The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1885-12-24
EVOLUTION AND MINOR
Atty.
DOES MIND SURVIVE THE DES-
TRUCTION OF BODILY Or
CANIZATION


the last May number of the Century there
was an article on 'ImmOrality and Modern
Thought" by Rev. Mr.. Munger. which in
terested me, as it doubtless has many
other persons. While 1 agree in all that
the Century said of this gentleman's
powers and accomplishments, 1 am COM
PEELED to regard his effort, although very
! original one, as in the end like the efforts
of many others to reconcile the irrecon-
cilable. The real question is whether
that branch of science known as evolu
ton can be made consistent with the idea
of immortality, or with the survival of the
soul after the death of the body Of
course this depends upon the evolution
hypothesis of the origin and nature of
mind. If that hypothesis admits of the
conclusion that mind, by the process of
mans develOpement out of preceding
and different organisms, became an indie
pendent and spiritual existence, although
connected for a time with bodily organ
ization, it is possible for mind to sur
vive the destruction of that bodily
organization. But if mind is not in
itself anything more than what the
evolution theory supposes it to be-a
mode of action of the nervous organiza-
ton in whatever animal the possession of
mental faculty is exhibited-it cannot
continue to exist after the nervous action
ceases. Darwin indeed, did not expressly
undertake to trace the genealogy of the
human mind as he traced the supposed
evolution of the human body. But there
is a great deal in his works which evinces
that he concurred in Herbert Spencer's
system Of psychology; and in fact he makes
a direct reference to Mr.. Spencer as a
philosopher who has securely based psy
cOlogy on the necessary requirement of
each mental power and capacity by gra-
dation-that is to say by the evolution of
man, as he is, out of other and preceding
organisms. Mr.. Munger refers to the
broad studies of Darwin and Herbert
Spencer as having done much toward es
tablishing the conviction that there is no
such thing as specific science, but that
all sciences are parts of one universal
science; and this conviction, Mr.. Munger
thinks, has brought about what may be
called comfy of the sciences, or an era
of good feeling.
Whatever may be the concessions which
science is now making to theology, or
which theology is now making to science,
| the fundamental question remains whether
some of the conclusions of certain scien-
lists. can be reconciled with belief in i'm
mortality, be that belief derived from
natural or from revealed religion.
IF it is true that science now says to
theology, or theology now says to science
''Let US agree not to intrude into stst
others domain, but let each of US hear
what the other has to say" yet, when all
that both can say has been said, it be-
comes necessary to ascertain whether the
dicta or conclusions of both can be con-
cealed Mr.. Munger's mode of reconcil-
ing the evolution of man with the idea of
Immortality is profoundly ingenious-I
use the word in perfect respect-but it is
to me entirely unsatisfactory. I condense
its substance as follows:
From the beginning the Creator pro-
jected the development of man by an
enormously slow process, which would end
and has ended, in a complete product
The laws under which that process was
worked were laws operating upon material
substances. Each successive higher Or
ganism in the geological series was &C
complished through the destruction or
change of the preceding lower organism
out of which it was evolved. There was,
therefore, no continuous life provided for
any of the preceding organisms beyond
their several material existences as ami
NAL organisms. Each of them was the
embryo that was to be developed into the
u0AU VI OCII1So3 h1lN u1lIo OlAACA WV
condition had its own laws and processes
which were purely physical. Man, the con
summate end and product and terml aat1Cn
of the whole series, being once produced,
the process ceases. There is no further
development. The process ceases,
and its laws either end at once or grad
ually, or take on form supplementary to
other laws, or are actually reversed" Thus
the struggle for existence ceases, and a
moral or humane law of preservation
takes it place. 'The process of evolution
at every step rests on God, and derives its
energy from God" God 'has at last pro-
duced being who is the image of Him
self; who has full consciousness and the
creative will; who can adore and love and
commune with his Creator" All reason
for the destruction or change of one form
of life for the purpose of producing other
forms ceases in man. But there is now
reason for giving him more life than was
given to the organisms out of which he
was developed-that is for comforting on
him immortal life. Man thus comes into
other and more permanent relations than
those in which he was produced. If there
is a reason for the gift of immortal life
there will be found method. Man is the
end and solution of the whole process of
evolution; and God will set him in per-
manent and perfect relations. after
spending countless cons in creating him,
; God will not suffer him to fall back into
eternal fiames.'' His bodily organism
may dissolve into oxygen, or any other
substance But it is not his bodily organ
: ism that thinks and reasons and loves
: and adores and obeys the dictates OF
!, righteousness; and that which does all
this comes under other laws and relations
than that which does not. ''Such," says
Mr.. Munger, sis the logic of evolution
and we Q uld not well do without it."
! But t IS is in fact "the logic of evolu
r ton as taught by its most eminent pro
fessors? Their theory, if l have not mis-
. read it, is that man is the most complete
, product that the process of evolution ha
yet achieved; not that the process can q
no further. / have met with no writer
n naturalist or philosopher, who maintain
: evolution and who has rescued man out o
O the position of link between himself an
5 some other terrestrial being who is to fol
}. low him. to be developed out of him, an