Chapter XVIII: To Sum Up (7)

Thus, it has become evident that, so far as our present knowledge
extends, the history of the horse-type is exactly and precisely
that which could have been predicted from a knowledge of the
principles of Evolution. And the knowledge we now possess justifies
us completely in the anticipation, that when the still lower Eocene
deposits, and those which belong to the Cretaceous Epoch have
yielded up their remains, we shall find, first, a form with four
complete toes and a rudiment of the innermost or first digit in
front, with probably a rudiment of the fifth digit in the hind
foot; while, in still older forms, the series of the digits will be
more and more complete, until we come to the five-toed animals, in
which, if the doctrine of Evolution is well founded, the whole
series must have taken its origin.

Finally he was able to add in a note that since the delivery of the lecture, Professor Marsh had discovered a new genus of Equine Mammals, _Eohippus_, corresponding very nearly to his description of what might first be looked for. "This," adds Professor Huxley, "is what I mean by demonstrative evidence of Evolution.... In fact, the whole evidence is in favour of Evolution, and there is none against it."

* * * * *

That these facts are indeed most remarkable and deserving of all attention, cannot be questioned. But before we can agree that they are conclusive and demonstrative in Professor Huxley's sense a good many considerations require to be carefully weighed.

(i.) It is obvious, in the first place, that here as in all other instances which we have seen, the one thing is lacking which is really wanted in order to prove Evolution, namely evidence of one species gradually shading off into another. The creatures of which we have heard, are each isolated from the rest, and indeed very much isolated, for each belongs to a different _genus_,[279] which shows that the differences between them are substantial. They are, in fact, farther apart from one another, than the zebra or the donkey from the horse, for both of these are classed in the genus _equus_,--or than the Bengal tiger is from the domestic pussy-cat, both belonging to the genus _felis_.

These various ungulate forms thus stand a long way from one another, and if they were once connected together by a bridge, or rather a causeway, we ought certainly to find some traces of it, and not always of those particular types which require to be united. If we suppose the very distinct species actually known to have been the piers of such a bridge, yet what has become of the arches? Till some vestiges of these be found, or, at least, some positive evidence that arches there actually were, can it be said that the story of the fossil _equidae_ furnishes convincing testimony on behalf of the supposed evolution? Affinities these various forms undoubtedly exhibit: it has yet to be shown that affinities necessarily imply descent.

There is, however, something even more remarkable. We have seen that Professor Huxley prognosticated beforehand the discovery of _Eohippus_, and specified pretty nearly the features it would be found to present. In the same way, Professor Marsh[280] anticipates and describes a still more remote ancestral form, for which, though it has not yet been found, he has provided an appellation, _Hippops_. But if either Professor really believes in Evolution, why does he take for granted that we shall chance upon one particular form, standing like a solitary outpost by itself, and not upon any other trace of the stream of life whereof it was but one transient phase? Such predictions may be evidence that the occurrence of these progressive forms is regulated by something analogous to Bode's Law of interplanetary distances, and that their discovery may be looked for at certain intervals. But the very fact that their actual position can be so accurately specified serves to show that it is very definitely fixed.

(ii.) Moreover, a very grave difficulty at once suggests itself, of which Professor Huxley makes no mention. The horse as we now have him, _Equus caballus_, is a native of the Old World, and has been introduced to America only since the time of Columbus. There had, it is true, been horses in America previously,--belonging to the genus _Equus_, perhaps even to the species _caballus_,--they had, however, been long extinct, and no memory of them remained. But, as will be noticed, the pedigree given by Professor Huxley consists almost entirely of American animals, to which category belong all whose names terminate in _-hippus_, and these cannot with any reason be assigned as progenitors to the European horse. As Sir J. W. Dawson observes:[281]

In America a series of horse-like animals has been selected,
beginning with the _Eohippus_ of the Eocene--an animal the size of
a fox, and with four toes in front and three behind--and these have
been marshalled as the ancestors of the fossil horses of
America.... Yet all this is purely arbitrary, and dependent merely
on a succession of genera more and more closely resembling the
modern horse being procurable from successive Tertiary deposits
often widely separated in time and place. In Europe, on the other
hand, the ancestry of the horse has been traced back to
_Palæotherium_--an entirely different form--by just as likely
indications, the truth being that as the group to which the horse
belongs culminated in the early Tertiary times, the animal has too
many imaginary ancestors. Both genealogies can scarcely be true,
and there is no actual proof of either. The existing American
horses, which are of European origin, are, according to the theory,
descendants of _Palæotherium_, not of _Eohippus_; but if we had not
known this on historical evidence, there would have been nothing to
prevent us from tracing them to the latter animal. This simple
consideration alone is sufficient to show that such genealogies are
not of the nature of scientific evidence.

(iii.) Even apart from this fundamental difficulty, there is much diversity as to the precise genealogy. We may compare together the lines of ancestry favoured--(1) by Professor Huxley, (2) In a case exhibited in our Museum of Natural History to illustrate the subject, (3) By Mr. Mivart,[282] (4) By Mr. Lydekker,[283] (5) In The _Evolution of the Horse_, a pamphlet issued, January, 1903, by the American Museum. This last gives the very latest version of the pedigree, but, naturally, of the American Horse alone.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Huxley._ |_British_ | _Mivart._ |_Lydekker._ |_American
|_Museum Case._ | | | Museum._
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equus |Equus |Equus |Equus |Equus
Pliohippus | | | |
Protohippus |Hipparion |Hipparion |Hipparion |Hipparion
| |Protohippus |Protohippus |Hypohippus
Miohippus | |Anchitherium |Anchitherium |Merychippus
Anchitherium|Anchitherium | |{Anchilophus |{Mesohippus
Mesohippus |Protohippus |Pachynolophus|{(_form allied to_)|{ (_2 species_)
|{Mesohippus | | |Epihippus
Orohippus |{ (_2 species_)| |{Hyracotherium |Protorohippus
Eohippus |Hyracotherium |Phenacodus |{Systemodon |Eohippus
| | | |_An undiscovered
| | | | ancestor_
| | | | (Hippops)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It will be observed, that whereas _Hipparion_ is disallowed by Professor Huxley as not being in the direct line of descent, in all the other genealogies he appears as the immediate ancestor of _Equus_. Also that in all these tables, Old World and New World forms are used indifferently to supply progenitors for the same successor. Also that there is no agreement at all as to the earlier ancestry. It would likewise appear that even the existence of _Eohippus_ himself is not beyond question, for in our Museum galleries and guide-book his name always has a note of interrogation appended. The American authorities give an anticipatory sketch of the limbs of the ancestor which still remains to be discovered.

There is something even more remarkable.

DEVELOPMENT OF EQUIDÆ.

/ +---------------------------------------------------+
Recent. { | Equus Caballus.{*} |
\ +---------------------------------------------------+
/ | |
{ | Equus Stenonis.{*}{**} E. Sivalensis.{*}{**} &c. |
Quaternary. { | Hippidium.{**} E. Americanus.{**} &c. |
{ | |
\ +---------------------------------------------------+
/ | |
{ | |
{ | Pliohippus. |
/ { | |
{ Pliocene. { | Hipparion.{*}{**} Protohippus. |
{ { | |
{ { | |
{ \ | |
{ +---------------------------------------------------+
{ / | |
TERTIARY. { { | |
{ Miocene. { | Hypohippus. Parahippus. |
{ { | Miohippus. Anchitherium.{*} |
{ { | Merychippus. |
{ { | Mesohippus. |
{ \ | |
{ +---------------------------------------------------+
{ / | Epihippus. |
{ { | Orohippus. Hyracotherium.{*} |
{ Eocene. { | Protorohippus. Pachynolophus.{*} |
{ { | Eohippus. |
\ { | Phenacodus. |
\ | |
+---------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Hippops (undiscovered). |
SECONDARY. | |
| No trace of Mammals except small |
| Marsupials and Insectivora. |
| |

{* Indicates an inhabitant of the Old World. All others are American.}

{** "Not in direct line of ancestry."}

Huxley's lecture exhibiting the pedigree we have been considering was delivered in 1876. We have already seen that six years earlier he had declared himself satisfied, after much search, that though other genealogies might be doubtful, we had in the case of the Horse something really satisfactory. But the pedigree of 1870--which he thus indicated as scientifically established--was totally different from that of 1876, and was acknowledged as erroneous by the very acceptance of the latter. In 1870 the ancestry presented for _Equus_ consisted of _Hipparion_, _Anchitherium_, and _Plagiolophus_. Of these, _Hipparion_ was in 1876 specifically disallowed as a direct ancestor: _Anchitherium_ was displaced by _Miohippus_, and although we are told that these creatures "correspond pretty nearly," the Horse cannot be descended from _both_, especially as they dwelt in different hemispheres. Finally _Plagiolophus_ disappears from the amended pedigree altogether. Nothing could more vividly illustrate the danger of such speculations than that an authority so clear-headed and conscientious as Professor Huxley should thus proclaim his acceptance of a genealogy which he had on after information to renounce. Nor to him alone have such misadventures happened. Mr. Darwin too thought the claim of _Hipparion_ to ancestral equine rank to be beyond dispute. "No one will deny," he wrote,[284] "that the _Hipparion_ is intermediate between the existing horse and certain older ungulate forms." Yet, as we see, this has been denied by his champion Huxley himself.

(iv.) The materials available for the reconstruction of these various equine forms, are far less satisfactory than might easily be supposed. As a rule, each is known to us only by small fragments of its skeleton, so that we can have no assurance as to what the whole animal was really like, or even that all parts assigned to one creature really belonged to him. We can accordingly feel no certainty that if we could see any of these as a whole we should find it possible to suppose that the horse descended from it. Thus in _Hippidium_, an American genus closely allied to _Equus_, it is at least doubtful whether the digits did not terminate in claws.[285] One species of _Hippidium_ is known only by a solitary tooth. Of _Hyracotherium_ only the skull has been found: of _Orohippus_ only parts of jaws and teeth and a forefoot: of _Epihippus_, "only incomplete specimens."[286] Accordingly, Professor Williamson, speaking of the discoveries of Professor Marsh and others, thus expresses himself:[287]

Beyond all question, some of the gaps that have hitherto separated
the three animals [_Anchitherium_, _Hipparion_, and _Equus_] are
filled up by these discoveries; but I want yet more evidence before
I can arrive at the conclusion that the doctrine of Evolution is
proved by these facts beyond the possibility of question. It
appears to me that before I can unhesitatingly give to the
testimony of these fossil horses the full value I am asked to do, I
must know more about them than is at present possible. It will not
be enough that the limbs and teeth of these creatures indicate
transmutation, but such transmutation must be evidenced by every
part of the animal. This demand is especially applicable to the
stages which intervene between the Hipparion and the horse....
Myriads of individuals must have existed to effect the gradual
shading of the one into the other in every part of its body.

(v.) It should likewise be remarked that in one not unimportant particular, the plates so commonly given to illustrate the horse's ancestry do not fairly represent the facts. It would appear from them that all the animals were much of a size, which doubtless greatly assists the imagination in picturing them as all in one line of descent. But as a matter of fact they differed in stature extremely, and the remoter supposed progenitors were comparative pigmies. _Hyracotherium_, for instance, was "about the size of a hare,"[288] and according to Professor Cope, _Orohippus_ was the exact counterpart of this diminutive steed. The hypothetical _Hippops_, which Professor Marsh locates in the lower Tertiary or upper Secondary rocks, can, he thinks,[289] now "be predicated with certainty;" and amongst other things it "probably was not larger than a rabbit, perhaps much smaller." Sometimes, so far as evidence goes, it even seems that in respect of size there was deterioration instead of advance as the lineage progressed. Thus _Epihippus_, found in the Upper Eocene, is considerably smaller than _Protorohippus_, found in the Middle Eocene; "but," says the American pamphlet,[290] "no doubt there were others of larger size living at the same time," which will scarcely be called convincing.

"THE PEDIGREE OF THE HORSE," FROM HUXLEY'S _LECTURES ON EVOLUTION_.]

(vi.) Worthy of notice also is "the remarkable circumstance that in the line of evolution culminating in the modern Horse, a parallel series of generically identical or closely allied forms occurs in the Tertiaries of both Europe and North America, from which it has been suggested that on both continents a parallel development of the same genera has simultaneously taken place."[291] And, as we have seen, while the American pedigree must have been entirely different from the European, it terminates equally in both continents with the genus _Equus_, if not actually with _Equus caballus_.[292] But, on any mechanical system of evolution, it is impossible to suppose that developments conducted along separate roads could thus be brought to meet in one terminus.[293] Mr. Darwin did not conceive it possible that the same species should be produced twice over, "if even the very same conditions of life, organic and inorganic should recur,"[294] and the production of genuine horses, not only in widely diverse circumstances, but through totally different ancestors, must appear still less conceivable. Consequently, says Mr. Mivart,[295] "it follows from this generic identity, that classification will be no longer Darwinian, but one more Aristotelian, and will regard, not the origin but the _outcome_ of development, whether of the individual or the species."

(vii.) There is, however, another consideration more serious than any of the above. In order to set the theory of genetic Evolution upon a sound and substantial basis, it is not sufficient to show that the last ungulate is lineally descended from the first,--_Equus_ from _Eohippus_, _Hyracotherium_, _Phenacodus_, or _Hippops_,--but that this first ungulate himself--whichever it was--has been, or at least may have been, similarly developed from a non-ungulate Mammalian ancestor, the common parent of all the protean forms assumed by his progeny. To develop all these from one original, through a graduated series in each case, by the infinitesimal process of descent with modification, would require a period of time inconceivably long--immensely longer than that required to change one ungulate into another. Ungulates, as has been said, are a highly specialized type of Mammals, and although they walked on the nails of five digits instead of only one, a vast amount of Evolution would be required to bring them even to this point, from that whence all Mammals are said to have started. There must also have existed, while this development was in progress, a teeming and multitudinous mammalian life, as raw material for its operations--and of this at least _some_ trace should remain.

But, so far as we know, the first Ungulates made their appearance upon earth quite as soon as did any other mammals from which they could possibly have sprung. _Phenacodus_, is in fact described as,[296] "The most primitive Eocene mammal yet discovered." He appears in the Lower Tertiary; while the Secondary and Mesozoic rocks beneath,--the whole period covered by which would be none too long for the evolution of Tertiary mammals generally,--are practically devoid of mammalian remains altogether, exhibiting only a few small marsupials, from which we can no more suppose _Phenacodus_ and the huge and various beasts who were his Eocene contemporaries to have developed, than from opossums the size of shrew-mice.

It also complicates matters not a little to find that when placental mammals first show themselves all over the world at the beginning of the Eocene,--while this highly specialized order of the Ungulates seems to have been much the most numerous, it had a host of contemporaries, of extreme diversities of structure:--as for instance Unguiculates (or clawed animals) allied to the Hyena and the Fox, Rodents (gnawing animals) akin to the Squirrel, as well as Whales and Bats. Of the Cetaceans, Sir J. W. Dawson tells us:[297]

The oldest of the whales are in their dentition more perfect than
any of their successors, since their teeth are each implanted by
two roots, and have serrated crowns, like those of the seals. The
great Eocene whales of the South Atlantic (_Zeuglodon_) which have
these characters, attained the length of seventy feet, and are
undoubtedly the first of the whales in rank as well as in time.
This is perhaps one of the most difficult facts to explain on the
theory of Evolution.... "We may question," says Gaudry,[298] "these
strange and gigantic sovereigns of the Tertiary oceans as to their
progenitors--they leave us without reply." ... Their silence is the
more significant as one can scarcely suppose these animals to have
been nurtured in any limited or secluded space in the early stages
of their development.

The Bats, as is obvious, would require quite as much transformation from the generalized mammalian type as the Whales themselves, though in quite another direction. But they appear with their wings fully developed, in the Eocene, in both Hemispheres.

Gaudry thinks [writes Sir J. W. Dawson][299] that it is "natural to
suppose" that there must have been species existing previously with
shorter fingers[300] and rudimentary wings; but there are no facts
to support this supposition, which is the more questionable since
the supposed rudimentary wings would be useless, and perhaps
harmful to their possessors. Besides, if from the Eocene to the
present, the Bats have remained the same, how long would it take to
develop an animal with ordinary feet, like those of a shrew, into a
bat?

Such instances are by no means singular, nor are like difficulties confined to the Eocene. In the Miocene above, about the time when Anchitherium flourished, there appeared a family with whom he might claim relationship, for they were not only akin to the Ungulates but Perissodactyles, or "odd-toed," like himself. These were the "Proboscideae"--"the beasts that bear between their eyes a serpent for a hand," in other words the Elephants and their allies. These, like other families, amongst their earliest representatives included the giants of their race, for some of their Miocene specimens[301] are about half as large again as the largest of our modern elephants. Professor Ray Lankester has recently declared[302] that we now understand the genetic affinities of these creatures, whose faces have been pulled out into trunks with the nose at the extremity, and in support of his statement he adduces the features of the cranium as exhibited in certain recently-discovered specimens. But how far can conclusions be called final which are based upon such partial evidence?[303] As M. Gaudry, convinced Evolutionist as he is, acknowledges, in regard of this very matter:[304]

Like the Mastodons, the Dinotheria appeared suddenly. Whence did
they come? from what quadrupeds did they spring? At present we do
not know.... The points of difference [from other mammals] taken as
a whole, and compared with the points of resemblance, are too great
to enable us to point to any relationship between the Proboscideans
and animals of other orders as yet known to us.

Such then are some of the still unanswered questions connected with the genesis of the Horse, "the most famous instance of geological evidence"[305] which Professor Huxley selects as proving Evolution to demonstration. It is by no means easy to understand how it could ever be supposed to merit any such description. In view of the various difficulties recited above it can hardly be thought that there is satisfactory evidence even of the modicum of Evolution for which alone are such arguments brought, namely within the limits of the _Equidæ_. Even were the reality of this established to the full, how would such evidence compare with that we have heard, drawn not from one corner of Organic Nature, but from a review of the great lines of its history?[306]

We find indeed that while Professor Huxley declares palæontology to be the main support of Evolution, other authorities tell us the exact contrary.

The doctrine of organic evolution [says Sir J. W. Dawson][307] is
essentially biological rather than geological, and has been much
more favoured by biologists than by those whose studies lead them
more specially to consider the succession of animals and plants
revealed by the rocks of the earth.

Similarly Professor Williamson,[308] speaking of the efforts made to obtain evidence on behalf of Evolution, says: "Not only living, but extinct animals have been appealed to; Professor Huxley especially has, with his wonted skilfulness, made use of the latter to buttress the geological side of the structure, which is confessedly its weakest one."

More important than all,--Mr. Darwin himself fully acknowledged that the palæontological evidence is far short of what it should be:--and attempted to meet the difficulty by pleading the imperfection of the geological record:--a plea to be more fully considered presently.

We must not leave unnoticed the method of dealing with the geological record adopted by Professor Haeckel. Of this we have already seen a slight specimen,--- in the gratuitous and baseless assertion that the apetalous Dicotyledons date as far back as the Trias, at the very bottom of the Secondary period, by which, were it a fact, a serious Evolutionary void would be filled. In the same manner he draws a perfectly imaginary picture of the submarine forests of primeval days, in which "we may suppose" all the forms of after vegetation to have begun their career as seaweeds.[309]

But in regard of his favourite doctrine of the bestial origin of man, he goes much further, and prints[310] an elaborate genealogy upon which Professor Huxley in reviewing him makes no adverse remark. In this he exhibits, as a simple matter of scientific fact, an "Ancestral Series of the human pedigree," which ninety-nine per cent, of his readers will naturally suppose to be based upon palæontological evidence. This wonderful genealogy stands thus:

1. _Monera._ 2. Single-celled Primeval animals. 3. Many-celled Primeval animals. 4. Ciliated planulæ (_Planæada_). 5. Primeval Intestinal animals (_Gastræada_). 6. Gliding Worms (_Turbellaria_). 7. Soft-worms (_Scolecida_). 8. Sack worms (_Himatega_). 9. _Acrania._ 10. _Monorrhina._ 11. Primeval fish (_Selachii_). 12. Salamander fish (_Dipneusta_). 13. Gilled Amphibia (_Sozobranchia_). 14. Tailed Amphibia (_Sozura_). 15. Primeval Amniota (_Protamnia_). 16. Primary Mammals (_Promammalia_). 17. _Marsupialia._ 18. Semi-apes (_Prosimiæ_). 19. Tailed narrow-nosed Apes. 20. Tail-less narrow-nosed Apes (Men-like Apes). 21. _Pithecanthropus_ (Speechless or Ape-like Man). 22. Talking Man.

The first thing to remark [says M. de Quatrefages][311] is that not
one of the creatures exhibited in this pedigree has ever been seen,
either living or fossil. Their existence is based entirely upon
theory.[312] All species, existing or extinct, are said to have
been preceded by ancestral forms, which have disappeared leaving
no vestige behind.... All the ancestral groups more or less ill
represented in the actual organic world, do not suffice to fill up
the gaps in his pedigree; from one stage to another there is
sometimes too broad a gulf. Then Haeckel invents the types
themselves, as well as the line of descent to which he assigns them
[for example No. 7, The _Scolecida_, and No. 21,
_Pithecanthropus_].

This kind of "Science" does not deserve to be treated seriously. It will be sufficient to cite another observation of M. de Quatrefages:[313]

If Darwin erred in regarding our very ignorance as to some degree
telling in favour of his notions, he never tried to re-write the
missing volumes of the earth's history, to restore the chapters
which have been torn out, or to fill the blanks upon pages that
have come down to us. But this is just what Haeckel does
continually. Whenever a branch or a twig is lacking on his
genealogical trees, whenever the transit from one type to another
would appear too abrupt, were we to restrict ourselves to creatures
actually known, he invents species and groups bodily, to which he
unhesitatingly assigns a place in phylogeny, often a part in
phylogenesis. Sometimes he calls in ontogeny to countenance the
discovery of supposed ancestors: but frequently he does no more
than affirm their existence. He thus creates a fauna, entirely
hypothetical, of which Vogt rightly said that no man ever saw a
trace of it, or ever will.

It is in this fashion that Professor Haeckel habitually solves the Riddles of the Universe.

As Vogt himself wrote,[314] "We shall be compelled to patch and alter these genealogical trees of species, which up to this time have been set forth as the last word of Science, and especially of Darwinism."

And Du Bois-Reymond,[315] "Man's pedigree, as drawn up by Haeckel, is worth about as much as is that of Homer's heroes for critical historians."

There remains to be considered Darwin's own explanation of the admitted deficiency of palæontological evidence.

The main cause [he writes][316] of innumerable intermediate links
[between different forms] not now occurring everywhere throughout
nature, depends on the very process of natural selection, through
which new varieties continually take the places of and supplant
their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of
extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of
intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly
enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every
stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not
reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps,
is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged
against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the
extreme imperfection of the geological record.

How imperfect this record is he proceeds to argue at length, and he has no difficulty in showing how much of it has at one time or other been defaced by natural causes, and how small a portion has been laid open to our inspection. But although his demonstration on this point is continually quoted, as though it solved the difficulty, it does not appear that it need detain us long.

It is, in the first place, obvious that the absence of evidence cannot prove the truth of the theory of Evolution or any other, and it is proof of that theory which is required. Apart from palæontological facts, as Professor Huxley has told us, there can be no conclusive evidence one way or the other; and if the geological record be not sufficiently complete to supply such evidence, the theory cannot possibly claim to be scientifically established.

Is it not also, as M. de Quatrefages has remarked, very singular that precisely that evidence must be supposed always to have perished which the Evolution theory imperatively requires, while so much remains which appears to contradict it?

But, moreover, as Mr. Carruthers says, incomplete though the record undoubtedly is, and limited as is our knowledge even of what exists,--there still remains a vast mass of information which it has actually supplied, and there seems to be no reason for denying that, as to the particular point under consideration, its testimony is ample. If, as on the principles of genetic Evolution must be the case, there were in each line of descent no successive species or genera, made up of forms clustered round one point in the course of development more than another, how comes it that we find always and everywhere just such isolated clusters, naturally forming genera and species; and that in no single instance do we find any trace of the graduated series linking them together? Is it not quite impossible to suppose, that at all points in Nature we stumble upon exactly those instances which disguise, and apparently contradict, the method upon which she invariably works?

It is likewise obvious that the practice of Evolutionists is quite inconsistent with their own plea, for their arguments are constantly unmeaning except on the assumption that the geological record is sufficiently complete for practical purposes. In the example of the Horse, for instance, which we have been considering, the whole case for his Evolution is based upon the supposition that the completed _Equus_ did not exist during the earlier periods when _Eohippus_, _Anchitherium_, _Hipparion_ and the rest of them were preparing the way for his appearance, and that none of these lived simultaneously with others more ancient still which are set down as _their_ ancestors. But on what does such a supposition rest? Simply on the absence of remains of the more developed, in the strata containing those of the less developed. If such a reason be sufficient--which we will not question--it is likewise sufficient to establish the non-existence of intermediate forms to bridge the wide breaches in the supposed pedigree, and we must accordingly conclude that such intermediate forms there never were.

It is no less evident that whatever further evidence is found, may tell the wrong way, from the evolutionary point of view, no less than the right one; either by discrediting supposed link-forms, or by introducing us to new and strange types which increase our difficulties by requiring lines of communication to be established with them. Thus, as Mr. Mivart tells us,[317] "It is undeniable that there are instances which appeared at first to indicate a _gradual transition_, which instances have been shown by further investigation and discovery not to indicate truly anything of the kind." Another example of the same sort is furnished by the recent discovery of _Arsinoetherium_, a genus of very large and heavy hoofed beasts, the relics of which have been recently discovered in the upper Eocene of Egypt. This creature was something like a large rhinoceros, but had no connexion whatever with that family. In fact, we are told, its horns, of which it has four, two on top of its head, and two smaller above the eyes, and also its teeth, make it stand quite apart _from all other mammals_.

It thus appears that when the theory of genetic Evolution comes to the bar of Palæontology, the most favourable verdict to which it can pretend is, Not proven.

One thing is certain. All the evidence we possess in regard of Organic Evolution, leaves the question of the origin, the propagation, and the development of life exactly where it has always been. No force has been found by Science to which we may ascribe the origin of the world we know.

As the Count de Saporta writes:[318]

Although the problem of "creation,"--formerly thought so simple,
and dated almost within human ken and the period of human
history--has now been relegated to a period too distant to be
imagined, it would be childish to say that on that account the
problem has ceased to exist. Its limits have, it is true, been
shifted; but we are bound to acknowledge that they have nowise been
altered. The horizon may have broadened and receded before us more
and more, but the relative position of the objects we have to
investigate remains precisely the same.

So too M. Blanchard:[319]

There has never been witnessed, and it is impossible to imagine the
apparition of a creature not derived from another creature: it
would therefore be folly to pretend to an explanation of creation.
If, as the advocates of transformism suppose, all species sprang
from some primitive types, or even from a single primordial cell,
the appearance, whether of those types or of that parent cell of
the living world, would be neither more explicable nor less
marvellous than the appearance of a host of creatures.

And, in like manner, Darwin's great ally and admirer, Sir Charles Lyell, when he had time to realize all the bearings of his friend's theory, wrote to him,[320]--"I think the old 'creation' is almost as much required as ever."

XVIII

TO SUM UP

It is time to return to the point from which we started our whole enquiry, and to ask what has been gathered in the course of it towards a solution of the question with which we began. That the Cosmos in which we dwell, the world of law, order, and life, has not existed for ever, we saw to be a truth enforced by the researches of physical Science, no less than by the clear teaching of reason. It certainly had a beginning, and there must be a cause to which that beginning was due,--a cause capable of producing all which we find to have been actually produced. The material Universe and the mechanism of the heavens,--organic life with all its infinite marvels and varieties--animal sensation--human intelligence--canons of beauty, the law of good and evil--all these must have existed potentially in the First Cause, as in the Source whence alone they could be derived.

The Nature of this Cause was the object of our quest. In particular we set ourselves to examine the assertion now so loudly made that Science has found a full explanation in the forces of the Universe itself as they come within her cognizance, that is to say, the material forces which she can directly observe, and upon which she can experiment. In particular we have studied the Law of Evolution, in its various significations, and other laws subsidiary to it, in order to determine, from the point of view of reason and Science alone, whether it can be said that the prime factor of which we are in search is thus supplied.

The result has been to make it evident that while modern discovery has immensely multiplied and magnified the marvels which have to be accounted for, it has disclosed nothing which can be supposed to account for them in a manner to satisfy our reason. So far as the forces of Nature are concerned, the mysteries that lie beyond are even darker than they were. The origin and nature of matter and force, the source of motion, of life, of sensation and consciousness, of rational intelligence and language, of Free-will, of the reign of law and order to which all Nature testifies,--all these are for Science utterly unsolved problems, which, as some amongst her teachers tell us, must remain for ever insoluble. Even less prospect, if possible, can there be that any mechanical forces will ever account for perception of the sublime and beautiful,--and above all--of the distinction between right and wrong.

Here, then, Science stops,--confessing that she can be our guide no farther, and lending no colour whatever to the unscientific pretensions which are so noisily advanced by some persons in her name. Her domain is the world of sense, and it is evident that nothing existing within that realm can possibly furnish an explanation which will satisfy our intellectual need for causality.

Are we therefore to say that we can know nothing concerning the First Cause to which the phenomena of the Universe are due? Such is the Agnostic's position. What we have no means of knowing, he says, we must not pretend to know. It were irrational and dishonest to do so. When Science fails us, the true wisdom is to profess ignorance,--thus only can our position still be scientific.

But is such a principle itself scientific? Is it not a gratuitous and monstrous assumption that we can know nothing but that of which our senses directly tell us? That the Universe has a cause is no less certain than that the Universe exists, for of that cause it is the monument. And, as of the whole, so of every part or element which it contains, it is absolutely certain that there must be a cause, and one adequate to the production of what has actually been produced; for as the proverb says, "Nothing is to be got out of a sack but what is in it." From such conclusions there is no escape;--and since it is impossible to find the cause required within the world of material forces and sensible phenomena, it becomes no less obvious that it must lie beyond, across the frontier which nothing material can pass.

* * * * *

Therefore, also, we know something concerning that Cause,--very little, perhaps, in comparison with what we cannot know,--but still something very substantial. We know that such a Cause exists. We know that it must possess every excellence which we discover in Nature,--all that she has, and more; since what she derives from it, the Cause of Nature has of itself. In it must be all power, for except as flowing from it there is no power possible. Finally, as a capable Cause of law and order in Nature, and of Intellect and Will in man, the First Cause must be supereminently endowed with Understanding, and Freedom in the exercise of its might,--or it would be inferior to its own works.

Since there must have been something from eternity, [says
Bolingbroke][321] because there is something now, the eternal Being
must be an intelligent Being, because there is intelligence now;
for no man will venture to assert that non-entity can produce
entity, or non-intelligence, intelligence. And such a Being must
exist necessarily, whether things have been always as they are, or
whether they have been made in time: because it is no more easy to
conceive an infinite than a finite progression of effects without a
cause.

It is therefore not easy to understand how we can avoid the conclusion of the distinguished men of Science whom we have heard declare that they assume "as absolutely self-evident" the existence of a Deity who is the Creator and Upholder of all things.

It will probably be answered that this is mere Anthropomorphism; which formidable term appears by many to be considered sufficient to close the whole question, and to rule the idea of a personal God out of court. Did not Voltaire remark that if in the beginning God made man to His own image and likeness, man has well repaid Him ever since? And what can be more conclusive than that?

But what--after all--does "Anthropomorphism" mean in this connexion? Simply, that being men we have to speak in human terms, even of what is superhuman. By no possibility can we do anything else. Limited as we are by the conditions of our nature, we can find no mode of expression except such as is based upon sensible experience; and although we can convince ourselves by rational inference of the existence, and to some extent of the character, of what is beyond sense, we can frame no description of it, nor even a phantasm or image by means of imagination, except so far as we are able to draw upon the phenomena of the external world. Thus it is that artists who endeavour to represent an immaterial being, as an angel, a djinn or a sprite, though the essence of the object they would depict is that it has no body, have perforce to give it one, though they make it as little gross as possible, for otherwise they could not portray it at all. But however such images may be refined and etherealized they are intended to be understood only as conventional figures to suggest to the mind its own concept, which is as different from them as the notes produced by a singer are from those on the score from which he sings. No one imagines that the genius of Music is a young woman holding a shell to her ear, or that the Cherubim are heads and wings and nothing more. So it is with statements of the Theistic belief concerning the First Cause, or God. To put this into words we are compelled to use the only materials within our reach, and to borrow our phraseology from that which, within our experience is the highest and noblest element found in the Universe,--namely our own intelligence and will. These beyond question must be transcendentally possessed by the Cause on which they depend. So far Anthropomorphism is sound sense; that is to say, so long as it attributes all possible excellence to the source of all. It is foolish and unscientific only when it attributes to the Absolute and Unconditioned the limitations of an inferior order of being. We may truly say that a penny is contained in a pound,--but it does not follow that a sovereign must be of copper. According to the scientific doctrine that all our familiar forms of energy are ultimately derived from the Sun, it might well be argued from observation of a farthing rushlight that Solar Energy includes heat and light; but not that it is fed on tallow. This appears to be plain and obvious enough, often as it is forgotten or ignored. As Sir Oliver Lodge has lately put the matter:[322]

Shall we possess these things and God not possess them? Let no
worthy human attribute be denied to the Deity. There are many
errors, but there is one truth in Anthropomorphism. Whatever worthy
attribute belongs to man, be it personality or any other, its
existence in the universe is thereby admitted; we can deny it no
more.

Or as Professor Baden Powell expresses the same argument:[323]

That which requires thought and reason to understand must be itself
thought and reason. That which mind alone can investigate or
express must be itself mind. And if the highest conception attained
be but partial, then the mind and reason studied is greater than
the mind and reason of the student. If the more it be studied the
more vast and complex is the necessary connexion in reason
disclosed, then the more evident is the vast extent and compass of
the intelligence thus partially manifested, and its reality, as
existing in the immutably connected order of objects examined,
independently of the mind of the investigator.

The reluctance frequently manifested by scientific men to admit the force of so plain an argument, appears to be generally due to a fundamental misconception. It is constantly assumed that to introduce the element of purpose in Nature is to deny the continuity of Natural law, and that to speak of design in regard of a process or a structure, is equivalent to saying that a non-natural agent intervenes at that particular point and takes the work out of Nature's hands. This, it may be supposed, was Professor Huxley's idea when he spoke of "the commoner and coarser forms of teleology," giving as an instance the supposition that eyes were constructed for the purpose of enabling their possessors to see. It might indeed be replied that, at any rate, it is less difficult to suppose this, than that eyes were constructed without any purpose of seeing, or knowledge of the laws of optics;--but evidently it is taken for granted that Theists imagine every purposive item in nature to be violently introduced from without, like the forms of lions or peacocks into which topiarian gardeners clip their shrubs. But, as has been said, the laws of Nature are the expression of the mind of God: it is through them that He accomplishes His design. As Professor Romanes came to see at the close of his life, it is strange what jealousy there is of admitting the Creator into Creation. "It is still assumed on both sides," he wrote,[324] "that there must be something inexplicable or miraculous about a phenomenon in order to its being divine,"--and although we must utterly demur to such a description of the position of Theists, it undoubtedly is true of their adversaries. Their objections on this head can only signify that it is with the laws of Nature as with a railway locomotive from which the driver, having got up steam and set it going, jumps off, leaving it entirely to its own devices. But, as a legislator, if rightly interpreted, speaks by the mouth of every judge who administers the law in practice, and applies it to concrete cases,--so the Author of Nature, whose laws cannot be perverted, provides through them for all that is to be operated by the forces He has instituted.

So it is that, as Professors Stewart and Tait have told us, we must conceive of Him as not the Creator only, but likewise the Upholder of all things, while Lord Kelvin declares[325] we are unmistakably shown through Nature that she depends upon one "ever-acting Creator and Ruler." It is in this omnipresence of Divine influence that Monism finds the modicum of plausibility which serves it for a foundation. It runs, indeed, into the absurdity of endeavouring to explain such Omnipresence by identifying the finite with the Infinite, and attributing to matter qualities which all experience, and very specially all scientific experience, contradicts; but, for all that, it scores a distinct point as against mere materialism, which Comte declares to be "the most illogical form of metaphysics," and the late Sir Leslie Stephen, "not so much error as sheer nonsense." Theism avoids the error of either extreme. While it teaches the essential and fundamental distinction between the Absolute and the contingent, between the Creator and His creatures, it teaches likewise that He is ever present in His works, and that in their every operation He is manifested.

And so, in the words of Rivarol, God is the explanation of the world, and the world is the demonstration of God. The acceptance of a Self-existent, All-powerful, and intelligent Being can alone serve as a basis for any system of Cosmogony which satisfies our intellectual need of causation; while, on the other hand, the nature of this Being, as necessarily beyond the scope of our senses, can be known to us only indirectly through the effects of which He is the cause.

By no one has this conclusion been more clearly stated than by Lamarck, the real father of Organic Evolutionism, whom many would therefore represent as an atheist. His words are so much to the point that with them we may conclude.[326]

Of the Supreme Being, in a word of God, to whom all infinitude is
seen to belong, man has thus conceived an idea, which, though
indirect, is sound, and which necessarily follows from what he
observes. In the same manner, he has formed another idea, equally
solid, namely of the boundless power of this Being, suggested by
the consideration of His works....

Nature not being intelligent, nor even a being, but an order of
things constituting a power subject to law, cannot therefore be
God. She is the wondrous product of His Almighty will: and for us,
of all created things she is the grandest and most admirable. Thus
the will of God is everywhere expressed by the laws of Nature,
since these laws originate from Him.