r hand he
recommended his readers to study "the profound work of Romanes," {38}
without, it would seem, being aware of the transformation that took
place in that thinker's opinions towards the end of his life.
We have now to indicate the nature of the replies that were made to the
difficulties of which we spoke in our last chapter. Let us follow the
order in which they were presented.
About the necessity for a First Cause not much had to be said. Even if
the whole course of organic development could be proved to have been
continuous without a break from the first movements of matter, through
all the changes of physical life, up to the highest exhibition of human
powers--and no one ventured to say that this had been proved--there
would still be the necessity for an initial impulse to set the process
in action. Spencer, as we have seen, declared that there must have
been a First Cause, and Tyndall agreed that "the hypothesis" of
Evolution "does nothing more than transport the conception of life's
origin to an indefinitely distant past."[1]
Darwin himself never hesitated on this point. "The theory of
evolution," he insisted, "is quite compatible with the belief in
God."[2] The words which he expressly added to the conclusion of the
{39} _Origin of Species_ are well known. After describing once again
the production of the innumerable forms of being as the result of
natural selection, he said: "There is a grandeur in this view of life,
with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator
into a few forms or into one."
It is well also to keep on record the striking dictum of Lord Kelvin,
addressed to the students of University College.[3] "Science," he told
them, "positively affirmed creative power."
It will be remembered that we quoted Mill as speaking of "permanent
causes." We may be grateful to him for the suggestion. We could not
readily think of a better term than the great "Permanent Cause" by
which to describe, in modern language, the "I AM" of the Biblical
Theology.[4]
But, if on this point there was no serious conflict of opinion, it was
otherwise in regard to the next. Here it did look as if the new
discoveries might have {40} changed the whole situation. Huxley
acknowledged that what struck him most forcibly on his first perusal of
the Origin of Species, was that "teleology, as commonly understood, had
received its death-blow at Mr. Darwin's hands."[5] But Huxley was a
b
|