The Monist, Vol. 2, 1891-1892 : $b A quarterly magazineVarious
Philosophy
The Monist, Vol. 2, 1891-1892 : $b A quarterly magazine
Various
Philosophy -- Periodicals
The theory of evolution is not more and not less a formal principle
than the law of causation and the law of the conservation of matter and
energy. Indeed it is nothing but the same thing applied to a special
case. The theory of evolution is the principle of the conservation
of matter and energy applied to the province of life. The theory
of evolution denies the possibility of special acts of creation.
There cannot come something out of nothing. And the new creations
that actually originate daily before our eyes are not creations from
nothing, they are simply transformations. There was a time on earth in
which no living being existed, neither plant nor animal. How did life
originate? Our answer is, It did not originate out of nothing, but it
evolved. Non-organised matter organised. That non-organised matter must
contain the elementary conditions of organised life is a conclusion
which we cannot escape from our point of view; and which is fully and
satisfactorily corroborated by our daily experience that water, earth,
and air under the sun’s influence are changed into wheat; and wheat is
manufactured into the bread which nourishes man and sustains his life.
Non-organised particles of matter are constantly being organised in
living organisms and displace the worn-out materials in their tissues—not
one atom of the latter remaining for good in a healthy living body.
The theory of evolution may be called an hypothesis, an assumption, a
presumption. But in that case we must say with Mill that the rule twice
two is four is also a mere assumption. The evidence for the latter is not
stronger than that for the former. Mill declares that after all twice two
might somewhere be five. Exactly so and not otherwise evolution might be
somewhere interrupted, so that something would originate out of nothing
instead of evolving from other things through transformation.
Prof. Max Müller speaks very sarcastically about the speechless man, the
_homo alalus_ who is supposed to be the ancestor of the present man. He
says (l. c., p. 585):
“Of the _Homo alalus_, the speechless progenitor of _Homo
sapiens_, with whom Professor Romanes seems so intimately
acquainted, students of human speech naturally know nothing.”
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