New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-04-29
GLADSToNE'S APOLOGY.
s1rs COMMENTS ON COLONEL NGERSoLL's
REPLY"
~Hp QUESTION OF DARwINIsM-Tan runRosn
OF THE GOSPEL
FROM Tho NORTH American Review for Nay.

..-.,.d propositions They appear, however. TO be
av,red without any Of necessity that either
.~Snr,,pce or rcasonlag Is required In order give
49,, . title to acceptance Thus, for example tho
vstsm Of Mr. Darwin is hurled against Christianity IS
. Art which cannot but be fatal
uts discoveries, carried to their legitimate con
,siou destroy the orecds and sacred scriptures of
mankind
This wtdc-sweeping proposition IS imposed upon Us
..,h no exposition of the how the why, and tho
hs controversy of belief might suppose is to be
.,srrained as II from St Petersburg, by series Of
,r.ses 1t is only advanced indeed, to decorate
a.. ,ntroductaon of Darwins in support of the
.rososton which certainly should support and noA
contest. that error and honesty are compatible.
On what ground. then, and for what reason is the
rteu of Darwin fa.al TO scriptures and TO crceds
Az not enter into tn question whether has passed
ssr,anssration but | assume for the purposes of
sro1uent all that in this respect the Reply de-
sire.
r,are of the Reply whether the scheme of Darwin
ts 20 sweep away all theism, is TO be content with
erngshing revealed religion. II the latter is meant,
Ishould reply that the moral history Of in its
cr.ucipa stream has been distinctly an evolution
rom the first until now and that the succnct though
Grand account Of tho Creation IN Genesis IS snguary
sccordaut with the same idea but IS wider than Oar
n.sm since 10 includes in the grand progression the
tnsnim.te world well the history of organisms.
nut as this could aot be shown without much detail,
the Repy reduces 70 the necessity Of following its
avn unsatisfactory example in the bald form of
assertion that there is colorado ground for
lnr evolution and revelation to be at variance with
,ne another
H. however, the meaning be that thelsm is swcpt
rway by Darwfnism, observe that, as before, We
have only an unreasoned dogma dictum to deal
With and dealing perforce with the unknown, arc
- a$.xlrfr ~ xsfIlO 81 ou-fcn
venture on rmarling that the doctrine of evolution
his acquired both praise and dspraise which 1t does
nj deserve. 1t is lauded In the sceptcal camp be-
Suse It is supposed to get rid Of the shocking idea
OF what arc termed sudden Of creation and It is
as unjustiy dsprased on the opposing side because
II is thought to bridge tho gap between and
the interior animals and to give emphasis to the rea-
tbnship between them. But long before the day
sther of Mr. Darwin his grandfather, DIT. Erasmus
Darwin, this relationship has been stated perhaps
wen more emphaticaly by one whom were It not
thaf have a small title TO deal in undemonstrated
assertion, should venture TO call the most cautious,
the most robust and the most comprehensive OF our
philosophers. Suppose, says Bishop Butler, that 1t
were implied IN the natural Immortality OF brutes
thar they must arrive great attachments and become
like usl ratloral and moral agents this would
be difficulty. since know not what latent powers
and capacities they may be endowed with. And IL
pride to deem II indignity that our race
should have proceeded by propagation from ascend
ING scale of inferior organisms, why should 1t be
more repulsive idea to have sprung Immediately from
something less than in brain and body than TO have
been fashioned according to the expression IN Genesis
out Of the dust of the ground 7 There are halls
and galleries Of introduction in q palace, but
IN cottage and this arrival OF the creative work at
its climax through ever aspiring preparatory
series rather than by transition at step from ths
nanimate mould of earth, may tend rather magnify
IN 10 NJ "a NH al
SIDE But If belief has las commonly been premature
IN It's alarms has nOn-belef been moro reflective in
is exulng anticipations and its pacans the assumed
disappearance of what strangely enough termed
sudden of creation from the sphere Of study
and contemplation
One stirling effect OF the Darwinian theory Of de-
scent IS so far understand, reduce the breadth
Of all intermediate distinctions in the scale Of ami
mated life. 1t does not bring all creatures into a
single lineage, but all dversties to be traced
back point in the scale and by stages inden-
tely minute 70 a common ancestry. All is done by
steps nothing By strides, leaps or bounds all
from protoplasm up to Shakespeare, and,
again. all from primal night and chaos UP TO pro-
toplasm. do not ask and ain Incompetent TO judge,
whether this II among the things proven, but take
it so for the sake of tho argument and ask, first,
why and whereby does this doctrine eliminate the
idea Of creation1 Does the philosophy teach
that II the passage from pure reptile to pure bird Is
achieved by a spring $50 to speak, a chasm this
Implies and requires creation but that reptile passes
into bird, and rIdimental into finished bird by a
thousand slight and but Just dscernlbe notifications,
each one of these is so small that they are not
titled TO a lofty, may be set down to any
ssuse cause, pleasei should have sup
posed it miserably unphilosophcal TO treat the dis
faction between creative and non-creative function
simply cumulative distinction As respects
srfbfNcffve n mind creatinu
small, when closely regarded, awakens reason to
sdmtring wonder, not less than creation IN great
and as regards that function ITSELF 10 IL appears
less than ridiculous to hold that the broadly out
lined and large advances of so-called Mosaism
creation, but the refined and stcalthy onward steps
OF Dsrwinism only manufacture, and reogate the
question OF into obsclrity insignifcance,
oblivion.
But docs not reason really require us to go further
to turn the tables the adversary, and to contend
that evolution, by how much It binds more closely
together the myriad ranks of the living aye, and of
ali other orders by SO much the moro consodates,
snlarges, and enhances tho true argument Of design,
and the entire thestio positionl If orders are not
mutually related, it is easier 20 conceive of them
sent at haphazard into the world. We may Indeed,
sufficiently draw argument OF design from each
separate structure, but have no further title to
build upon the position which each Of them holds as
toward any other. But when the connection DO
tween these objects has been established and so esab
she that tho points Of transition are almost as In
dIscernble the passage from day to night, them
indeed each preceding stage is prophecy Of the fol-
lowing each succeeding one Is memorial Of the past
and. throughout he Unreasonable SERIES every single
member Of it is witness to all the rest The Reply
ought surely to dispose Of these and probably many
more arguments IN the case before assuming so ALSO
lutey the rights Of Dictatorship and laying it down
that Darwinism carried TO its legitimate conclusion
land i have nowhere endeavored to cut short its
career destroys the creeds and scriptures of man
Kind That may be the definite IN my challenge
would, with all respect ask the author Of the Reply
TO set about committing the succnct and clear argument
Of his countryman, Mr. Fske, who, in the earlier
part Of tho small work entitled Mans Destiny has
given what seems to an admissible and also strik
ing Interpretation of the leading Darwinian idea
in its bearings on the theistlc argument. TO this