Abstract
SCIENTIFIC men cannot but feel how false is the stimulus given to that form of literature of which the above-named work is an example. If considerable pecuniary reward is offered for the production of treatises in favour of any theory, or of the mutual compatibility of any two or more different doctrines, the work will undoubtedly be produced, however inaccurate the theory, or however dissimilar the doctrines. That mistaken enthusiasm which led to the production of the Bridgwater Treatises and the establishment of the Actonian Prize, has resulted in the publication during the last year of two Actonian prize essays, the former of which, by Mr. B. T. Lowne, we noticed on a previous occasion, whilst the latter is the one under consideration, The present author's treatment of his subject is much that which would have been adopted by Paley if he had been living at the present day. Several previously accepted axioms are shown to be incompatible with the existing position of biological science, and their weakness is well brought forward. Other considerations of modern development are introduced, and it is in these that the difficulty of combining the two doctrines appears. For instance, the origin of moral evil is said to be “the conscious abuse of means, instead of using them solely for the ends for which they were designed.” But on evolutionary principles, it can hardly be said that there are means for designed ends, because that peculiarity in an organ which is of service is the only one retained, insomuch that if the delicate sensitiveness of the conjunctiva of the eye were to prove of more value to the individual than its sight, the power of vision would most probably become lost at the expense of the developing tactile organ. “The continual effort of beings to arrive at mutual and beneficial adjustments” is said to be a great principle of nature; does not the term “struggle for existence” imply something very different from this? Again, that “animals and plants do not live where circumstances may be best suited to them, but where they can, or where other animals and plants will respectively let them live,” is quoted by the author as an instance of Nature falling short of that absolute degree of perfection which may be conceived as possible; however, there cannot be many who think a locality a suitable residence, in which they are prevented from taking up their abode, or perhaps entering, by the animals and plants which inhabit it. In other places similar weaknesses may be found in the argument adopted. In one thing Mr. Henslow has done great good: he has shown that it is consistent with a full dogmatic belief, to hold opinions very different from those taught as natural theology some half century and more ago.
The Theory of Evolution of Living Things.
By Rev. G. Henslow. (Macmillan and Co.)
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
The Theory of Evolution of Living Things . Nature 9, 41 (1873). https://doi.org/10.1038/009041a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/009041a0