mr. gladstone and genesis-第4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！



material　objects　through　the　gradations　of　ether；　fire；　water；

earth；　and　other　elements。〃　And　again：　〃In　the　later　system　of

emanation　of　Sankhya　there　is　a　more　marked　approach　to　a

materialistic　doctrine　of　evolution。〃　What　little　knowledge　I

have　of　the　matterchiefly　derived　from　that　very　instructive

book；　〃Die　Religion　des　Buddha；〃　by　C。　F。　Koeppen；　supplemented

by　Hardy's　interesting　worksleads　me　to　think　that　Mr。　Sully

might　have　spoken　much　more　strongly　as　to　the　evolutionary

character　of　Indian　philosophy；　and　especially　of　that　of　the

Buddhists。　But　the　question　is　too　large　to　be　dealt

with　incidentally。



And；　with　respect　to　early　Greek　philosophy；　the　seeker　after

additional　enlightenment　need　go　no　further　than　the　same

excellent　storehouse　of　information：



The　early　Ionian　physicists；　including　Thales；

Anaximander；　and　Anaximenes；　seek　to　explain　the　world　as

generated　out　of　a　primordial　matter　which　is　at　the　same　time

the　universal　support　of　things。　This　substance　is　endowed　with

a　generative　or　transmutative　force　by　virtue　of　which　it　passes

into　a　succession　of　forms。　They　thus　resemble　modern

evolutionists　since　they　regard　the　world；　with　its　infinite

variety　of　forms；　as　issuing　from　a　simple　mode　of　matter。





Further　on；　Mr。　Sully　remarks　that　〃Heraclitus　deserves　a

prominent　place　in　the　history　of　the　idea　of　evolution；〃　and　he

states；　with　perfect　justice；　that　Heraclitus　has　foreshadowed

some　of　the　special　peculiarities　of　Mr。　Darwin's　views。　It　is

indeed　a　very　strange　circumstance　that　the　philosophy　of　the

great　Ephesian　more　than　adumbrates　the　two　doctrines　which　have

played　leading　parts；　the　one　in　the　development　of　Christian

dogma；　the　other　in　that　of　natural　science。　The　former　is　the

conception　of　the　Word　＇logos＇　which　took　its　Jewish

shape　in　Alexandria；　and　its　Christian　form　in　that　Gospel

which　is　usually　referred　to　an　Ephesian　source　of　some　five

centuries　later　date；　and　the　latter　is　that　of　the　struggle　for

existence。　The　saying　that　〃strife　is　father　and　king　of　all〃

＇。。。＇；　ascribed　to　Heraclitus；　would　be　a　not

inappropriate　motto　for　the　〃Origin　of　Species。〃



I　have　referred　only　to　Mr。　Sully's　article；　because　his

authority　is　quite　sufficient　for　my　purpose。　But　the

consultation　of　any　of　the　more　elaborate　histories　of　Greek

philosophy；　such　as　the　great　work　of　Zeller；　for　example；　will

only　bring　out　the　same　fact　into　still　more　striking

prominence。　I　have　professed　no　〃minute　acquaintance〃　with

either　Indian　or　Greek　philosophy；　but　I　have　taken　a　great　deal

of　pains　to　secure　that　such　knowledge　as　I　do　possess　shall　be

accurate　and　trustworthy。



In　the　third　place；　Mr。　Gladstone　appears　to　wish　that　I　should

discuss　with　him　the　question　whether　the　nebular　hypothesis　is；

or　is　not；　confirmatory　of　the　pentateuchal　account　of　the

origin　of　things。　Mr。　Gladstone　appears　to　be　prepared　to　enter

upon　this　campaign　with　a　light　heart。　I　confess　I　am　not；　and

my　reason　for　this　backwardness　will　doubtless　surprise　Mr。

Gladstone。　It　is　that；　rather　more　than　a　quarter　of　a　century

ago　（namely；　in　February　1859）；　when　it　was　my　duty；　as

President　of　the　Geological　Society；　to　deliver　the　Anniversary

Address；　I　chose　a　topic　which　involved　a　very　careful　study

of　the　remarkable　cosmogonical　speculation；　originally

promulgated　by　Immanuel　Kant　and；　subsequently；　by　Laplace；

which　is　now　known　as　the　nebular　hypothesis。　With　the　help　of

such　little　acquaintance　with　the　principles　of　physics　and

astronomy　as　I　had　gained；　I　endeavoured　to　obtain　a　clear

understanding　of　this　speculation　in　all　its　bearings。　I　am　not

sure　that　I　succeeded；　but　of　this　I　am　certain；　that　the

problems　involved　are　very　difficult；　even　for　those　who　possess

the　intellectual　discipline　requisite　for　dealing　with　them。

And　it　was　this　conviction　that　led　me　to　express　my　desire　to

leave　the　discussion　of　the　question　of　the　asserted　harmony

between　Genesis　and　the　nebular　hypothesis　to　experts　in　the

appropriate　branches　of　knowledge。　And　I　think　my　course　was　a

wise　one；　but　as　Mr。　Gladstone　evidently　does　not　understand　how

there　can　be　any　hesitation　on　my　part；　unless　it　arises　from　a

conviction　that　he　is　in　the　right；　I　may　go　so　far　as　to　set

out　my　difficulties。



They　are　of　two　kindsexegetical　and　scientific。　It　appears　to

me　that　it　is　vain　to　discuss　a　supposed　coincidence　between

Genesis　and　science　unless　we　have　first　settled；　on　the　one

hand；　what　Genesis　says；　and；　on　the　other　hand；　what

science　says。



In　the　first　place；　I　cannot　find　any　consensus　among　Biblical

scholars　as　to　the　meaning　of　the　words；　〃In　the　beginning　God

created　the　heaven　and　the　earth。〃　Some　say　that　the　Hebrew　word

bara；　which　is　translated　〃create；〃　means　〃made　out　of

nothing。〃　I　venture　to　object　to　that　rendering；　not　on　the

ground　of　scholarship；　but　of　common　sense。　Omnipotence　itself

can　surely　no　more　make　something　〃out　of〃　nothing　than　it　can

make　a　triangular　circle。　What　is　intended　by　〃made　out　of

nothing〃　appears　to　be　〃caused　to　come　into　existence；〃　with　the

implication　that　nothing　of　the　same　kind　previously　existed。

It　is　further　usually　assumed　that　〃the　heaven　and　the　earth〃

means　the　material　substance　of　the　universe。　Hence　the　〃Mosaic

writer〃　is　taken　to　imply　that　where　nothing　of　a　material

nature　previously　existed；　this　substance　appeared。　That　is

perfectly　conceivable；　and　therefore　no　one　can　deny　that　it　may

have　happened。　But　there　are　other　very　authoritative　critics

who　say　that　the　ancient　Israelite　who　wrote　the　passage　was

not　likely　to　have　been　capable　of　such　abstract　thinking；　and

that；　as　a　matter　of　philology；　bara　is　commonly　used　to

signify　the　〃fashioning；〃　or　〃forming；〃　of　that　which　already

exists。　Now　it　appears　to　me　that　the　scientific　investigator　is

wholly　incompetent　to　say　anything　at　all　about　the　first　origin

of　the　material　universe。　The　whole　power　of　his　organon

vanishes　when　he　has　to　step　beyond　the　chain　of　natural　causes

and　effects。　No　form　of　the　nebular　hypothesis；　that　I　know　of；

is　necessarily　connected　with　any　view　of　the　origination　of　the

nebular　substance。　Kant's　form　of　it　expressly　supposes　that　the

nebular　material　from　which　one　stellar　system　starts　may　be

nothing　but　the　disintegrated　substance　of　a　stellar　and

planetary　system　which　has　just　come　to　an　end。　Therefore；　so

far　as　I　can　see；　one　who　believes　that　matter　has　existed　from

all　eternity　has　just　as　much　right　to　hold　the　nebular

hypothesis　as　one　who　believes　that　matter　came　into　existence

at　a　specified　epoch。　In　other　words；　the　nebular　hypothesis　and

the　creation　hypothesis；　up　to　this　point；　neither　confirm　nor

oppose　one　another。



Next；　we　read　in　the　revisers'　version；　in　which　I　suppose　the

ultimate　results　of　critical　scholarship　to　be　embodied：　〃And

the　earth　was　waste　＇'without　form；'　in　the　Authorised　Version＇

and　void。〃　Most　people　seem　to　think　that　this　phraseology

intends　to　imply　that　the　matter　out　of　which　the　world　was　to

be　formed　was　a　veritable　〃chaos；〃　devoid　of　law　and　order。

If　this　interpretation　is　correct；　the　nebular　hypothesis　can

have　nothing　to　say　to　it。　The　scientific　thinker　cannot　admit

the　absence　of　law　and　order；　anywhere　or　anywhen；　in　nature。

Sometimes　law　and　order　are　patent　and　visible　to　our　limited

vision；　sometimes　they　are　hidden。　But　every　particle　of　the

matter　of　the　most　fantastic…looking　nebula　in　the　heavens　is　a

realm　of　law　and　order　in　itself；　and；　that　it　is　so；　is　the

essential　condition　of　the　possibility　of　solar　and　planetary

evolution　from　the　apparent　chaos。



〃Waste〃　is　too　vague　a　term　to　be　worth　consideration。　〃Without

form；〃　intelligible　enough　as　a　metaphor；　if　taken　literally　is

absurd；　for　a　material　thing　existing　in　space　must　have　a

superficies；　and　if　it　has　a　superficies　it　has　a　form。

The　wildest　streaks　of　marestail　clouds　in　the　sky；　or　the　most

irregular　heavenly　nebulae；　have　surely　just　as　much　form　as　a

geometrical　tetrahedron；　and　as　for　〃void；〃　how　can　that　be　void

which　is　full　of　matter？　As　poetry；　these　lines　are　vivid　and

admirable；　as　a　scientific　statement；　which　they　must　be　taken

to　be　if　any　one　is　justified　in　comparing　them　with　another

scientific　statement；　they　fail　to　convey　any　intelligible

conception　to　my　mind。



The　account　proceeds：　〃And　darkness　was　upon　the　face　of　the

deep。〃　So　be　it；　but　where；　then；　is　the　likeness　to　the

celestial　nebulae；　of　the　existence　of　which　we　should　know

nothing　unless　they　shone　with　a　light　of　their　own？　〃And　the

spirit　of　God　moved　upon　the　face　of　the　waters。〃　I　have　met

with　no　form　of　the　nebular　hypothesis　which　involves　anything

analogous　to　this　process。



I　have　said　enough　to　explain　some