It is admitted that the position is not confirmed by geological evidence, inasmuch as the many intermedi- ate liidis which must necessarily have existed between the various species are not found in the geological for- mations. There is no such finely graduated organic chain revealed by geology; for the groups of animals, as they existed, are as distinct and well defined in those ancient records as they are at the present day. To meet this admitted difficulty, Darwin is driven to allege " the extreme imperfection of the geological record," arising, as he states, "from an extremely incomplete examina- tion of existing strata, and the small proportion which those existing strata bear to those others which have been deposited, and removed or swept away by denu- dation." These are mere gratuitous assumptions, put forth without foundation, to prop up a failing theory. No well-informed geologist will be found to admit that imperfections could exist in the geological record to an extent sufficient to account for the absence of so many forms of life as must, if Darwin's theory be true, have been in existence at some period of the world's historj-. Moreover, his suggestion that every past and present or- ganism has descended from three or four original forms requires us to suppose that life must have existed in the planet long before the deposition of the Cambrian and Silurian rocks, in which the first groups of life appear, and that the rocks in which these remains were depos- ited have been either removed or transformed. This hypothesis not only receives no countenance from the records of geology, but is contradicted by all the evi- dence which they supply. So many startling conces- sions required to uphold this theory of the production of species by natural selection, without the direct inter- vention of the creative power of the Almighty, are suf- ficient to justify its rejection, even if the more direct arguments to which we have referred were wanting. — Kitto. See Chkation.
So long as this, which has now come to be generally known as "the evolution theory" of creation, was ad- vocated only by men either hostile or indifferent to revelation, the theological world could well affoni to leave it to purely scientific treatises for a solution or refutation. But of late we regret to see it has cre]it insidiously into favor with some professedh' religious writers, who do not seem to see anything in it incon- sistent with the Christian idea of creation. For ex- ample, an eminent scientist, in the Melhodi.it Quarterly Reriew for April, 1877, art. v, commits himself substan- tially to it, and even defends it, although with the (pi.'difying remark that it camiot be said to have been "demonstrated." His arguments in its favor are drawn from three classes of facts : first, geology discloses a .series of gradually variant fyjies, with many gaps, in- deed, l)etween, yet on the whole corresjionding to such a system of evolution from lower to higher forms; sec- ondly, links are constantly discovered between genera formerly supposed to be widely separated, showing a transition from one to the other; thirdly, the embryo of every animal actually passes successively through the various stages iudit'ated by the evolution theory. All this, that writer thinks, renders it "now far safer to accept the hypothesis than to reject it." It may seem f)resumptuous for theologians, who are usually spoken of contemptuously by the professional scientist, to judge
SPECIES
917
SPECTRE
in this matter; but as the writer referred to further thinks that " if it is safer for tlic scientist, it is safer for the Christian," we feel authorized to question both the premise and the concUisiou of tliat demand. For, in the tirst place, scientists tliemselves liave not fully ac- cepted the theor^v. Even the learned writer quoted only claims for it the authority of a " hypothesis." It seems to us that it will be ample time for "scientists" to make such demands when they shall have proved their theories, and that they have no right to urge their crude and unsettled hypotheses upon other people. In the second place, thej' should remember that this is not purel}' a scientific question; it is rather a historical, if not a theological one, which science has volunteered to determine in its own fasliion. The Christian or the believer in an inspired account of creation has no diffi- culty in explaining to his own satisfaction the origin of species: he attributes it to the direct creative act of God, continued in the lineal propagation from the ini- tial pair or pairs of each kind. If the scientist finds any fault with this, let him first resolve his doubts, and make out a system harmoniously, fully, and definitely determined according to the boasted accuracy and cer- tainty of his own method, before he challenges the ad- herence of others. In the third jdace, let him mod- estly and gratefully call to mind the many illustrious names of Cliristian theologians who have been, and still are, more or less eminent as scientists also, and whose opinion might at least be invoked before a final verdict is made up and published as biniiing upon the rest of the world. Naj', more, let him consider that in- telligent parties standing somewhat outside of the im- mediate discussion are generally better prepared, be- cause more cool and less committed, and actually occu- pying a broader field of view, to come to a just conclu- sion on such mooted points when the evidence is con- flicting, and chiefly of a moral and cumulative charac- ter, than those immediately engaged in the dispute. We, therefore, say, emphatically, let the naturalist pur- sue his investigations, gather and analyze all the facts, even speculate, if he pleases, on their bearings ; and then present the whole for the candid and general judgment of the educated world, exclusive of invidi- ous classification. In short, common-sense must deter- mine in this, as in everj' extensive generalization. A jury of plain, practical men is most competent to de- cide an issue, although the testimony of experts may be needed in the evidence.