correct, even this unsatisfied yearning must have come to us across the ages which separate the unconscious primeval mist from the consciousness of to-day. I do not think that any holder of the evolution hypothesis would say that I overstate or overstrain it in any way. I merely strip it of all vagueness, and bring before you, unclothed and unvarnished, the notions by which it must stand or fall. Surely these notions represent an absurdity too monstrous to be entertained by any sane mind.”^[162] In this exigency Tyndall seeks relief in a new definition of matter. His effort is utterly fruitless, and leaves in all its strength his characterization of the hypothesis of naturalistic evolution. All this, however, could not disprove the theory in the presence of clearly ascertained facts sufficient for its verification, but it clearly points to an absolute necessity for such facts. Their absence must be fatal to the theory.

^[162]Tyndall:Fragments of Science, pp. 453-454. The origin of life is a crucial question with this theory. A wide gulf separates the living from the lifeless. How shall this gulf be crossed? Can this theory bridge it? It the origin must, if it would itself live. The bridge must answer for the crossing. Abiogenesis, the origin of living matter from lifeless matter, is a necessity of the theory. Hence no mere speculation, conjecture, or illogical inference will answer at this point. Only the veritable facts will answer. What is the present state of the question? Comparatively recently, and after reviewing the relative facts. Professor Huxley said: abiogenesis. “ The fact is, that at the present moment there is not a shadow of trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis does now take place, or has taken place within the period during which the existence of life on the globe is recorded.”^[163] There is no better witness to this state of the case. Huxley is familiar with all the facts concerned, and has said many things which clearly m.ean that he is a reluctant witness.

^[163]Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Biology.” The bent of Huxley’s mind is so strongly toward a purely naturalistic evolution that he could not close the case with such a statement. Hence he proceeds: “But it need hardly be pointed out that the fact does not in the slightest degree interfere with any conclusion that may be arrived at deductively from other considerations that, at some time or other, abiogenesis must have taken place.” Indeed, we think this pointing out very urgent, and, moreover, that this abiogenesis must be proved as a fact, because it is a necessary part of naturalistic evolution. Without the proof of that fact the theory must utterly fail. The proof is attempted. How? Thus: “If the hypothesis of evolution is true, living matter must have arisen from not-living matter; for, by the hypothesis, the condition of the globe was at one time such that living matter could not have existed in it, life being entirely incompatible with the gaseous state. . . . Of the causes which have led to the origination of living matter, then, it may be said that we know absolutely nothing. But postulating the existence of living matter endowed with that power of hereditary transmission, and with that tendency to vary which is found in all such matter”—why, then Darwin could show how the process of evolution went on. This is jumbling logic, and in a case where exactness is needed. Its fallacies are easily pointed out. On the hypothesis of evolution, living matter must have arisen from not-living matter, because there could have been no life in the primordial fire-mist. This is the deductive process, suggested in the first citation, by which abiogenesis is to be proved. But abiogenesis is not a necessary part of evolution. Evolution might be a process in nature, while at the beginning life originated in a divine fiat. No doubt a majority of evolutionists hold this view. Hence abiogenesis is necessary only to the purely naturalistic theory of evolution. It is absolutely necessary to this theory. How, then, is abiogenesis proved as a fact? From the hypothesis of naturalistic evolution Huxley deduces the reality of abiogenesis. If the hypothesis be true, abiogenesis must be true. But this “must be” is merely a consequence in logic, not a reality in nature. And it is a consequence that hangs upon a mere hypothesis. Here is queer logic. Abiogenesis is deduced as a fact in nature from evolution as a mere hypothesis. This is the sheerest fallacy. Then life thus surreptitiously got is postulated as a reality in possession of high endowments: “But postulating the existence of living matter endowed with that power of hereditary transmission, and with that tendency to variation which is found in all such matter”—then we may accept the hypothesis of naturalistic evolution.

Any theory could be proved in this way. It is a short and easy process. Make your hypothesis; deduce its logical consequence; transform this consequence into a reality in nature; make this reality the proof of your hypothesis, and the work is done. This is really the way in which Huxley proves the naturalistic theory of evolution. By a saltative process of logic he constructs a science of evolution. The structure tumbles in the presence of the facts. Abiogenesis is an essential part of naturalistic evolution, the very ground of the theory, and must be verified as a fact before the theory can have any standing. The verification must proceed in an inductive mode, with the support of the necessary facts. But the necessary facts are not at hand. There is not a shadow of proof in favor of abiogenesis. We know absolutely nothing about any such origin of life. This is the open confession. In such a case there is absolutely no proof. Had there been any, Huxley would certainly not have resorted to such fallacies of logic, and to a method utterly unscientific. In no other hands could the theory have fared any better. The warranted conclusion is that naturalistic evolution is utterly groundless. It must remain groundless until proof is furnished of a material genesis of life.

If naturalistic evolution could prove a material genesis of life, it might claim an open way up through all organic orders—certainly through all below man. In the utter failure of this proof, the theory must verify itself in every grade of the assumed evolution. There are openly confessed perplexities at many points. However, we leave these questions to scientists. The proof of evolution up to man could not conclude his origin in the same mode. He is too distinct in his constitution, and too high in his grade, for any such conclusion. This view is widely accepted. Many evolutionists separate man from all lower orders, and account his origin, particularly in his mental and moral nature, to the creative agency of God. In bodily form, in organic, structure, in volume of brain, man is so widely separated from all other orders, so elevated above all, that his immediate evolution from any known order clearly seems impossible. This may be said in the presence of all the determining principles which underlie the theories of evolution. In the distinctive facts which place man at such a height, he was the same in his earliest existence that he is now. No discovered remains represent him in the beginning as far down the scale in approximation to the ape. Mr. Huxley has closely examined this subject, and with special view to the question of man’s origin in the mode of evolution. In this investigation he critically studied the notable Engis and Neanderthal skulls, among the very oldest human fossils yet discovered. His conclusion is that man was man then as he is man now. Respecting the Engis skull, he says: “It is, in fact, a fair average human skull, which might have belonged to a philosopher, or might have contained the thoughtless brains of a savage.” The Neanderthal skull represents a man of somewhat lower type, but still a man as widely separated from the ape as the lower races of the present. “In conclusion, I may say that the fossil remains 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.”^[164] Dawson confirms these views, and even adds to their strength by the study of other fossil remains.^[165] The meaning of all this is that the wide separation of living man from the ape is not in the least narrowed by any discovered remains of fossil man.

^[164]Huxley:Man’s Place in Nature, pp. 181, 183.

^[165]Nature and the Bible, lect. v.

These facts render the evolution of man simply in his organic nature a very difficult question for thorough-going evolutionists. Of course, there is no pretension to any knowledge of actual instances of such evolution. “Where, then, are the proofs? If in the evolution of lower orders instances could be shown of as wide a variation by a single bound as that which separates man from the ape, some proof of his evolution might therein be claimed; but there are no such instances. Besides, the Darwinian theory excludes the saltatory mode of evolution, and therefore must pronounce such instances an impossibility. The only other resource, if any, is in transitional links. If some paleontologist should uncover the fossilized remains of anthropoids successively ascending from the ape into a higher likeness to man until the last transition seemed possible, much proof would be claimed for his evolution. Confessedly, these links are still missing. Evolutionists are looking in the direction just pointed out. “Where, then, must we look for primeval man? Was the oldest homo sapiens pliocene or miocene, or yet more ancient? In still older strata do the fossilized bones of an ape more anthropoid, or a man more pithecoid, than any yet known await the researches of some unborn paleontologist?”^[166] That no such discovery has yet been made is much against all hope of the future. Evolutionists may continue looking, but they should not meantime claim the evolution of man just as though the necessary proofs were on hand. “No remains of fossil man bear evidence to less perfect erectness of structure than in civilized man, or to any nearer approach to the man-ape in essential characteristics. The existing man-apes belong to lines that reached up to them as their ultimatum; but of that line which is supposed to have reached upward to man, not the first link below the lowest level of existing man has yet been found. This is the more extraordinary in view of the fact that, from the lowest limits in existing man, there are all possible gradations up to the highest; while below that limit there is an abrupt fall to the ape-level, in which the cubic capacity of the brain is one-half less. If the links ever existed, their annihilation without trace is so extremely improbable that it may be pronounced impossible. Until some are found, science cannot assert that they ever existed.”^{[167] [166]} Man’s Place in Nature, p. 184.

^[167]Dana:Geology, 1875, p. 603.

Other difficulties than the wide separation of man from all lower orders beset the theory of his evolution. We should not be misled by all that we hear about the anthropoid ape, nor lured into the notion of some one family specially man-like. Nor should we admit the notion of an ascending scale of man-likeness through a succession of ape families until the higher points of similarity converge in a single family. There is in these families no such prophecy of the evolution of man. That the ape families do not in any order of succession represent a growth of anthropoid quality an eminent scientist clearly points out.^[168] In his careful study of the question, Mivart shows that the points of likeness to man are widely distributed among the ape families, and in a very miscellaneous way. Thus there is no gathering of anthropoid qualities into any one family, and no ascension through the several families toward a higher man-likeness. “In fact, in the words of the illustrious Dutch naturalists, Messrs. Shroeder van der Kolk and Vrolik, the lines of affinity existing between different primates construct rather a network than a ladder.”^[169] There can be no ascent toward man through such a state of facts. Hence the perplexity of evolutionists in locating the parentage of man, whether in the chimpanzee, or in the gibbon, or in the gorilla, or in the orang, or in some other ape family. Of later years the gorilla has been in much favor. Mivart, however, sends him to the rear and denies him all chance of appropriating the high honor of fatherhood to mankind. It seems impossible for evolutionists to construct a ladder out of such a web, so as to gain any ascent toward man.

^[168]Mivart:Man and Apes, part iii.

^[169]Ibid., pp. 175, 176.

Wallace studied this same question, and recognized its perplexities. “On the whole, then, we find that no one of the great apes can be positively asserted to be the nearest to man in structure. Each of them approaches him in certain characteristics, while in others it is widely removed, giving the idea, so consonant with the theory of evolution as developed by Darwin, that all are derived from a common ancestor, from which he existing anthropoid apes as well as man have diverged.”^[170] The ape-parentage of man is thus abandoned, while an earlier parentage common to ape and man is assumed. The present tendency of evolutionists is strongly toward this view. Clearly, the reason for it arises from the insuperable difficulties which beset the theory of an ape-parentage of man. How are they less in the new view? There is no reason to think a remoter ancestor more anthropoid than the ape. No evidence is given of such a fact. Thus, too, the line is lengthened, instead of shortened, along which the missing links must be found, in order to any proof of the evolution of man. There is really no proof of the evolution of man’s organic nature.

^[170]Wallace:Darwinism, pp. 452, 453.

Naturalistic evolution assumes the burden of proving the evolution of the whole nature of man. No exception can be made in respect to his mental and moral nature. A theory which begins with the fire-mist as its only material, and the forces latent therein as its only agencies, must proceed to the end with such equipment. No other essence or agency can be admitted or assumed at any point in the evolutionary process. The naturalistic evolution of man’s mental nature involves infinitely greater difficulty than the evolution of his organic nature. This is the reason for the imperative demand for a new definition of matter. We already have Tyndall’s view of the absurdity of evolution on the definition current in science since the time of Democritus. Others join him in the demand for a new definition which shall thoroughly transform matter. If only they had the power of transubstantiation, success might crown their endeavor. However, a new name does not change an old nature. Matter is still the very same. Some adopt a Hylozoistic view of nature. Others are forced into idealism or agnosticism. Matter is nothing substantively, or a mystical something about which we know nothing. All this makes full concession that matter as we know it, and as it really is, cannot be the source of mind, and that the higher nature of man could not have its origin in naturalistic evolution. As previously stated, many evolutionists, and some who hold the evolution of the organic nature of man, do not admit the origin of his higher faculties in this mode. They deny its possibility on the very principles of evolution. Wallace is an instance, and his view may have the greater weight because he is a Darwinian, and might fairly have claimed to share with Darwin the originality of his theory. But with the conclusion of Darwin, “that man’s entire nature and all his faculties, whether moral, intellectual, or spiritual, have been derived from their rudiments in lower animals,” he joins issue. We need not follow his discussion; but he shows the impossibility of such an evolution of our higher faculties, such as the mathematical, musical, artistic, and moral.^{[171] [171]} Wallace:Darwinism, pp. 461-478.

4. No Disproof of Theism.—Only in its extreme form is evolution antitheistic. We have seen that eminent scientists hold the nebular cosmogony and the evolution of species as a method of the divine agency in creation, and hence in the fullest accord with theism. So that the proof of evolution as a process in nature would not in itself prove any thing against theism. But the theory of evolution is yet in an hypothetic state. It is not yet an established science. The diversities of theory among evolutionists deny it a scientific position. There are many gaps yet to be closed;^[172] many facts not yet adjusted to the theory, and serious deficiencies of direct proof. “Those who hold the doctrine of evolution are by no means ignorant of the uncertainty of their data, and they only yield to it a provisional assent. They regard the nebular hypothesis as probable, and, in the utter absence of any evidence to prove the act illegal, they extend the method of nature from the present into the past.”^[173] Evolution then is an inference from a mere hypothesis. This is not the method of science. Hypothesis is an utterly insufficient ground for any science. No theory can claim a scientific position until it has verified itself by facts.

^[172]McCosh:Christianity and Positivism, pp. 343-345.

^[173]Tyndall:Fragments of Science, p. 456. In some instances there are generalizations from a few observed facts. Thus from the observed co-existence of certain characteristics in a few animals their invariable co-existence is inferred. This inference, however, is not in itself a scientific principle, and becomes such only on the warrant of the uniformity of nature. But the theory of evolution has the warrant of no such law. Production in kind rules the propagation of life. This is a most certain generalization. But it is one which gives no support to the theory of evolution. Indeed, it is in direct opposition to the origin of species in the mode of evolution.^[174] Much more is the evolution of man a mere hypothesis. The scientific proof of it is hardly a pretension. It is an inference from the hypothesis of evolution in the lower forms of life. We have already seen how Huxley attempted its deduction from such an hypothesis. It is really in the same way that Wallace maintains the origin of man’s organic nature in evolution.^[175] It is a very common method. The method, however, is utterly unscientific. The truth is that the deductive method is wholly inapplicable to such a science. It is the method of mathematics and metaphysics, to which evolution is foreign, and not of the natural sciences, which include evolution.^[176] The origin of man in the mode of evolution is without proof. And this resort to deductive proof, at once utterly unscientific and in open violation of logical method, is a confession that the theory is without the facts necessary to its scientific verification. Opposed to such an unwarranted inference of the evolution of man are the overwhelming disproofs of such an origin. Surely such a state of facts can make nothing against the proofs of theism.

^[174]Winchell:Evolution, p. 54; Dawson:Story of the Earth and Man, p. 327; Quatrefages:The Human Species, p. 80.

^[175]Darwinism, p. 446.

^[176]Krauth-Fleming:Vocabulary, “Deduction.”

If the origin of new species in the mode of evolution were of present occurrence, and open to the most searching observation, a purely naturalistic evolution could neither be known nor proved. A supernatural agency in the process would not be open to sense-perception, but would be manifest in our reason. This accords with the theory of many evolutionists. Scientific authority is very largely against a purely naturalistic evolution. This fact means the more because it arises from scientific or philosophic grounds, not from religious predilection. What is the conclusion? As evolution is yet in an hypothetic state; as a purely naturalistic evolution is in the nature of it unprovable; and as scientists are by a very weighty preponderance against such a doctrine, there is nothing in the theory which in the least discredits the proofs of theism.^[177]

^[177] Darwin:The Origin of Species; The Descent of Man; Professor Gray:Darwiniansim; Haeckel: History of Creation; History of the Evolution of Man; Mivart:On the Genesis of Species; Man and Apes; Lessons from Nature; Schmidt:Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism; Wallace:Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection; Darwinism; Wilson:Chapters on Evolution; Conn:Evolution of To-day; Hodge:What is Darwinism; Winchell:Evolution; Joseph Cook:Biology, lects. ii, iii, “Concessions of Evolutionists;” Dawson:Nature and the Bible, lects. iv-vi;Story of the Earth and Man, chaps, xiv, xv; Quatrefages:The Human Species.