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！
material objects through the gradations of ether； fire； water；
earth； and other elements。〃 And again： 〃In the later system of
emanation of Sankhya there is a more marked approach to a
materialistic doctrine of evolution。〃 What little knowledge I
have of the matterchiefly derived from that very instructive
book； 〃Die Religion des Buddha；〃 by C。 F。 Koeppen； supplemented
by Hardy's interesting worksleads me to think that Mr。 Sully
might have spoken much more strongly as to the evolutionary
character of Indian philosophy； and especially of that of the
Buddhists。 But the question is too large to be dealt
with incidentally。
And； with respect to early Greek philosophy； the seeker after
additional enlightenment need go no further than the same
excellent storehouse of information：
The early Ionian physicists； including Thales；
Anaximander； and Anaximenes； seek to explain the world as
generated out of a primordial matter which is at the same time
the universal support of things。 This substance is endowed with
a generative or transmutative force by virtue of which it passes
into a succession of forms。 They thus resemble modern
evolutionists since they regard the world； with its infinite
variety of forms； as issuing from a simple mode of matter。
Further on； Mr。 Sully remarks that 〃Heraclitus deserves a
prominent place in the history of the idea of evolution；〃 and he
states； with perfect justice； that Heraclitus has foreshadowed
some of the special peculiarities of Mr。 Darwin's views。 It is
indeed a very strange circumstance that the philosophy of the
great Ephesian more than adumbrates the two doctrines which have
played leading parts； the one in the development of Christian
dogma； the other in that of natural science。 The former is the
conception of the Word ＇logos＇ which took its Jewish
shape in Alexandria； and its Christian form in that Gospel
which is usually referred to an Ephesian source of some five
centuries later date； and the latter is that of the struggle for
existence。 The saying that 〃strife is father and king of all〃
＇。。。＇； ascribed to Heraclitus； would be a not
inappropriate motto for the 〃Origin of Species。〃
I have referred only to Mr。 Sully's article； because his
authority is quite sufficient for my purpose。 But the
consultation of any of the more elaborate histories of Greek
philosophy； such as the great work of Zeller； for example； will
only bring out the same fact into still more striking
prominence。 I have professed no 〃minute acquaintance〃 with
either Indian or Greek philosophy； but I have taken a great deal
of pains to secure that such knowledge as I do possess shall be
accurate and trustworthy。
In the third place； Mr。 Gladstone appears to wish that I should
discuss with him the question whether the nebular hypothesis is；
or is not； confirmatory of the pentateuchal account of the
origin of things。 Mr。 Gladstone appears to be prepared to enter
upon this campaign with a light heart。 I confess I am not； and
my reason for this backwardness will doubtless surprise Mr。
Gladstone。 It is that； rather more than a quarter of a century
ago （namely； in February 1859）； when it was my duty； as
President of the Geological Society； to deliver the Anniversary
Address； I chose a topic which involved a very careful study
of the remarkable cosmogonical speculation； originally
promulgated by Immanuel Kant and； subsequently； by Laplace；
which is now known as the nebular hypothesis。 With the help of
such little acquaintance with the principles of physics and
astronomy as I had gained； I endeavoured to obtain a clear
understanding of this speculation in all its bearings。 I am not
sure that I succeeded； but of this I am certain； that the
problems involved are very difficult； even for those who possess
the intellectual discipline requisite for dealing with them。
And it was this conviction that led me to express my desire to
leave the discussion of the question of the asserted harmony
between Genesis and the nebular hypothesis to experts in the
appropriate branches of knowledge。 And I think my course was a
wise one； but as Mr。 Gladstone evidently does not understand how
there can be any hesitation on my part； unless it arises from a
conviction that he is in the right； I may go so far as to set
out my difficulties。
They are of two kindsexegetical and scientific。 It appears to
me that it is vain to discuss a supposed coincidence between
Genesis and science unless we have first settled； on the one
hand； what Genesis says； and； on the other hand； what
science says。
In the first place； I cannot find any consensus among Biblical
scholars as to the meaning of the words； 〃In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth。〃 Some say that the Hebrew word
bara； which is translated 〃create；〃 means 〃made out of
nothing。〃 I venture to object to that rendering； not on the
ground of scholarship； but of common sense。 Omnipotence itself
can surely no more make something 〃out of〃 nothing than it can
make a triangular circle。 What is intended by 〃made out of
nothing〃 appears to be 〃caused to come into existence；〃 with the
implication that nothing of the same kind previously existed。
It is further usually assumed that 〃the heaven and the earth〃
means the material substance of the universe。 Hence the 〃Mosaic
writer〃 is taken to imply that where nothing of a material
nature previously existed； this substance appeared。 That is
perfectly conceivable； and therefore no one can deny that it may
have happened。 But there are other very authoritative critics
who say that the ancient Israelite who wrote the passage was
not likely to have been capable of such abstract thinking； and
that； as a matter of philology； bara is commonly used to
signify the 〃fashioning；〃 or 〃forming；〃 of that which already
exists。 Now it appears to me that the scientific investigator is
wholly incompetent to say anything at all about the first origin
of the material universe。 The whole power of his organon
vanishes when he has to step beyond the chain of natural causes
and effects。 No form of the nebular hypothesis； that I know of；
is necessarily connected with any view of the origination of the
nebular substance。 Kant's form of it expressly supposes that the
nebular material from which one stellar system starts may be
nothing but the disintegrated substance of a stellar and
planetary system which has just come to an end。 Therefore； so
far as I can see； one who believes that matter has existed from
all eternity has just as much right to hold the nebular
hypothesis as one who believes that matter came into existence
at a specified epoch。 In other words； the nebular hypothesis and
the creation hypothesis； up to this point； neither confirm nor
oppose one another。
Next； we read in the revisers' version； in which I suppose the
ultimate results of critical scholarship to be embodied： 〃And
the earth was waste ＇'without form；' in the Authorised Version＇
and void。〃 Most people seem to think that this phraseology
intends to imply that the matter out of which the world was to
be formed was a veritable 〃chaos；〃 devoid of law and order。
If this interpretation is correct； the nebular hypothesis can
have nothing to say to it。 The scientific thinker cannot admit
the absence of law and order； anywhere or anywhen； in nature。
Sometimes law and order are patent and visible to our limited
vision； sometimes they are hidden。 But every particle of the
matter of the most fantastic…looking nebula in the heavens is a
realm of law and order in itself； and； that it is so； is the
essential condition of the possibility of solar and planetary
evolution from the apparent chaos。
〃Waste〃 is too vague a term to be worth consideration。 〃Without
form；〃 intelligible enough as a metaphor； if taken literally is
absurd； for a material thing existing in space must have a
superficies； and if it has a superficies it has a form。
The wildest streaks of marestail clouds in the sky； or the most
irregular heavenly nebulae； have surely just as much form as a
geometrical tetrahedron； and as for 〃void；〃 how can that be void
which is full of matter？ As poetry； these lines are vivid and
admirable； as a scientific statement； which they must be taken
to be if any one is justified in comparing them with another
scientific statement； they fail to convey any intelligible
conception to my mind。
The account proceeds： 〃And darkness was upon the face of the
deep。〃 So be it； but where； then； is the likeness to the
celestial nebulae； of the existence of which we should know
nothing unless they shone with a light of their own？ 〃And the
spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters。〃 I have met
with no form of the nebular hypothesis which involves anything
analogous to this process。
I have said enough to explain some