Hacekel, who put forward the theory as making the hypothesis of a Creator superfluous. We grant the principle of evolution, but we regard it as only the method of the divine intelligence. We must moreover consider it as preceded by an original creative act introducing vegetable and animal life and as supplemented by other creative acts at the introduction of man and at the incarnation of Christ. Chadwick, Old and New Unitarianism 33 ? ?What seemed to wreck our faith in human nature [its origin from the brute] has been its grandest confirmation. For nothing argues the essential dignity of man more clearly than his triumph over the limitations of his brute inheritance, while the long way that he has come is prophecy of the moral heights undreamed of that await his tireless feet.? All this is true if we regard human nature, not as an undesigned result of atheistic evolution, but as the efflux and reflection of the divine personality. R. E. Thompson, in S. S. Times, Dec. 29, 1906 ? ?The greatest fact in heredity is our descent from God and the greatest fact in environment is his presence in human life at every point.?
The atheistic conception of evolution is well satirized in the verse: ?There was an ape in days that were earlier; Centuries passed and his hair became curlier; Centuries more and his thumb gave a twist, And he was a man and a Positivist.? That this conception is not a necessary conclusion of modern science is clear from the statements of Wallace, the author with Darwin of the theory of natural selection. Wallace believes that man?s body was developed from the brute, but he thinks there have been three breaks in continuity:1. the appearance of life, 2. the appearance of sensation and consciousness and 3. the appearance of spirit. These seem to correspond to 1. vegetable, 2. animal and 3. human life. He thinks natural selection may account for man?s place in nature, but not for man?s place above nature, as a spiritual being. See Wallace, Darwinism, 445- 478 ? ?I fully accept Mr. Darwin?s conclusion as to the essential identity of man?s bodily structure with that of the higher mammillae and of his descent from some ancestral form common to man and the anthropoid apes.? But the conclusion that man?s higher faculties have also been derived from the lower animals ?appears to me not to be supported by adequate evidence and to be directly opposed to many well ascertained facts? (461). The mathematical, the artistic and musical faculties are results, not causes, of advancement. They do not help in the struggle for existence and could not have been developed by natural selection. The introduction of life (vegetable), of consciousness (animal) and of higher faculty (human), point clearly to a world of spirit, to which the world of matter is subordinate 474-476). Man?s intellectual and moral faculties could not have been developed from the animal but must have had another
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?