THE THEORY OF DESCENT.

Evening Star, Issue 4241, 29 September 1876, Page 4

THE THEORY OF DESCENT.

To the Editor Sir, —In my last letter I was very particular in referring tu the paradise duck and blue duck, because I was much struck with the use made of them by the lecturer. . He produced them in evidence to disprove the theory of plan in creation. He said they were almost identical as regarded their haunts, habits, and feiieral mode of life, and yet the one, he said, ad an instinct to preserve it from beasts of prey, which the other had not. And what I have endeavored to show is, that they are very dissimilar in every respect, and that the one has, and the other has not. the instinct, because apparently it is, and is not, necessary in each case respectively Assuming that I am right in stating thattheparadise and blue ducks are very dissimilar in habit, &c, and supposing Captain Hutton's lecture to be published in full, and quoted by a foreign savan, lecturing in a distant country, a wrong impression would obviously be conveyed to the audience. As regards the Pategonian goose, the La Plata woodpecker, and the kakapo, the believers in special creation upon a plan may, without domg violence to their belief, rest content in the meantime in the faith that the apparent anomalies so presented are only of a temporary. character due to exceptional circumstances. At the same time, I think that Captain Hutton has himself unintentionally furnished us with some grounds for believing it possible that there may be some unexplained, or unobserved, or misunderstood features in these cases that would prove that even they are specially adapted to their peculiar circumstances, and that they are not anomalies. We all have a tendency to adduce farfetched evidence in support of pet theories, and if Captain Hutton has shown that he is not entirely an exception to this rule, the following extract will show that ho is in respectable company. This extract is from Darwin's " Variation of Animals and Plants," sec ed., vol. 1, page 549, and it will be seen what a great weight Darwin here hung upon a very small peg :—" In the laßt edition of this work I also gave a case of re-growth of a supernumerary little finger after amputation ; but, having been informed by fir. Bachmaier that several eminent surgeons expressed, at a meeting of the Anthropological Society of Munich, great doubt about my statements, I have made more particular inquiries. The full information thus gained, together with a tracinjr of the hand in its present state, has been laid before Sir J. Paget, and he has come to the conclusion that the degree of re-growth in this case is not greater than sometimes occurs with normal bones. He further does not feel satisfied about the facts recorded by Mr White. This being so, it is necessary for me to withdraw the view I formerly advanced with much hesitation, chiefly on the ground of the supposed re-growth of additional digits, namely, that their occasional development in man is a case of reversion to a lowly organised progenitor provided with more than five digits." Comment is unnecessary except that Darwin's candor is to be admired.

Suppose a jury of scientists to delivor a verdict in the following terms :—" We have studied the subject and are irresistably led to the conclusion that the process by which things are is a process of development from lower to higher forms of life." the verdict would bo respectfully entertained ; but if to that verdict were added this rider : "And we wish it to be understood that, although we do not unanimously and expressly deny the existence of a Creator, our vordict is intended to exclude creation and design from said process from Nature," then the publio would be apt to regard ♦he jurors as men slightly prejudiced. Ndw, afc a Matter-of-fact} scientific men have unjfdr&liate'ly *'o vitia't'e'd their theories with labored attempts to exclude design (and by inference, Bpecial creation, or Providence)

from the universe, that they have them- j selves to blame if their decisions are received with extreme caution. It was precisely this vitiating principle in Captain Hutton's lecture which drew forth the antagonism of some of those who stood up to criticise his lecture ; much more, I feel convinced that a strong desire on their part to dispute the theory of development. Capt. Hutton admitted that he knew nothing about the cause of development and by this, no doubt, he meant that science cannot explain the cause or origin of species ; but why, on the other hand, did he consider it necessary to ridicule the idea that the Creator is the special cause of development—at any rate that is in effect what ho did? | The lecture was an able one in ao far as its advocacy of the theory of descent was concerned, and I listened with interest and respect to Captain Hutton's very emphatic assertion of belief in that theory; bu; his attempt to sot up and damage an alternative hypothesis was weak. If he had endeavored to reconcile the hypotheses and summed up somewhat to the following effect, his position would have been reasonable :—"I have proved the theory of descent to my satisfaction ; there is a mystery behind it, however, which science cannot define, but if I modify the terms of my hypothesis and for ' theory of descent' substitute ' theory of development by special creation upon a plan,' that mystery is explained." Scientists may, or may not, be in a position to say that the theory of descent, in some form, must be accepted, but they arc not in a position to say, as they do, that each modification in the development of species is not a work of special creation and design. It must be borne in mind that to believe in the'whole "Darwinian Theory" is to believe in the theory of descent and the ex- j elusion of design. The evidence of design and special providence is overwhelming, and I, fer one, reject Evolution in the Darwinian sense with the utmost confidence and cordiality ; but Ido not consider it necessary to reject development, because I believe in special creation and design. With reference to the creation of man, I do not think it ought to be regarded as of vital importance whether his corporeal frame was elaborated in the womb of an inferior mammal or directly from the elements : in any case he was specially created perfect man in the image of God. Professor Salmond said that a mere scratching of the surface had taken place, and Captain Hutton acquiesced in the expression, if it were applied only to the cause of descent; unless I am mistaken, however, Professor Salmond believes that the cause is God, and intended the expression to apply to the method, and on the whole I agree with the Professor.—l am, &c, A Citizen. Dunedin, September 21.