ters.
The " World-Problem" represents it as only a suggested hypothesis; yet
it was propounded with favor. Moreover, it denies any force in the
argument against the " Vestiges" from geology, because it is possible,
it says,that after a species had gone on, for a long while, producing
its like in individuals, it might at last, by some sudden change,
produce a new species. But is it any the less true, that
science gives the development-theory no scientific foundation, and no
ground for belief among scientific men, even if " pure reason" has the
power of breeding such a monster by way of setting aside
science ? Geology and zoology, as we have remarked above (on the
preceding page), are utterly opposed to the Vestiges, root and branch.
There is no end to the suppositions that unrestrained reason may make.
Science claims no share in them; and it disproves, not by showing that
reason cannot conceive itself to fly high, but that nature affords no
basis or warrant for the flight.
After
saying that the " Vestiges of Creation " has been made " a bugbear in
the religious world," and evincing a leaning to some of its doctrines,
the " World-Problem" brings in the following note (p. 186): —
"
It is a number of years since we read this book. The impression left
upon the mind, was not favorable to its piety. It appeared to us
decidedly anti-Biblical in its tone and spirit. Its style, both of
thought and expression, is very different from that of the Old
Testament. It does not talk like Moses. If we may judge, however, from
its very confident manner, so much resembling that of certain other
productions of a similar Baconian genus [this Note is to a paragraph
pronouncing the science and theology of the " Vestiges " as good as
that of Professor Dana], it must certainly be considered a work of
respectable science."
Whether
the monster was really deserving of being killed, might be questioned
after so cautious an opinion from such an author. It would seem, too,
that the work had not received very close attention. But that it may be
seen to be a very bad book, we cite from a review which appeared in the American or Whig Review, for 1846, p. 525. The Article begins thus : —
Flickr
Stumbleupon
Scribd
