Saturday press. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1880-1885, 1881-12-10
Evolution.

current cosmical teaching OF n former mol
ten condition Of ,hi, planet, without alsC
acknowledging that neither albumeu no'
rortoplasm could possibly have survived
that fiery ordeal. But granting SO much
they will insis, that when tho mineral crust
OF the earth hid cooled sufficiently. then
the seeds Of life were cast into the sea
can life" snys Oxen, ais from the son,
none from the continent. Msu is also q
child of the warm and shallow parts OF the
sea. in the neghborhood of the land.
That thence, perhaps after countless ages
Of developement. life in multiplicity of
shapes emerged upon the land, aud slowly
changing in form, and habit in correspond.
encc to its eternal conditons,-through
immeasurable periods,-it has at last ne
cended to its present perfectuess of being,
and almost infinite diversity of kind. No
terrific upheAvals. no fiery out-bursts from
beneath. no icy sweep Of glaciers, no
overwhelming cntaclysm has moro than
partially affected the subsisting life at any
period. Al Hriag things hare conte by
direct desc,pt from tie past, and al from
one common sicmon,ary substance. The
laws etrcctiug aud controlling progressive
development have been " environment"
natural selection, and,"survival of the fit
test" II these scanty outlines Of evolu-
ton bo substantially correct,
WHAT is TO Bs SAID or 1T?
It is admitted ut the outset that a large
number of scientists hold this hypothesis /;
that not few divines see in il nothing in.
compatible with revelation; and that the
masses occupy n position of comparative
neutrality, neither actually accepting, nor
rejecting it. IL must be said on the other
hand, that many scientific men reject 1t in
part or in whole and some Christian phi
losophers, and perhaps the great body of
the clergy, including all those Of the Ro.
man Catholic faith, oppose it strongly as
inconsistent both with revelation, and with
sound philosophy. With these prelmi-
nary admissions, the following assertions
are veuturcd, in reply to the questions just
asked. namely:
1T is opposed to an intelligent COM
mon sense.
2-It is unsound in philosophy.
sit is contrary to established facts in
geology.
At lacks historical basis, and has no
solid foundation in experience.
Sit contradicts the statements of re-
violation, and strikes at the root of the
Christian religion.
The first assertion is not. as Mt the first
glance it might appear, denial of the pre-
vious admission of the neutrality " of the
masses towards the evolution hypothesis.
Presented as An assumed law or principle,
not in detail and specific application, like
most theories SO presented, it does not at
first arouse any decided opposition. An
armed neutrality" would perhaps better
express the idea. Their attitude is that of
the sentinel. and "advance friend and give
the countersign their demand. What is
conteuded for is, that while the man of
average intelligence, if asked whether he
believes in evolution might answer,
swell, ] don't know, it depends -"
if he were asked whether he believes that
some low form of marine life has "deve'-
oped in one case into an eagle, and in
another into land tortoise, or again
into horse in one line, aud into cent?
pcde in another; or once more, into n
Newfoundland dog, on the one hand, and
house fy on the o,her,-it is highly
probable that he would reply, Z" believe
nothing of the sort; what do you take me
for?"
I. should not be objected that such Illus
trstions of evolution are cnricaturss. For
If the hypothesis be true, it must account
for the widest extremes in all animal and
vegetable life. 1t would be comparatively
easy to mike it appear plausible, that two
species of the bear family, for example,
sprang from the snme original life, but
much harder TO show how bear and
lobster could have had a common origin.
Again, in the world Of vegetable life, what
unsophisticated mind could be brought to
believe that the gigantic Sequoia of Cali
fornia is only natural variation from the
humble licheus that cover the out-crop Of
the neighboring rocks; or that the poison
oak is only the far.off cousin Of the beauti-
ful orange tree, beneath whose emerald
foliage the former finds congcnial soil.
Yet il must be so. il evolution rs above
defined be true. The demurrer that com.
mon sense is not competent to sit in iudg.
ment on questions Of science, will hardly
avail. The appeal in this case is not from
science to the lack Of it, but one in which
the subject is brought to bar for putting
forward in the guise Of science, PROPOSE
ton, the absurdity Of which is pr:D,a fac'e
evidence against it. And when 1t is called
to mind how wildly the men of science
have sometimes gone astray that Bishop
Berkeley could deny the existence Of mate
rial objects, that n whole school Of agnostic
philosophers can refuse to acknowledge
anything outside OF their subjective impress
sions, and that the limbo" Of science is
crowded with the wreck and debris of dis
carded theories, from the Ptolcmaic asiro-
romy down to the Nebular hypothesis y
Of la Place, il would seem neither unnatu-
raj nor unbecoming for tho common man
to reject doctrine. as alien TO his reason
as would no tho assertion that the red and
green in the rainbow are one and the snmc
color. The householder may rightly de-
cline to extend hospitality to the unkemps
"tramp" who claims TO be peripste,c
geologis." until he make bis claim good,
2. IT is uSsoUSp IN PHILOSOPHY.
Science Classics animal lifc fuudamen.
tally in natural divisions, according to
structure, form. habit. etc. The underlying
idea is Of numbers having a similar consti-
tuition, or nature. That nature 10 essen
.s-A- k.v,p. 49,. ..o,>> "a