The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1879-12-31
IS NAN EVOL WE'D FROM THE
LOWER ANIMALS?
Letters from Professors Dana and Gray.

LOWER ANIMALS?
Letters from Professors Dana and Gray.
The New York Independent undertook
to show in its issue OF the 18th inst, Gin
controversy with the NelO York OBJ
sercey) that the evolution of man from the
lower animals at least as regards his
physical structure is taught in our best
colleges. After citing Prof. o. G. Marsh,
of Yale as one Of the teachers Of this doc
trine, it went little farther-it claimed
P"of. Dana, the great geologist, as also
teaching the same views This astonished
us beyond measure familiar as we are
with Dana's writings; but, as the indie
pendent implied by its language that
Prof. Dana was recent. convert, we
thought it possible that the Independent
might be right in its assertion. The fol-
lowing is the language used by the IN
pedendent on the subject:
"What is true of Professor Marsh is true of
the veteran Professor Dana, of Yale. He, too,
is vigorous supporter of evolution, convert
after having long opposed it on the same thee
| logical grounds as the O6Sergerj and ne Is In
some respects the most radical evolutlonlst we
know of, as he holds that the primary forms Of
animals out of which the several great classes
were developed, were determined by the peculiar
molecular construction OF matter which favored
{ Il, Of or, nth ar
Perplexed by this explicit and positive
declaration, we sat down and wrote to
Professor Dana, asking him if the indie
pendent correctly represented him, and
remarking that if it did, his views must
have changed in the last four years, when
he laid down expressly the contrary doc
trine on p. 603 of his Mansealof Geology
edition of 1876. We have received the
following reply; which, as an act of JUS
tice to Prof. Dana, we hope the E'depen'
dent will publish
New HAVEN, Conn, Dec "A, 1879
To the Editors Of the Central Presbyterian:
Dear Sirs-In reply to your letter of the goth
would say that the Independent, in its article
of last week, shows a serious msapprehension
of my views l bold the opinion expressed in
my Geology precisely as there stated, and pre-
sent the same in my College lectures. | teach
in the lectures, as my conclusion from ascertained
facts, that Man Is not Of Natures selection,
either as regards body or spirit" that no nat
ural method of derivation is adequate to account
for the existence of Man," that some other
power than Natures was needed for Mans de-
velopment" While believing that all law is of
Divine appointment, do not regard this as
meeting the case; but hold that in Mans crea-
ton there was required a special Divine act
without which Man would never have existed.
l admit that it may have been, and probably
was, creation from an inferior species, and not
directly from lifeless or inorganic matter;-ln
this agreeing wjth the late Professor Tayler
Lewis amN heoIaslans. But ., show show that
sequence OF Divine fat. 1t was an exaltation
of the body as well as of the inner being, show
ing itself in every part of Mans structure, and
emlnently in his erectness of posture, to which
his bones and muscles are all specifically adapt
ed, and in his brain, whose bulk, even in the
lowest of the species, is double that of the high
est of the brute creation.
Further, l am not vigorous supporter of
evolution. as this would mean to readers of the
Independent For, after surveying all the facts
and arguments pro and con- through seven lee.
lures, bring out the conclusion that Natural
Selection, or Survival of the Fittest, explains
almost nothing with regard to the origin of Spe-
cieS and that all causes that have been appealed
to seem to me to be inadequate to account for
the development of the systems of life, man ex
cluded But further say that, while we are
ignorant of the special methods of origin, there
are general arguments in favor of evolution by
natural causes Hnder Divine law to which the
mind may yield" And then after reviewing
these arguments, I add: 1--WE have reason, there
fore, to suspect and l think to conclude, that
however inadequate the agencies reviewed may
seem; there have been natural causes at work
that were sufficient, with some marked eXcep
tons for the developments; and that, accord
ingly, there were few occasions for Divine inter
vention." | point out, on scientific grounds,
the case of Man, and that of the beginning OF
life, as two examples of such exceptions, and
saw. further that there is nothing in Geological
discovery to prove that there may not have been
Others
As to my view that the lines of development
were in some way connected with the molecular
constitution of germs, which leads the I1depeA-
dent to speak Of me as I'm some respects the
most radical evolutionist we know o" the pur
port of it is wholly misunderstood. 1t is sim
ply this that, whether the evolution of the sys
TENS of life was carried forward by natural
causes under Divine law, Or by Divine inter
vention for each species, there must have been
throughout the whole a reference to all molec
ular or physical laws these being Fundamental
in matter and life; and that in the case of evo-
luton through natural causes such laws must
This doctrine is not admitted among the teach
ing8 of the Darwin or the Haeckel school, under
which, the environments are made the shaping
and transforming agency, and nature the play
ground Of accidents. Ny concluding lecture