The Philosophy of Creation

Front matter

GEORGE HENRY DOLE

THE SYSTEM OF PHILOSOPHY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THECHRISTIAN AND OF THE WORD

BY GEORGE HENRY DOLE Author of Divine Selection; or, The Survival of the Useful, &c.

Chapter 1

CHAPTER I.

THEORIES OF CREATION.

The theories of creation may be classified under two divisions. In the first division are those holding that nature in herself is sufficient to create and to evolve by the unaided operations of her inherent forces. Those who so believe are distinguished as Materialists. In the second division are the theories maintaining that nature unaided is incompetent to create or to evolve, and which therefore advocate the existence of a supernatural first cause. Their adherents are properly called Supernaturalists. The term is sufficiently broad to comprehend all who have any idea of God, even when He is conceived of as a universally diffused substance higher than nature.

The popular theory of the Materialist is that of Evolution. The theory of Evolution generally understood when the word is used without modification as the name of a system of thought, is the doctrine of the descent of all species and genera of plants and animals from a few primary forms, or from one, through the inherent forces of nature, or from the workings of what are called laws of Natural Selection or of the Survival of the Fittest.

Under the second division, that of the Supernaturalist, are embraced many shades of opinion, which I have classified in four subdivisions. First: there are those who deny that nature unaided is able to create or to evolve, yet otherwise they concede the reasonings and claims of Evolution. These accept Evolution generally, but only as God's method of creating; and they hold that His intelligence and directing power are ever present as the first cause.

Second: there are the Creationists, who believe in the individual creation of all things by the fiat of the Almighty, substantially as they are now.

Third: there are those who do not believe in a personal God, yet advocate the existence of a universal intelligence. The forms of thought under this head are too mixed and indefinite to admit of classification. Some hold that the universal intelligence is an inner realm of nature. This would bring them under the first general division, that of Materialists. Others hold that the universal intelligence is a kind of pervading spirit superior to nature; and others that it is not a substance natural or spiritual. What then it is, they must answer.

The philosophy here to be set forth, creation by Correspondence, adds a fourth distinct subdivision. The doctrine of creation by Correspondence, while admitting all of the actual facts upon which Evolution is based, thoroughly repudiates its philosophy root and branch, and every phase and accommodation of it. Yet it happily explains the apparent truth of Evolution. The facts used to confirm the two theories may often be the same, the process of reasoning may be similar, their courses may often seem parallel; still, because creation by Correspondence is based upon the acknowledgment of God through Divine revelation, the two theories are in essence exact opposites.

The theory of creation by Correspondence is equally separated from the Creationist's theory, because it substitutes for arbitrary fiat the natural operation of law, and permits no conclusions that are not confirmed by reason.

The theory of creation by the fiat of the Almighty has failed to satisfy inquiring minds of deeper discernment. Law, order, and development are so related and conjoined that the mind will not bring its searchings to an end, and rest its reasonings in the belief that God, without the observance of laws as revealed in nature, by word of mouth called out of nothing the varied forms in the universe into existence.

Though the Creationist says that God did not create out of nothing, but rather out of unorganized matter, yet whence came that unorganized matter and what the laws are by which that creation took place remain unexplained.

The Creationist having failed to throw a satisfactory light upon this phase of the question, or having substituted arbitrary fiat for law, it is not surprising to see this theory being abandoned so generally in an age of freedom of thought and thirst for knowledge.

The theory of Evolution qualified by the supposition of the preëxistence of a primal germ, being practicably inconceivable and the legitimate conclusions impossible, imposed greater difficulties than Evolution pure and simple, without offering any satisfactory explanation. Consequently it is not without some visible reason that to-day we see Evolution in its unqualified form, which holds that all species are derived from a common source through modification in descent, displacing all accommodations of the theory.

The doctrine that God from Himself as a progenitor evolved all forms of life from a primal form, using successively the next lower form as a matrix from which the next higher was brought forth, is not incompatible with Christianity, because there is the acknowledgment of God as Creator and Redeemer, further differences being mostly in details of method. Yet as any error must lead to some disastrous effect, the theory of Evolution however modified, if wrong, must work injury.

The perplexities into which evolutionary reasonings lead may account, in a degree, for the absence of clear and consistent views on the subject of creation as well as for the darkness that conceals the realm of interior causes. Therefore, before proceeding to consider the theory of creation to be advanced, it may be well to review some of the inadequacies of the theory of Evolution.

Chapter 2

CHAPTER II.

EVOLUTION.

The Theory Of Evolution Has Its Origin In Appearances Of Fact And Truth Rather Than In Realities.

The theory held in common by Evolutionists is that from the lower organizations came the higher, and from the simple forms of life came the more complex, by modification in descent. The principles of Evolution even thus generally stated are without sufficient support to be seriously entertained. The theory is purely speculative, being based upon close resemblances in the ascending scale of forms. There is a graded scale of created forms resulting in close similarity on dividing lines. This, together with the suggestions offered by the universality of form or structure, is mistaken for evidence that the higher are descended from the lower through modifications wrought by the operation of natural laws, or by creative energy in natural laws. Not only is it true that neither nature nor science furnishes a proof of this, but it is a fact that every relevant law and illustration in nature contradict its possibility. The similarity in the ascending scale is incidental and unavoidable. Though one common plan runs through animal forms, and though the human form is shown to be like the form of the Crustacea highly developed, it does not prove that man is descended from such prior forms. This general resemblance is what should be expected, if creation is the work of one God, whose image in some degree must be wrought into every creature. Similarity of structure shows a common origin in the one Creator rather than derivation from the Monera through natural laws, which never vary.

That the lower forms came first and the higher successively and man last, is taken as confirmatory evidence that higher forms came from a primal form through modification of functions. It is important to observe that the order in which things were created came out of the method of creating that links all in mutual use, but not that the lower might beget the higher.

As the earth passed through its elementary stages, wherein it could sustain only the lowest forms of life, to its more nearly finished condition suited to man and to human uses, forms came forth adapted to the state of the earth's progress, and suited to the promotion of use. Similarity of organic structure and an ascending scale of created forms accord with the vast and underlying laws of creation, but in no way do they argue that a specific form is used as a progenitor of the next higher.

Natural Law Nullifies The Principles Of Evolution.

Not only are hybrids nonprolific, but they are inferior to the progenitor. Nature herself regards Evolution as a monstrosity, and she quickly concentrates her forces to consummate its possibility by sterility in the hybrid. If the larva produces the butterfly, the butterfly returns in genesis to the larva. It travels its circle, but never passes out of it. Everywhere nature sets bounds, though elastic yet finally impassable, to preserve her order. This is in fulfilment of a law universally illustrated and without exception, the law of "the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind."

It was thought that the microscope would reveal the process of evolution still going on among the minute inhabitants of the dust and of the stagnant drop; but there likewise nature is true to herself. If the agamogenetic produce the gamogenetic, in the order of nature agamogenesis succeeds. A moneron produces a moneron; a protozoön, a protozoön, but nothing else. The form that lives at every joint upon division, when severed only reproduces its kind, as in the slipping of plants. The graded ascent in created forms accompanying the gradual preparation of the earth, presents many fallacious appearances seeming to confirm Evolution, but a single instance of a lower form producing a higher is entirely wanting.

It is upon such fallacious evidence that Evolution entirely rests. The theory fails not only in its ability to account for the distinction between protoplasm and the moneron, which are supposed to be the same except that the latter is imbued with life, and between the highest animal form and man, but there are as many missing links as there are genera. Suffice it to say here that though many truths, or rather facts, are woven into the theory, the theory itself is vitally defective, the facts, when rightly construed, proving the reverse of Evolution.

It is true that discoveries have been made whereby the evidence essential to establish the principle of Evolution was supposed to have been offered, and they have had their day, like the "house-building ape"; but upon investigation by those less committed to a theory, the mistakes appear, and the evidence fails.

Natural Selection And Survival Of The Fittest Controvert The Basic Princi- ples Of Evolution.

Of recent years, when Evolution has felt a crying need amidst dearth of facts, some distinguished scientist has reported a startling discovery promising the missing link; and others have been quick to herald the claim that now Evolution has found the factor which will restore the lost cause. We may expect that the resources of Materialists will be exhaustless in this respect. But it must ever be the case that the facts will, as in the past, be proved fallacious when subjected to competent and unprejudiced examination, and that the deductions will fail.

Since the theory of Evolution defaults so fundamentally, it is not necessary to consider at much length the laws of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest that are used to help it out. These laws nullify themselves when applied to the derivation of one species from another, and render it impossible, if such laws were in existence, for a higher form ever to have survived. Sufficient evidence of this exists alone in one general principle asserted by Evolutionists themselves; namely, that the nearer to unorganized matter a thing is, the more suited it is to uninterrupted existence. Unorganized matter requires the fewest conditions for its existence, and in its simplest form it is absolutely indestructible; consequently nothing is so fitted to survive as unorganized matter. If Survival of the Fittest were a law of nature causing her to bring forth that most fitted to survive in the struggle for existence, it would never have allowed the goats to bring forth sheep or cattle, nor would rock have produced grass or any organized form; for goats are better fitted to survive than sheep or cattle, and rock is less perishable than grass. Again, if Survival of the Fittest were applicable to the derivation of a higher genus from a lower, the natural universe itself never could have become organized; for Evolutionists hold that eventually its energies will be spent, and that it will return to the original nebula. From this it appears that nebula is better fitted to survive than an organized universe, and that the law of Survival of the Fittest would have perpetually prevented the formation even of an earth. Certainly this is a legitimate conclusion if Survival of the Fittest were a law applicable to the bringing forth of higher genera from the lower.

It is safe to bear ever in mind that the laws of nature are not only as eternal as matter, but that they can have no exception, and that if one exception to a stated principle be found, it is conclusive that there can be no such principle.

In What Respect Survival Of The Fittest And Natural Selection As The Ex- pression Of a Law Are True.

Evolution, Natural Selection, and Survival of the Fittest have been more fully discussed in the prologue of this work. It has there been demonstrated that Natural Selection is Divine Selection, and that Survival of the Fittest is the Survival of the Useful. Since the prologue is a separate publication, it may be serviceable to give here a brief statement of some conclusions there reached.

Nothing is clearer than that among the multitude of seeds and varieties of plants striving for root and room only a few relatively can exist. Among animals preying upon one another, and contending for existence in times and places of scarcity and want and in adverse climate and condition, there is a "struggle for existence." And nothing is more certain than that as a rule the hardy and strong, which, other things being equal, are the best fitted for that struggle, survive the longest. But throughout the world's struggle, there has been an end in view, the service of man. That this end is the motive in the creating cause and that it has ruled are proved by its realization in present results. This fact renders the phrase, Natural Selection, inadequate. A full and truthful statement of the law requires the greater and nobler term, Divine Selection. And since use in the final kingdom of man and of God rules throughout, the term Survival of the Fittest is likewise misleading and insufficient. The law is correctly expressed as the Survival of the Useful.

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest express one phase of laws ever operative. But we must confine the laws to the field where they are applicable, and interpret them in the light of their higher and final purpose. Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest are true only when seen from the standpoint of the interior cause that works through these laws, by which cause they must be interpreted and modified. Both are statements of merely external appearances within which is a Divine purpose and cause. Through the "struggle for existence," human faculties and energies are brought into competition and are thereby developed. This development brings man more fully into Divine order, for he who is best fitted to survive is the most in Divine order.

Survival of the Fittest, when rightly inter- preted, is seen to be a law of use and a statement of the law of Divine economy as well as of Divine mercy. It needs no argument to see that it gradually removes the dregs and scum of society. It alike consummates the families of the abandoned poor and the indulgent rich. The sickly, the weak, the indolent, the licentious, the wicked; the indulger in anger, revenge, anxiety, jealousy, and lust; the violator of any law of the flesh or of the spirit, are the first to fall. Thereby they are gradually eliminated. The degenerated, weak, and sickly can not propagate their kind as do the strong and healthy. Survival of the Fittest as applied to society simply says that those who most fulfil the law of human welfare, the law will most fully save and perpetuate. From this standpoint Survival of the Fittest is found to be a law of nature, of the spirit, of use, and of God.

The struggle for existence among the strong, active, and wise is a source of inspiration and delight through victory over difficulty. It is a Divine provision for human growth in vigor and happiness. With those who rightly interpret and fulfil the law, anxiety, fear, selfishness, and sin are gradually left behind in seeking "first the kingdom of God and His righteousness" whereby "all" other "things shall be added." It is likewise a merciful provision working to mitigate the consequences of violated law accompanying the free will of man, for all human suffering is the effect of the infraction of law at some time. Survival of the Fittest also provides the minimum of pain to the entire animal kingdom. But it is strenuously denied that Survival of the Fittest or Natural Selection would ever evolve a deer and a wolf, or an ape and a man, from a common ancestor; or that without revelation from God out of heaven civilization would ever supplant barbarism; or unselfishness, selfishness; or love, hatred; or the worship of God, the worship of idols or of ancestors. Under no condition and by no possible power can the good and the true in man be developed out of the evil or false. The fatal error that has driven the ship of Evolution upon the rocks is that these plainly marked buoys along the course have been misplaced by the mirage of naturalism, or overlooked in the fogs of sodden materialism.

Because natural laws select the suitable and eliminate the unsuitable, provide for the least suffering, preserve those in whom life is the greatest delight, and conserve the highest use in all things, they are moral laws. The moral motive in the cosmic process, which is so much discussed and sought, is thus everywhere present and exemplified in all general results.

The law of use has not entirely escaped the Materialist. For against the theory that duration of life is determined by external conditions, Weismann has argued that the "needs of the species" is the determining factor. The "needs of the species" is nothing other than the law of use, which, if it rules in one case, must be capable of so doing in all.

Natural Selection, so called in distinction from selection through human agency whereby superior varieties of plants and of animals are developed, and Survival of the Fittest must not be regarded as the whole of the law or its highest expression. Survival of the Useful is a higher law than Survival of the Fittest, and guides it. Divine Selection is superior to Natural Selection, and is within it as the governing cause. Rightly interpreted. Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest are but the outward and visible expression of the workings of Divine Selection and of the all-governing law of the Survival of the Useful.

One Genus Cannot Be Derived From A Different Genus.

The inconsistencies and assumptions that the theory of Evolution imposes have caused doubts as to its validity even in the minds of its most learned advocates; for it is seen that if there ever were laws that evolved one genus from another, they have now ceased to act. Notwithstanding the varied condition of the earth's surface and the myriads of forms now in existence, there is not so much as one instance where a lower form brings forth a higher. Certainly there ought to be some remnant of a law once so omnipresent and so persistent through thousands of years. Though a change of surroundings and conditions may vary a species in a limited degree, of any class it may be said that the slightest tendency to produce other than its own kind is totally without evidence. If man sprang from the anthropoid apes, why do these not still give origin to human beings? Certainly they should much more readily develop human beings when surrounded by civilization to lift them up than when in primeval forests there was nothing except that upon which they could look down. But notwithstanding the advantages of surrounding art, science, and culture, even when assisted by the highest keeping and training of human ingenuity, the ape produces only its kind, and that without the slightest ascent in the grade of its being.

If the higher plants came from the lower by natural laws, what has become of those laws? Flora of Egypt some four thousand years old, covered by the dry sands, has been brought to our view. It differs not as to a grain of pollen from the flora of Egypt to-day. Evolution argues a perpetual change, but we can go back four thousand years and show that there has not been the slightest variation in the species of certain plants. It is true, indeed, that there have been changes in the flora of countries; yet the evidence is not that the changes are the effects of Evolution, but quite to the contrary. Such changes have been the results of radical changes of the earth's condition, whereupon a new kind supplanted the former. The fact that the law of Evolution does not now exist, and has not for several thousand years, makes it conclusive that it never did. An obsolete natural law is irreconcilable with anything that we know or can conceive.

Since no instance of one genus being derived from another is known, and the law of Evolution is not now operative, the acceptance of that law requires a belief in the existence of a supposed, obsolete natural law, in supposed facts to which the law is applied, and in a purely theoretical application of the supposed law to the supposed facts. It would seem as easy to believe in the old doctrine of creation out of nothing by the fiat of the Omnipotent as to accept a theory based upon hypothetical laws, corroborated by hypothetical facts, and supported by a hypothetical application of the hypothetical law to the hypothetical facts.

Variety In Species Is Possible Because Of The Component Elements That Enter Into The Unit.

In this connection it may be asked, Are not the laws by which so many varieties of pigeons are obtained from common parents, and by which so many varieties of fruits are cultivated out of a wild type, and by which barbarous people become civilized, laws of Evolution? Are not such things, as has been so elaborately argued, confirmatory of the theory of Evolution? Not at all. They are instances of the laws of development, which, were there such a thing as Evolution, would be entirely distinct from it. The laws of development are constant, natural, comprehensible, and explicable. The laws of development now exist, but the laws of Evolution are nonexistent, and hence impossible in the very nature of things, as will presently be shown.

The development of varieties of species is possible because a combination of elements enters in to make the character of the common or undeveloped type. This is exemplified by the various phases of character that constitute a human being. When people are isolated and brought under sufficiently new influences, a particular trait of their character is called into action, and a new type will result from some special trait becoming dominant. So a variety of species may be produced by selecting a constituent essential of the species and predominantly developing it. It is also possible, and to some it seems highly probable, that the ability to vary a species is in some cases greatly increased by the original creation of several or many varieties, which being proximate in kind, became mixed and blended in a common type. That common type, being composed of the elements that united in its formation, must still preserve all the primary tendencies in a kind of equilibrium that produced and preserves the common type. A slight disturbance of that balance by the reappearance of a component tendency with unusual strength, would cause some variation in color or form. Favoring this variation would eventually result in the reproduction of a component variety in its primeval appearance with more or less accuracy. If it be true that the ability to develop variety of species is partially due to the early blending of primary types, it is evident that there can be produced not only the primary types, but also as many varieties as there are possible combinations in crossing.

To account for the striking development of varieties of pigeons from the common type, it is only necessary to assume that in the first place not only one variety was formed, but that several were created, which eventually blended into one kind. This seems possible as we need only to remove artificial crossing by the fancier when the developed varieties will revert to a common type. Yet it is not necessary to assume this occurrence of the mixing of varieties, however probable, for the pigeon is composed of many essentials or traits blended in a common unit. In the pigeon, as in many other animals, the traits are marked and sensitive to selected breeding. That tendencies may be selected and developed to the ascendency is a sufficient explanation of the developed variety of any given species. From the wild grape or strawberry, developed and varied fruit is obtained. Withdraw cultivation, and they quickly revert to the wild varieties. The development is due to increased nutriment, cultivation, superior conditions for growth, and the favoring of selected tendencies. It is not due to any extraneous law, but is natural to the form itself. The cause of the possible development of varieties from common parentage now resides in the varied tenden- cies or potencies that enter into the ancestral unit. Different varieties are produced from a common stock upon the same principle that a mathematician, a musician, and a chemist may have a common father. The fruit of the strawberry is the product or resultant of multiple forces operating in and through the physical organization of the plant. Disturb the equilibrium of the producing forces by cultivation, soil, climate, or external conditions, and a strawberry of a different variety may ensue, which the artificer can separate, fix, and perpetuate. Some plants are necessarily more sensitive to varying conditions, permitting vast differences in the seeds themselves, and hence in the immediate reproduction, as in apples and peaches. Effects of long cultivation also enter into the causes why these fail to produce their exact variety. Tendencies that are not in the fruit can not be put there, nor can they be brought out, consequently there is no principle of Evolution discoverable or applicable in development; nor, furthermore, is any necessary. An individual plant or animal being composed of a collection of potencies that together form a unit, just as many faculties form a human character, the varieties that can be developed through the selection of its component tendencies or constituent potencies and their crossings are quite unlimited; yet varieties have their limitation at the beginning of a new genus, for a raspberry can never be developed from a strawberry, nor a grape from a blueberry.

Development Precludes The Possibility Of Evolution.

Development and Evolution are diametrically opposed. The existence of the law of development forbids the possibility of a contemporaneous law of Evolution. Experiment in any field, and the results will be conclusive. Select a variance in pheasants. Cultivation of that variance, howsoever far it may be carried, results in only a pheasant. If the variance be an unfavorable one, the results will be a less perfect pheasant. It will have the same appetites, the same habits, with a slight variation perchance, and the same nature. It will not be a baldheaded eagle nor a bat. If the variance be a favorable one, in the end there will result a pheasant; but it will be no nearer a swan or a bird of paradise. It will be only a more perfect pheasant. Herein is the positive disprovement of the possibility of the existence of the laws of Evolution, for the favoring of a variance that may seem to point to a higher class does not change the species, but develops it. It does not form a new species, but intensifies the old. The cultivation of the apple does not convert it into a pear. The development of the pear will not change it into a peach. In the development of the dog there is no approach to the horse, to the ape, or to man. By the favoring of the superior tendencies in the apple, pear, peach, dog, or in any fruit or animal, they become simply more perfect forms of their respective species. The development of the ape can result only in a more perfect ape, making wider the distinction between that oft exalted quadruped, but vilest of beasts, and man.

Development therefore is a law of nature, and operates in the direction precisely opposite to Evolution; for development intensifies the species, while Evolution would change it. Development preserves the perfection of species, while Evolution would destroy it.

The civilization of man is not Evolution. It is simply the development of faculties which he already has, and the cultivation of tastes. The civilization of man does not turn him into a new species; it only makes him a more perfect man. In speaking with scientific accuracy there must always be this vast difference between development and Evolution, and the terms can not be technically used as synonymous.

The Cause Of The Resemblance Between The Higher Animals And Man Is Due To The Law Of Correspondence.

It is natural and inevitable that the ascending scale of animal forms should be crowned by those in many respects resembling that of man. The lower nature of man is animal, hence necessarily his outward form must resemble that of the higher animals. Further, there is a certain form that corresponds to or is the natural outbirth of the creative forces received by the higher degrees in the spiritual world. So, the nearer objects come to the reception of the forces of the higher degrees, the more will they approach that form and resemble each other. Since the human form is that which is in correspondence with the highest creative forces in the higher degrees, the highest or later animal forms must approach and resemble it. Yet as there is no animal that receives life in the human degree, there is none exactly of the human form in any part. It is a well-known fact that there is no single bone of any animal that can not be distinguished from the analogous bone in the human structure.