Evolution versus involution

Front matter

%$ — ®mm¥ fa- Shelf.

^iiA^

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Preface

A popular exposition of the doctrine of Evolution from the stand-point of Theism has been a long-felt want. Scientifically considered, Evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis, but has assumed its place among the recognized truths which the intellect of man has wrung from the arcana of nature. The rounded outlines of the doctrine of Evolution rise up before us in all their fullness and beauty, challenging alike our admiration and veneration. It may be likened to a majestic temple, whose broad foundations are laid upon the everlasting rocks of truth, and whose mighty dome embraces the Universe. Through man's patieut toil and industry, nature has yielded up the treasures with which this wondrously beautiful edifice has been erected. One by one the stones have been placed, until the swelling proportions of column and dome warn us that the hour of dedication is at hand. Let all who will enter in and worship. Generations have perished in the great undertaking since the corner-stone was laid, but the upward course of the structure has not been stayed, and the work of every generation has enabled its successor to build higher and truer. Many of those who have been the foremost builders in erecting this grand structure have failed to realize the significance of their own handiwork. " They builded better than they knew."

The chief object of the following pages is to do somewhat toward stemming the torrent of Sceptical or Agnostic belief which is sweeping away old land -marks and essaying to undermine the very foundations upon which religion and morality are based. Whilst the ultimate triumph of these principles can never be doubted, yet it becomes the duty of every one whose convictions are deep and earnest so to act as if these principles were in jeopardy, and to do all in his power to turn back the destroying tide.

By no feature is the nineteenth century more clearly marked off from all the centuries that have preceded than by the wide diffusion of knowledge among the masses ; and this, which is true of European countries, is still more conspicuously the case with the vi Evolution versus Involution.

United States. Subjects which an hundred years ago were onlyhandled in the lecture-room of science have now become public property, and are discussed by every age,' sex, and condition. Books have been multiplied to an incredible extent, and rendered accessible to even the poorest among us. Public libraries are opened on every hand, and learning is scattered broadcast.

Fifty years ago the teachings of the great Frenchman, Lamarck, found but few hearers, but ignorant indeed must be the man at the present day who has.not heard of the so-called^ Darwinian theory. The sum total of Darwinism in the minds of many who pass for men of more than average intelligence is that there is no God r and that we are descended from the monkey.

The violent opposition which the doctrine of Evolution has met with in the last two decades from the best and noblest minds of the day is the result of the false interpretations to which it has been subjected.

In the hands of its principal expounders, the doctrine has arrayed itself unblushingly against the highest and most sacred truths known to man ; thus was inaugurated that conflict between religion and science, so-called, which still rages. The so-called Evolutionists, putting their own interpretations upon the truths of nature, affirmed that there was no alternative : that religious teachers must either give up their Religion or reject the positive revelations of Science. Called upon to weigh the Higher by the Loiver, could there be a doubt as to the decision of a truly high-souled man well grounded in the teachings of religion and the axioms of morality ? Evolution was unhesitatingly branded as false; they preferred the light of the noon-day sun to the flickering of a taper ! So long as the doctrine of Evolution received the one-sided interpretation placed upon it by the antagonists of revealed religion, so long did religious teachers preach a crusade against that which threatened the best interests of Humanity. But these false interpreters of scientific truth are rapidly giving place to a set of men who, equallyarmed with the weapons of science, see in the theory of Evolution nothing which is in conflict with the truths of revealed religion.

The writer of this work, in the course of his studies, became more and more convinced that the conclusions arrived at by Mr. Spencer and others were essentially false — that their system, in a word, was not one of Evolution at all, but a theory of Involution.

Preface. vii

On reading Mr. Spencer's " First Principles," I learned that he himself recognized this, and acknowledged it in so many words. (See First Principles, 2d edition, p. 286.)

This is not the place to enter upon a criticism of the obvious inconsistency of calling that a process of Evolution which leads to Involution. I at once discovered that Mr. Spencer had inverted the telescope and was viewing the Universe through the large end. I found out later that I was not alone in my understanding of Mr. Spencer's system, and that others had arrived at the same conclusions. Thus, Mr. Marti neau, in his criticism, showed the unfitness of the word Evolution to express Mr. Spencer's theories, and gave its true meaning in these words: "It means to unfold from within ; and it is taken from the history of the seed or em-- bryo of living natures. And what is the seed but a casket of prearranged futurities, with its whole contents prospective, settled to be what they are by reference to ends still in the distance?" Mr. Spencer replied to this criticism as follows : ''Now, this criticism would have been very much to the point did the word Evolution truly express the process it names. If this process, as scientifically defined, really involved that conception which the word Evolution was originally designed to convey, the implications would be those Mr. Martineau alleges. But, unfortunately for him, the word, having been in possession of the field before the process was understood, has been adopted merely because displacing it by another word seemed impracticable. And this adoption of it has been joined with a caution against misunderstandings arising from its unfitness. Here is a part of the caution : ' Evolution has other meanings, some of which are incongruous with, and some even directly opposed to, the meaning here given it. * * * The antithetical word Involution would much more truly express the nature of the process, and would, indeed, describe better the secondary characters of the process which we shall have to deal with presently.' So that the meanings which the word involves, and which Mr. Martineau regards as fatal to the hypothesis, are already repudiated as not belonging to the hypothesis."

In this confession, Mr. Spencer sounded the death-knell of his own system. Whilst I could not accept the "Evolution" of Mr. Spencer, I could readily accept the Evolution which, in ultimate viii Evolution versus Involution.

definition, means a progressive unfolding of a Supreme Divine Will.- I soon became satisfied that the doctrine of True Evolution, instead of being antagonistic to the existence of a Being distinct from the Universe, carried with it demonstrative proof of His existence — that it furnished one of the strongest weapons wherewith to combat and overthrow the false teaching which had usurped the name of Evolution. This point reached, I argued that, independent of the scientific evidence in' its favor, it became mj bounden duty to accept that which would place Theism on such an impregnable basis.

The ancient stronghold of the vulgar Atheist was based on the ground that "the world has always been essentially as it is now." This bare assertion could not be scientifically refuted until the truths of Geology and Paleontology demonstrated that this view of things was false — that there was a time when no life existed on the globe, and that there has been a gradual development of animal and vegetable life from the beginning. The theory of Evolution expounded in the following pages, which we may designate by the title True Evolution to distinguish it from the False Evolution or Involution of Spencer, teaches that the Universe is the expression of the Supreme Will, which has been unfolded by a continuous and gradual process. In other words, it teaches that the Universe has been created through the agency of secondary laws.

I need hardly say that the significance of the scientific evidence for Evolution has been augmented an hundredfold since it confirms the promptings of the moral sense, and places the eternal truth of Theism upon such unassailable ground. TSTo true Theist should cast from him this only weapon which physical science can furnish to overthrow the errors of Atheism, whether it calls itself Pantheism, Agnosticism, or Monisticism.

Let religious teachers see to it that they do not treat with contemptfthe writing inscribed on the rocks by the hand of Omnipotence, for it is a revelation as certainly as those Ten Commandments which constitute the Mosaic Law. )

In attempting to treat within so small a compass this vast subject, I have aimed only to bring forward the salient truths upon which the doctrine rests, and have endeavored to eliminate everything which did not contribute conspicuously to that end. As the book is intended for that portion of the reading public whose sci-

Preface. ix

entitle attainments are very general, I considered that it was more important to keep before the mind the great issues rather than to perplex it by diffuseness of detail.

In the arrangement of the work, I have been guided solely by the desire to present the facts in their appropriate relations, thus bringing before the mind a rounded outline of the whole. The first chapter is devoted to a brief historical sketch, in which the reader will see that the history of the doctrine is an illustration of the doctrine itself. The second chapter defines what we are to understand by Evolution, and enters upon the criticism of Mr. Spencer's System. The fallacies of Agnosticism are touched upon, and the chapter concludes with a parallel drawn between the theory of Special Creation and Creation by Evolution, showing the vast superiority of the latter in fulfilling our religious and moral needs.

In the next seven chapters, the subject of Cosmogenesis, or Evolution of the Universe, is discussed under the following headings :

Astrogencsis, or the Evolution of Worlds.

Biogenesis, or the Evolution of Life.

Phylogenesis, or the Evolution of the various Species, Genera,

&c, both animal and vegetable.

Ontogenesis, or the Evolution of Individual Forms, as the chicken

from the egg, the plant from the seed, &c.

Psychogenesis, or the Evolution of the Soul. Sociogenesis, Or the Evolution of Society.

This order has not been followed throughout, as it was deemed expedient to marshal the evidence upon which organic Evolution is based before entering upon the discussion of the origin of Life on the Globe, and the possible lines of development which it pursued in its upward growth. The subject of Ontogenesis is therefore treated next after Astrogenesis, and all the chief arguments for organic evolution are embraced in the same and succeeding chapter.

Criticisms upon Mr. Spencer's theories are scattered through the work, but are chiefly centered in the second, tenth, and eleventh chapters, and their total inadequacy to fulfill the higher needs of man is, I hope, clearly demonstrated.

The Author disclaims all intent to reflect upon Mr. Spencer personally ; his system is alone in question. If, therefore, in the warmth of conviction, emphasis is placed upon his errors, it is not x Evolution versus Involution.

to be looked upon as directed against the man, but against the teachings which he has laid before the world.

In my desire to insure a clear understanding of the subject, I have, on important points, rather courted repetition than avoided it.

The introduction of a number of new terms will, I hope, contribute to a better understanding of the subject.

The Author is deeply conscious of the many shortcomings of the work, but if its perusal will set at rest conflicting doubts as to the existence of a Supreme Beneficent Creator, the object for which it was written will have been fulfilled.

Chapter I. Historical Sketch, 1

Chapter II. General Considerations — Evolution Defined — Spencer's System shown to be a Theory of Involution — Criticism of his Theories — Agnosticism — Conceptions of the Uncaused Being — Creation by Evolution and Instantaneous Creation Compared, 24

Chapter III. Astrogenesis, or the Evolution of Worlds, 60 Chapter IV. Arguments for the Doctrine of Evolution

drawn from the Field of Living Nature, 68 Section 1. Evidence from Ontogenesis, or the Evolution of the Individual Form : the Animal from the Egg, the Plant from the Seed ; the Metamorphoses of Certain Animals — Significance of Eu-

dimentarv Organs 68

Section 2. Evidence from Natural Selection and the resulting Mutation of Species, 77

Chapter V. Arguments for Evolution drawn from Pale-

ontolog} 7 , 90

Chapter VI. Biogenesis, or the Evolution of the Principle of Life, 106

Chapter VII. Phylogenesis, or the Evolution of the various

Paces of Animals and Plants, 118

Chapter VIII. Psychogenesis, or the Evolution of the Soul 143 xii Contents.

PAGE.

Chapter IX. Sociogenesis, or the Evolution of Society, . 162 Section 1. Brief Be view of Society, ... 162 Section 2. Society as an Organism, .... 176 Section 3. Development of Language and

the Social Functions, . . . 182 Section 4. Development of Governmental

Institutions, . . 187

Section 5. Development of Eeligious and Moral Institutions — The Necessity for a Revelation. shown, . 210 Section 6. Resume* of the .Four Stages of

Social Development, .... 227 Chapter X. Design in the Universe — Personality of the

Deity, 230

Chapter XI. Good and Evil, 1. 246

Chapter XII. Atheism, 253

Chapter I.

Historical Sketch.

" History repeats itself."

The ideas underlying the theory of evolution are older than the mythology of the ancient Greeks. The human mind, even at that early period, groping in the darkness after the mystery of existence, embodied in the fable of the Elder Cupid the genesis of the Universe. He was the oldest of all the gods, and without a progenitor, except only that he came from the Egg of Nox, (night,) and from him all things sprang. I need hardly say that this Cupid is not to be confounded with that Younger Cupid, the mischievous son of Venus, and youngest of all the gods of Olympus. No doubt the former suggested the latter, and the attributes of both were the same, viz: Love, Archery, Nudity, Blindness, and Perpetual Youth.

In the personality of the Elder Cupid, the ancients symbolized the ultimate atom of matter. His birth from the Egg of Night finely expresses the origin of the atoms on the bosom of the dark primeval void. The attribute of Love shadows forth the law of the attraction of Gravitation, for the bond which draws atom to atom may be likened to the sentiment of Love ; he was gifted with Archery, for the attraction of gravity may be said to radiate from the atoms themselves — shot forth as it were — and works through great distances as well as small; he was represented Nude, for the atom is the ultimate form of matter, without parts, and may therefore be said to be without dress or covering;* he was blind,

* The atom, considered simply as matter, is destitute of parts, but considered as the agent, by means of which the material universe has been brought into existence, it becomes the most complex of all created things, for it carries with it the innumerable laws which the Creator impressed upon it in the beginning. The unfolding of these laws, as we shall see in the next chapter, constitutes true evolution. The sixty-seven elements known to the chemist are the various combinations which the atoms assume. 1 for the atoms attract one another without discrimination ; * he was gifted with perpetual youth, for the atom knows no change, f but is the same now as it was in the beginning of things.:}: In this old fable, whose origin is traced into the dim obscurity of a n^thological age, we see epitomized the modern theory of evolution. After a long sleep of centuries, buried beneath the dust and ashes of system on system of philosophy, it again emerges to the light of day. The atomic doctrine is first spoken 6f in connection with the name of Leucippus. This philosopher belonged to the Eleatic § school, which was established by Xenophanes about 500 B. C. Leucippus was a pupil of Zeno of Elea, who was a disciple of Parmenides, who, in his turn, was a disciple of Xenophanes. This school was distinguished for its cultivation of the physical sciences. Leucippus surpassed all his predecessors, and first promulgated the atomic theory of the Universe advocated later on by Epicurus and Lucretius, and revived in modern times by Bruno, Kant, and Laplace. Democritus followed in the footsteps of his master, Leucippus, and taught that the whole Universe consists of atoms, which once existed equally diffused throughout space. These atoms were in perpetual motion and gradually coalesced into masses through the influence of attractive energy, and in course of time the whole Universe was evolved. But, whilst history points to Leucippus and his disciple, Democritus, as the founders of the atomic doctrine, there is every reason to believe that the theory had been promulgated long prior to their time, and the existence of the fable referred to in the beginning of this chapter seems to strengthen this conjecture. It is highly probable that the idea of atoms originated in the East, that great store-house of ancient' learning. It was a universal custom among the early Greek philosophers, with those,

* The law of universal attraction, discovered by Newton, or rather formulated by him, postulates that every atom in the universe attracts every other atom.

fThe great diversity of form which matter has assumed can only be explained by the workings of the laws with which it has been united. The phase or form which matter takes thus becomes the material manifestation of pre-existing ideas.

| See Bacon's interpretation of this fable in his "Wisdom of the Ancients."

§ Xenophanes, the founder of the Eleatic school, was a disciple of Pythagoras, who established a school at Crotoua, in Italy.

at least, with whom we are acquainted, to spend some years of study and travel, and they often penetrated as far as India in quest of knowledge. It was thence that Pythagoras derived his doctrine of metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls, and it is possible that he obtained his knowledge of the true nature of the solar system from the same source, either directly or indirectly.* In the early civilizations, fable or allegory was the dress in which the doctrines of the wise were concealed from the common herd of mortals. The masses of the people were never initiated into the deep mysteries of nature, hidden under these allegories. Nor would it have been wise to have attempted such instruction, for the general intelligence was too low to receive such high truths, and their promulgation could have resulted only in mystification to the pupil and ruin to the teacher.

Thus, while the people at large were steeped in ignorance and practiced superstitious observances to more than a hundred gods, the philosophic minds of the favored few arose to heights of refined abstraction, which the human intellect has never since surpassed. Prior to the time of Leucippus, nearly all the old Greek philosophers recognized the existence of a supreme spiritual essence, (knowledge of which they had derived from the East,) which pervaded all things and to which all things were due. With many of them this idea was refined into a pure monotheism, or belief in a supreme intellectual personality, the Creator of all things.

The advent of Leucippus marked an era in philosophy, for he seemed to find in the ultimate atoms of matter, and the forces inherent in them, an all-sufficing cause of the origin of things, and he seems to have entirely ignored the existence of a spiritual element in the Universe. This philosophy has been revived from time to time since his day, and in the modern monistic philosophy we find exactly the same ideas of the ultimate nature of things embodied.

The atheistical doctrines of Leucippus and Democritus found able antagonists in the three greatest of all the Greeks, Socrates,

* Pythagoras, the most illustrious physician and philosopher of his day, taught that the sun waj in the center of the solar system and that the planets revolved around it. His master, Thales, was also acquainted with the true nature of the solar system. It is, therefore, likely that he obtained his knowledge from Thales, who possibly derived his from the East, for he was a great traveler.

Plato, and Aristotle. In the refined idealistic minds of Socrates and Plato, the spiritual reigned as the great tangible reality upon which all things rested for support ; with them matter was of secondary importance, and bears the same relation to spirit that the shadow does to real substance. Aristotle, like his great preceptor, Plato, was thoroughly imbued with the spiritual reality underlying all things, but he also recognized the importance of studying the baser substance, and so successful was he in his physical inquiries that he not only surpassed all his predecessors, but the limits which he marked are still, in many directions, the bounding lines of our knowledge. His acquaintance with biology was so extensive and minute that it enabled him to rise to some of the grandest generalizations of comparative anatomy, and to make discoveries which have only been re-discovered in comparatively recent times.

It is almost certain that he thoroughly understood the circulation of the blood, afterwards re-discovered by Servetus and Harvey. He knew that the young of certain species of shark are partially developed in the mother's body by a kind of placental attachment This fact was only re-discovered as late as 1839, by Johannes Muller, of Berlin. He was acquainted with the method of development of the cuttle-fish, and the peculiar manner of propagation among bees. The absurdities and inconsistencies which are found in his writings must be attributed to corruptions.

Aristotle's advantages for the study of biology were peculiarly great, for he was the preceptor of Alexander, and the Conqueror of the East spared no pains to supply his teacher with the rarest specimens of animal and vegetable life. A corps of collectors always accompanied him, and the specimens were finally handed over to Aristotle for his examination. Whilst Alexander did all in his power to assist his master by furnishing him the means of making his discoveries, he was also anxious *to monopolize the discoveries that his master made, and did all he could to discourage and prevent their publication. This ambitious king wished to be without a rival in learning as well as in war.*

* " Very few of the writings of Aristotle were published during his lifetime. Among these few were probably his Poetics and his Art of Rhetoric. The rest of his works he bequeathed to Theophrastus, who left them to Neleus , Scepsius; the latter sold a part of them to Ptolemy Philadelphos, and these perished in the burning of the Alexandrian library. The rest were buried,

After the subjugation of the Persian Empire, Alexander wrote to Aristotle as follows : "Alexander wishing prosperity to Aristotle. You have not done right in publishing your acroamatic works; for in what shall we surpass others, if the doctrines in which we were instructed become common to all men ? I, indeed, would rather excel others in the knowledge of the most excellent things than in power." To this Aristotle returned the followinganswer : "Aristotle to King Alexander, wishing prosperity. You wrote to me concerning my acroamatic works,* thinking that they ought not to have been divulged. Know, therefore, that they are published, and not published, for they can be understood by my auditors alone. Farewell. "f From this it is apparent that much of the obscurity in the writings of Aristotle was studied by him.

Aristotle's great genius and knowledge led him to speculate upon the relations which the phenomena of nature bear to one another, and taught him to recognize the power of nature in modifying the animal frame, thus enabling him to anticipate the modern theories of development. After discussing the whys and wherefores of certain natural phenomena, he makes the same inquiry with regard to animals. " What prevents that the parts in nature (of an animal) may thus subsist? For example, that the teeth should originate from necessity, those in front sharp, and fitted for dividing, but the grinders broad and adapted for crushing the food. It may be argued that they were not made for this purpose, but that it so chanced ; and similarly with other parts of the body, which apparently exist for some definite purpose. Where, therefore, all things occurred as if they were intended for some special end,

as is said, for the sake of preservation, in some subterraneous vault, where they lay forgotten for one hundred and thirty years, and at their recovery were found in a very defective state from decay. In that state they fell into the hands of Apellicon of Teos, who supplied the deficiencies from his own invention. They came, finally, into the possession of Tyrannion, the grammarian, who used the same freedom to a greater degree. Hence we must make much allowance for the imperfection, obscurity, and, perhaps, contradiction, which may be found in the writings of Aristotle as they now appear." — Tytler's Universal History.

*The "Physics" and "Metaphysics" are here referred to.

t Quoted by Taylor.

these were preserved, being properly constituted by an internal tendency ; but things that were not thus constituted were lost, and are still lost."*

Aristotle here recognizes the mutability of animal forms, through the agency of an internal tendency and the elective power of nature confirming and assisting this tendency. A little further on he ably combats the chance philosophy of Leucippus and Democritus, by showing that .Design is as clearly exhibited by nature in her workings as it is in man's. And he bases his argument on unassailable ground by pointing out that if Democritus considers man's mind as a part of nature, (which he must necessarily do, for he postulates that the atoms produced all things,) it is obvious that, to be consistent, he must ascribe Design to nature as much in one form as in another, and that, consequently, if he attributes Design to mans tvorks, he must also allow it to the rest of nature. He says: "There is, therefore, an existence for some special end in things which are produced by nature. Again, in things where there is a definite end to be attained, the cause of these things is originated for the sake of this end. Accordingly, therefore, as it is brought about, so is it intended by nature to be brought about ; and according to the natural tendency of any tiling so will it be produced, unless there is some impediment.^ Now, that which is produced is produced for some special end, and, hence, it was intended by nature to be produced for the sake of this end. For example, if a house ranked among the things which are naturally produced, it would be built by nature in the same way as it is now by art. Also, if things which are now produced by nature only were also produced by art, they would be produced in a similar manner, and according to a natural tendency. The one, therefore, would exist for the sake of the other (the natural tendency would exist for the object to be attained) ; and, indeed, art partly imitates natural processes in perfecting the things which nature is incapable of bringing to perfection. If, therefore, artificial things are produced for the sake of something, it is evident that this is

* Physical Auscultations, Book II, chapter viii.

t Here is a recognition of the power of External nature to influence Internal nature, (i. e., the inherent tendency of the individual,) and to elect those variations which are most suitable for the individual to adapt itself to surrounding conditions.

also the case with things which nature has produced. *

Hence, if the swallow forms her nest, and the spider her web, for a special object, and if plants bring forth leaves for the sake of the fruit, and the roots tend downward, and not upward, for the sake of nourishment, it is evident that a cause of this kind (i. e., a cause of special Design) belongs to those things which are produced by nature."*

£sone of the writings of Deinocritus, nor of his master, Leueippus, have descended to our own times,'butwe learn through Aristotle and other ancient writers, that their philosophy was essentially as follows : They asserted that, in the beginning of things, the Universe consisted of an infinite number of self-existent atoms in a perpetual state of motion. These atoms were not only infinite in number, but they were also of innumerable shapes. + They reasoned that, if the atoms were all exactly alike in figure, the resulting combinations would also be similar, hence there could be no variety in the forms of matter. They could, therefore, only reconcile their theory to the existing order of things by giving the atoms different shapes, and assigning a different order and position to each in forming the various combinations which make up the Universe. Figure, Order, and Position of the atoms formed the tripod upon which they rested their theory of the Universe. As they recognized no intelligent power independent of and superior to matter, they were compelled to ascribe the order and position in which the atoms fell to the attraction which atoms of the same shape had for one another. This innate tendency on the part of the atoms to attract those of like shape was materially assisted by the chance combinations which would result from the atoms moving among one another throughout an infinite time. To this fortuitous coming together, and the mutual attraction of similars, they ascribe the origin of all things. Aristotle combats this theory, that the atoms are the first cause of things, by proving that the atoms cannot be infinite in number, for if they were, universal space would be so filled with them that all motion would be impossible, and the ivhole