Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-12-01

| History, which indicates that our earth wa.
first peopled by plants and animals of a Low
! grade of organization, and that there ha:
been q gradual advance in that character
through successive epochs TO the present
period, and comparing these with the sue.
cessive generations IN development present
ed by the embryo Man, or of any one Of
the more complex animals, the AUTHORISED
the sVestiges' suggests that the highest
forms Of each kingdom are linealiy de-
scended from the lower, which have, with
the progressive changes on the earth's sur
face, adapting it for the residence of higher
and yet higher races, evolved themselves
with beings of progressively higher and
higher organization, In obedience to laws
first impressed on them by the Creator"
The nou-recPption of this doctrine-the
doctrine of continuous uniformity of crea-
tive action, as opposed TO occasional inter-
ferences-was entirely due TO the weakness
Of its basis. The author had not mastered
the several departments OF scientific re-
search brought under review; mistakes
We're made, and hence the theory was unan-
imously pronounced, from the scientific
point Of view, an entire failure.
The new theory proposed by Darwin has,
for the time being, a stronger hold in the
public mind. His theory may be said to
&c two-fold. First, he accounts for the
origin of all pl.nts and animals by the
gradual operation of unintelligent physical
causes, ana affirns thai all organic beings
may be said to descend from some one
primordisl form. The main point in which
Darwin differs from bis predecessors is,
that be starts with life, they with dead mat
ter. They undertake to account for the
origin Of life by physical causes; whereas
he assumes the existence of living cells OF
germs. He does not go into the question
of their origin. He assumes their exis-
tence, which would seem of necessity to
involve the assumption of Creator. Of
course no one supposes that evolution is an
evolution from nothing. 1t is law of In
tuitive intelligence, confirmed by all expe-
rience, that every production has a cause,
and that there must be power In the agent
acting as the cause to produce the effect.
So far, then, as belief in a personal creator
Is concerned, there seems to be no objec-
tior to Dsrwin's hypothesis. As Canon
Kingsley says, ave might accept all that
Mr.. Darwin has so lesrnedly and so scutely
written on physical science, and yet pre-
serve our natural theology on exactly the
same basis as that on which Butler and
PAley left it. That we should have TO de-
velop it, do not deny. That We should
have to relinquish it, do"
But BIZ far the most interesting part of
Darwin's theory relates to the origin of the
human mind. His theory includes, not
me; ely the evolutionary origin of the bod
lily fame, but, secondly, that the human
mind xrJsth oil tic aapopiftap end ahar
istics, Is the result of the development,
without break, of the dim sensations of q
mollusc. In this there is psychological
hypothesis implied, viz: that all intelligence
is absolutely homogeneous, and that there is
no difference in kind, but only in degree,
between the functions oft reason in con
templatiDg necessary truth, and those of
the most elementary sense-perception
Such an hypothesis cannot be safely main
tanned by natural science, unless it is sane
toned and sustained by philosophy. This
question, then, meets US at the very thres-
hold Of the inquiry--the question relative to
the identity or difference ia kind between
the higher and the lower mental faculties;
and the solution Of iG, one way or the other,
is an antecedent condition to accepting or
rejecting the Darwinian hypothesis.
Prof. Huxley is not only distinguished
naturalist, but a popular lecturer and
preacher of clay Sermons" and thus has
become representative man among Ithe
advocates of the new form of Materialism,
Materislsm is that system which ignores
the distinction between matter and mind,
and refers all the phenomena Of the world,
whether physical, vital, or mental, to the
functions of mater. There appears to be
several different opinions among living
scientific men IS to the relation between
vital and physical forces. There are some
of whom DR.. Carpenter is one, who deny
that there is any such thing as vitality or
vital force, and who hold that physical
forces, such as light, heat, electricity, etc. |
are controlled by force of different kind
called, ga directing agency" But it has
been c0nclusively proved that without the
acceptance of an independent vital force
outside the matter of organism, there is ne
explanation for operations with which We
are daily familiar. There are others, who,
adopting different view, maintain, if there
be any difference it cannot
be known. Thus Prof. Huxley, although
few years since q firm advocate
Of vital, IS distinct from physical force, in
his discourse on the physical Basis Of Life"
takes the opposite ground. The argument
is this: Just as the operations of vegetable
life are due to physical forces, so all the phe-
nomens Of animal life are due to the same
causes; and not only are the operations of
vegetable and animal life due to physical
forces, but the same Is true Of all mental
operations. If this argument from anRlogy
is valid in the ona case, it is valid in the
CHh tDs,AF 80 angr 49, y.
new doctrine, are sscribed to material
causes. Spirit is declared to have only an
imaginary existence. Spontaneity is an
absurdi5y. Necessity is memorable aud
universal. Lay Sermons, pages 155, I56,
157 Now, | venture TO say, that the his
tory Of human speculation does not fur
nish more explicit avowsl of Msteri&lis IN
than the statements l have now adduced.
Yet Huxley says be is no Materislist. Ia
one sense this is true. BE is not Mate
rialist because he believes 10 neither matter
nor spirit. he a7ows himself a disciple of
Hume, who taught that we know nothing
but impressions and ideas. He avows his
fellowship with Herbert Spencer,
the fundamental principle Of
whose "New Philosophy" Is, that all
we know or can know, is, that force is, and
that it is persistent, while force itself is alb
soluteiy inscrutabie. This blots the soul
and God out of existence, except as those
words indicate an unknown fo:ce. II
Huxley be not ma erislist then l am I'M
Sbie TO discern the difference between his
language and that of the avowed material
Isl. He says, gin itself il is of littla mo-
ment whether we express the phenomena
of matter in terms of spirit; or the phe-
nomeuR of spirit in terms of matter; matter
may be regarded as a form of thought,
thought may be regarded as a property of
matter each sta emeut has certain rel&-
tive truth" Huxley then seeks to evade
the seemingly inevitable deduction from his
premises by representing both matter and
spirit as mere names, and names too not
for real things, but for fznciful hypothesis.
The identity of matter and spirit is, in
short, represented by him as consisting
in this, that the existence of both is merely
nominal, or at least merely ideal. Hence
Huxley's InSteFialism is only another form
of idealism, And as msterialism leaves us
no God to reverence and trust, no Being to
whom we are responsible; and IS 1t denies
any conscious existence after death, it can
be adopted only Oh the sacrifice of the
higher attributes Of our nature; and its
whole tendency must be to demoraiizs and
degrade.
lGis thus apparent that the tendency of
mo0Prn science is to ignore a Dersonal God