The notion that all organic beings have been such as we now see them
from the beginning, was almost inevitable, as long as the theory was
held that the formation of the world was of comparatively recent date;
and those who, without further investigation, held the traditional
belief of the independent and individual creation of each species,
could only offer one explanation, if all animals--all plants--are
as they are it is because it has pleased the Creator to make them
so. Because the Darwinian theory has cast a doubt on the successive
creation of living things, it has been said that Darwin’s views were
inimical to religion. These impressions are transitory--as were those
expressed by Leibniz when he reproached Newton with introducing “occult
qualities and miracles into philosophy;”[11] and when he attacked his
law of gravitation “as subversive of natural, and inferentially of
revealed religion.”[11]
After explaining in what manner nature had produced all the variations
of plants and inferior animals from a small number of germs, Darwin
did not feel himself under the necessity of adding one more to the
germs in order that what was afterwards termed humanity might appear
on the scene; the principle of evolution as already applied to the
organic world, would suffice to explain all difficulties; the natural
forces all engaged in the same movement, would spread and branch out
in various directions, until they reached the culminating point of
incorporation with the human creature.
Darwin’s book, the _Descent of Man_, contains the genealogical table
of this higher animal which the author so often compares with the
lower animals. If both have so much in common, such as the chemical
composition of their bodies--their germinal vesicles--their laws of
growth and reproduction; it is--so he conceives--that both have come
from the same ancestor; moreover, all helps to prove that man has
received from his prototype amongst the mammifers, all the special
characteristics of its own organs. Thus it is easy to understand that
in the eyes of many naturalists the embryonic structure is of more
importance for an accurate classification than that of an adult, since
the embryo is that condition in which the animal has undergone the
least modification, thus it better represents the original form of the
primitive progenitor.
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