SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
A
DOUBTER'S DOUBTS about science and religion
CHAPTER ONE
HOW DID LIFE BEGIN?
THERE is one fact which not even the dreamiest of egoists
can doubt, and that is, his own existence. Here at least knowledge is absolute.
That I exist is certain; but how did I come to exist? I live; but how did life
begin? The question is one to which every man is bound to find a reasonable
answer. To say I am descended through generations numbered or innumerable from
a first man, is merely to put the difficulty back. Where did the first man come
from? Religion answers in one word- Creation. But this is to cut the knot, as
it were, without even an attempt to untie it. It must not be taken for granted
that man is incapable of reasoning out the problem of his own
existence.
Between the higher organisms and the lowest there is a gulf which
might well be regarded as impassable. But closer observation and fuller
knowledge will disclose the fact that between these extremes there are
unnumbered gradations of development, and that the distance between the several
steps in the series is such as, in theory at least, might be passed by the
operation of known laws. The problem, therefore, which religion would solve by
the one word " creation," science answers by the one word "evolution." And
science claims priority of audience.
But here let us take the place of
sceptics. There are no sceptics in the old scholastic sense. The most ardent
Pyrrhonist, if robbed of his purse, or struck over the head by a burglar,
promptly forgets his theories, and gives proof of his belief in the certainty
of objective knowledge. Philosophic scepticism, so called, is merely a conceit
of sham philosophers; it never invades the sphere in which a man's interests
require that he should believe and know. And, as Kant has aptly said, it is
"not a permanent resting-place for human reason." But scepticism is not
necessarily Pyrrhonism. Pyrrho did not invent the word; he only perverted and
degraded it. He considers, reflects, hesitates, doubts. An admirable habit,
surely, if kept within due limits, but proof of moral deterioration if
abnormally developed.
Let us not forget then, as we proceed, to reflect,
hesitate, doubt; and, above all, let us cast away prejudice. Let us take the
place of free thinkers and real sceptics, not shams. Many people reserve their
scepticism for the sphere in which religion is the teacher, while in the
presence of science they are as innocent and simple in their receptivity as the
infant class in a Sunday-school. We shall only deceive ourselves if we begin by
over-stating the evidence on which the doctrine of evolution rests. It must be
conceded that its foundation largely depends on the researches of the
Paleontologist. And here and some direct proof that the fossil remains belong
to the same economy or system as the living organisms we compare them with. But
there is no such proof, and it is a question whether the presumption be not the
other way.
Let that pass, however, for a more serious question claims
attention. It may be admitted that the development of plants and animals from
their simplest to their most complicated forms may be explained by natural
causes. But this is only theory. What direct evidence is there that the
phenomena have, in fact, been thus produced? The horse may have been developed
from a pig-like animal, and man may be "descended from a hairy quadruped
furnished with a tail and pointed ears." (Descent of Man) But what
direct proof is there that either the horse or the man was, in fact, developed
or evolved in this way? The answer must be, Absolutely none. It is a matter of
inference only.(Marvellous results are produced by culture, but they are
subject to the seemingly inexorable laws of degeneracy and the sterility of
hybrids.)
The prisoner in the dock may have committed the murder we are
investigating. The theory of his guilt will account for all the facts.
Therefore let him be convicted and hanged. This sort of argument would not pass
at the Old Bailey. Men are sceptics there, and free thinkers. Proof that the
prisoner may have committed the crime is worthless, unless we go on to prove
that it could not have been committed by any one else. But with that further
proof the case is clear, and the accused goes to the gallows. And so here. If
the facts of biology can in no other way be accounted for, evolution holds the
field.
But are we not forgetting the nature of the problem to be solved?
The first and greatest question relates, not to the phenomena of life, but to
its origin. How did life begin? That was the question we set out with. And
here, evolution affords no answer, and must stand aside. Let the existence of
life be taken for granted, and evolution may explain the rest. But the sceptic
takes nothing for granted. How did life begin? Science answers - - - - ! In
presence of a question which lies across the threshold of knowledge, science,
the very personification of knowledge, turns agnostic and is dumb. " Creation"
is the answer religion gives. The rejoinder which science ought to make is that
life first sprang out of death, out of nothing; in a word, abiogenesis.
And
this is, in fact, the answer which science would formerly have given. But the
experiments which at one time seemed to establish the principle of spontaneous
generation, have proved worthless when subjected to severer tests. Huxley
admits that "the present state of knowledge furnishes us with no link between
the living and the not living." With still greater candour, Tyndall declares
that "every attempt made in our day to generate life independently of
antecedent life has utterly broken down." Or, if we turn to a teacher, happily
still with us, whose dictum will carry still greater weight, Lord Kelvin will
tell us that " inanimate matter cannot become living except under the influence
of matter already living. This is fact in science which seems to me" he
declares, "as well ascertained as the law of gravitation." And he goes on to
say, "I am ready to accept as an article of faith in science , valid for all
time and in all space that life is produced by life, and only by life." (
Brit. Assoc., Edinburgh, 1871.)
Abiogenesis is merely a philosophic
theory, unsupported by even the faintest shadow of evidence. But more than
this, it is practically incapable of proof, for the problem implies the proof
of a negative in circumstances which render the difficulties of such proof
overwhelming. To establish the fact of spontaneous generation in a world
teeming with life, would be as hopeless as the attempt to prove that the
displacement of a table in a dark room crowded with people was caused without
interference on their part. But, we are told, the fact that we know absolutely
nothing of the origin of life, and that there is not a shadow of direct
evidence that abiogenesis has ever taken place, does not interfere with the
conclusion "that at some time or other abiogenesis must have taken place. If
the hypothesis of evolution be true, living matter must have arisen from
not-living matter." (Professor Huxley, Encyc. Britt, "Biology.")
Therefore life did originate thus, and the truth of evolution is established.
Thus argue the professors and scientists. But the man who considers, reflects,
hesitates, doubts, will call for the evidence; and, finding there is none, he
will reject the conclusion, and also, if necessary, the dependent hypothesis.
We set out to solve the mystery of life. Science claimed to possess the
clew, and offered to be our guide. And now, having been led back to the
identical point from which we started, we are told we must shut our eyes and
take a leap in the dark. It is a bad case of the "confidence trick."
"Besides being absolutely without evidence to give it external support,
this hypothesis cannot support itself internally- cannot be framed into a
coherent thought. It is one of those illegitimate symbolic conceptions so
continually mistaken for legitimate symbolic conceptions, because they remain
untested. Immediately an attempt is made to elaborate the idea into anything
like a definite shape, it proves to be a pseud-idea, admitting of no definite
shape." It "implies the establishment of a relation in thought between nothing
and something - a relation of which one term is absent - an impossible
relation". "The case is one of those where men do not really believe, but
rather believe they believe. For belief, properly so called, implies a mental
representation of the thing believed; and no such mental representation is here
possible." ( The words are Herbert Spencer's (Principles of Biology, §
112); the application of them is entirely my own.)
Evolution assumes
the existence of life; postulates it, as the scientists would say. No more is
needed than one solitary germ of living matter. Indeed, to seek for more would
be unphilosophical. ("If all living beings have been evolved from
pre-existing forms of life, it is enough that a single particle of living
protoplasm should have once appeared on the globe, as the result of no matter
what agency. In the eyes of a consistent evolutionist any further independent
formation of protoplasm would be sheer waste." -Professor Huxley, Encyc. Brit.,
"Biology.") But this primeval germ must be taken for granted. The sceptic
will refuse to assign to it an origin which contradicts all our experience and
surpasses our knowledge. The only hypothesis he can accept is that life has
existed without any limitation of time; that the original life-germ was eternal
and practically self-existent. And of course nothing could be evolved from it
which was not inherent. It must have been pregnant with all the forms and
developments of life with which the world is full. Moreover it is only ignorant
conceit to maintain that evolution has reached its limits. If man has sprung
from such an origin, we must suppose that, in the far-distant future, beings
will be developed as superior to mankind as we ourselves are superior to the
insects crawling on the earth. According to this hypothesis the latent
capacities of the first life-germ were infinite. " Capacities," remember, not
tendencies. Unknowable force may account for tendencies, but it cannot create
capacities.
Not that this distinction will save us from the pillory. The
philosopher will condemn the statement as unphilosophical-" a shaping of
ignorance into the semblance of knowledge" and I know not what besides.'
(Principles of Biology, § 144. I have no wish to shelter myself behind
Professor Huxley, but I claim his com-panionship and sympathy in the pillory.
He says, "Of the causes which have led to the origination of living matter,
then, it may be said that we know absolutely nothing. But postulating the
existence of living matter endowed with that power of hereditary transmission
and with that tendency to vary which is found in all such matter, Mr. Darwin
has shown good reasons for believing," &c. (Encyc. Brit., "Biology "). The
primordial germ, mark, is "endowed" with a "power" and a "tendency." What had
Mr. Spencer to say to this? All that I assert here is the "power" ; to
predicate the "tendency" is unnecessary and therefore unphilosophical.)
But these bravewords can be tested at once by assuming the contrary to what
is here asserted. Let us take it, then, that the primordial germ had no latent
capacities whatever. And yet we are to accept it as the origin of all the
amazing forms and phenomena of life in the world. If we may not suppose such an
aptitude naturally possessed by organisms, we must assume an inaptitude; and
the question is no longer whether the cause be adequate to the effects, but
whether effects are to be ascribed to what is no cause at all. May we not
retort that this is indeed "a cause unrepresentable in thought "-one of those
illegitimate symbolic conceptions which cannot by any mental process be
elaborated into a real conception? ' In the spirit of a true philosopher,
Charles Darwin declared that "the birth both of the species and of the
individual are equally ' parts of that grand sequence of events which our minds
refuse to accept as the result of blind chance." (Descent of Man)
By
what word, then, shall this " particle of living protoplasm" be called; this
great First Cause; this Life-germ, eternal, self-existent, infinite in
essential capacities ? There is but one word known to human language adequate
to designate it, and that word is GOD. Evolution - that is, Science - thus
leads us to a point at which either we must blindly and with boundless
credulity accept as fact something which is not only destitute of proof, but
which is positively disproved by every test we are at present able to apply to
it; or else we must recognise an existence which, disguise it as we may, means
nothing less than God. There is no escape from this dilemma. Our choice lies
between these alternatives. The sceptic will at once reject the first ; his
acceptance of the second is, therefore, a necessity. Men whose minds are
enslaved by a preconceived determination to refuse belief in God must be
content here to stand like fools, owning their impotency to solve the
elementary problem of existence, and, as humble disciples in the school of one
Topsy, a negro slave-girl, dismissing the matter by the profound and sapient
formula "I 'spect I grow'd" ! But the free thinker, unblinded by prejudice,
will reject an alternative belief which is sheer credulity, and, unmoved by the
sneers of pseudo-scientists and sham-philosophers, will honestly and fearlessly
accept the goal to which his reason points, and there set up an altar to an
unknown God.
Chapter Two
Literature | Photos | Links | Home