Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-01-19
oRCEs Err
FR1pAY. IANrARY 10. 1s1e.



TO use it as a weapon against the current views
of religion; ?. Those who attack it as uuchris-
tan and athelstic; 8. Those who seek honestly
TO know what it is, mark its limitations, and
understand its real significance in science. Per-
HIPS we ought 70 add fourth class described
by Mr.. Mvart as "a crowd of halfeducated
men ard shallow thinkers who, without seeing
clearly what it is, eagerly accent it as something
new and fresh which undertakes to explain the
whole problem of existence. Under such cir
cumstanees, it happens inevitably that what
Mr.. Darwin actually teaches, in his work on the
"Origin of Species" is misunderstood AMI mis-
represented. Heretofore the discussion has
been largely confined to the first and second
classes named, and has consisted of something
like battle royal between those moved bv
the oduna heologicum and those inspired by
tie odiuni aRti-the0lOgicltBl as MWart calls it;
and neither of these parties has taken pains to
know and appreciate what Dlrwinsm really is.
Nj. Darwin himself says, in his "0ri9in of Spe-
cies" 10. 429, Am. Ed: 81 see no good reason
why the views given in this volume should
shock the religious feelings OF any one" 1t
seems to rs that he is fully warranted in saying
lHls. W n6u We put deltit luO Observation-Disclosures
of heated dsputants, aud read the volume care
fully, we discover the following facts;
/. Mr.. Darwin rejects the notion that tne
beginning of life and living forms arose out
of inorganic matter by spontaneous genera
ton. He says constantly, whenever he touch
es this point that "science throws no light
on the problemo Of the essence or origin oflite"
His expression of this view of the matter has
appeared in more than one form of language.
In the original English edition of his book
(p137) speaking Of Lamark he said: "Scenco,
in her present state does not countenance the
belief that living creatures are now or ever
were produced from inorganic matter" The
form of words has been varied, but the
meaning has never been changed. He is vii
ling and even eager to have science do all she
can, but sees and admits that science can say
nothing on this point.
9. Mr.. Darwin would have us understand
that, IN his view, the hrst living creatures and
forms of vegetable life were created. Towards
the close Of his book tp. 481) he says; at may
be asked how far extend the doctrine of tho
notification of species; and, after few pre-
liminary remarks, he answers thus - believe
that animals are descended from at most only
four or FIVE progeuitors, and plants from an
equal or lesser number" In his view, these
original progentors or first forms of life were
created He leaves no room for doubt on this
point For instance, he cites Up. 1927, with ap.
prevail, letter addressed TO him by "a celc-
braGed author and divine, as follows 81 have
learned TO see that it is just as noble con-
ccpnon of the Dlity to believe He created q
few original forms capable of seli-devcl-
opment into other and needlu forms,
as to believe He required fresh acts of crea-
ton to s1pply voids caused by the action of HIS
laws" He makes distinct argument Up. 431)
in behalf OF concedinI only few original forms
of life to special creation, in this way: at has
been maintained by several authors that it is as
easy 10 believe in the creation of a hundred mil
lion beings as of one; but, Manpertius's phllo-
sophmal axiom of least action leads The mind
more Willingly to admit the smaller number"
Finally, in the closing words of his book, he eX-
presses his belief that the first living beings
were created as follows: "rhere is grandeur in
mis- view of life with its several powers having
been originally breathed by The Creator into a
fer forms or into one; and that, while this
planet has gone cycling on according TO the fixed
Law Of gravity, from so simple beginning end
less forms most beautiful and most wonderful
have been and are being evolved" Certainly,
this rs not atheism. No one can honestly say
that NJ. Darwin denies Supreme Being.
Mr.. d irwin does not claim that science can
actually xplan the origin of species. For this
reason, the title of his book Sc ms TO be mis-
homer He states in the most positive manner
that his law of natural selection" does not
onIinate the variations which become bases o.
new species and orders of creatures for sit only
takes advantage OF such variations as arise and
are benefcial;' and "natural selection implies
only the preservation of such variations as oc-
cur and are bene6,a;' and again: "Unless
profitable variations occur, natural selection can
do nothing" Something else must originate
the beginning OF a new species, before the Law
proposed by his theory can bggiu to operate fer
il can develope that only which has already be-
gun. When pressed 10 explain the variations
which begin new species, he answers frankly
that he can NOT explain them Here are his own
words Looking TO the dawn Of life, when all
organic beings, as we may imagine, presented
INT sllnpiNsl ollhNtuANs INV NOulu tut MS
step in advancement have arisen? l
can make no sufficient answer, and can only
say, that as we have no facts to guide US, all
speculation on rhe subject would be baseless
and useless" Science fails here, TOO, as it fails
at all poiuts where origins are discussed. Ev.-
IDENTITY, creative agency is quite as much needed
10 explain the BEGINNINGS of new species as to
explain the FIRST forms of life. He does not use
il here to explain the mysterious phenomena by
which new species aIe begun; he seems unwili
ing to use it here; but, at the same time, he
does not exclude it. Should we accept Mr.. Oar
wins theory and give it as wide an application
as he claims, it would in no way interfere with
our faith in the theory Of special creation, for il
applies ouly to what has already hcgun to exist,
and never attempts to explain origins
THIS is not the view OF DtrWinism most heard
of IN the theological aud archaeological con-
bats it has occasioned. One parry in these con-
tests is very sure thar Mr. Darwin is an ireligious
atheist; and, usually, the other party aims TO
have it understood that he believes no being or
power exists which cannot be identified with
nature. Neither Of these parties has taken
pains to know that Mr.. Darwin believes in
God and recognizes him as Creator, although
his views on this point are distinctly stated in
his book Those who have hailed Darwnsm
as a theory which aoolishes creation, denies
the common faith in God, and excludes the
supernatural from nature and even from
existence. Will, doubtless, be surprised
by another passage in his book, TO which
we now invite attention. On page 436, after
men ioning that certain authors Of The high
est eminenee" prefer the theory Of independent
creation to his law Of Development, he says
$40 NV mind it aceOrds better with what we
know Of the laws Impressed on matter BY the
Creator, tHat the production aud extinction OF
the past and present inhabitants Of the world
should have been due to secondary causes.
Thus il appears that according TO DArwinism
the very laws Of nature were "impIessed" on
II "by the Creator and especially such laws q
nature as produce something. Certainly, W,
say again, this is not atheism; nor is it til,
D,rwnism of some who profess TO be D.n
winiaus.
Taose who discuss Dirwinsm should, al th,