The sun., 1894-03-11

doctrine of evolution. II is interestine &
learn precisely what Prof Huxley means an'
does not mean By this doctrine. weobserve Il
the lrst place that he has nothing TO say (,
any philosophy OF evolution. :, even though !
may be commended bV such a name - Her
bert Speneer's II is not denied that stteni pit
70 construct such philosophy may be ss use
full or even admirable as was the attempt o.
Descsrtes to get at theory OF the universe b.
the same priori road. But however useful
they are in Prof. Huxley's judgment prsma-
ture. Neither when he speaks OF the doctrine
Of evolution MS established does he commit
himself TO the validity Of any particular theory
OF the origin Of species. much as he values that
associated with the name OF Darwin. That the
doctrine OF natural selection presupposes evo-
luton is quite true: but II Is not true that eyo-
lution necessarily implies natural selection.
As q matter OF fact evolution might conceiva-
bly, have taken place without the develop
ment OF groups possessing the characters
| OF speciee For the purpose OF Prof. Hux-
| ley's definition. the doctrine Of evolution
is no speculation. but a generalization
OF certain facts which may be observed by any
| one who will take the necessary trouble.
| Thess facts are those which are classed by
| biologists under the heads of embryoloGy and
OF palpontoloey. EmbryoloRy proves that
every higher form Of individual life becomes
what IL is by a process OF gradual differentia-
| ton from an extremely low form palHont toogy
| proves, In some cases. and renders probable in
all, that the oldest types Of a group are the
| lowest. and that they have been followed by q
| gradual succession Of more and more dlferen-
tiated forms. 1t is simply fact that evolution
Of the Individual animal and plant IL taking
place as q natural process In millions and mil.
lions OF cases every dav. II is a second fact
that the species which have succeeded ono
another in the past do In many cases present
just those morphologicsl relations which they
must possess IL they have proceeded one from
the other By an analogous process OF evolution.
The alternative explanations OF the last am cd
fact are. either the forms OF one and the same
type-for instance. that OF the horse tribe
arose successfully but independently OF one
another at intervals during myriads Of years:
or the later forms are modified descendants Of
the earlier. The latter supposition Is so vastly
more probable than tho former that rational
mon will adopt It unless satisfactory evidence
to the contrary can be produced. The obieo-
tion sometimes put forward that no one yet
proiessos to have seen Dne species pass
into another comes oddly from those who
believe that mankind are all descended from
Adam. Has any one. then. ret seen the
production OF negroes from q white stock,
or vico versa? Moreover. 10 it absolutely
necessary to have watched every stop OF the
iNsAoo' VI pthuot 10 10 lubUuoQ In conclude
ing that 1t really does 60 round the sun 1t Is
not. OF course. taken for granted By Prof Hus-
Icy that some one better acquainted than he is
with astronomy and physics. or that master
OF the new chemistry with its extraordinary
revelations. or that student Of the Develop
vi namsn society hnRuag". and religion
iha, no' NM suncient Iounoation Tor the
uH'i'ne n =, ovoIu.ion IN tneso several regions
s.. a.o on .he contrary. no believes that scien-
nv in'os'iHA'on ih al uirections is tending
W 'ne same result DO that as it may. mas
n,un" 90 no nss ooen occupied all MS lie with
uio'oRiea' mauers ne taxes his own stand on
sno SsA " enoryo'oeS ana upai@ontoioey. and
~ no,us 'ns' our present knowledge OF these
;'.s.n sunucloh.iy S tnorough and essential to
Justly 'ne assertion tnat all iuture philosophi-
oe' SUI 'heoiokicai speculations VIII have to
sooo"moos'e themselves 70 certain common
oouS Oh esIAonshed ruths These truths he
p,ooeeos 10 set iortn In Twelve propositions. |
mnloh we eannot reproduce because they are |
incapable Oh iurther condensation. That the |
iAe,s emoooieo In those propositions are irrec- |
.u vneADie with tne BIBLICAL cosmogony. an |
."topo,oky' eno tneoaicy 10 OBVIOUS: but they |
y. no .ss s'novas'sten. with tne sentimental
y. VI. 'Nare oa'o.aro ana MS nu-
"1uofu prokeh'. 10 froL Huxley's
=" e,en''. !. as Impossible TO SUP
poso .nas .hv e'o.utionar' process was set
~. i., 'uI, 'oioNno"ieas OF the result
s,, .uu yet WE Shs. we snould understand by
.h.. ,bs ,a....,n In'eneon. as is 70 imagine
'"s' 'no in'enuon was purely malevolent.
VII.
We havs seen how Prof. Huxley defines his
attitude toward supernaturansm. Let US see,
lastly. how he would treat tho Bible. aside
from his dismissal OF it's testimony to tho ex-
lstence OF supernatural beings. Many seem to
think that when 1t is admitted that the ancient
literature contained In the Bible has no more
claim to infallibility than any other ancient
literature; whom II 10 proved that the Israel.
ties and their Christian successors accepted a
great many supernsturalistic theories and
legends which have no better foundations
han those OF heathenism. nothing remains to
be done but to throw the Bible aside as 40
much waste paper. The author OF those ESSAYS
'ells Us that he has always opposed this opin-
on. To him 1t appears that. II there IL any-