mr. gladstone and genesis-第3节

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！



Once　more；　as　it　is　quite　certain　that　the　term　〃fowl〃　includes

the　bats；for　in　Leviticus　xi。　13…19　we　read；　〃And　these　shall

ye　have　in　abomination　among　the　fowls　。。。　the　heron　after　its

kind；　and　the　hoopoe；　and　the　bat；〃it　is　obvious　that　bats　are

also　said　to　have　been　created　at　stage　No。　3。　And　as　bats　are

mammals；　and　their　existence　obviously　presupposes　that　of

terrestrial　〃beasts；〃　it　is　quite　clear　that　the　latter　could

not　have　first　appeared　as　No。　5。　I　need　not　repeat　my　reasons

for　doubting　whether　man　came　〃last　of　all。〃



As　the　latter　half　of　Mr。　Gladstone's　sixfold　order　thus　shows

itself　to　be　wholly　unauthorised　by；　and　inconsistent　with；　the

plain　language　of　the　Pentateuch；　I　might　decline　to　discuss　the

admissibility　of　its　former　half。



But　I　will　add　one　or　two　remarks　on　this　point　also。　Does　Mr。

Gladstone　mean　to　say　that　in　any　of　the　works　he　has　cited；　or

indeed　anywhere　else；　he　can　find　scientific　warranty　for　the

assertion　that　there　was　a　period　of　landby　which　I　suppose　he

means　dry　land　（for　submerged　land　must　needs　be　as　old　as　the

separate　existence　of　the　sea）〃anterior　to　all　life？〃



It　may　be　so；　or　it　may　not　be　so；　but　where　is　the　evidence

which　would　justify　any　one　in　making　a　positive　assertion　on

the　subject？　What　competent　palaeontologist　will　affirm；　at　this

present　moment；　that　he　knows　anything　about　the　period　at　which

life　originated；　or　will　assert　more　than　the　extreme

probability　that　such　origin　was　a　long　way　antecedent　to　any

traces　of　life　at　present　known？　What　physical　geologist　will

affirm　that　he　knows　when　dry　land　began　to　exist；　or　will　say

more　than　that　it　was　probably　very　much　earlier　than　any　extant

direct　evidence　of　terrestrial　conditions　indicates？



I　think　I　know　pretty　well　the　answers　which　the　authorities

quoted　by　Mr。　Gladstone　would　give　to　these　questions；　but　I

leave　it　to　them　to　give　them　if　they　think　fit。



If　I　ventured　to　speculate　on　the　matter　at　all；　I　should　say　it

is　by　no　means　certain　that　sea　is　older　than　dry　land；　inasmuch

as　a　solid　terrestrial　surface　may　very　well　have　existed　before

the　earth　was　cool　enough　to　allow　of　the　existence　of　fluid

water。　And；　in　this　case；　dry　land　may　have　existed　before　the

sea。　As　to　the　first　appearance　of　life；　the　whole　argument　of

analogy；　whatever　it　may　be　worth　in　such　a　case；　is　in　favour

of　the　absence　of　living　beings　until　long　after　the　hot　water

seas　had　constituted　themselves；　and　of　the　subsequent

appearance　of　aquatic　before　terrestrial　forms　of　life。

But　whether　these　〃protoplasts〃　would；　if　we　could　examine　them；

be　reckoned　among　the　lowest　microscopic　algae；　or　fungi；　or

among　those　doubtful　organisms　which　lie　in　the　debatable　land

between　animals　and　plants；　is；　in　my　judgment；　a　question　on

which　a　prudent　biologist　will　reserve　his　opinion。



I　think　that　I　have　now　disposed　of　those　parts　of　Mr。

Gladstone's　defence　in　which　I　seem　to　discover　a　design　to

rescue　his　solemn　〃plea　for　revelation。〃　But　a　great　deal　of　the

〃Proem　to　Genesis〃　remains　which　I　would　gladly　pass　over　in

silence；　were　such　a　course　consistent　with　the　respect　due　to

so　distinguished　a　champion　of　the　〃reconcilers。〃



I　hope　that　my　clientsthe　people　of　average　opinionshave　by

this　time　some　confidence　in　me；　for　when　I　tell　them　that；

after　all；　Mr。　Gladstone　is　of　opinion　that　the　〃Mosaic　record〃

was　meant　to　give　moral；　and　not　scientific；　instruction　to

those　for　whom　it　was　written；　they　may　be　disposed　to　think

that　I　must　be　misleading　them。　But　let　them　listen　further　to

what　Mr。　Gladstone　says　in　a　compendious　but　not　exactly　correct

statement　respecting　my　opinions：





He　holds　the　writer　responsible　for　scientific　precision：　I　look

for　nothing　of　the　kind；　but　assign　to　him　a　statement　general；

which　admits　exceptions；　popular；　which　aims　mainly　at　producing

moral　impression；　summary；　which　cannot　but　be　open　to　more　or

less　of　criticism　of　detail。　He　thinks　it　is　a　lecture。　I　think

it　is　a　sermon〃　（p。　5）。





I　note；　incidentally；　that　Mr。　Gladstone　appears　to　consider

that　the　differentia　between　a　lecture　and　a　sermon　is；

that　the　former；　so　far　as　it　deals　with　matters　of　fact；　may　be

taken　seriously；　as　meaning　exactly　what　it　says；　while　a　sermon

may　not。　I　have　quite　enough　on　my　hands　without　taking　up　the

cudgels　for　the　clergy；　who　will　probably　find　Mr。　Gladstone's

definition　unflattering。



But　I　am　diverging　from　my　proper　business；　which　is　to　say　that

I　have　given　no　ground　for　the　ascription　of　these　opinions；　and

that；　as　a　matter　of　fact；　I　do　not　hold　them　and　never　have

held　them。　It　is　Mr。　Gladstone；　and　not　I；　who　will　have　it　that

the　pentateuchal　cosmogony　is　to　be　taken　as　science。



My　belief；　on　the　contrary；　is；　and　long　has　been；　that　the

pentateuchal　story　of　the　creation　is　simply　a　myth。　I　suppose

it　to　be　an　hypothesis　respecting　the　origin　of　the　universe

which　some　ancient　thinker　found　himself　able　to　reconcile　with

his　knowledge；　or　what　he　thought　was　knowledge；　of　the　nature

of　things；　and　therefore　assumed　to　be　true。　As　such；　I　hold　it

to　be　not　merely　an　interesting；　but　a　venerable；　monument　of　a

stage　in　the　mental　progress　of　mankind；　and　I　find　it　difficult

to　suppose　that　any　one　who　is　acquainted　with　the　cosmogonies

of　other　nationsand　especially　with　those　of　the　Egyptians　and

the　Babylonians；　with　whom　the　Israelites　were　in　such　frequent

and　intimate　communicationshould　consider　it　to　possess　either

more；　or　less；　scientific　importance　than　may　be　allotted

to　these。



Mr。　Gladstone's　definition　of　a　sermon　permits　me　to　suspect

that　he　may　not　see　much　difference　between　that　form　of

discourse　and　what　I　call　a　myth；　and　I　hope　it　may　be　something

more　than　the　slowness　of　apprehension；　to　which　I　have

confessed；　which　leads　me　to　imagine　that　a　statement　which　is

〃general〃　but　〃admits　exceptions；〃　which　is　〃popular〃　and　〃aims

mainly　at　producing　moral　impression；〃　〃summary〃　and　therefore

open　to　〃criticism　of　detail；〃　amounts　to　a　myth；　or　perhaps

less　than　a　myth。　Put　algebraically；　it　comes　to　this；

x=a＋b＋c；　always　remembering　that　there　is　nothing　to　show

the　exact　value　of　either　a；　or　b；　or　c。

It　is　true　that　a　is　commonly　supposed　to　equal　10；　but

there　are　exceptions；　and　these　may　reduce　it　to　8；　or　3；　or　0；

b　also　popularly　means　10；　but　being　chiefly　used　by　the

algebraist　as　a　〃moral〃　value；　you　cannot　do　much　with　it　in　the

addition　or　subtraction　of　mathematical　values；　c　also　is

quite　〃summary；〃　and　if　you　go　into　the　details　of　which　it　is

made　up；　many　of　them　may　be　wrong；　and　their　sum　total　equal　to

0；　or　even　to　a　minus　quantity。



Mr。　Gladstone　appears　to　wish　that　I　should　（1）　enter　upon　a

sort　of　essay　competition　with　the　author　of　the　pentateuchal

cosmogony；　（2）　that　I　should　make　a　further　statement　about　some

elementary　facts　in　the　history　of　Indian　and　Greek　philosophy；

and　（3）　that　I　should　show　cause　for　my　hesitation　in　accepting

the　assertion　that　Genesis　is　supported；　at　any　rate　to　the

extent　of　the　first　two　verses；　by　the　nebular　hypothesis。



A　certain　sense　of　humour　prevents　me　from　accepting　the　first

invitation。　I　would　as　soon　attempt　to　put　Hamlet's　soliloquy

into　a　more　scientific　shape。　But　if　I　supposed　the　〃Mosaic

writer〃　to　be　inspired；　as　Mr。　Gladstone　does；　it　would　not　be

consistent　with　my　notions　of　respect　for　the　Supreme　Being　to

imagine　Him　unable　to　frame　a　form　of　words　which　should

accurately；　or；　at　least；　not　inaccurately；　express　His　own

meaning。　It　is　sometimes　said　that；　had　the　statements　contained

in　the　first　chapter　of　Genesis　been　scientifically　true；　they

would　have　been　unintelligible　to　ignorant　people；　but　how　is

the　matter　mended　if；　being　scientifically　untrue；　they　must

needs　be　rejected　by　instructed　people？



With　respect　to　the　second　suggestion；　it　would　be　presumptuous

in　me　to　pretend　to　instruct　Mr。　Gladstone　in　matters　which　lie

as　much　within　the　province　of　Literature　and　History　as　in　that

of　Science；　but　if　any　one　desirous　of　further　knowledge　will　be

so　good　as　to　turn　to　that　most　excellent　and　by　no　means

recondite　source　of　information；　the　〃Encyclopaedia　Britannica；〃

he　will　find；　under　the　letter　E；　the　word　〃Evolution；〃　and　a

long　article　on　that　subject。　Now；　I　do　not　recommend　him　to

read　the　first　half　of　the　article；　but　the　second　half；　by　my

friend　Mr。　Sully；　is　really　very　good。　He　will　there　find　it

said　that　in　some　of　the　philosophies　of　ancient　India；　the　idea

of　evolution　is　clearly　expressed：　〃Brahma　is　conceived　as　the

eternal　self…existent　being；　which；　on　its　material　side；

unfolds　itself　to　the　world　by　gradually　condensing　itself　to

material　objects　through　the　gradations　of　ether；　fire；　wate