SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
A
DOUBTER'S DOUBTS about science and religion
CHAPTER III
HERBERT SPENCERS SCHEME
THE hypothesis of degeneration has been here suggested as
a rival to that of evolution. It equally accounts for the facts, and is less
beset with difficulties. Are we then to accept it? By no means. Both alike are
mere theories, wholly unsupported by direct evidence; and therefore the sceptic
will reject both, unless they be alternatives, and he is thus compelled to make
choice between them. But they are not alternatives. The facts submitted to our
notice by the naturalist would be still more fully accounted for by the
assumption that every kind of creature sprang from the same Creators
hand.
And this is, in fact, the only alternative which the evolutionist
admits. We have to choose between two hypotheses, he tells us -
"the hypothesis of special creations, and the hypothesis of evolution." The
necessity for this admission, be it observed, is by implication a conclusive
proof that evolution is unproved. Let us, then, consider the suggested
alternative. Herbert Spencer will tell us that, "however regarded, the
hypothesis of special creations turns out to be worthless - worthless by its
derivation ; worthless in its intrinsic incoherence; worthless as absolutely
without evidence; worthless as not supplying an intellectual need; worthless as
not satisfying a moral want. We must, therefore," he concludes, "consider it as
counting for nothing in opposition to any other hypothesis respecting the
origin of organic beings."
Upon the legal mind the effect of this sort of
onslaught is merely to excite suspicion that some weak point in the case
requires to be concealed. Such dogmatism of assertion must only serve to
encourage us in our investigation of the argument. First, then, we are told
that the notion of a creation is a primitive one, and "early ideas are not
usually true ideas." But this is a very transparent device; for unless we
assume that evolution is true, which is precisely what has to be proved, the
statement is of no force whatever.
Herbert Spencer proceeds to urge that a
belief in creation is discredited by "association with a special class of
mistaken beliefs." Now this, of course, is a reference to the Mosaic account of
the creation, and it is sufficiently answered by the fact that that account is
accepted by many men of competent attainments and of the highest intellectual
capacity.
Again, we are told that not only is this hypothesis " not
countenanced by a single fact," but further, that it "cannot be framed into a
coherent thought," and is "merely a formula for our ignorance." "No one ever
saw a special creation." True; but a similar objection may be made to the
hypothesis of evolution; and it has, in fact, been urged in these pages in the
very words here used by Herbert Spencer. It is admitted that no new species has
ever been evolved within human experience, and the supposed origination is
referred to"an abysmal past," which may, for aught we know, be purely fabulous.
The objection, if of force at all, is equally valid against both
hypotheses.
For let us keep clearly in view what our author studiously
conceals, that at this point the real question is not the origin of species,
but the origin of life. Until he can give us some reasonable account of the
existence of life, we shall continue to believe in "a beneficent Creator of the
universe"; and though Herbert Spencer will deplore our "ignorance" and despise
our " pseud-ideas," we shall console ourselves by the companionship of a long
line of illustrious men, whose names perchance will be increasingly venerated
in the world of philosophy and letters when some new generation of scientists
shall have arisen to regard with patronising pity the popular theories of
to-day.
"No one ever saw a special creation," and the hypothesis "cannot be
framed into a coherent thought." This implies, first, an admission that if we
were permitted to see a special creation we could frame the coherent thought;
and, secondly, an assertion that our ability to frame ideas is limited by our
experience. The admission is fatal, and the assertion is obviously false.
Herbert Spencer's remaining objections to special creations are an enumeration
of certain theological difficulties, in which those who espouse the hypothesis
are supposed to entangle themselves. These might be dismissed with the remark
that a mere ad hominem argument is of no importance here. If valid, it could
only serve to discredit theology, without strengthening the author's position.
But let us examine it. The objections are briefly these. Theology is supposed
to teach that special creations were designed to demonstrate to mankind the
power of the Creator: "would it not have been still better demonstrated by the
separate creation of each individual? " It is quite unnecessary to discuss
this, for there is not a suggestion in the Bible from cover to cover that
creation had any such purpose. What evolution assumes the Bible asserts,
namely, that man did not appear in the world until after every other form was
already in existence.
But the next and final difficulty appears at first
sight to be more serious. "Omitting the human race, for whose defects and
miseries the current theology professes to account, and limiting ourselves to
the lower creation, what must we think of the countless different pain
inflicting appliances and instincts with which animals are endowed? " "Whoever
contends that each kind of animal was specially designed, must assert either
that there was a deliberate intention on the part of the Creator to produce
these results, or that there was an inability to iprevent them." This
difficulty, moreover, is igreatly intensified by the fact that "of the animal
kingdom as a whole, more than half the species are parasites, and thus we are
brought to the contemplation of innumerable cases in which the suffering
inflicted brings no compensating benefit."
Now, in the first place, these
objections are applicable as really, though, possibly, not to the same extent,
to the hypothesis of creation in general. And that hypothesis is no longer in
question; for, as we have seen, "scientific thought is compelled to accept the
idea of creative power." And, in the second place, we must remember that these
difficulties are purely theological. They have no force save against those of
us who believe the Bible. Such people, according to the argument, must abandon
either the Biblical account of creation or the Biblical representation of God.
They must assert either that the Creator intended to produce the results here
under observation, or that there was an inability to prevent them. In other
words, God is deficient either in goodness or in power.
This introduces a
question which hitherto has been avoided in these pages. Nor shall it here
receive more than the briefest notice; for even a conventional acquaintance
with the Biblical scheme will enable us to find the solution of Herbert
Spencer's difficulties. The validity of his dilemma depends upon ignoring one
of the fundamental dogmas of theology. The teaching of the Bible is
unmistakable, that Adam in his fall dragged down with him the entire creation
of which he was the federal head; that the suffering under which the creature
groans is not the result of design, but of a tremendous catastrophe which has
brought ruin and misery in its train; that not only is the Creator not wanting
in power to restore creation to its pristine perfectness, but that He has
pledged Himself to accomplish this very result, and that the restoration will
be so complete that even the destructive propensities of the brute will
cease.
Such is the teaching of the Bible, unfolded not merely in the poetry
of the Hebrew prophets, but in the dogmatic prose of the Apostle of the
Gentiles. The question here is not whether it be reasonable, whether it be
true. All that concerns us is the fact that it forms an essential part of the
Biblical scheme, and thus affords a complete refutation of an ad hominem
argument which depends for its validity upon misrepresenting or ignoring it.
Herbert Spencer's indictment against belief in special creations thus begins
and ends by disingenuous attempts to prejudice the issue. And in asserting that
the hypothesis is incapable of being "framed into a coherent thought," he urges
an objection which from its very nature admits of no other answer than that
which has been already given to it. If we call for a poll upon the question, we
shall find on one side a crowd of illustrious men of unquestionable fame, and
of the very highest rank as philosophers and thinkers; and on the other,
Herbert Spencer and a few more besides, all of whom must await the verdict of
posterity before they can be permanently assigned the place which some of their
contemporaries claim for them. An assertion which thus brands the entire
bead-roll of philosophers, from Bacon to Charles Darwin, as the dupes of a
"pseud-idea," a "formula for ignorance," is worthless save as affording matter
for a psychological study of a most interesting kind.
The alleged absence
of evidence of a special creation has been already met by pointing out that the
objection equally applies to the hypothesis of evolution. But perhaps it
deserves a fuller notice. "No one ever saw a special creation," we are told.
The author might have added that if the entire Royal Society in council were
permitted to "see a special creation," the sceptic would reject their testimony
unless there were indirect evidence to confirm it. He would maintain that in
the sphere of the miraculous, direct evidence, unless thus confirmed, is of no
value at second hand. His language would be, "Produce for our inspection the
organism alleged to have been created, and satisfy us, first, that it had no
existence prior to the moment assigned for its creation, and, secondly, that it
could not have originated in some way known to our experience, and then,
indeed, we shall give up our scepticism and accept the testimony offered
us."
But Herbert Spencer goes on to aver that "no one ever found proof of
an indirect kind that no special creation had taken place." This is a choice
example of the nisi prius artifice at which our author is such an adept.
The existence of a world teeming with life has been accepted by the greatest
and wisest men of every age as a conclusive proof that a special creation has
taken place. But this is boldly met by sheer weight of unsupported denial. If
we approach the subject, not as special pleaders or partisans, but in a
philosophic spirit, we shall state the argument thus :-The admitted facts give
proof that species originated either by special creations or by evolution. If
either hypothesis can be established by independent evidence, the other is
thereby discredited. But, in the one case as in the other, positive proof is
wholly wanting. We must, therefore, rely upon general considerations. On the
evolution theory, proof is confessedly wanting that the alleged cause is
adequate to account for the admitted facts.' Not so on the creation hypothesis,
for as we admit that life originated by creation, there can be no difficulty in
assigning a similar origin to species. In a word, as we side with Darwin in
believing in "a beneficent Creator of the universe," the evolution hypothesis
is unnecessary and therefore unphilosophical. But further, the concealed
consequences of the argument under review must not be overlooked. If it be
valid for any purpose at all, it disproves not only the fact of a creation, but
the existence of a Creator. "No one ever saw a special creation": neither did
any one ever see the Deity. If, as alleged, we have no evidence of His
handiwork, neither have we proof of His existence. At a single plunge we have
thus reached the level of blank atheism, which is the extreme depth of moral
and intellectual degradation. "The birth both of the species and the individual
" must equally be ascribed to "blind chance," " coercion" being appealed to, I
suppose, to quell the inevitable " revolt of the understanding." And the
strange religious propensities common to the race, whether civilised or savage,
must also be suppressed; or, at all events, our Penates must be strictly
limited to an effigy of our hairy quadrumanous ancestor with pointed ears,
supplemented possibly by some "symbolic conception" of the primordial
life-germ. wrapped in cloud, and a copy of Herbert Spencer's System of
Philosophy to guide and regulate the cult.
Chapter
Four
Literature | Photos | Links | Home