Sensational Science
242 Art. V.? :Author: J. M. WINN, M.D., M.R.C.P., ETC.
Last year the meeting of the British Association, under the presidency of Dr Edwards, at Glasgow, formed an agreeable contrast to that at Belfast in 1874, when the public mind was startled and alarmed by the announcement of sensational doctrines, alike false and dangerous. We regret to find that, at the recent meeting at Plymouth, some of the members again came forward and read sensational papers of a similar character, which, to judge from the reports, were rapturously received, and which seemed to derive their piquancy chiefly from the fact that the views they contained were calculated to place science in antagonism to the Bible.
Professor Allen Thomson stood forth as the champion of the doctrine of evolution. He advocated the Darwinian hypothesis in its utmost extravagance, and repeated what has been so often told respecting the origin of species. If the supporters of this theory reiterate their old arguments in its favour, their oppo- nents must be excused for again bringing forward, on their side, the strong facts which have never been refuted. In 1875 I wrote as follows in the Journal of Psychological Medicine. After remarking that Darwin’s hypothesis was not an immutable law, but only an unverified theory, I observed: ” Lamarck had previously shadowed it forth, and his views on the development of species out of changes of habit and external conditions were fully set before the public by the author of 4 Vestiges of Creation.’ I can remember when that book appeared and the furor it occasioned, an excitement equal to that caused by Darwin’s ‘ Descent of Man.’ But it was a nine days’ wonder, and would have sunk into utter oblivion had it not been revived by the publication of Darwin’s work. The chief argument in favour of the theory, and that on which so much stress is laid, is nothing more than a common fact, well known to all breeders of animals and to every gardener, that an endless variety of animals and plants can be produced by careful selection, crossing, etc. No one, however, has suc- ceeded in producing a new genus, or a decidedly new species. Can Darwin give a wiser reason for the barrenness of mules than the one commonly received, that the Deity has willed that there should be no confusion of species? If the facts are pressed on the evolutionist that the forms and features of men and animals are the same now as they were thousands of years ago, as depicted on the Egyptian monuments, or as still traceable in tlie mummies of the pyramids, and that the intellect of man has never been developed in a higher degree than it was in the days of the Hebrew prophets and Greek poets, the stereotyped answer is, that evolution requires not only thousands, but billions upon billions of years for the development of a new species. This is dreaming, not sober reasoning. The palaeontologist can read the records of the past stamped on the crust of the earth, but who can read the future of a million years to come? The mind of man has not only a limited field of observation, but has also limits to its own power, and it is not a healthy exercise for the mind to indulge over much in the pleasures of the imagination. So far, however, as we can judge from observation of the past, we see but little prospect of ever bridging over the gulf which separates man from the brute creation. It would be an endless task to discuss all the difficulties that beset the theory of evolution. It is impossible for Darwin to answer the ques- tions that are incessantly cropping up, such as: Through what channel does the nightingale derive her song ? Are the wings of birds derived from the quills of the porcupine ? Whence did the beaver gain her constructive power ? How did the spider learn to spin her geometric web, or the carrier pigeon acquire her wonderful instinct? Is the beauty of flowers, which are the grace and ornament of the earth, due to natural selection ? Questions like these might be asked ad infinitum, and in vain. ” All naturalists have observed the gradation of organisation, from the lowest of beings up to man, on which Darwin and his followers lay such stress, as well as the similarity of their bodily functions and conformation, showing the archetypal unity which is found throughout nature; but this does not exclude the probability of each species or genus being a separate act of creation.”
The power of bioplasm to develop various forms of life is un- questioned, but can the evolutionist explain how it is that in one instance it will develop a bee, and in another a badger ? As zealous supporters of the Darwinian hypothesis, Huxley and Herbert Spencer were spoken of by Br: Allen Thomson with unbounded admiration. He thinks that they are revolu- tionising British thought; and it is to be deplored that many? only half-educated persons?who gain their knowledge second- hand from the daily journals without labour, readily adopt opinions which they have no means of verifying, but which lead them to suppose that they are taking profound and unprejudiced views of difficult and abstract questions. There is, however, a host of great and earnest thinkers, including Thomas Carlyle, who do not subscribe to the notion that man is of bestial origin. Darwin and Huxley in their special field of research hold the first rank; it is when they step out of their own track, and speculate on the mysteries of creation, that they show their weakness. Common sense recoils from their erroneous deductions. When they can demonstrate that evolution is a great and unde- viating law, it will be the proper time to announce it. We are indebted to Darwin for most fascinating descriptions of animal and vegetable life, but what has Herbert Spencer really done for science or philosophy that he should be held up as a shining light ? As a writer he is obscure and pedantic, and his style forms a striking contrast to the simplicity and perspicuity of our greatest writers. This is what he says of evolution: ” Evolution is a change from indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity, through continuous differentiations and integrations.” This is little short of nonsense. Here again is his indefinite definition of life : he says it is ” a continuous adjustment of internal relations to external relations.” Can such expressions as these be considered indications of a master mind, and is such a teacher to be looked up to as a guiding star ? The most sensational paper read at the meeting, and the one which seems to have attracted the largest audience, was that by Mr. Pengelly, F.R.S., on the ” Caverns of Devon.” Mr. Pengelly is well known as a most enthusiastic and painstaking geologist, and the public are much indebted to him for the untiring energy with which he has devoted himself for many years to cave-hunting. He was one of those who were selected by the Royal Society to examine the contents of the Brixham Cavern. It is therefore to be regretted that, on insufficient evi- dence, he should have availed himself of the influence of his position to imbue the public mind with the notion that the facts revealed by the exploration of the Brixham Cavern proved the existence of man in Devon during the pre-glacial, or at least inter-glacial period. The chief evidence is derived from the discovery of what he terms flint implements and a stone hammer in the cavern. It is fair that the public should know what has been said on the other side of the question.
Mr. Whitley, whose talent, enthusiasm, and geological attain- ments are not inferior to those of Mr. Pengelly, has made most careful examinations of the Brixham Cavern, and his deductions are diametrically opposed to those of the former gentleman. In several papers which he read before the ” Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Grreat Britain,” Mr. Whitley con- tended that the supposed flint implements are not of human manufacture, and are nothing more than pieces of rubble flint and fragmentary flakes that had drifted into the cavern, and he adduced good evidence to prove that they had a geological, not ail antiquarian origin. He stated that, if a nodule of flint be crushed by a heavy blow, it will shiver into flakes precisely similar to those found in the cavern, and, moreover, that change of temperature will split silicious minerals into flakes resem- bling knives and scrapers.
With regard to the so-called stone hammer, Mr. Prestwich is of opinion that it is a Budleigh-Salterton pebble; and Mr. Whitley observes that it was imbedded in drifted gravel similar to that of the neighbouring raised beaches. He believes that it was introduced into the cavern by natural causes, and that the indentations on its surface, which have been regarded as signs of its having been used as a hammer, are due to its having been ” battered by a thousand storms.”
Southall, the eminent American geologist, in his work on the ” Eecent Origin of Man,”* gives it as his opinion that the earliest inhabitants of western Europe were intelligent savages, like the Esquimaux or Indians, and that neither archaeology nor geology have detected any earlier form. We may therefore hesitate to believe that the aborigines of Devon were no better than beasts, who herded with wild animals in dens and caves. He mentions a curious fact, which shows how cautious observers who have pet theories should be, not to jump to hasty conclu- sions. A skull said to have been found in a cave was pronounced by Huxley to be a most brutal human skull. It was afterwards discovered, on careful examination, to be an average skull. Moreover, it was not associated with extinct animals, and was discovered under five feet of mud ! In the face of these facts, the Illustrated London News for the 25th of August last, in the report of Mr. Pengelly’s paper, confidently assures us that the ” discovery and systematic exploration of a comparatively small virgin cavern on Windmill Hill, at Brixham [in 1858], led to a sudden and complete revolution, for it was seen that, whatever were the facts elsewhere, there had undoubtedly been found at Brixham flint implements, commingled with remains of the mammoth and its companions, and in such a way as to render it impossible to doubt that man occupied Devonshire before the extinction of the cave mammoth.”
This confident tone is in marked contrast to that of Mr. J. Evans, F.E.S. (President of the Geological Society). At the Conference which met on the 22nd May 1877 to discuss the question of the Antiquity of Man, he said that this point was still far from being settled, and that the greatest care was necessary in dealing with the subject. After referring to the recent explorations in France, Spain, and Switzerland, he con- sidered that there were so many sources of doubt and error, associated with isolated discoveries, that the watchword for the present must be ” Caution?Caution?Caution.” These remarks come with the greater force from Mr. Evans, as he was formerly a believer in the authenticity of the flint implements found in the Brixham Cavern. With all this evidence to the contrary, it is not so certain, in spite of all Mr. Pengelly says, that this Orson?this wild man of the caves? this palaeolithic monster? ever inhabited the caverns of Devon.
Another subject of intellectual excitement at the meeting was the suggestion of Sir William Thomson that living organism might exist in a crevice of a meteoric stone at the time of its fall- ing on the earth, and that in this manner a Colorado Beetle might have made its first appearance among us. As meteoric stones are supposed to be in a state of ignition before they fall, it is impossible that any form of life could survive the high tem- perature to which it must have been exposed. Grranting a supreme intelligence, combined with boundless power?and it is impossible to ignore these when we consider how the vast wheels of the universe have revolved, with chronometer-like precision, for millions of years?granting this, it is much easier to conceive that the beetle, or its germ, was created on the earth than that it was conveyed here in the roundabout way suggested by Sir William Thomson.
The candid inquirer must admit that the most recent dis- coveries in biology and palaeontology have failed to overthrow the time-honoured belief that man was the last product of creative power, and that science and Scripture are not at variance on the point. The wonderful revelations of modern science, when looked at from the right point of view, afford additional evidence of design. As the author of ” More Worlds than One ” observes?” Science has ever been, and ever must be, the safeguard of religion; the grandeur of its truths may transcend our failing reason, but those who cherish and lean on truths equally grand, but certainly more incomprehensible, ought to see in the marvels of the natural world the best defences and illustrations of the mysteries of our faith.* In taking exception to some of the addresses delivered at the meeting at Plymouth, it is not implied that they were all of the same sensational character. Several of them were generally admitted to be of great practical value.
The British Association was established for the advancement of science, and not for the diffusion of extravagant speculations. If the Association is to become little more than a gigantic pic- nic, enlivened by sensational addresses, the sooner it comes to an end the better.
” . * Quoted by Dominick McCausland, in his Sermons in Stones. Tenth edition. Richard Bentloy, New Burlington Street, London.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.