lectures on evolution-第3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!
testimonial evidence; and it may be that; where the
circumstances are not perfectly clear and intelligible; it is a
dangerous and unsafe kind of evidence; but it must not be
forgotten that; in many cases; circumstantial is quite as
conclusive as testimonial evidence; and that; not unfrequently;
it is a great deal weightier than testimonial evidence。
For example; take the case to which I referred just now。
The circumstantial evidence may be better and more convincing
than the testimonial evidence; for it may be impossible; under
the conditions that I have defined; to suppose that the man met
his death from any cause but the violent blow of an axe wielded
by another man。 The circumstantial evidence in favour of a
murder having been committed; in that case; is as complete and
as convincing as evidence can be。 It is evidence which is open
to no doubt and to no falsification。 But the testimony of a
witness is open to multitudinous doubts。 He may have been
mistaken。 He may have been actuated by malice。 It has constantly
happened that even an accurate man has declared that a thing has
happened in this; that; or the other way; when a careful
analysis of the circumstantial evidence has shown that it did
not happen in that way; but in some other way。
We may now consider the evidence in favour of or against the
three hypotheses。 Let me first direct your attention to what is
to be said about the hypothesis of the eternity of the state of
things in which we now live。 What will first strike you is; that
it is a hypothesis which; whether true or false; is not capable
of verification by any evidence。 For; in order to obtain either
circumstantial or testimonial evidence sufficient to prove the
eternity of duration of the present state of nature; you must
have an eternity of witnesses or an infinity of circumstances;
and neither of these is attainable。 It is utterly impossible
that such evidence should be carried beyond a certain point of
time; and all that could be said; at most; would be; that so far
as the evidence could be traced; there was nothing to contradict
the hypothesis。 But when you look; not to the testimonial
evidencewhich; considering the relative insignificance of the
antiquity of human records; might not be good for much in this
casebut to the circumstantial evidence; then you find that
this hypothesis is absolutely incompatible with such evidence as
we have; which is of so plain and so simple a character that it
is impossible in any way to escape from the conclusions which it
forces upon us。
You are; doubtless; all aware that the outer substance of the
earth; which alone is accessible to direct observation; is not
of a homogeneous character; but that it is made up of a number
of layers or strata; the titles of the principal groups of which
are placed upon the accompanying diagram。 Each of these groups
represents a number of beds of sand; of stone; of clay; of
slate; and of various other materials。
On careful examination; it is found that the materials of which
each of these layers of more or less hard rock are composed are;
for the most part; of the same nature as those which are at
present being formed under known conditions on the surface of
the earth。 For example; the chalk; which constitutes a great
part of the Cretaceous formation in some parts of the world; is
practically identical in its physical and chemical characters
with a substance which is now being formed at the bottom of the
Atlantic Ocean; and covers an enormous area; other beds of rock
are comparable with the sands which are being formed upon sea…
shores; packed together; and so on。 Thus; omitting rocks of
igneous origin; it is demonstrable that all these beds of stone;
of which a total of not less than seventy thousand feet is
known; have been formed by natural agencies; either out of the
waste and washing of the dry land; or else by the accumulation
of the exuviae of plants and animals。 Many of these strata are
full of such exuviaethe so…called 〃fossils。〃 Remains of
thousands of species of animals and plants; as perfectly
recognisable as those of existing forms of life which you meet
with in museums; or as the shells which you pick up upon the
sea…beach; have been imbedded in the ancient sands; or muds; or
limestones; just as they are being imbedded now; in sandy; or
clayey; or calcareous subaqueous deposits。 They furnish us with
a record; the general nature of which cannot be misinterpreted;
of the kinds of things that have lived upon the surface of the
earth during the time that is registered by this great thickness
of stratified rocks。 But even a superficial study of these
fossils shows us that the animals and plants which live at the
present time have had only a temporary duration; for the remains
of such modern forms of life are met with; for the most part;
only in the uppermost or latest tertiaries; and their number
rapidly diminishes in the lower deposits of that epoch。 In the
older tertiaries; the places of existing animals and plants are
taken by other forms; as numerous and diversified as those which
live now in the same localities; but more or less different from
them; in the mesozoic rocks; these are replaced by others yet
more divergent from modern types; and; in the paleozoic
formations; the contrast is still more marked。 Thus the
circumstantial evidence absolutely negatives the conception of
the eternity of the present condition of things。 We can say;
with certainty; that the present condition of things has existed
for a comparatively short period; and that; so far as animal and
vegetable nature are concerned; it has been preceded by a
different condition。 We can pursue this evidence until we reach
the lowest of the stratified rocks; in which we lose the
indications of life altogether。 The hypothesis of the eternity
of the present state of nature may therefore be put out
of court。
Fig。 1。Ideal Section of the Crust of the Earth。
We now come to what I will term Milton's hypothesisthe
hypothesis that the present condition of things has endured for
a comparatively short time; and; at the commencement of that
time; came into existence within the course of six days。 I doubt
not that it may have excited some surprise in your minds that I
should have spoken of this as Milton's hypothesis; rather than
that I should have chosen the terms which are more customary;
such as 〃the doctrine of creation;〃 or 〃the Biblical doctrine;〃
or 〃the doctrine of Moses;〃 all of which denominations; as
applied to the hypothesis to which I have just referred; are
certainly much more familiar to you than the title of the
Miltonic hypothesis。 But I have had what I cannot but think are
very weighty reasons for taking the course which I have pursued。
In the first place; I have discarded the title of the 〃doctrine
of creation;〃 because my present business is not with the
question why the objects which constitute Nature came into
existence; but when they came into existence; and in what order。
This is as strictly a historical question as the question when
the Angles and the Jutes invaded England; and whether they
preceded or followed the Romans。 But the question about creation
is a philosophical problem; and one which cannot be solved; or
even approached; by the historical method。 What we want to learn
is; whether the facts; so far as they are known; afford evidence
that things arose in the way described by Milton; or whether
they do not; and; when that question is settled it will be time
enough to inquire into the causes of their origination。
In the second place; I have not spoken of this doctrine as the
Biblical doctrine。 It is quite true that persons as diverse in
their general views as Milton the Protestant and the celebrated
Jesuit Father Suarez; each put upon the first chapter of Genesis
the interpretation embodied in Milton's poem。 It is quite true
that this interpr