EVOLUTION.

Evening Star, Issue 4296, 2 December 1876, Page 2

EVOLUTION.

To the Editor, Sib, — I feel that I must again trouble you for a small space in your columns. In reference to “Huttonian’s ” last letter I would say, in the first place, that Evolutionists should not speak too strongly against dogmatism, seeing they owe so much to it. What other theory yet propounded has more offensive dogmatism connected with it than this detestable theory of Evolution ? What philosophers may tell us about Darwin is of little import unless their statements are grounded upon facts ” ? This is a very true remark. It is true regarding everything else as well as Darwinism. Had “Huttonian” always kept this in mind I venture to say he would not yet have been an Evolutionist. I am challenged to show anything wherein Darwin denies the existence of a Creator or the possibility of design in nature. I never said he did. Darwin, apparently to suit his own convenience, does acknowledge the existence of a Creator. But I still maintain, without fear of contradiction from any one who knows anything about Darwinism that Darwin denies that the phenomena of nature are the result of intention and supervision on the part of an Intelligent Agent. And, although “ Huttonian ” seems loth to part with the idea that Darwin does teach design, I would just say that he betrays his own ignorance of the subject when he mamtains it. Had he taken the trouble to glance through some of Darwin’s works, or to read such a work on Darwinism as that by Dr. Hodge, he would have avoided this mistake. With your permission, sir, I will make for the benefit of “Huttonian” a few extracts from the last-named work. Darwin describes nature to be “the aggregate action and product of natural laws, and laws are the sequence of events as ascertained by us.” Again, he says, “ It has been objected that I speak of natural selection as a power or deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets ? Whoever objected to a chemist speaking of the elective affinities of various elements, and yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference combines.” In referring to the similiarity of structure in animals of the same class, he says nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similiarity of patterns in animals of the same class by utility or the doctrine of final causes. ” Again he says “ r\ o shadow of reason can he assigned for the belief that variations alike iu nature and the results of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork through natural selection of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world—man included—were intentionally and specially guided.” He also says that if beauty can be shown to bo intentional it will annihilate his theory. Professor Janet says that the true stumb-ling-block of Darwin’s theory, the perilous slippery point, is the passage from artificial to Natural selection. It is when ho wants to establish that a blind and designless Nature has been able to obtain by the occurrence of circumstances the same results which man obtains by thoughtful and well calculated industry. Surely, “Huttoniau’ cannot suppose for a moment that such meu as Professor Jaact, Data of ArgylO, Dr HttigO, aa& uwy

more, in discussing Darwinism, are attempting to refute whit Darwin does not teach. If ho does, I for one cannot ag<ee with him, I may say, in conclusion, that I hope “Huttonian” will be now satisfied that he has made a mistake, and also that this letter will end the correspondence in so far as 1 am concerned. 1 am, &0., Gamma. Roslyu, December 2.