darwin and modern science-第169章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


on　and　courage　by　which　past　endurance　prepares　men　for　new　emergencies。　　We　have　little　enough　reason　to　be　sure　that　in　the　discussions　awaiting　us　we　shall　do　as　well　as　our　predecessors　in　theirs。　　Remembering　their　endurance　of　mental　pain；　their　ardour　in　mental　labour；　the　heroic　temper　and　the　high　sincerity　of　controversialists　on　either　side；　we　may　well　speak　of　our　fathers　in　such　words　of　modesty　and　self…　judgment　as　Drayton　used　when　he　sang　the　victors　of　Agincourt。　　The　progress　of　biblical　study；　in　the　departments　of　Introduction　and　Exegesis；　resulting　in　the　recovery　of　a　point　of　view　anciently　tolerated　if　not　prevalent；　has　altered　some　of　the　conditions　of　that　discussion。　　In　the　years　near　1858；　the　witness　of　Scripture　was　adduced　both　by　Christian　advocates　and　their　critics　as　if　unmistakeably　irreconcilable　with　Evolution。

Huxley　（〃Science　and　Christian　Tradition〃。　　London；　1904。）　found　the　path　of　the　blameless　naturalist　everywhere　blocked　by　〃Moses〃：　　the　believer　in　revelation　was　generally　held　to　be　forced　to　a　choice　between　revealed　cosmogony　and　the　scientific　account　of　origins。　　It　is　not　clear　how　far　the　change　in　Biblical　interpretation　is　due　to　natural　science；　and　how　far　to　the　vital　movements　of　theological　study　which　have　been　quite　independent　of　the　controversy　about　species。　　It　belongs　to　a　general　renewal　of　Christian　movement；　the　recovery　of　a　heritage。　　〃Special　Creation〃really　a　biological　rather　than　a　theological　conception；seems　in　its　rigid　form　to　have　been　a　recent　element　even　in　English　biblical　orthodoxy。

The　Middle　Ages　had　no　suspicion　that　religious　faith　forbad　inquiry　into　the　natural　origination　of　the　different　forms　of　life。　　Bartholomaeus　Anglicus；　an　English　Franciscan　of　the　thirteenth　century；　was　a　mutationist　in　his　way；　as　Aristotle；　〃the　Philosopher〃　of　the　Christian　Schoolmen；　had　been　in　his。　　So　late　as　the　seventeenth　century；　as　we　learn　not　only　from　early　proceedings　of　the　Royal　Society；　but　from　a　writer　so　homely　and　so　regularly　pious　as　Walton；　the　variation　of　species　and　〃spontaneous〃　generations　had　no　theological　bearing；　except　as　instances　of　that　various　wonder　of　the　world　which　in　devout　minds　is　food　for　devotion。

It　was　in　the　eighteenth　century　that　the　harder　statement　took　shape。　　Something　in　the　preciseness　of　that　age；　its　exaltation　of　law；　its　cold　passion　for　a　stable　and　measured　universe；　its　cold　denial；　its　cold　affirmation　of　the　power　of　God；　a　God　of　ice；　is　the　occasion　of　that　rigidity　of　religious　thought　about　the　living　world　which　Darwin　by　accident　challenged；　or　rather　by　one　of　those　movements　of　genius　which；　Goethe　（〃No　productiveness　of　the　highest　kind。。。is　in　the　power　of　anyone。〃〃Conversations　of　Goethe　with　Eckermann　and　Soret〃。　　London；　1850。）　declares；　are　〃elevated　above　all　earthly　control。〃

If　religious　thought　in　the　eighteenth　century　was　aimed　at　a　fixed　and　nearly　finite　world　of　spirit；　it　followed　in　all　these　respects　the　secular　and　critical　lead。　　（〃La　philosophie　reformatrice　du　XVIIIe　siecle　（Berthelot；　〃Evolutionisme　et　Platonisme〃；　Paris；　1908；　page　45。）　ramenait　la　nature　et　la　societe　a　des　mecanismes　que　la　pensee　reflechie　peut　concevoir　et　recomposer。〃　　In　fact；　religion　in　a　mechanical　age　is　condemned　if　it　takes　any　but　a　mechanical　tone。　　Butler's　thought　was　too　moving；　too　vital；　too　evolutionary；　for　the　sceptics　of　his　time。　　In　a　rationalist；　encyclopaedic　period；　religion　also　must　give　hard　outline　to　its　facts；　it　must　be　able　to　display　its　secret　to　any　sensible　man　in　the　language　used　by　all　sensible　men。　　Milton's　prophetic　genius　furnished　the　eighteenth　century；　out　of　the　depth　of　the　passionate　age　before　it；　with　the　theological　tone　it　was　to　need。　　In　spite　of　the　austere　magnificence　of　his　devotion；　he　gives　to　smaller　souls　a　dangerous　lead。　　The　rigidity　of　Scripture　exegesis　belonged　to　this　stately　but　imperfectly　sensitive　mode　of　thought。　　It　passed　away　with　the　influence　of　the　older　rationalists　whose　precise　denials　matched　the　precise　and　limited　affirmations　of　the　static　orthodoxy。

I　shall；　then；　leave　the　specially　biblical　aspect　of　the　debate　interesting　as　it　is　and　even　useful；　as　in　Huxley's　correspondence　with　the　Duke　of　Argyll　and　others　in　1892　（〃Times〃；　1892；　passim。）in　order　to　consider　without　complication　the　permanent　elements　of　Christian　thought　brought　into　question　by　the　teaching　of　evolution。

Such　permanent　elements　are　the　doctrine　of　God　as　Creator　of　the　universe；　and　the　doctrine　of　man　as　spiritual　and　unique。　　Upon　both　the　doctrine　of　evolution　seemed　to　fall　with　crushing　force。

With　regard　to　Man　I　leave　out；　acknowledging　a　grave　omission；　the　doctrine　of　the　Fall　and　of　Sin。　　And　I　do　so　because　these　have　not　yet；　as　I　believe；　been　adequately　treated：　　here　the　fruitful　reaction　to　the　stimulus　of　evolution　is　yet　to　come。　　The　doctrine　of　sin；　indeed；　falls　principally　within　the　scope　of　that　discussion　which　has　followed　or　displaced　the　Darwinian；　and　without　it　the　Fall　cannot　be　usefully　considered。　　For　the　question　about　the　Fall　is　a　question　not　merely　of　origins；　but　of　the　interpretation　of　moral　facts　whose　moral　reality　must　first　be　established。

I　confine　myself　therefore　to　Creation　and　the　dignity　of　man。

The　meaning　of　evolution；　in　the　most　general　terms；　is　that　the　differentiation　of　forms　is　not　essentially　separate　from　their　behaviour　and　use；　that　if　these　are　within　the　scope　of　study；　that　is　also；　that　the　world　has　taken　the　form　we　see　by　movements　not　unlike　those　we　now　see　in　progress；　that　what　may　be　called　proximate　origins　are　continuous　in　the　way　of　force　and　matter；　continuous　in　the　way　of　life；　with　actual　occurrences　and　actual　characteristics。　　All　this　has　no　revolutionary　bearing　upon　the　question　of　ultimate　origins。　　The　whole　is　a　statement　about　process。　　It　says　nothing　to　metaphysicians　about　cause。　　It　simply　brings　within　the　scope　of　observation　or　conjecture　that　series　of　changes　which　has　given　their　special　characters　to　the　different　parts　of　the　world　we　see。　　In　particular；　evolutionary　science　aspires　to　the　discovery　of　the　process　or　order　of　the　appearance　of　life　itself：　　if　it　were　to　achieve　its　aim　it　could　say　nothing　of　the　cause　of　this　or　indeed　of　the　most　familiar　occurrences。　　We　should　have　become　spectators　or　convinced　historians　of　an　event　which；　in　respect　of　its　cause　and　ultimate　meaning；　would　be　still　impenetrable。

With　regard　to　the　origin　of　species；　supposing　life　already　established；　biological　science　has　the　well　founded　hopes　and　the　measure　of　success　with　which　we　are　all　familiar。　　All　this　has；　it　would　seem；　little　chance　of　collision　with　a　consistent　theism；　a　doctrine　which　has　its　own　difficulties　unconnected　with　any　particular　view　of　order　or　process。　　But　when　it　was　stated　that　species　had　arisen　by　processes　through　which　new　species　were　still　being　made；　evolutionism　came　into　collision　with　a　statement；　traditionally　religious；　that　species　were　formed　and　fixed　once　for　all　and　long　ago。

What　is　the　theological　import　of　such　a　statement　when　it　is　regarded　as　essential　to　belief　in　God？　　Simply　that　God's　activity；　with　respect　to　the　formation　of　living　creatures；　ceased　at　some　point　in　past　time。

〃God　rested〃　is　made　the　touchstone　of　orthodoxy。　　And　when；　under　the　pressure　of　the　evidences；　we　found　ourselves　obliged　to　acknowledge　and　assert　the　present　and　persistent　power　of　God；　in　the　maintenance　and　in　the　continued　formation　of　〃types；〃　what　happened　was　the　abolition　of　a　time…limit。　　We　were　forced　only　to　a　bolder　claim；　to　a　theistic　language　less　halting；　more　consistent；　more　thorough　in　its　own　line；　as　well　as　better　qualified　to　assimilate　and　modify　such　schemes　as　Von　Hartmann's　philosophy　of　the　unconsciousa　philosophy；　by　the　way；　quite　intolerant　of　a　merely　mechanical　evolution。　　（See　Von　Hartmann's　〃Wahrheit　und　Irrthum　in　Darwinismus〃。　　Berlin；　1875。）

Here　was　not　the　retrenchment　of　an　extravagant　assertion；　but　the　expansion　of　one　which　was　faltering　and　inadequate。　　The　traditional　statement　did　not　need　paring　down　so