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
Then, because the horse becomes specialized and adapted to its
circumstances in a remarkable manner, leaving evidence in the rocks of
long severed but successive epochs, of the very manner in which it was
created as we know it; and because we have proof that this method is
practically self-acting, shall we stultify reason by assuming that in
its self-action there is no design? that as a great rhythmic law it had
no origin? that, because to our powers of observation it is automatic,
it explains its own existence? or that it strips the mind, by this
very automatism, of any necessity for, or right of, having its origin
explained? None of these assumptions are congruous; they surely violate
the fundamental principles of thought.
We may be enabled no longer to say of any structure that it is a
‘final cause;’ our insight is not deep enough for that; but an equally
powerful weapon in defence of theism takes its place: I designate it
‘CONCURRENT ADAPTATION;’ that is, _fitness_, for ever, throughout all
time and all space; and fitness absolutely constant amidst all changes.
Adaptation is universally concurrent with existence; and whether we
have to account for it by sudden and unexplained action, or by the slow
operation of laws, is a matter of no essential moment: _it is there_.
Nothing, for example, can be more certain, than the powerful influence
exerted on the coloration and morphology of flowers, all over the
earth, by the visits of insects. The insects assiduously visit flowers
for food, or nectar; and by their visits the pollen of one flower
is carried to the stigmatic surface of another: so effecting cross
fertilization. The contrivances for making insect agency efficient, are
so numerous, so palpable, and so exquisitely perfect as to entrance
the observer. One flower has its nectar in a tube, to reach which the
proboscis of the visiting insect must touch and split a delicate tissue
and expose the moist adhesive surfaces of a couple of pollen masses,
which adhere to and are carried away by the insect, in such a position
that, in visiting another flower of the same species, it must deposit
the pollen where alone it can do its fertilizing work.
Another flower is so contrived, that to reach the nectar, the visiting
insect must touch a sensitive surface causing the rupture of a tissue,
which confines a pollen mass; but, on the rupture of the tissue, this
flies out like an arrow at the unbidden guest; and an adhesive end
sticks to the insect, which is startled away; but, visiting another
flower of a like kind, deposits, in the right place, the fertilizing
pollen it unconsciously carries.
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