SCIENCE AND THE DENIAL OF DESIGN. (To THE EDITOR OR
THE uSPEOTATORn
&n, —There are some comments of yours on the suicide of Samuel Howard which I could venture to urge, with your permission, on the grave consideration, not only of individual writers, supposed to be more or loss definitely "Secularists," but also on anonymous writers generally, in certain of your contemporaries, who appear to take pleasure at times in insinuating an almost boundless scepti- cism, and in practically depreciating humanity to the level of the brute creation. Now it must be clearly understood at once that this is not a cry for mercy or for quarter. We Christians are not in the least afraid of truth. We are quite content that the worst should be said that can be said, as long as truth is strictly followed. But we must add that where there is admitted un- certainty on the one hand, at the most a theory, which may be true, but does not admit of possible verification (Professor Huxley affirms this much of the Darwinian theory of the self-existent and self-evolving "protoplasm "), and on the other hand, the existence of an entire society, a vast commonwealth, nay, all modern life, based on the assumption that there is a God, and that that God cares for his creatures, a wise man would surely think once, and twice, and even thrice, as Mr. Gladstone says, before he seeks to disturb this ground-conviction in the souls of men. It is manifest, at a glance, that without this, innumerable lives would be all but unbearable. We cannot trust the mere custom or habit of existence against the thorough conviction that as far as the indi- Nidual is concerned all ends here, and therefore that one in a humanly hopeless situation had better cease to be. Further, it is clear that we go far to paralyze or deaden the life-spring of existence, and vastly diminish the motives for exertion, physical or moral, and do our utmost to coarsen the affections, by the
• preaching of a materialistic creed. And after all, those who do this, admit that they are speaking at a venture. The sad de- spairing certainty of Arthur Schopenhauer may seem excusable ; but what shall we say to an airy, jaunty, calmly self-sufficient summons to humanity to close the door of the human mind on God and immortality, and come down to the condition of the brute?
I am not criticizing, be it clearly understood, Mr. Darwin's hypothesis in itself, I believe, indeed, with Dr. Lionel
Beale, and many other thinkers and observers, that at the farthest limits of time there was, always an unfathomable gulf between distinct organisms. We allow of development within the limits of kind, but no farther, and a mysterious law of advance oulminat- ing.in man. Bat whatever the origin of man, or of creation, in the second place, we discern a vast and manifest design from first to last, continuous, though interrupted, and in the main, pro- gressive over; and we do not hesitate to say, with all thinkers who have gone before us, that Nature proclaims her God. Against this generalization the urging, by Mr. Lewes and others, of ex- ceptional eccentricities, and rudimentary organs undeveloped, and embryonic changes, seems to us, to speak the honest truth, an in- tellectual impertinence. It amuses rather than alarms us. It does not even momentarily disturb. We believe that the affirmative and instinctive evidence for God and immortality is simply over- whelming.
Why, then, take the trouble to protest against what we thus hold to be the passing delusion of the hour ; or at least appeal to the moral sense of gainsayers not to seek to strip humanity of its spiritual all? Must not science pursue her course relentlessly, leaving theology and spiritual aspirations to take care of them- selves ? Doubtless. But true scienca does not dogmatize on in- sufficient data ; it is not in a hurry to convert possibilities into certainties ; it does not carefully ignore whatever does not make for the seeker's special point of view ; it is broad, large-hearted, as well as large-minded and impartial.
Granting the Darwinian thesis fully, to my mind, and to many
• other minds, the evidence of design and of creative power would be, if anything, completer. The very letter of the Book of Genesis is perfectly consistent with the opinion that man existed as an animal before conscious life was enkindled in him. We could find, perhaps, no apter figure of this supposed truth than that we find recorded there.
I do not say this because I share this opinion. My own opinion on a purely scientific point is tolerably valueless, but I must entirely concur, for one, with Professor Max Miller, that the origin of language is divine, that wisdom in its higher sense is from above ; mud I utterly disbelieve that man has ever been any- thing but man, or the ape anything but the ape. So much to guard from misconstruction. Only I say, granting the hypothesis of the protoplasm or germ developing into all life without any break of continuity, the argument for design, or God, or hauler-
tality, need not be in the slightest degree affected. And it is unphilosophical, to say the least,—it is unworthy of thinkers,— to suggest the contrary opinion to vulgar minds, and generalize hastily and negatively on insufficient data, or rather no data at all. And then these votaries of science, or rather of imagination, are surprised that Christian men should not welcome them with open arms, and declaim against bigotry and narrowmindedness.
No, we are not afraid of true science, geology, or physiology, or physics. We only ask acientific men, or those who consider them- selves such, not to mistake analytic for synthetic power, not to substitute a very illogical generalization for very partial observa- tions, to be a little more humble and a little more considerate. Ile who saps man's trust in Providence takes on himself an almost immeasurable weight of responsibility. Let public writers bear this fact in mind, and shrink from the assumption of a kind of Papal infallibility on the side of nihilism and despair.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
