The Fundamentals: Volume 8, Chapter 3: Decadence of Darwinism

8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 8, Chapter 3: Decadence of Darwinism

1/13

•

•

•

•

•

•

· CHAPTER III

•

>

•

· DECADENCE OF

DARWINISM

Y REV, H ENRY H. BEACH,

GRAND JUNCTION,

COLORADO

•

( Copyright, 1912, by

He11ry

H. Beach,)

•

•

•

•

I

•

This paper is not a disct1ssion

of

variations tying

withi 11

. the boundaries of

heredity ;

nor do we remember tl1at tl1e

Hebrew and

Greek Scriptures reveal

anything

on

that

sub-

ject; nor do we thinlc that it can be rationally discussed unti1

species and genus a.re defined. .

· Failure to condition spontaneous generation by sterilized

l1ay tea,, and a chronic inability to discover the missing link

have shaken the popularity of Darwinism.

Will

it recover?

Or

is

it

f

a:lling

into a

fixed condition of innocuous d.esuetude?

•

As a purely academic qt1est ion, who cares whether a

protoplastic cell, o,r an a1noeba, or a11 ascidian larva, was

his primordial progenitor? It does not grip us~ It is doubtful

. whether any purely academic question ever grips anybody.

But

the issue

between Darwinistn

and mankind is 11ot a

•

purely academic qttestion. ·

Half his life

1

Cl1a1·le Darwin was af rai

1

d of t.he re·p1·01cl1es

of Christia11s.,

I ·t \\1as something like t·he fear felt by anotl1er

Charles, of the reproacI1es of the Huguenots were he to

1

1

ons1nt

to

the assassination o,f

Coligny.

He

ref

1

ers

to it in

tl1e Introdu ,ction to the Descent of Man :

During

many

years I collected notes

on

the

origin ancl

descent of man,

wit ·hout

any intention

of

publislting

011

the

subject, but rather

with

the determination not to

publish ;

as I ·

thought

that

I should

thus

add to the

prejudice s

against

my· views~ ·

At the end of the book he says : I am a ware that the l

I

conclusion ..

arrived

at in this worl{ wi]I be

denominated

by

36

•

•

•


2/13

•

•

•

Decadence o f

Darwi1iisnz

37

Some as highly irreligious ; bui he ,vho denounces them is

bo4nd to show why

it

is 1nore irreligious

to explain

the

origin of man as a distinct speci,es

by

descent fro1n some

lowly

form

througl1

the Jaws of variation

and

nat11ral

selec

tion, than to explain the birth of the individual thiough the

laws of ·ordinary reproduction.

He confessed his fear by protesting his innocence: ''I

hal'e done

notl1ing· only

explained . a choice between two

theories of

bringing

man into the world''. This way of

puttii:ig

it is .characteristic. I-le

often

refers t,o traversing the doctrine

of successive creations, as, the sum of his

offending.

rfhe

Prestidigitator calls special attention to one hand while be

works the trick with the ,

othe·r.

His apprehensions were

•

not altogeth

er groundless.

Pr

1

ofessor Haeckel was braver,

or,

mo·re

rash,

,vhen

lie

styl

ed

the

''Descent of Man'' as

''anti-Genesis'';

,vith

equal

truth and moderation he might have added,

anti-John,

anti

Hebrews and anti-Christ. The point to pierce the busi~e

and bosoms of men is a denial of the integrity and reliability

of tl1e

Word

of

God. We cannot depend on

the

Bible

to

show us ''how to go · to heaven'' if

it

misleads us as to ''how

tl1e heavens go'' regarding the origin, nature, . descent and

destiny of brutes and men, Darwinists

have

been

diggi11g

at

the foundations of society

and

souls ; and their powers

of ·

endurance are a

matter

of some mom

ent.

We venture to differentiate life and if we ,go too fat· a1·e

sure to be corrected : ·

l.

Vegetable life is

the

su1n of the forces which pervade

2. Brute life is the st.1m of the forces which pervade

conscious an,d thinks.

3. Huma ,n life is the u n o·f the f,orces whi,cl1 perva(le

tonscious,

thinks

and

is religious.

•

•

•

l

•


3/13

•

•

•

•

38

The Fu idamentals

•

•

•

It is logical to assu1ne, until disp .roved, that these three

kinds of life t.ouch ea

1

ch otl1er, but n,ever merge. They · as ··

sociate as intimately as air and light, but are as ·far from

passing ·

fro1m

plants to brutes and from brutes to

men

as

i 'rom no

1

.-·being to being. ''By f1itl1 we

u11derstan,d

the age,s

to be set in order by the saying of God, in regard to the

. things ,

seen

n,ot

haying come out .

o,f

the 'things manif 'es

1

t''

(Heb. 11 :3). ·

. He who would

overtl1row Biblical

Christianity

e,xpect ,s

to t.ake the initiative. H

1

e· recognizes . that

there

is al,vays a

p~esutnption in favor of an existing institution; and has

always , been ,swift

t

1

0 open the battle,

. Professor

I-Iuxley,

in his article

on

1

evolution,

in the ninth

edition of th

1

e Britannica, has ably brou ,ght together th ie argu

ments for Darwinis1n; and we will foll ·ow his order.

GROWTI-I

•

Given a nucleated cell, and Darwinists have watcl1ed

the

•

process of generation from its beginning to birth, ''with the

best optical instruments' ·,. There have bee11 two theories.

The first theory is that

nothi 11g

new is, p1·oduced i11 the living

world; the

germs

f

ronri which

all

or·ganis1ns

have

developed

l1ave contained in miniatu1·e, and passed ort do,vn through

success i·ve generati .0

1

ns, a]l the e.ssenti .al organs of adults. To

get anything out of anything it mu st first be in it. This

is archaic. The ,second tl1eory is that evolution i,s progressive;

it results from so111etl1i11gn11ate in tl1ings, dynamic and pan

theistic. This

is

up to date.

All tha't

the

Dar ,wit1ists,

''witl,

th~ be.st

opt .ical

i11str11

1nents' ', have actually seen is g1·owth; b11t they have inf erred

a whole pantheon. Na.tural selectio n is tl1e s,upreme demiurge ;

•

exual selectio ,n an

1

d vari ,atio11 are su·bordinates. A 'billion

years ago there was

a

God, but He

immediately

disappeared.

I ·t wa,s 'Oe,c,essary to

1

l1ave Him then, to b,r·idge the g11lf be- 1

t,veen nothing and

something. Having

discovered growth,

..


4/13

,

•

Dec adence of Darwinism

39

•

•

they called

it

evolution,

thinking

perhaps the

naa.1e might

prove ·useful, but we t·1~st not t ,o be b,lame

1

d for pref

1

erring

gro~th, for evolution is something of

a

harlequin, having

turned a complete

somersault

within a, hundred

y,ears ,

w hi]e

g1·owth. is univ ,ersally ac,l


5/13

•

•

•

I

40

The

Fitnda1ne1itals

•

•

an

1

d

1

0n brutes . consciousne~s and thought, a11d on all of us

that which preserve ,s out·

bodies

from deca.y and

causes

them

•

to gro-w:,it seems natural that, in tl1e holy of

holies

of

His

laboratory, He has constructed us with similar characte ·rs,

tt·anscie11tor

p,errnan ,ent. ·

But

the very

nomenclatut

1

e of evolution h.as

bee·n.

seduced

and C0

1

rrt1pted. Rever ·sion and

1

ru

1

diment must be

laid

a.w.ay

with phlogiston and caloric .. Tl1ere are no retreatin .gs

. or abortions in the D

1

ivine

eco11omy,

but God adjusts every

feature · to present and future conditions, ·and causes all to

march regu larly forward in the grand procession of

e·t·ernal

•

progr ·ess. .

But wh)i, it may he asked, are so

many

creatures b,tiilt on

the same plan

las,

for instance,

vertebrates?

The answer is

axio1natic.

The whole creation

is

divided into

vertebrata

•

and

invertebrata

becattse there 1nust in the nature of things,

be at

leas.t tWo

classes ; ,or boundless monotony or an eternal

•

1011eliness. But wl1y s,o ma11y

v,er tebrates?

Bec.ause t l1er

1

e

caln be but 0

1

ne

best

of a clas.s .and vertebr .ates are h

1

est. The

number redounds to the glory _of God, not the glory of evolu

tion~ This is kind

1

ergarten inst1--uction, but some seem to

•

•

1ntSS Jt.

• •

•

· But we st1bmi t a b·roade1· ·generalization. The whole

univers

1

e bears a

fa·mily

re seinb,lance. It is tl1e warm touch

of the M~ ·er,, and. His i1niver sal style.. Li,ght is truth, and

darkne ,ss is error. I-Ioli11essis pu1·itJ ,

and

sin is dirt . Phys•

icaJ birtl1 and g1·owth,

decay

and deatl1, typif y sp,i1·itual birth

and growth, decay and

1

death.

T,vo pictures hang side b

1

y

si

1

cle.

1

The

subjects

1

diff,er greatly

and

they differ ·in

size. Ffl1e

larger is

th

1

e

Dom ,es of th,e

Y

1

osemit

1

e

and . the

sma.1Ier Sun set

in.

California .

But

they

see.in strangely

alike.

The smaller must have

evolved

from

the larger.

So,me

Mahatma, an adept of

·the

Himalayas,

a·bte

to do

the

plant

trick t

has done

it.

No

The

san1e artist

pai ,nted

both. . ·

•

•

,

I


6/13

•

-

•

•

Decade ice of DatAwinism

41

•

•

Nature ''s limit 'less netw ork of types and.

s,ymbols

and

resem blances is wondro us 1y beauti f ttl. It wakens the spi1it

of poe.tiy in the soul, but an

abse11t-m1nded

dreamer has gazed

and forgotten himself ., and is lost in a labyrinth of vagaries.

Darwinists have been turning the world over searching for

•

a co,mm,on fatherhood, b·ut th iey have found a 1ommo·n maker-

l1ood. An

Italian a

Dr. Barrago gave his book the title,

''Man, made : in the imag ·e of God, was also made in the

'

image of

an

ape'', and Mr. Darwin refers to it without dis-

approval, and the

bla sphem y

is

logical.

Darwinism degrades

· God and man. ,

RUDIMEN ·Ts

•

The Darwinian notion of rudime11ts is that they are

abortive reversions to ancestral types. erever one oi the

cult has heard of anything nearly or rem

1

otely

Ii.ke

rudiments,

or insta nce, Stanley Hall on rhythm , beati ng waves, ancestraJ

fish and dancing particul ar ly outside the bounds of heredity,

•

•

it

h.as

been grist

for

their mill. And yet they ha.rdly know '

Whe1e to · put the se st1·uctur es. If they claim

that ·

they are

absolt1teJy

useless

they

p

1

lace ·them ot1ts,ide the sce>peof natural

selection; and

if,

on

tl1e

other hand, they admit that they

se1ve

so1ne purpose ·

they admit

t11at

God may l1ave

1nade

t'hen,. Hux-

ley f

e]t the difficulty when he confessed ·

''It is almos t impossible to prove that

any

strttcture,

110,v

lever rudiment .ary,. is useless ; that _s. to say, that it plays no

part what ,ever in the economy; a11d if it is in the sli,ghtest

degree useful there is no rea son why, on the hypothesis of

direct creation, it should not have been. created.'' (Britan-

nica, Art. on E volution.) ·

May we add ·th ·at if Mr.

I-Iuxley

an ,d

Mr. Darwin

and I

and ·you have £ailed to discover the use of anytl1ing, ''there

is no ·reason why it should not have been

created''?

We

- remember that 'We have not even defined life; that the most

that

we

can do is to distinguish ome of

it~

forces;

that

we

,

•

•

•

'

..

•

•


7/13

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

42

•

know as little of its essence as of that of .matter. We may

as well be, modest .

Accepting

then the

dictum of

Professor Huxley

tl1a11

whom n,o one has ever been better qualified that it is almost

imposs,ible, to prov ,e the useless11ess of rudiments, we p,ass

the subject with the remarl< that, like lilcenesses, they are

a signet of the Almighty an

1

d a badge of His creatures

-not

ne,cessari],y of kinship, but of remoter 1·el1t io

1

ns. Tirie r e a,re

some

men

who

need

the

evidence of their

own

rudimentary

mammae to prove to them

that

they

belong to

the same race

wi th their

Wives

,a·n

1

d sl10

t1ld

,enclure

th

1

e s,ame

hardship s

and

do a little more work,

SELE CTIONS

•

Sexual selection, as the nan1,e

implie ,s,

is concerned witl1

pairing and reproduct ·ion;

bt1t

the Darwinian end in view,

like that of natural selecti ,on, is evolution. But

sexual

S

1

elec

tion fails to

1

discrimin .ate,

an,d

turn ,s out

degene-rat ,ion.

Fe1·al

and

unrege ,nerate

sexua l selec,tio,n is 1no1·e lust than love.

From hares to elephants wild tl1ings are blinded by jealoltsy

and ,cr ,azed by heat. Lil


8/13


9/13

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

44

•

•

parts

preserved. N

atu ,ral death is th

1

e means o:f cl.es,truction;

· and generation, of

preservation, The favorable

alw,ays

· prove the stronger,

tl1e injurious

th

1

e

weaker ,.

Alth ,ough

sweetest

graces

and most resplendent virtues of

the

highest

type of · man

ar·e product ,s of natur ,al

S

ele·ction,

the,y a re

co·n-

ditioned promiscuously on l{illing the other fellow

and

pro -

•

1

creating

o,ne s

kin.cl.

The :killing

is ,done by acts of·

Goid ,

as express

companies

phr .ase

it, and

by hatred, envy, anger,

avarice, .sel.fishness, In the strugg ·e

for , e:xistence the ,

s·tronger

gloat over

the

s.lain while

poverty

of

spirit, meekness,

mercy

and

peace

1

die, unhonored a11dunsung.

B;y

these means

every

kind of organic being will eventually

gain

the

summit

of

finitud

1

e. It js imm

1

oral.

Professor Huxley make s a notable concession to truth and

s,anity when he says :

It

1s quite conceivable that every species tends to pr0r

duce

varieties of a limited nt1mber

,and

kind,

and

th,at

th·e

effect of natural selection is

t.o fav .or the

development of

so1ne

o~ th,ese,

while

·it op

1

po ses

the

·developm:ent

of

1

others

· along their

predetermined

lines

,of

modification. (Britan

njca.

Evolt

1

etion.

Taking

the

P1.

f ess

1

or s

la11guage

as ac-

. curate, he surrenders natt1ral selec·tion.

We

were

tau .ght

t l1at, it

wasl

as

·rcliabl

1

,as

gravitation, but if

we get

the

notion

that some species improve, some

are stationary

and some

deterior .ate, a,greeably with

heredity

and

env·i1·onm

1

ent,

we

have no further use for

it. To

sum up tl1e

case

for natural

•

selection:

( 1) It is, poor n1orals. A theory of· nature must be

id·eal

t

1

0

be

t1,.ue.

Natural

s

1

el

1

ection

is a

s,cheme

for the sur,.

•

vival of

the p,assionate and

the

violent, the destruction of

the

weak and

defe·11sel.es.s.,

To be true, b

1

lack

must

be white, and

¥.rrong must be right, and God an I van the

terrible ..

(2) l t,s as sumptions ar ,e f a lse,. It is fa1s

1

e

t·t1at

unlimited

attenuation of

the

steps

of

the

process,

and unlimited ·time for

the acco·mplishm ,en·t

of

it, assure , us tha ·t it

might hav ,e

been

•

•

•


10/13

•

Decade1ice of Dar lv~nisrn

45

•

·Po

sible. ''Attenuation'' and ''t ime ' iVouldhave been but con-

•

ditions, not causes. They could prove 11othing.

It

is false

that in

tl1e struggle

for

existence the ''fittest''

survive.

The

''fittest'' is

an

ambigt.1ousword.

With

natural

selection it means

the

strongest and best armed.

They

do

not surv ive ; they degenerate and expire.

They

who bear.

arrns challenge attack. This providence may be penal or car-

r,ective.

It

is

false

that

man is

derived from

a

brute

and a br ute

from a vegetable. One of the forces

of

human life makes

for .

a recognition of God

arid

a consciousness ' of sin against

liim. This was not unfolded fro1n anthrol)oid apes, for

it

•

is

not in them. Brutes

are

distinguished from plants

by

self-consCiousness, and this was not developed ·from · plants,

for

it

is not in them.

•

(3) Natural selection is self~contradictory and impo s-

sible. Fifty years ago, Alfred Russel Wallace devised the

Scheme and wrote Charle s Darwin about it. Mr.

Datwin

PUblisl1ed

the plan. He afterwards refers

to

Mr • .Wallace

as having ''an innate genius for s.olvi11gdifficulties'' . . · (E>es--......

cent, p. 344.) rfwo years ago Mr. Wallace, in an address

at

tl1e

Dar\vin anniversary, before tl1e Royal Institution in

Lo11don, ref

erring

to

Professor

Haeckel

said :

. ''These unavailing efforts seem to lead us to the irr~sist

ible

conclusio11

that beyond and above all terrestrial agencies,

~ere is some great source of energy and guidance, which

1

n unknown ways pervades every form of organized life,

and

Which

,,re

ourselves are the ulti.mate and for,eordained out-

con1e''. ·

l

1

Tl1us an author of

the theo1·y, hin1self , a,dn1its

the

cont1·a

diction of claiming a

''selection', and denying

a selector.

n ,ISTRIBUTION

•

. The Darwinists assutne that because certain creatures live

tlwn limited areas, like the loth in South Amer.ica

ancl

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

..

•

•

•

•


11/13


12/13


13/13

I

•

•

•

48

•

ing ir1 a grandson is as credible as reversion under

Similar

· conditions. Backing up

is

hardly

in harmony

with the

twen-

•

•

•

•

ti,eth

century. · ·

Tl1e

teaching

of

Darwinism, as

an approved science,

to

the

cl1ildren

and youth of the

schools

of the world is the

most deplorable feature of the whole

wretched

propaganda.

It

would

be difficult

to

fix

the

re sponsi bility of it.

D3.rwin

himself hesitated. Virchow · trie

1

d, nobly,

to

protect tl1e

primary schools of Germany. The burden of his lecture at

Munich is througho

1

ut a

caut .ion

against

eva ,ding

the

di stinc

tion between the

problematical and

the

proven ;

they

a1·e not

on the

same ·evid ,ential level.

H

1

e

woul.

d

tea,cht , he

said,

· evolution,

if it were only proven;

·it

is, as,

yet·, in the hypo-

thetical stage;

the audience ought to be . warned that

the

speculative is

only

the

possible,

no,t

actual

truth; that

it be

longs

to the region

of

belief, and riot

to

that

of

demonstration.

As long as a problem continues in the speculative stage,

it

·Would be mi.schievous t

1

0 teach it i11 ou·r school.s.

We o·ttgl1t

not to

represent our

conjecture as a

certainty, nor our hypo

thesis as

a

doctrine. I-Iaeclcel, al,vays rash,

a.dvocated,

it.

As

tl1e;y

struggled, somebody lighted the fire ·. It was like

the burning

of

the temple at Jerusalem.

Titus ·

had is..uecl

an order to spare it, but a Roman

s,oldier ·

threw a .blazing

torch into a small window and tl1e w·hoie structure \Vas in

flames. It

was like the revenge

of the Pied Piper;of Hamlin

Town. It was Racl11elweeping for he1·

childrent and she

1

wo11ld

not

be comfo

1

rted,

because

they were not .

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

The Fundamentals: Volume 8, Chapter 3: Decadence of Darwinism

Documents

Transcript of The Fundamentals: Volume 8, Chapter 3: Decadence of Darwinism