New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-04-28

in his own doctrine, or does not understand H.
Tho force of Professor Hodges reasoning that
Darwinism is atheism is still further embarrasse"
by his assertion that atheism is Impossible Inc
belief in God, he affirms is grounded IN huila,i
nature and cannot be wrested from the human soui'
1.-THE man who is trying to be an athess Is trying W
free himself from the laws of his being lie migo'
as well try to free himself from liability 10 munger
or thirstD If then neither Mr.. Darwin Is an
atheist nor his disciples are atheists nor can any
man be An atheist the elaborate proof of the ATHEISM
Of his doctrine would appear to be supertiuous,
since neither its author nor its receivers nor any
human being accepts its consequences, ana IL
remains An abstract barren system, IN rellslous
point of view, with no power to damage, ana WIN
no interest beyond the sphere of science IL 49, now
ever well both for the cause OF rehgloh anu 'io
cause of science that any apparent shtasonisn
between the two should be pointed out, ana tue
question fully and fairly discussed on us owl,
merits Indeed it gems to be the na'urai
condition of scientific progress that every new usco'
ery should be subjected TO the ordeal OF theolosio
criticism. This has been the case win as'iono"nS,
with geology, with chronology, with ethnoio3y' anu
the new speculatons IN natural science niust no"
take their turn The true friends of science shoula
occor1n civ weIcome every criticism that tends to
elucidate its relation with religion. They shouiu
especialIy rejoice when the subject falls into sucn
competent hands rs those of the author OF inc
present volume. His style is model OF lu.iu 80 en-
plicity; his manner is free from passion anu 81
nate excitement; his arguments arc SCI U"S
tho skin Of an experienced eOntroyerslahst, anu
their force is not impaired by any greater III Sion
of theological bitterness than may serve as Whoie
some tonic to the reader.
II. Tn the preface to his volume, Chancellor WIN
fln n
evolution regarding it as the law of universal intel
lgence under which complex results are bought
into existence. This law is a fact which proclaims
intelligence more clearly than any possible array of
isolated phenomena. The results of evolution could
not have been obtained under any law but the
supreme law of free intelligence. The cause OF
evolution therefore, is q mode or voltlon OF the
incomprehensible Mind. Evolution is the law OF
sequence in the succession of phenomena The type
of the process is the development of the embryo
within the egg. But it is also eXempllhed
in all progress in the development of life
upon the earth, and in the growth OF
society, government and cultivation. IL Is
not force, but plan in accordance with wmch
force acts. The popular assumption that evolution
is n device for explaining the phenomena OF the
Universe by forces whose origin is not traced 10 inc
Divine Mind is therefore athestic in its tendency,
/ ]
considerable portion of his book is devoted to the
EXPOSURE of the fallacy. He cherishes a profound
| conviction that the being and providence of per-
sonal God are to no extent ImpeTiled by the adnis
sion of any form of evolution which does not eX-
pressly make uninteligence its starting point. lie
endeavors to demonstrate that form of the evolu-
ton theory now current in the scientific world is
incompatible with o deyout recognition OF the
Divine existence.
In addition to the elaborate arguments which the
author brings IN support of this position, he pro-
duces variety of historical testimony of an inter
estng character showing the rudiments OF the evo-
luton theory among religious thinkers III different
ages St. Augustine, he informs US, held the opinion
that God created by comforting on the material
world the power to evolve organization. st. Thomas
Aquinas quotes with approval the saying OF ST.
Augustine that in the first institution of nature we
do not look for miracles, but for the laws OF nature
and that the various species of animals and plants
ware only oreatsd derivatively. Buchanan. speak
ing of physical evolution, airms that If it were
established it would not follow by necessary cOnse-
quence that the peculiar evidence of theism would
be thereby destroyed or even diminished" Dr.
McCosh declares that there is nothing irrelgous
in the idea of development, properly understood"
"Similar views" says DR.. Winchell, " are enter
tanned by many orthodox theologans of the present
day."
Nor is it to be supposed, he adds, that the advo-
Gates of these theories are generally willing to
clude themselves from the fold of believers in God.
1t is better to be content with ignorance of mans
religious belief than to assign him a creed which he
has not avowed. Whatever be the views of such
writer's as YOgt and Bichner and Haeckel Mr..
Darwin sincerely believes that his theory ought not
to shock the religious feelings of any one and he
speaks Of life as having been originally breathed
by the Creator into few forms OF only one Mr..
Wallace traces all natural phenomena TO will, and
SAYS: The whole universe is not merely dependent
o. but actually is, the will of higher ntegences,
or of one Supreme Intelligence Professor Asa Gray
declares that the philosophy of efficient cause and
even the whole arguments from design would stand,
upon the admission of such theory of derivation
las Darwins precisely where they stand without
it'D In concluding his volume DR.. Winchell ex-
presses the opinion that should the doctrines of evo
luton even in their extreme phases become estab-
hshed as part of the scientific creed, there will be
no proof of the absence of immediate divine agency
from any of the operations of life. In any develop
ments of scientific truth. Christian theism has moth
ing to fear, but much to gain.
Dr. Winchell is by no means blind to the scientific
difficulties which attend the doctrine OF evolution,
both as interpreted by Mr.. Darwin, and as held by
its earlier advocates. He makes attempt to gloss
over their force to evade their application TO dis
Quise their consequences, but submits them 10
rigid analysis, discussing them at all points with
freedom, with singular candor, and with great log
ical effect He attaches less importance, as we have
SEEM to the objections that have been made on re-
ligous grounds We are compelled he argues to
recognize the fact of such succession of organic
| forms as constitutes an evolution. Viewing these
phenomena apart from any theory as to their cause,