Evolution: Its nature, its evidence, and its relation to religious thoughtLeConte, Joseph
Religion
Evolution: Its nature, its evidence, and its relation to religious thought
LeConte, Joseph
Evolution (Biology); Evolution (Biology) -- Religious aspects; Religion and science
[33] For examples of this the reader is referred to Cope, “Bulletin
of the National Museum,” No. 1; and to Coues’s “Key to North American
Birds,” last edition.
[34] “Monatsbericht d. k. Preuss. Akademie d. Wissenschaft zu Berlin,”
for July, 1866.
[35] “Genesis of Tertiary Species of Planorbis at Steinheim.” A. Hyatt,
Anniversary Memoir of the Boston Society of Natural History, 1880.
[36] In a letter to the author, dated February 13, 1887, Prof. Cope
says: “Such transitions of species are clearly indicated in the
_Oreodontidæ_, where such different forms as _O. gracilis_ and _O.
Culbertsoni_ are connected by intergradations.”
[37] “American Naturalist,” 1873; “Popular Science Monthly,” June, 1873.
[38] For a fuller development of this subject the reader is referred to
an article by the author, entitled “Critical Periods in the History of,
and their Relation to, Evolution” (“American Journal of Science,” vol.
xiv, p. 99, 1877).
[39] “Reflex Action and Theism,” William James, “Unitarian Review” for
November, 1881.
[40] See an article by the author on this subject, “American Journal of
Science,” series ii, vol. xxviii, p. 305, 1859, and in “Popular Science
Monthly,” vol. iv, p. 156, 1873.
[41] All chemical compounds are dissociated by sufficient heat.
[42] The origin of vital from chemical force in the green leaves of
plants can not be doubted; but this does not, of course, explain the
mystery of the _first origin of life on the earth_, for one condition
of the change _now_ is the _contact of living matter_.
[43] I know it is the fashion to ridicule the use of the terms
vitality, vital force, as a remnant of an old superstition; and yet the
same men who do so use the terms gravity, electricity, chemical force,
etc. Vital force is indeed _correlated_ with other forces of Nature,
but is none the less a distinct _form_ of force, far more distinct
than any other unless it be the still higher form of psychical, and
therefore it better deserves a distinct name than any lower form. Each
form of force gives rise to a peculiar group of phenomena, and the
study of these to a special department of science. Now, the group of
phenomena called vital is more peculiar, more different from other
groups than these are from each other, and the science of physiology
is a more distinct department than either physics or chemistry, and
therefore the form of force, which determines these phenomena, is more
distinct and better entitled to a name than any physical or chemical
force.
[44] “Princeton Review” for May, 1884.
[45] “Popular Science Monthly,” December, 1873.
[46] For a fuller statement of this antithesis, see an article by the
author entitled “Evolution in Relation to Materialism,” “Princeton
Review,” for March, 1881.
[47] Johnstone Stoney, “Nature,” vol. xxxi, p. 422.
[48] “Nature,” vol. xxxiv, p. 385. 1886.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account