Was Man Created?

Fig. I.—A Moneron (Protamœba) in act of reproduction; A, the whole Moneron, which moves like ordinary Amœba, by means of variable processes: B, a contraction around its circumference parts it into two halves; C, the two halves separate, and each now forms independent individuals. (Much enlarged.)—Haeckel.

Fig. II.

Fig. II.—A, is a crawling Amœba (much enlarged).—Haeckel. The whole organism has the form-value of a naked cell and moves about by means of changeable processes, which are extended from the protoplasmic body and again drawn in. In the inside is the bright-colored, roundish cell-kernel or nucleus. B, Egg-cell of a Chalk Sponge (Olynthus).—Haeckel.

Fig. III.

Fig. III.—Represents the next higher stage, Mulberry-germ or Morula (Synamœba).—Haeckel.

THE COMING INTO EXISTENCE OF MAN,
BY THE SLOW PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT.

It is necessary now to take up the little mass of living matter, admitting its coming into existence by spontaneous generation as probable, and so probable that it almost amounts to a certainty, and follow it through the many changes it is about to make under the influence of the laws which govern evolution until it has culminated in man, and these laws still acting on the brain of man, perfecting it, and leading him on to the comprehension of a grander and nobler conception of the Almighty and of his works.

The start, then, must be made with a homogeneous mass of protoplasm, such as the existing Protamœba primitiva of the present day, which is a structureless organism without organs, and which came into existence during the Laurentian period. It is to this simplified condition, as I have previously stated, all fertilized eggs return before they commence to develop.

The first process of adaptation effected by the monera must have been the condensation of an external crust, which, as a protecting covering, shut in the softer interior from the hostile influences of the outer world. As soon as, by condensation of the homogeneous moneron, a cell-kernel arose in the interior, and a membrane arose on the surface, all the fundamental parts of the unit were then furnished. Such a unit was an organism, similar to the white corpuscle of the blood, and called amœbæ. Here we have two different stages of evolution; the protoplasma (better plasson) of the cytod undergoes differentiation, and is split up into two kinds of albuminous substances—the inner cell-kernel (nucleus) and the outer cell-substance (protoplasma). Edward von Benden, in his work upon Gregarinæ, first clearly pointed out this fact, that we must distinguish thoroughly between the plasson of cytods and the protoplasm of cells.

An irrefutable proof that such single-celled primæval animals like the amœba really existed as the direct ancestors of man, is furnished, according to the fundamental law of biogeny, by the fact that the human egg is nothing more than a simple cell.

The next step taken in advance is the division of the cell in two;—there arise from the single germinal spot two new kernel specks, and then, in like manner, out of the germinal vesicle two new cell-kernels. The same process of cell-division now repeats itself several times in succession, and the products of the division form a perfect union. This organism may be called a community of amœbæ (synamœbæ).

From the community of amœba morula, now arose ciliated larvæ. The cells lying on the surface extended hair-like processes or fringes of hair, which, by striking against the water, kept the whole body rotating—the lanceolate animals or amphioxus were thus first produced. Here we find from the synamœbæ which crept about slowly at the bottom of the Laurentian primeval ocean by means of movements like those of an amœba, that the newly-formed planæa by the vibrating movements of the cilia, the entire multicellular body acquired a more rapid and stronger motion, and passed over from the creeping to the swimming mode of locomotion. The planæa consisted, then, of two kinds of cells—inner ones like the amœbæ, and external "ciliated cells." The ancestors of man, which possessed the form value of the ciliated larva, is, of course, extinct at the present day.

Fig. I.—The Norwegian Flimmer-ball (Magosphœra Planula), swimming by means of its vibratile fringes; seen from the surface.—Haeckel.

Fig. II.—The same in section. The pear-shaped cells are seen bound together in the centre of the gelatinous sphere by a thread-like process. Each cell contains both a kernel and a contractile vesicle. (Planæa Series.)—Haeckel.]

Figs. III and IV.—Represents Gastræa Series. The body consists merely of a simple primitive intestine, the wall of which is formed of two primary germ-layers.—Haeckel.

Figs. I and II.—Represents the next higher stage (Tubularia). Fig. I, a simple Gliding Worm (Rhabdocœlum); m, mouth; sd, throat-epithelium; sm, throat-muscles; d, stomach-intestine; nc, kidney-ducts; nm, opening of the kidneys; au, eye; na, nose-pit. Fig. II, the same Gliding Worm, showing the remaining organs; g, brain; au, eye; na, nose-pit; n, nerves; h, testes; ♂, male opening; ♀, female opening; e, ovary; f, ciliated outer-skin.—Haeckel.

Fig. III.—Represents Soft Worms (Scolecida) and is a young Acorn Worm (Balanoglossus), after Agassiz. r, acorn-like proboscis; h, collar; k, gill-openings and gill-arches of the anterior intestine, in a long row, one behind the other, on each side; d, digestive posterior intestine, filling the greater part of the body cavity; v, intestinal vessel, lying between two parallel folds of the skin; a, anus.

Out of the planula, then, develops an exceedingly important animal form—the gastrula (that is, larva with a stomach or intestine), which resembles the planula, but differs essentially in the fact that it encloses a cavity which opens to the outside by a mouth. The wall of the progaster (primary stomach) consists of two layers of cells: an outer layer of smaller ciliated cells (outer skin or ectoderm), and of an inner layer of large non-ciliated cells (inner skin or entoderm). This exceedingly important larval form, the "gastrula," makes its appearance in the ontogenesis of all tribes of animals. These gastræada must have existed during the older primordial period, and they must have also included the ancestors of man. A certain proof of this is furnished by the amphioxus, which, in spite of its blood relationship to man, still passes through the stage of the gastrula with a simple intestine and a double intestinal wall.[16] By motion of the cilia or fringes of the skin-layer, the gastræa swam freely about in the Laurentian ocean.

The development of the gastræa now deviated in two directions—one branch of gastræads gave up free locomotion, adhered to the bottom of the sea, and thus, by adopting an adhesive mode of life, gave rise to the proascus, the common primary form of the animal plants (zoophyta). The other branch was originated by the formation of a middle germ-layer or muscular layer, and also by the further differentiation of the internal parts into various organs; more especially, the first formation of a nervous system, the simplest organs of sense, the simplest organs for secretion (kidneys), and generation (sexual organs)—this branch is the prothelmis, the common primary worms (vermes). Like the turbellaria of the present day, the whole surface of their body was covered with cilia, and they possessed a simple body of an oval shape, entirely without appendages. These acœlomatous worms did not as yet possess a true body cavity (cœlom) nor blood. No member of the next higher animals are in existence, neither are there any fossil remains, owing to the soft nature of their body. They are therefore called soft worms, or scoleceda. They developed out of the turbellaria of the sixth stage by forming a true body cavity (a cœlom) and blood in their interior. The nearest still living cœlomati is probably the acorn worms (balanoglossus). The form value of this stage must, moreover, have been represented by several different intermediate stages.

Out of the four different groups of the worm tribe, the four higher tribes of the animal kingdom were developed—the star-fishes (echinoderma) and insects (arthropoda) on the one hand, and the molluscs (mollusca) and vertebrated animals (vertebrata) on the other. Out of certain cœlomati, the most ancient skull-less vertebrata were directly developed. Among the cœlomati of the present day, the ascidians are the nearest relatives of this exceedingly remarkable worm, which connect the widely differing classes of invertebrate and vertebrate animals. To these animals have been given the name of sack-worms (himatega). They originated out of the worms of the seventh stage by the formation of a dorsal nerve marrow (medulla tube), and by the formation of the spinal rod (chorda dorsalis) which lies below it. It is just the position of this central spinal rod or axial skeleton, between the dorsal marrow on the dorsal side and the intestinal canal on the ventral side, which is most characteristic of all vertebrate animals, including man, but also of the larvæ of the ascidia.

We now come to the second half of the series of human ancestors. The skull-less animal lancelet, which is still living, affords a faint idea of the members of this group (acrania). Since this little animal, in its earliest embryonic state, entirely agrees with the ascidia, and in its further development shows itself to be a true vertebrate animal, it forms a direct transition from the vertebrata to the invertebrata.

Fig. I.—Appendicularia, seen from the left side, m, mouth; k, gill intestine; o, œsophagus; v, stomach; a, anus; n, nerve ganglia (upper throat-knots); g, ear vesicle; f, ciliated groove under the gill; h, heart; e, ovary; c, notochord; s, tail.—Haeckel.

Fig. II.—Represents Sack Worms (Himatega), and is the structure of an Ascidian, seen from the left. sb, gill-sac; v, stomach; i, large intestine; c, heart; t, testes; vd, seed duct; o, ovary; o', matured eggs in the body cavity. After Milne-Edwards.

Fig. III.—Represents the Acrania Series. Lancelet (Amhioxus Lanceolatus), twice the actual size, seen from the left. a, mouth-opening, surrounded by cilia; b, anal-opening; c, ventral-opening (Porus abdominalis); d, gill-body; e, stomach; f, liver-cœcum; g, large intestine; h, cœlum; i, notochord (under it the aorta); k, arches of the aorta; l, main gill-artery; m, swellings on its branches; n, hollow vein; o, intestinal vein.—Haeckel.]

Fig. I.

Fig. I.—Represents the Monorhina Series. Lamprey (Petromyzon Americanus) from the Atlantic—Orton.

Fig. II.

Fig. II.—Represents the Selachii. Shark (Carcharias vulgaris) from the Atlantic—Orton.

Fig. III.

Fig. III.—Represents the Mud-fish (Dipneusta). Lepidosiren annecteus, one-fourth natural size; African rivers.—Orton. Form a link between typical fishes and the Amphibians.

At this stage, most probably, the separation of the two sexes began. The simpler and most ancient form of sexual propagation is through double-sexed individuals (hermaphroditismus). It occurs in the great majority of plants, but only in a minority of animals; for example, in the garden-snails, leeches, earth-worms and many other worms. Every single individual among hermaphrodites produces within itself materials of both sexes—egg and sperm. In most of the higher plants every blossom contains both the male organs (stamen and anther) and the female organs (style and germ). Every garden-snail produces in one part of its sexual gland eggs, and in another sperm. Many hermaphrodites can fructify themselves; in others, however, copulation and reciprocal fructification of both hermaphrodites are necessary for causing the development of the eggs. This latter case is evidently a transition to sexual separation (gonœhorismus).

Out of the members of the last group arose animals with skulls or craniata, having round mouths, and which are divided into hags and lampreys. The hags (myxinoides) have long cylindrical worm-like bodies. The lampreys (petromyxontes) includes those well known "nine eyes" common at the seaside.

These single-nostril animals (monorrhina) arose during the primordial period out of the skull-less animals by the anterior end of the dorsal marrow developing into the brain, and the anterior end of the dorsal skull into the skull. By the division of the single nostril of the members of the last group into two lateral halves, by the formation of a sympathetic nervous system, a jaw skeleton, a swimming bladder and two pairs of legs (breast fins or fore-legs, and ventral fins or hind-legs), arose the primæval fish (selachii), which is best represented by the still-living shark (squalacei).

Out of the primæval fish arose the mud-fish (dipneusta), which is very imperfectly represented by the still-living salamander fish; the primæval fish adapting itself to land, and by the transforming of the swimming bladder into an air-breathing lung, and of the nasal cavity (which was now open into the mouth cavity) into air-passages. Their organization might, in some respect, be like the ceratodus and proloptems; but this is not certain.

The dipneusta is an intermediate stage between the selachii and amphibia. Out of the dipneusta arose the class of amphibia, having five toes (the pentadactyla). The gill amphibians are man's most ancient ancestors of the class amphibia. Besides possessing lungs as well as the mud-fish, they retain throughout life regular gills like the still-living proteus and axolotl. Most gilled batrachia live in North America. The paddle-fins of the dipneusta changed into five-toed legs, which were afterwards transmitted to the higher vertebrata up to man.

The gilled amphibia (sozobrachia) of the last group finally lost their gills but retained their tail, and tailed amphibians (sozura) were produced, such as the salamander and newt of the present day. Out of the sozura originated the primæval amniota (protamnia) by the complete loss of the gills by the formation of the amnion of the cochlea, and of the round window in the auditory organ, and of the organ of tears. Out of the protamnia originated the primary mammals (promammalia). The most closely related were the ornithostoma; they differed through having teeth in their jaws.

No fossil remains of the primary mammals have as yet been found, although they lived during the trias period—they possessed a very highly developed jaw. From the primary mammal arose the pouched animals (marsupialia). Numerous representatives of this group still exist: kangaroos, pouched rats and pouched dogs. The marsupial animals developed, very probably, in the mesolithic epoch (during the Jura) out of the cloacal animals; by the division of the cloaca into the rectum and the urogenital sinus, by the formation of a nipple on the mammary gland, and the partial suppression of the clavicles.

Figs. I and II.—The Ceratodus Forsteri occur in the swamps of Southern Australia. Form transition between fishes and Amphibia.—Haeckel.

Fig. I.

Fig. I.—Represents the Gilled Amphibians (Soyobranchia). The Axolotl (Siredon pisciforme), after Tegetmeier. The ordinary form with persistent branchiæ.

Fig. II.

Fig. II.—Proteus Anguinus. Europe.—Orton.

Fig. III.

Fig. III.—Represents the Tailed Amphibians (Soyura). Great Water-Newt (Triton cristatus), after Bell.

From the marsupialia originated a most interesting small group of semi-apes (prosimiæ), for they are the primary forms of genuine apes and consequently of man. They developed out of handed or ape-footed marsupials (pedumana), of rat-like appearance, by the formation of a placenta, the loss of the marsupium and the marsupial bones, and by the higher development of the commissures of the brain. The still-living short-footed semi-ape (brachytarsi), especially the muki, indie and lori, possess possibly a faint resemblance.

Out of the semi-apes developed two classes of genuine apes; but as the narrow-nosed or catarrhini class are the only ones related to man, the others will not be considered. These narrow-nosed apes originated by the transformation of the jaw, and by the claws on the toes changing into nails. The still-living long-tail nose-apes and holy apes (semnopithecus) probably resembled the oldest ancestors of this group.

The tailed apes by the loss of their tail and some of their hair covering, and by the excessive development of that portion of their brain above the facial portion of the skull, developed into the man-like apes (anthropoides)—such as the gorilla and chimpanzee of Africa, and the orang and gibbon of Asia. The human ancestors of this group existed during the miocene period. From the anthropoides developed the ape-like men (pithecanthropi) during the tertiary period. The speechless primæval men (alali), then, is the connecting link between the man-like apes and man. The fore-hand of the anthropoides became the human hand, their hinder-hand a foot for walking. They did not possess the articulate human language of words and the higher developments, as consciousness and the formation of ideas must have been very imperfect.

Out of the pithecanthropi men developed genuine man, by the development of the animal language of sounds into a connected or articulate language of words—the brain also developed higher and higher. This transition took place, probably, at the beginning of the quaternary period, or possibly in the tertiary.

We have now very briefly reviewed the principal outlines of the ancestors of man, showing that man has developed from the little mass of protoplasm, as have all animals and plants. He therefore was not spontaneously created, but was developed. The question is often asked by simple-minded people, with much delight, Why do we not behold the interesting spectacle of the transformation of a chimpanzee into a man, or conversely of a man by retrogression into an orang?—it only shows that they are not acquainted with the first principles of the Doctrine of Descent. "Not one of the apes," says Schmidt, "can revert to the state of his primordial ancestors, except by retrogression—by which a primordial condition is by no means attained—he cannot divest himself of his acquired characters fixed by heredity, nor can he exceed himself and become man; for man does not stand in the direct line of development from the ape. The development of the anthropoid apes has taken a lateral course from the nearest human progenitors, and man can as little be transformed into a gorilla as a squirrel can be changed into a rat."

Fig. I.

Fig. I.—Salamandra Maculata.—Haeckel. The Water Newts and Salamanders were the next higher stage after the Proteus and the Axolotl.

Fig. I.

Fig. I.—Represents Primæval Amniota (Protamnia). Lizard (Lacerta), after Orton.

Fig. II.

Fig. II.—Represents Primary Mammals (Promammalia). Amniota Series. Duck-billed Platypus (Ornithorhynchus paradoxus).—Haeckel.

"Feeling evidently,"[17] says Haeckel, "rather than understanding, induces most people to combat the theory of their 'descent from apes.' It is simply because the organism of the ape appears a caricature of man, a distorted likeness of ourselves in a not very attractive form; because the customary æsthetic ideas and self-glorification of man are touched by this in so sensitive a point, that most men shrink from recognizing their descent from apes. It seems much pleasanter to be descended from a more highly developed divine being, and hence, as is well known, human vanity has from the earliest times flattered itself by assuming the original descent of the race from gods or demi-gods."

EVOLUTION.

"According to the theory of development (evolution) in its simplest form," says Henry Hartshorne,[18] "the universe as it now exists is a result of 'an immense series of changes,' related to and dependent upon each other as successive steps, or rather growths, constituting a progress; analogous to the unfolding or evolving of the parts of a growing organism." Herbert Spencer defined evolution as consisting in a progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, from general to special, from the simple to the complex; and this process is considered to be traceable in the formation of worlds in space, in the multiplication of the types and species of plants and animals on the globe, in the origination and diversity of languages, literature, arts and sciences, and in all changes of human institutions and society.

Fig. I.

Fig. I.—Skeleton of Platypus.—Haeckel.

Fig. I.

Fig. I.—Represents Pouched Animals (Marsupialia). Kangaroo. (Popular Science Monthly, Feb., 1876.)

Let us now apply this theory of evolution to the physical world. No determined opposition by the mass of people is likely to be manifested to the doctrine of evolution as applied to the physical world, or even to the vegetable or animal world up to man; but the minute man is included—then is a voice raised up against it, and it was for this reason that Darwin in his first work on the "Theory of Descent" did not mention man as being included in the evolutionary series. He knew too well the foolish human weakness that existed.

In a recent work by Prof. Challes, he states that he regards the material universe as "a vast and wonderful mechanism of which the least wonderful thing is its being so constructed that we can understand it."

The following is a brief description of the various theories of the world's formation:

First Theory.—By the first theory the world is supposed to have existed from eternity under its actual form. Aristotle embraced this doctrine, and conceived the universe to be the eternal effect of an eternal cause; maintaining that not only the heavens and the earth, but all animate and inanimate beings, are without beginning. To use Huxley's illustration: If you can imagine a spectator on the earth, however far back in time, he would have seen a world "essentially similar, though not perhaps in all its details, to that which now exists. The animals which existed would be the ancestors of those which now exist, and like them; the plants in like manner would be such as we have now, and like them; and the supposition is that, at however distant a period of time you place your observer, he would still find mountains, lands, and waters, with animal and vegetable products flourishing upon them and sporting in them just as he finds now." This theory being perfectly inconsistent with facts, had to be abandoned.

Second Theory.—The second theory considers the universe eternal, but not its form. This was the system of Epicurus and most of the ancient philosophers and poets, who imagined the world either to be produced by fortuitous concourse of atoms existing from all eternity, or to have sprung out of the chaotic form which preceded its present state.

Third Theory.—By this theory the matter and form of the earth is ascribed to the direct agency of a spiritual cause. It is needless to say that this last theory has for its basis the popular account, generally credited to Moses in the first chapter of Genesis. I say popular, for it certainly is not a scientific account, nor was it the intention of the writer to make it so. The supposed object was to show the relation between the Creator and his works. If it had been an ultimate scientific account, the ablest minds of to-day would be unable to comprehend it, as science is progressive and constantly changing; in fifty thousand years to come, it would still appear utterly absurd. It cannot be said for this fact that the account is any the less true because it is not presented in scientific phraseology; for instance, when we remark in popular language "the sun rises," who shall say that though the expression is not astronomically true, we do not, for all practical purposes, utter as important a truth, as when we say, "The earth by its revolution brings us to that point where the sun becomes visible?" The language, also, in which the writer wrote was very imperfect; it had no equivalent to our word "air" or "atmosphere," properly speaking, for they knew not the words. "Their nearest approaches," according to J. Pye Smith, "were with words that denoted watery vapor condensed, and thus rendered visible, whether floating around them or seen in the breathing of animals; and words for smoke from substances burning; and for air in motion, wind, a zephyr whisper or a storm." It must also be remembered, "that the Hebrews had no term for the abstract ideas which we express by 'fluid' or 'matter.' If the writer had designed to express the idea, 'In the beginning God created matter,' he could not have found words to serve his purpose" (Phin).

Fig. I.

Fig. I.—Skeleton of Kangaroo. (Popular Science Monthly.)

Fig. I.

Fig. I.—Represents Semi-Apes (Prosimiæ). The Slow Loris, after Tickel and Alp. Miln-Edwards. (Natural History, by Duncan.)

It is unnecessary to state how the Bible, which contains the so-called Mosaic account, is regarded by the different church denominations, as undoubtedly that is familiar to every one. But with respect to the view entertained by the scientist and critical school of Biblical scholars, represented chiefly by modern Germans, I may state briefly: "They regard the Bible as the human record of a divine revelation; not absolutely infallible, since there is no book written in any human language but must partake in a measure of the imperfections of that language. Many of this school, while admitting the Bible to contain the record of a true supernatural revelation, do not consider it to be without positive error of historical fact, not without false coloring from popular legend and tradition, but nevertheless a record as good as human hands could make a truly divine revelation."[19]

There is, though, a class of thinkers that altogether reject the Bible; that is to say, refuse to believe it to be a divine revelation. Hume, whom Huxley calls "the most acute thinker of the eighteenth century," thus ends one of his essays: "If we take in hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it, then, to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." To this Huxley says: "Permit me to enforce this wise advice, Why trouble ourselves about matters of which, however important they may be, we do know nothing, and can know nothing? We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it. To do this effectually, it is necessary to be fully possessed of only two beliefs: the first, that the order of nature is ascertainable by our faculties to an extent which is practically unlimited; the second, that our volitions count for something as a condition of the course of events. Each of these beliefs can be verified experimentally, as often as we like to try. Each, therefore, stands upon the strongest foundation upon which any belief can rest, and forms one of our highest truths."

The first words in the Mosaic account are:[20] "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."[21] It is seen, then, that the so-called revelation points to a beginning. The beginning referred to is an absolute beginning, for we find: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."[22] * * * "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made."[23] Science points also to a beginning.

Geology points to a time when man did not inhabit the earth; when for him there was a beginning. So, too, for lower organisms; so, too, for the rocky minerals; so, too, for the round world itself. But the beginning that science points to is not an absolute beginning. Science has to start from some point, and that point must have a scientific foundation—the foundation of science is matter, which is inseparable from form and force. Natural science teaches that matter is eternal and imperishable; for experience has never shown us that even the smallest particle of matter has come into existence or passed away. "A naturalist," says Haeckel, "can no more imagine the coming into existence of matter than he can imagine its disappearance, and he therefore looks upon the existing quantity of matter in the universe as a given fact." "The creation of matter, if, indeed," says Haeckel,[24] "it ever took place, is completely beyond human comprehension, and can therefore never become a subject of scientific inquiry. We can as little imagine a first beginning of the eternal phenomena of the motion of the universe as of its final end."[25] It is evident, then, that the absolute beginning of the universe and its absolute end are not questions of science, and can be known only as revealed by faith. Paul says: "By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which appeared."[26]

Fig. I.

Fig. I.—Represents Tailed Apes (Menocerca). Proboscis Monkey (Presbytes larvatus). (Mammalia.)—Louis Figuier.

The natives of Borneo pretend that these monkeys, or, as sometimes called, Kahan, are men who have retired to the woods to avoid paying taxes; and they entertain the greatest respect for a being who has found such ready means of evading the responsibilities of society.—Figuier.

Fig. I.

Fig. I.—Photographically reduced from diagrams of the natural size (except that of the Gibbon, which was twice as large as nature), drawn by Waterhouse Hawkins, from specimens in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. (Huxley's "Man's Place in Nature.")

If, therefore, science makes the "history of creation" its highest and most difficult and most comprehensible problem, it must deal with "the coming into being of the form of natural bodies." Let us look for a minute at Kant's Cosmogony, or, as Haeckel says,[27] Kant's Cosmological Gas Theory: "This wonderful theory," says Haeckel, "harmonizes with all the general series of phenomena at present known to us, and stands in no irreconcilable contradiction to any one of them. Moreover, it is purely mechanical and monistic, makes use exclusively of the inherent forces of eternal matter, and entirely excludes every supernatural process, every prearranged and conscious action of a personal creator." Compare this last statement with the following: "I will, however," says Haeckel,[28] "not deny that Kant's grand cosmogony has some weak points." * * * "A great unsolved difficulty lies in the fact that the cosmological gas theory furnishes no starting-point at all in explanation of the first impulse which caused the rotary motion in the gas-filled universe."

Whewell[29] has pointed out, that the nebular hypothesis is null without a creative act to produce the inequality of distribution of cosmic matter in space.

It is seen, then, that according to Kant's theory we are to suppose that millions of years ago there appeared a nebulous mass possessing a rotary motion, and unequally distributed through space. This is what science calls a beginning, and may assert that every physical event of a hundred million of ages existed potentially in that nebulous mass. But this is really no explanation of the ultimate and real cause of anything. Reason demands the cause of this beginning, the source that gave to the nebulous mass its rotary motion; the power that distributed the matter in space; the antecedents of the cosmical vapor. In absence of antecedents, what was the cause of this fire-mist—of these forces active in it? Reason will never remain satisfied until these questions are answered. But physical science can trace the thread no further back, and must be dumb to all ulterior inquiries. It is true, then, as physicists assert, "that their science does not mount actually to God."

Fig. I.