Natural selection not inconsistent with natural theology : a free examination of Darwin's treatise On the origin of species, and of its American reviewers / by Asa Gray.

Gray, Asa, 1810-1888.

Date:: 1861

Credit: Natural selection not inconsistent with natural theology : a free examination of Darwin's treatise On the origin of species, and of its American reviewers / by Asa Gray. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

15/56 (page 15)

$I ebular hypothesis, for similar reasons; not because it is proved,— ifius far it is incapable of proof, — but because it is a natural theoreti- al deduction fr(^ accepted physical laws, is thoroughly congruous dth the facts, and because its assumption serves to connect and har- •Qonize these into one probable and consistent whole. Can the deriva- ive hypothesis be maintained and carried out into a system on similar ii^rounds ? If so, however unproved, it would appear to be a tenable Hypothesis, — which is all that its author ought now to claim. Such Hypotheses as, from the conditions of the case, can neither be proved nor disproved by direct evidence or experiment, are to be tested only I ndirectly, and therefore imperfectly, by trying their power to harmon- izze the known facts, and to account for what is otherwise unaccount- I'ible. So the question comes to this : What will an hypothesis of the liierivation of species explain which the opposing view leaves unex- k plained ? \ Questions these which ought to be entertained before we take up the ^guments which have been advanced against this theory. We can Ibarely glance at some of the considerations which Darwin adduces, or (vwill be sure to adduce in the future and fuller exposition which is ij promised. To display them in such wise as to indoctrinate the un- ? scientific reader would require a volume. Merely to refer to them in t the most general terms would suffice for those familiar with scientific I matters, but would scarcely enlighten those who are not. Wherefore ! let these trust the impartial Pictet, who freely admits, that, “ in the i absence of sufficient direct proofs to justify the possibility of his hypoth- (esis, Mr. Darwin relies upon indirect proofs, the bearing of which is ^ real and incontestable ; ” who concedes that “ his theory accords very well with the great facts of comparative anatomy and zoology, — comes in admirably to explain unity of composition of organisms, also to ex- plain rudimentary and representative organs, and the natural s’eries of genera and species, — equally corresponds with many palaeontological data, — agrees well with the specific resemblances which exist between two successive faunas, with the parallelism which is sometimes observed between the series of palaeontological succession and of embryonal de- velopment,” etc.; and finally, although he does not accept the theory in these results, he allows that “ it appears to offer the best means of ex- plaining the manner in which organized beings were produced in epochs anterior to our own.” * What more than this could be said for such an hypothesis ? Here, probably, is its charm, and its strong hold upon the speculative mind. Unproven though it be, and cumbered prima facie with cumulative improbabilities as it proceeds, yet it singularly accords with great classes of facts otherwise insulated and enigmatic, and explains many$