按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
acters to the different parts of the world we see。 In particular； evolutionary science aspires to the discovery of the process or order of the appearance of life itself： if it were to achieve its aim it could say nothing of the cause of this or indeed of the most familiar occurrences。 We should have become spectators or convinced historians of an event which； in respect of its cause and ultimate meaning； would be still impenetrable。
With regard to the origin of species； supposing life already established； biological science has the well founded hopes and the measure of success with which we are all familiar。 All this has； it would seem； little chance of collision with a consistent theism； a doctrine which has its own difficulties unconnected with any particular view of order or process。 But when it was stated that species had arisen by processes through which new species were still being made； evolutionism came into collision with a statement； traditionally religious； that species were formed and fixed once for all and long ago。
What is the theological import of such a statement when it is regarded as essential to belief in God？ Simply that God's activity； with respect to the formation of living creatures； ceased at some point in past time。
〃God rested〃 is made the touchstone of orthodoxy。 And when； under the pressure of the evidences； we found ourselves obliged to acknowledge and assert the present and persistent power of God； in the maintenance and in the continued formation of 〃types；〃 what happened was the abolition of a time…limit。 We were forced only to a bolder claim； to a theistic language less halting； more consistent； more thorough in its own line； as well as better qualified to assimilate and modify such schemes as Von Hartmann's philosophy of the unconsciousa philosophy； by the way； quite intolerant of a merely mechanical evolution。 （See Von Hartmann's 〃Wahrheit und Irrthum in Darwinismus〃。 Berlin； 1875。）
Here was not the retrenchment of an extravagant assertion； but the expansion of one which was faltering and inadequate。 The traditional statement did not need paring down so as to pass the meshes of a new and exacting criticism。 It was itself a net meant to surround and enclose experience； and we must increase its size and close its mesh to hold newly disclosed facts of life。 The world； which had seemed a fixed picture or model； gained first perspective and then solidity and movement。 We had a glimpse of organic HISTORY； and Christian thought became more living and more assured as it met the larger view of life。
However unsatisfactory the new attitude might be to our critics； to Christians the reform was positive。 What was discarded was a limitation； a negation。 The movement was essentially conservative； even actually reconstructive。 For the language disused was a language inconsistent with the definitions of orthodoxy； it set bounds to the infinite； and by implication withdrew from the creative rule all such processes as could be brought within the descriptions of research。 It ascribed fixity and finality to that 〃creature〃 in which an apostle taught us to recognise the birth…struggles of an unexhausted progress。 It tended to banish mystery from the world we see； and to confine it to a remote first age。
In the reformed； the restored； language of religion； Creation became again not a link in a rational series to complete a circle of the sciences； but the mysterious and permanent relation between the infinite and the finite； between the moving changes we know in part； and the Power； after the fashion of that observation； unknown； which is itself 〃unmoved all motion's source。〃 （Hymn of the Church Rerum Deus tenax vigor； Immotus in te permanens。）
With regard to man it is hardly necessary； even were it possible； to illustrate the application of this bolder faith。 When the record of his high extraction fell under dispute； we were driven to a contemplation of the whole of his life； rather than of a part and that part out of sight。 We remembered again； out of Aristotle； that the result of a process interprets its beginnings。 We were obliged to read the title of such dignity as we may claim； in results and still more in aspirations。
Some men still measure the value of great present facts in lifereason and virtue and sacrificeby what a self…disparaged reason can collect of the meaner rudiments of these noble gifts。 Mr Balfour has admirably displayed the discrepancy； in this view； between the alleged origin and the alleged authority of reason。 Such an argument ought to be used not to discredit the confident reason； but to illuminate and dignify its dark beginnings； and to show that at every step in the long course of growth a Power was at work which is not included in any term or in all the terms of the series。
I submit that the more men know of actual Christian teaching； its fidelity to the past； and its sincerity in face of discovery； the more certainly they will judge that the stimulus of the doctrine of evolution has produced in the long run vigour as well as flexibility in the doctrine of Creation and of man。
I pass from Evolution in general to Natural Selection。
The character in religious language which I have for short called mechanical was not absent in the argument from design as stated before Darwin。 It seemed to have reference to a world conceived as fixed。 It pointed； not to the plastic capacity and energy of living matter； but to the fixed adaptation of this and that organ to an unchanging place or function。
Mr Hobhouse has given us the valuable phrase 〃a niche of organic opportunity。〃 Such a phrase would have borne a different sense in non… evolutionary thought。 In that thought； the opportunity was an opportunity for the Creative Power； and Design appeared in the preparation of the organism to fit the niche。 The idea of the niche and its occupant growing together from simpler to more complex mutual adjustment was unwelcome to this teleology。 If the adaptation was traced to the influence； through competition； of the environment； the old teleology lost an illustration and a proof。 For the cogency of the proof in every instance depended upon the absence of explanation。 Where the process of adaptation was discerned； the evidence of Purpose or Design was weak。 It was strong only when the natural antecedents were not discovered； strongest when they could be declared undiscoverable。
Paley's favourite word is 〃Contrivance〃； and for him contrivance is most certain where production is most obscure。 He points out the physiological advantage of the valvulae conniventes to man； and the advantage for teleology of the fact that they cannot have been formed by 〃action and pressure。〃 What is not due to pressure may be attributed to design； and when a 〃mechanical〃 process more subtle than pressure was suggested； the case for design was so far weakened。 The cumulative proof from the multitude of instances began to disappear when； in selection； a natural sequence was suggested in which all the adaptations might be reached by the motive power of life； and especially when； as in Darwin's teaching； there was full recognition of the reactions of life to the stimulus of circumstance。 〃The organism fits the niche；〃 said the teleologist； 〃because the Creator formed it so as to fit。〃 〃The organism fits the niche；〃 said the naturalist； 〃because unless it fitted it could not exist。〃 〃It was fitted to survive；〃 said the theologian。 〃It survives because it fits；〃 said the selectionist。 The two forms of statement are not incompatible； but the new statement； by provision of an ideally universal explanation of process； was hostile to a doctrine of purpose which relied upon evidences always exceptional however numerous。 Science persistently presses on to find the universal machinery of adaptation in this planet； and whether this be found in selection； or in direct…effect； or in vital reactions resulting in large changes； or in a combination of these and other factors； it must always be opposed to the conception of a Divine Power here and there but not everywhere active。
For science； the Divine must be constant； operative everywhere and in every quality and power； in environment and in organism； in stimulus and in reaction； in variation and in struggle； in hereditary equilibrium； and in 〃the unstable state of species〃； equally present on both sides of every strain； in all pressures and in all resistances； in short in the general wonder of life and the world。 And this is exactly what the Divine Power must be for religious faith。
The point I wish once more to make is that the necessary readjustment of teleology； so as to make it depend upon the contemplation of the whole instead of a part； is advantageous quite as much to theology as to science。 For the older view failed in courage。 Here again our theism was not sufficiently theistic。
Where results seemed inevitable； it dared not claim them as God…given。 In the argument from Design it spoke not of God in the sense of theology； but of a Contriver； immensely； not infinitely wise and good； working within a world； the scene； rather than the ever dependent outcome； of His Wisdom； working in such emergencies and opportun