New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-09-07

TIE DEVELOPMENT THEORY ErlGi sSairn spd
Iol , ~ ntEGrN l6iao. pp. vii, $40. Lee * Shep-
IT. hook seems 10 he intended not only as
.;mplitcd manual for general readers put aiso "S
an elementary textbook for the young. III makes
NO nretcnce 10 originality. the authors having at
.o,nnted nothing more ambitious than clear aud
readable summary of the discoveries ana theories
81 the principal authorities on eNo-
In,;o, csnecially of Darwin and llaeckel As
n statement Of the doctrine II leaves niue
% he desired. The arrangement is excellent the
exposition is sngulary plain and precise. the mus
,rations are pertinent and effective. and the authors
seem to he well acquainted with the latest hter"-
,ure of the subject. They are by no means nee
however from the dogmatic spirit Wihcn u'lo'"'
so much of the scientific writing OF our 'i"'' "
this has led them IN more than one '"S''", "
oolo, an ;,,rosino case bv the employment OF an
obviously faacious line of reasoning III 'he neat
of their opposition to the spcclal creation
tbeorv-an opposit on expressed Win coh'''hP'
- intermixcd with bad tcmper-they
orcue in this strain: If the mhuHet"p'o
.rec,cs were the result of acts of creation III 'he
oI;r,r,. scns, of the term. we should expect 10
f,d so-and-so If creations were wisely adjusted
a ,beconditions Of animal and plant life. we shouId
ovnect to find so-and-so. But We find the reverse
Therefore the theory of special creation IS a"Sui"'
The fault in these syllogisms IS glazing II VIVA,
Won expect to find is the same as what cNiS'S' il
vour expectation is the final criterion oil truth the"
the conclusion YOU reach here follows properly "o"
the premises But that is not proved. we may
and we often do, expect something unIeaSoh"', ''
bccause we do not know all the conu'-
,;o,s Onr authors. however Ike
many greater natuiasts, are qul''
,cadv 70 assume that if they We're going to create
world they could arrange certain things much pct
Tor than tbcv are arranged now. If nature as we
600 II il the work of an all-wSc and all-poWcrlul
Creator why did lie not make all animals ana veg
e;ahlcs capable Of sclf-fcItili1ationf why dln ne
waste pollen 10y intru>tinG IL to the backs oi III
sect.Y Why did lie protect the acacia from the
leaf-cutting ant 10y making ii the home col "a SaN'e,
ant mimcal 90 the lcaf-cutt"r Whch "
would have been much simpler ana no'.''
e. loovo the lcaf-cuttcrs uucrcatedf This lofty
manner Of calling God TO account lsuni"rtuha'' vi
courso the reasoning is ridiculous. II amounts 10
this. That canno, be. because do not understand
IT, The believer m special creation NAV reply To
oil .u,h nucstious as those we have condensed from
tbe hook before Ms. " | do not know; am n"t the
Iccncr Of Gods secrets. But to some OF the Pl'S
tions the book itself suggests another answer LOT
Lo,,s that thc natural capacity for reproduction n
animals and plants needs 10 be kept ia check 10y
some external agency; and who shall say ihat the
agency actually in force ~ not lne
best posSib'c1 The legitimate arguments l"'
evolution are strong enough and such soph''ms
No our authors construct surely do not help them
While they do not touch the question OIL Inc
origin of lf'. aud do not expressly deny the
existence of a creator. the tone of their work is
,notcrialiStic The development theory they re-
mark, has rendered unnecessary the childish
suppostion that each new animal or plant must
have been conurcd INTO cNis tence by an Invisible
and unintellicible Powcr"-a sentence which conId
hardly have been written except by rapld atheist
IN treating of the descent of man they accept Of
course his community of origin with
the ape as proved fact and
they deny that there Is anything
in his mental and moral faculties which may not
have been acquired by natural evolution, or that
the gap between man and the ape Is greater than
that between members of the same great groups in
other divisions of the animal kingdom. Here our
Authors assume as practically established position
winch is one Of the greatest points in contemporary
controversy. Granting that the evidences OF mans
physical descent from an inferior animal are over
whemins there is an eminent school OF natualis's
and philosopher, who maintain that m ms moral
and intellectual nature hc differs not only widely
but essentially from all the lower organisms, ANA
that here Is the barrier which evolution can never
cross. The search for a missing link between tie
reason of man and the intelligence of the most fully
dcyclapcd brute has been % failure. Our authors
hold that early man was everywhere anImailsuc,
and that savage races even now are hardly ao-
Nauccd beyond the ape. But the mcieie records Oh
prehistoric times do not TELL us what was the con
duion of Wc historic man. ana the lrhu'h'I 81
saNarc people. at the present daN so lar as We
know IT, not 10 rise except through contact ~ III
civilization, hut TO Ceseu'l't'. ne ul"'I'"et
between mar and brute seems 10 be not one Of
degree bat of kind, because III man we ma nigh
faculties which the l0ftr animals not only 90 not
ppSSrSS bat OF which they show NOT 50 muCh as