Indications of the Creator

Contents

Dedication, ---------- v

Preface, - - - - vii

ASTRONOMY.

Dedication

TO

WILLIAM SMYTH, Esquire,

PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.

Preface

The following Extracts are now published from a persuasion that they may be interesting to many persons who would be unlikely to read the larger works from which they are taken. The Philosophy of the Sciences is necessarily a series of somewhat abstruse dissertations, and is likely to be acceptable only to thoughtful students. The History of Science is a subject of a more popular character, yet when the history is carried through all the epochs of all the material sciences, probably but few will accompany the historian through a plan so extensive. But lessons of Natural Theology always find a large class of willing readers, when there is any thing of novelty in their form. The reflections which the following pages contain, being those which result from a review of the whole progress of science, and of the principles and processes which have been concerned in that progress, necessarily differ in many respects from those of other writers on Natural Theology.

Perhaps, also, there may be some recommendation of these Indications of the Creator in their being the result of researches and reasonings undertaken with no purpose of bringing such indications into view, but with objects of quite another kind. For when an author writes with a theological conclusion set before him from the first, as that to which he must conduct his argument, there may arise a suspicion of a defect of candour and comprehensiveness in what he writes. It may be supposed that he will strain or evade any thing that points away from his predetermined end. But a narrative of the whole History of Science, and an analysis of the processes by which sciences have been formed, are undertakings too large, and their course too rigidly determined by their plan, to allow them to be drawn aside by partial and irrelevant considerations. The passages now extracted as having a Theo-

Vlll PREFACE.

logical bearing will be seen, on reference, to flow naturally from the trains of thought with which they are combined in the original works.

The main points to which these extracts refer are the Indications of Design in the Creator, and of a Supernatural Origin of the World ; and, as connected with this latter point, the consistency of the Inductive with the Revealed History of the World. I have not attempted to combine the Extracts into a system, but have given them in the order in which they occur in the original works. I have added a short extract from another work, on the subject of the Nebular Hypothesis, bearing on the same questions.

The questions which belong to Natural Theology are, in substance, the same from age to age ; but they change their aspect with every advance or supposed advance in the Inductive Sciences. I have (p. 53) endeavoured to show the assertion to be quite baseless, that, as science advances, final causes recede before it, and disappear one after the other. I have also, I trust, made it appear, by a survey of the whole history of one great science, Physiology, that in that science the Doctrine of Final Causes has been not only consistent with the successive steps of discovery, but has been the great instrument of every step of discovery from Galen to Cuvier.

I have further attempted to explain that the modern doctrine of Unity of Plan in different kinds of animals does not at all necessarily contradict the Doctrine of Final Causes : that Morphology is not necessarily inconsistent with Teleology, But I have also had to show that, in modern times, the two doctrines have been put in opposition to each other. The Morphologists have declared, on the ground of their peculiar views, that they could not allow themselves to ascribe to the Creator any intention, (p. 28.) And probably an impression as if the evidence of Design in the Creator were obscured and weakened, is generally produced by the first aspect of morphological doctrines, in minds eager for new views, and yet led, by their own want of the discoverer's power, to borrow their new views from others.

I have already ventured to express an opinion* that Inductive Minds, those which have been able to discover Laws of Nature, have also commonly been ready to believe in an Intelligent Author of Nature ; while Deductive Minds, those which have employed

* Bridgewater Treatise, Book iii. Ch. v. and vi.

PREFACE. IX

themselves in tracing the consequences of Laws discovered by others, have been willing to rest in Laws, without looking beyond to an Author of Laws. I have taken the liberty also (p. 33) to apply this remark to the case of the opposition between Teleology and Morphology ; and have remarked that Cuvier, the great Zoological Discoverer of our time, was a firm believer in Creative Design, notwithstanding the arguments of the Morphologists who controverted such doctrines. I have, in the following pages, so fully discussed this subject, that it would be superfluous to add any thing here, if it were not that, as I have already said, morphological views have a peculiar tendency to appear unfavourable to the belief of final causes, in minds to which they are new.

But as morphological views, when they are first presented, appear to some persons to dim the brightness of those proofs of Creative Design with which we are familiar; so, on the other hand, when a newly discovered instance of Creative Design is first made known to us by the zoological discoverer, it is impossible for most persons not to see in it a clear and strong indication of an Intelligent Creator ; however much this conviction may afterwards be obscured and confused by morphological generalities of expression. I have given an example of such a new evidence of design, in Mr. Owen's discoveries with regard to the process of suckling of the kangaroo (p. 47). I do not think any one, becoming acquainted for the first time with the provisions for this purpose, as described by Mr. Owen, can help receiving the conviction which Mr. Owen expresses, that this is an "irrefragable evidence of creative forethought."

Mr. Owen, in this as in many other parts of his writings, is an instance, in addition to those which I have previously adduced, of the teleological turn of the Inductive Mind. It would be going too far to say, conversely, that those whose minds are not inductive have a bias towards morphology. But yet this would not be too much to say, if morphology were very loosely understood. We should not be surprised at the morphologist coming to conclusions very different from those of the teleological discoverer, if that unity of plan which the morphologists assert, be made to consist in resemblances of the most heterogeneous and fantastical kind ; if, for instance, plants were supposed to be analogous to the branching forms of crystallization; or trees growing out of the ground to the electrical brush : if some animals were supposed to fall in with the

X PREFACE.

supposed unity of plan because they have abundant tail, and ornaments for the head in the form of tufts, crests, or horns, while others occupy an analogous position to these because they are of a soft and sluggish character and abundantly edible: if, again, we have a part of a classification in which some animals are placed because they have been denounced as impure, with other animals because they are wild and striped, and others because they have spines and prickles : if, finally, notions of moral judgments and of symbolism are introduced into natural history, and we are told of classes of animals which are symbolically types of evil. Morphology, pursued with such habits of mind, cannot, we should suppose from all the analogy which the history of science lends us, lead to any solid truth, either in natural history or in philosophy.

There is one morphological doctrine of modern times which has attracted much notice, in consequence of its being imagined to offer a solution of the great difficulty of the uniformitarian theory in geology, namely, the appearance of new species and classes of animals as we proceed from the earlier to the later formations. The morphological doctrine of which I speak is, that the kinds of animals may be arranged in a series ascending from lower to higher : and that each animal of a higher kind, in the progress of its embryo state, passes through states which are the final condition of the lower kind. The application of this morphological doctrine to geological difficulty is this : that the higher kinds of animals came later, and were developed from the lower kinds, which came earlier in the series, by new peculiar conditions, operating upon the embryo, and carrying it to a higher stage. Now in the apparent simplicity of this doctrine, thus enunciated in general terms, we have that which recommends it to those who accept such doctrines in their general shape. But the zoologist and the geologist, who can test its general assertions by the special facts with which their researches have made them acquainted, know that the facts do not agree with this doctrine. Without going into detail on this subject, I venture to offer the following remarks.

It is not at all agreed among eminent physiologists,* that animals can be arranged in a series ascending from lower to J uglier, such that each animal of a higher kind in its embryo state passes through the successive stages of the lower kinds ; the characters of these

* I make these remarks on the authority of a physiological friend.

PREFACE. XI

stages being (in the asserted doctrine) taken from the brain and the heart, and man being the highest point of the series. For such physiologists assert, that the brain of the human embryo does not resemble, at any period, however early, the brain of any Mollusk or of any Articulate, which are two of the lower stages. It never passes through a stage comparable or analogous to a permanent condition of the same organ in any Invertebrate Animal. And in like manner the spinal cord in the human vertebras at no period agrees with the corresponding part of the lower kinds of animals. The moment it becomes visible in the human embryo, it is entirely dorsal in position ; while in Mollusks and Articulates a great part, or nearly the whole is ventral. The same is true of the heart, or centre of the vascular system, which has always a different relative position to the great nervous centre in the Human Embryo from what it has in any Articulate Animal, and in most Mollusks.

Again ; the order of lower and higher stages of developement of the human embryo, does not agree with the successive stages of animal life at successive periods of the earth's history as disclosed by geology. For even if we were to admit, what has not been proved, that the lowest kind of animal developement, which has been termed polygastric monads, exist in the earliest fossiliferous rocks, these rocks also manifest the higher types of Echinodermal, Articulate, and Molluscous Animals; while the human germ, commencing with a form and vital properties analogous to those of the monad, passes from the monad stage at once to the Vertebrate, and never enters or typifies the Radiate, the Articulate, or the Molluscous series of organic forms : whereas these forms of Invertebrates have preceded the Vertebrate forms on the earth's surface according to the best evidence disclosed by geology.

Moreover in the Vertebrate, as well as in the Invertebrate part of the animal series, the asserted order fails. It has been pointed out by others,* that in order to produce the asserted accordance between the order of zoological developement and geological succession, geological facts are misrepresented in the most flagrant manner. For Vertebrate animals do exist in the Silurian rocks, from which the asserted law excludes them. Again ; if we are to have a geological period eminently characterized by Saurians, it must be that of the lias and oolites, and not that of the new red

Xll PREFACE.

sandstone, as asserted in the hypothetical scheme ; while one of the Saurians which most approaches the mammalian character, has recently been found in a formation below those in which the more ordinary Saurian forms occur. Again; birds, which the new law places in the oolitic group, have left their traces on the earlier formation of the new red sandstone. The new law finds geological epochs corresponding to some of the orders of quadrupeds, namely the rodents, ruminants, digitigrades, and quadrumans ; but it gives no place to the other orders, which might claim one with equal reason, pachyderms, marsupials, plantigrades and edentates. Finally, the law requires the monkey to be placed in the newer tertiarks ; whereas their remains have been found in the older tertiaries of France, India, and England.

Further, the doctrine of the developement of the kinds of animals from one kind to another by the influence of external conditions, is contrary to the conclusions of the most esteemed physiologists, as is stated in the following pages. This doctrine is coupled with the assertion of the origin of living beings without an egg or other living parent. This assertion is at variance with the latest and most careful, as well as with all preceding experiments, of eminent physiologists.* And the tenet that any animal can be advanced to a higher stage by a period of gestation prolonged beyond the usual time, is contrary to all fact. The advancement of the vital organs to more perfect stages of developement requires the stimulus of respiration and muscular action, for which birth is essential. Under these conditions, the organs of animals have been developed beyond their usual state ; but, as is stated in the following pages, never to a stage beyond that which characterizes the species.

I have hitherto spoken in general terms of the stages of animal organization, meaning by that, such stages as fish, lizard, bird, beast. And I have spoken as if there were, in the question before us, no difficulty, except that of advancing from one of these stages to another. But in fact there have been and are existing on the earth many kinds of fish, many kinds of saurians, many of birds, many of beasts. These have the most various forms and habits, with an internal organization of each, which, though wonderful, is in a great measure intelligible, when considered as designed for the animal's support and preservation according to its habits. But

* Owen's Lectures, 1843, p. 33.

FREFACU. Xlll

to arrange all these kinds of animals, that is, the whole animal creation, in a series, as successive stages of one line of developements, or of any ramified line ; and to make the form and the habits of each the result of the stage of developement at which the animal has arrived ; is a mode of speculating which is the opposite of that which all successful zoological speculation has followed, and may be expected to lead to opposite results.

The same imperfection in the evidence would be found, if we were to examine, in other subjects as well as in zoology, the asserted law of the identity of the stages of natural developement of the faculties, ascending from beast to man, with the probable history of mankind. For instance, the view of the speech of man as of the same nature with the signs by which animals express their feelings and purposes, is a view which leaves out of sight the essential character of language. For the essential nature of language consists, not in its expressing particular feelings and purposes, but in its expressing thoughts and things in a general manner. Words express abstract thoughts, each of which may be applied to innumerable particular objects; and Human Reason can deal with thoughts so abstracted, and by means of them, can express Truth, which it is her peculiar privilege to contemplate. There are, in animals, no germs of this power of abstraction, this apprehension of abstract and general Truth. The Instinct of animals cannot become the Reason of man, by any process of developement. We cannot unfold the mind of a spider or a bee into the mind of a geometer.

On the other subjects to which the Extracts refer, it does not appear necessary to add any thing to what is there said. The opinions there expressed have been for some time before the world ; and are such as, I trust, can give just offence to no one.

Trinity College, Cambridge, February 14, 1845.

EXTRACTS,

ETC.

ASTRONOMY.

THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM.

[About k. d. 1500, Copernicus had satisfied himself of the truth of the Heliocentric Theory, according to which the planets, and the earth as one of them, revolve round the sun as the centre of their motions. His book De Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium was published in 1543, the year of his death. In 1610 Galileo, having invented a telescope, discovered Jupiter's satellites and the moon* like phases of Venus; and these discoveries supplied additional arguments for the truth of the Copernican system. This system Galileo afterwards defended in his writings, which were on that account condemned as heretical by the Inquisition.]

* The doctrines promulgated by Copernicus excited no visible alarm among the theologians of his own time ; we may assign as a reason for this, that those who were disposed to assert the sway of authority in all matters of belief, had not yet been roused and ruffled by the aggressions of innovators in philosophy and religion, as they soon afterwards were. Probably, also, we ought to take into account the different temper and circumstances of the ultramontane and Italian learned men. The latter, living under the immediate shadow of the papal chair, were necessarily less bold in their speculations, and less open in their promulgation of any opinions which might have a taint of heresy. This influence operated less strongly in Poland and Germany ; and we find no evidence which leads us to deny to these countries the glory of having received the Copernican system of the world, from the first, with satisfaction, and without bigoted opposition. The great religious reform which had its rise in Germany about the time of the promulgation of the Copernican system, showed sufficiently that that was the land where opinions would assert their freedom; and where authority could not, with prudence, urge superfluous claims.

But in Italy the church entertained the persuasion that her

* History of the Inductive Sciences. Book v. Chap, iii, Sect. 4.

authority could not be upheld at all, without maintaining it to be supreme on all points. The spirit of dogmatism of the middle ages had descended upon the ecclesiastical institutions of the seventeenth century ; and in consistency with that spirit, it was criminal to disturb received doctrines, or to separate philosophy from religion. The tenet of the earth being at rest in the centre of the universe, was not only a part of the established school-philosophy, but was also, it was conceived, sanctioned by Scripture. The Copernican system, therefore, so far as it came into view, was looked at with suspicion and aversion. But though this system is afterwards, in the official condemnation of it, spoken of as " entertained by many,'' it never came under the notice of the spiritual judges in any conspicuous manner, till it had been illustrated by Galileo's discoveries, and recommended by his writings.

The story of the condemnation of Galileo by the Inquisition, for asserting the motion of the earth, and of his formal renunciation of this doctrine in the presence of his judges, has been so often told, that I need not here repeat the details. It rather belongs to our purpose to consider what lessons may be gathered from it with regard to the progress of science.

One reflection which occurs is, that both Galileo's behaviour and that of his judges, appear to disclose some Italian traits of character. The assumption of supreme authority in all matters of opinion, an assumption unsuited to the powers and condition of man, had led, it would seem, to a kind of artificial state of compromise, in which men's published opinions were treated as a point of decorum only, the truth being left out of consideration. Thus Galileo seems to have expected that the flimsiest veil of professed submission in his belief would enable his arguments in favour of the Copernican doctrine to pass unvisited ; and the inquisitors were satisfied with a renunciation which they could not believe to be sincere. This artificial state, again, was probably one occasion of the furtive mode of insinuating his doctrines, so much employed by Galileo, which some of his historians admire as subtle irony, and others blame as insincerity. Nor do we see any thing to lead us to believe that Galileo was not at all times ready to make such submissions as the spiritual tribunals required; although undoubtedly he was also very desirous of promoting the cause of what he conceived to be philosophical truth. The same absence of earnestness appears on the other side, in the courtesy and indulgence with which, as is now almost universally allowed, Galileo was treated throughout the course of the proceedings against him. For his being confined in the dungeons of the Inquisition, as his lot has sometimes been described, appears to have consisted principally in his being placed under some slight restrictions, first, in the house of Nicolini, the ambassador of his own sovereign, the Duke of Tuscany, and afterwards in the country-seat of Archbishop Piccolomini, one of his own warmest friends. It appears to be not going too far to suppose that the extravagant assumptions of the church of Rome, which it was impossible sincerely to allow, and necessary to evade by artifice, generated

THE COTERNICAN SYSTEM. 15

in the philosophers of Italy an acuteness and subtlety, but also a suppleness and servility very different from the vigorous independent habits of thought of Germany and England.

But there remains something more to be attended to in the case of Galileo; for though the See of Rome might exaggerate the claims of religious authority, there is a question of no small real difficulty, which the progress of science often brings into notice, as it did then. The revelation on which our religion is founded, seems to declare, or to take for granted, opinions on points on which science also gives her decision; and we then come to this dilemma, — that doctrines, established by a scientific use of reason, may seem to contradict the declarations of revelation according to our view of its meaning; — and yet, that we cannot, in consistency with our religious views, make reason a judge of the truth of revealed doctrines. \n the case of astronomy, on which Galileo was called in question, the general sense of cultivated and sober-minded men has long ago drawn the distinction between religious and physical tenets which is necessary to resolve this dilemma. On this point, it is reasonably held, that the phrases which are employed in Scripture respecting astronomical facts, are not to be made use of to guide our scientific opinions ; they may be supposed to answer their end if they fall in with common notions, and are thus effectually subservient to the moral and religious import of revelation. But the establishment of this distinction was not accomplished without long and distressing controversies. Nor, if we wish to include all cases in which the same dilemma may again come into play, is it easy to lay down an adequate canon for the purpose. For we can hardly foresee, beforehand, what part of the past history of the universe may eventually be found to come within the domain of science; or what bearing the tenets, which science establishes, may have upon our view of the providential and revealed government of the world. But without attempting here to generalize on this subject, there are two reflections which maybe worth our notice; they are supported by what took place in reference to astronomy on the occasion of which we are speaking; and may, at other periods, be applicable to other sciences.

In the first place, the meaning which any generation puts upon the phrases of Scripture, depends, more than is at first sight supposed, upon the received philosophy of the time. Hence, while men imagine that they are contending for revelation, they are, in fact, contending for their own interpretation of revelation, unconsciously adapted to what they believe to be rationally probable. And the new interpretation, which the new philosophy requires, and which appears to the older school to be a fatal violence done to the authority of religion, is accepted by their successors without the dangerous results which were apprehended. When the language of Scripture, invested with its new meaning, has become familiar to men, it is found that the ideas which it calls up, are quite as reconcilable as the former ones were, with the soundest religious views. And the world then looks back with surprise at the error of those who thought that the essence of revelation was involved in their own arbitrary version of some collateral circumstance. At the present day we can hardly conceive how reasonable men should have imagined that religious reflections-on the stability of the earth, and the beauty and use of the luminaries which revolve round it, would he interfered with by its being acknowledged that this rest and motion are apparent only.

In the next place, we may observe that those who thus adhere tenaciously to the traditionary or arbitrary mode of understanding Scriptural expressions of physical events, are always strongly condemned by succeeding generations. They are looked upon with contempt by the world at large, who cannot enter into the obsolete difficulties with which they encumbered themselves; and with pity by the more considerate and serious, who know how much sagacity and right-mindedness are requisite for the conduct of philosophers and religious men on such occasions; but who know also how weak and vain is the attempt, to get rid of the difficulty by merely denouncing the new tenets as inconsistent with religious belief, and by visiting the promulgators of them with severity such as the state of opinions and institutions may allow. The prosecutors of Galileo are still held up to the scorn and aversion of mankind ; although, as we have seen, they did not act till it seemed that their position compelled them to do so, and then proceeded with all the gentleness and moderation which were compatible with judicial forms.

THE KEBULAR HYPOTHESIS.

[* Laplace has proved that the state of the solar system is stable: that is, the ellipses which the planets describe will always remain nearly circular, and the axis of revolution of the earth will never deviate much from its present position. He has shown also that this stability depends on the fact that the planets all move in the same direction, in orbits of small eccentricity, and slightly inclined to each other. He has moreover given a mathematical proof that this fact is not accidental. Hence we may regard this arrangement as the result of design, and as intended to secure the stability of the system.]

t We have referred to Laplace, as a profound mathematician, who has strongly expressed the opinion, that the arrangement by which the stability of the solar system is secured is not the result of chance ; that " a primitive cause has directed the planetary motions." This author, however, having arrived, as we have done, at this conviction, does not draw from it the conclusion which has appeared to us so irresistible, that " the admirable arrangement of the solar system cannot but be the work of an intelligent and most powerful being." He quotes these expressions, which are those

* Bridgewater Treatise. Book II., chap. iii. t lb. Book II., chap. vii.

THE NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS. 17

of Newton, and points at them as instances where that great philosopher had deviated from the method of true philosophy. lie himself proposes an hypothesis concerning the nature of the primitive cause of which he conceives the existence to be thus probable: and this hypothesis, on account of the facts which it attempts to combine, the view of the universe which it presents, and the eminence of the person by whom it is propounded, deserves our notice.

1. Laplace conjectures that in the original condition of the solar system, the sun revolved upon his axis, surrounded by an atmosphere which, in virtue of an excessive heat, extended far beyond the orbits of all the planets, the planets as yet having no existence. The heat gradually diminished, and as the solar atmosphere contracted by cooling, the rapidity of its rotation increased by the laws of rotatory motion, and an exterior zone of vapour was detached from the rest, the central attraction being no longer able to overcome the increased centrifugal force. This zone of vapour might in some cases retain its form, as we see it in Saturn's ring; but more usually the ring of vapour would break into several masses, and these would generally coalesce into one mass, which would revolve about the sun. Such portions of the solar atmosphere, abandoned successively at different distances, would form u planets in the state of vapour." These masses of vapour, it appears from mechanical considerations, would have each its rotatory motion, and as the cooling of the vapour still went on, would each produce a planet, which might have satellites and rings, formed from the planet in the same manner as the planets were formed from the atmosphere of the sun.