The Creator, and what we may know of the method of creationDallinger, W. H. (William Henry)
Religion
The Creator, and what we may know of the method of creation
Dallinger, W. H. (William Henry)
Creation; Evolution; God; Religion and science
No lover of physical and chemical science can do other than profoundly
admire the atomic theory of modern physics. But there is no sound
physicist or chemist but is sufficiently alive to its difficulties
to know that in every form in which it has been presented, it is, to
say no more, tentative and hypothetic. In Mr. Spencer’s philosophy it
becomes a fundamental fact of the beginning. But the existence of atoms
being granted, how did they arise? ‘If you ask the materialist,’ says
Professor Tyndall, ‘whence is this matter ... who or what divided it
into molecules ... he has no answer.’[10] So that here, in spite of the
claim made, no philosophy can be ‘complete;’ and even the doctrine of
an eternally automatic evolution is philosophically inadequate.
But these atoms of the primordial haze are ‘resistant;’ such a quality
can only result from a special affection of matter by motion; whence
came or how arose such an affection of matter? Its existence in the
atoms of the nebula inevitably implies ‘preceding history,’ but it is
not given; and this pregnant atomic haze is, so far as we can see,
without colour, without chemical affinity or reaction, without light,
electricity, or magnetism, and devoid of all cohesion.
Clearly, these are not the atoms of the chemical elements known to us.
They are not the atoms of Dalton nor of Clark Maxwell. The atoms of the
cosmic mist are, by the very terms of the formula, naked of quality;
and, by the limiting conditions of the definition of the cloud as
homogeneous, are, throughout all the abysms of space, alike in size, in
shape, and in motions. Equal extensions of space moving at equal rates.
[Footnote 10: _Fragments of Science_, vol. ii. p. 396.]
By these conditions, then, it is manifest that primordial matter is
in itself infinitely powerless and inert. Motion can affect it; but
can there be motion of any _new_ kind originated without a power to
cause it? If that can be, the fundamental acts of human reason are
untrustworthy; and man is incapable of knowledge or deduction, which
is absurd. Then what was the power that determined new motions in the
primordial homogeneous matter?
It could not by any demand in the formula be even gravity, if that were
competent. Modern thought and knowledge cannot allow gravitation to
be a property of matter. Ether is matter, but it does not gravitate.
Gravity is therefore an occult affection of matter by motion, that has
a history ‘to be accounted for.’
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account