Part 1 (1/2)
Man And His Ancestor.
by Charles Morris.
PREFACE
It would be difficult to find any intelligent person in this age of the world who has not some theory or opinion in regard to the origin of man, and perhaps almost as difficult to find any such person who can give a good and sufficient reason for the faith that is in him. This is especially the case with those who look upon man as a product of evolution, a natural outgrowth from the world of lower life, since here simple faith or ancient authority is not sufficient, as in the creation hypothesis, but scientific evidence and logical argument are necessary.
It is to enable this cla.s.s of readers to test the quality and sufficiency of their belief that this book has been prepared.
The question of the evolutionary origin of man has been by no means neglected by recent authors, yet it has been dealt with chiefly as a side issue in works of a more extended purpose, and largely in technical language, simple to the scientist, but difficult to the general reader.
The only work that makes this subject its leading theme, Darwin's ”Descent of Man,” adds to it a still longer treatise on ”s.e.xual Selection,” so that the subject of man's evolutionary origin cannot be said to have been yet dealt with for itself alone. Darwin's work, moreover, is now nearly thirty years old, and to this extent antiquated, while at best it cannot be considered as well suited for general reading.
These considerations have given rise to the present work, in which an effort has been made to present the subject of man's origin in a popular manner, to dwell on the various significant facts that have been discovered since Darwin's time, and to offer certain lines of evidence never before presented in this connection, and which seem to add much strength to the general argument.
The subject is one of such widespread interest as to make it probable that a plain and brief presentation of it will be acceptable, both to enable those who are evolutionists in principle to learn on what grounds their acceptance of this phase of evolution stands, and to aid those who are at sea on the whole subject of man's origin to reach some fixed conclusion. For these purposes this little book has been set afloat, with the hope that it may carry some doubters to solid land and teach some believers the fundamental elements of their faith.
MAN AND HIS ANCESTOR
I
EVOLUTION VERSUS CREATION
In any consideration of the origin of man we are necessarily restricted to two views: one, that he is the outcome of a development from the lower animals; the other, that he came into existence through direct creation. No third mode of origin can be conceived, and we may safely confine ourselves to a review of these two claims. They are the opposites of each other in every particular. The creation doctrine is as old almost as thinking man; the evolutionary doctrine belongs in effect to our own generation. The former is not open to evidence; the latter depends solely upon evidence. The former is based on authority; the latter on investigation. The doctrine of direct creation can merely be a.s.serted, it cannot be argued; the statement once made, there is nothing more to be said; it is an _ipse dixit_ pure and simple. The doctrine of evolution, on the contrary, founded as it must be on ascertained facts, is fully open to argument, and depends for its acceptance on the strength and validity of the evidence in its favor.
If the doctrine of the direct creation of man had been originally presented in our own day, proof of the a.s.sertion would have been at once demanded, and the only evidence admissible would have been that of witnesses of the act of creation. There could, of course, have been no human witnesses, as there would have been no preceding human beings, and witnesses not human have, in the present day, no standing in our courts.
As the case stands, however, the doctrine arose in an age when man did not trouble himself about evidence, but was content to accept his opinions on authority; and this, strangely enough, is held by many to be a strong point in its favor, it gaining, in their minds, authenticity from antiquity. It is claimed, indeed, to be sustained by divine authority, but this is a claim that has no warrant in the words of the statement itself, and one to which no form of words could give warrant.
To establish it, direct and incontestable evidence from the creative power itself would be necessary, and it need scarcely be said that no such evidence exists. It is not easy, indeed, to conceive what form such evidence could take. It would certainly need to be something far more convincing than a statement in a book.
It might have been better for civilized mankind if the opening pages of Genesis had never been written, since they have played a potent part in checking the development of thought. As the case now stands, the cosmological doctrines they contain can no longer claim even a shadow of divine authority, since they have been distinctly traced back to a human origin. It has been recently discovered that they are simply a restatement of the Babylonian cosmology, as given in a literary production ages older than the Bible, an epic poem of very remote date.
They are, doubtless, an outgrowth of the cosmological ideas of early man, and those who accept them must do so on the basis of belief in their probability; it is no longer permissible to claim for them the warrant of divine origin.
Modern science stringently demands facts in support of any a.s.sertion, the word ”faith” having no place in its lexicon. Facts are absolutely and necessarily wanting in support of the creation doctrine, and the only argument its advocates can advance is one that deals in negatives, and demands its acceptance on the ground that the opposite doctrine has not been proved. Such an argument is valueless. Disproof of one statement is never proof of another. Its effect is simply to leave both unproved, and neither, therefore, in condition for acceptance. In the present case the weight of disproof is small. The facts in support of the evolution hypothesis are mult.i.tudinous, and many of them of great cogency; the facts against it are few, and none of them absolute. It is simply argued that some questions remain unsolved, and that there are facts which seem inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of development, and which no supplementary hypotheses have explained. But no advocates of evolution hold that the Darwinian theory is final. Evolution is a growing doctrine. It has been expanding ever since it was first promulgated. Various seeming difficulties have been explained away, and it is quite possible that all may disappear as investigation widens. No such arguments add any weight to the opposite view, which has not and never could have any standing in science, since it is impossible to adduce any facts to sustain it. We shall therefore dismiss it from further consideration, and proceed to state certain general facts in favor of the evolutionary hypothesis of the origin of man.
II
VESTIGES OF MAN'S ANCESTRY
When, some centuries ago, men began to find fossil remains of animals in the rocks, a severe shock was given to the prevailing doctrine of the recent creation of the earth. The adherents of the old theology made strenuous efforts to explain away this unwelcome circ.u.mstance. The sh.e.l.ls found had been dropped by pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem; they were mineral simulations of sh.e.l.ls; they had been created by the Deity and placed where found; they were anything but what they appeared to be, the existing evidences of a long ancient period of animal life reaching back very far beyond the a.s.sumed date of creation.
It need scarcely be said that these explanations, especially the one that G.o.d had created fossil forms to deceive man, for some incomprehensible purpose, could not long be maintained. Some of them were inconsistent with the facts, others with common sense, and in due time it was everywhere admitted that the earth is of remote duration and has been inhabited by animals and plants for untold ages. Its structure revealed its history; its annals were found to be written in the rocks; its anatomy was full of the evidences of its origin.
When, not many years ago, men began to find the fossil remains of ancient structures in the body of man himself, theology was brought face to face with a problem as difficult to explain, from its special point of view, as that of the fossils in the rocks. As the latter had threatened and finally disproved the doctrine of the special creation of the earth, so the former a.s.sailed the doctrine of the special creation of man, and annihilated it in the minds of many eminent scientists. It formed a prominent argument in favor of the theory of organic evolution, and as such calls for consideration here, as a suitable groundwork for our special theme.
The structures referred to may justly be called fossil, since they present strong evidence of being the useless remains of structures which played an active part in the bodies of some former animals. A significant example of this exists in the vermiform appendix, a narrow, blind tube descending from the caec.u.m of man, and detrimental instead of useful, since it is the seat of the frequently fatal disease known as appendicitis. This tube, usually from three to six inches long and of the thickness of a goose quill, is occasionally absent in man, occasionally of considerable size. It is quite large, as compared with the other intestines, in the human embryo, but ceases to grow after a certain stage of development. The caec.u.m is extremely long in some of the lower vegetable-eating animals, and the vermiform appendix seems to be a rudiment of the formerly extended portion of this organ. It is large in the anthropoid apes, especially in the orang, in which it is very long and spirally convoluted. Its survival in man as a useless and dangerous aborted organ is a powerful argument in favor of his descent from the lower animals.
In the brain of man and many of the lower vertebrates, hanging by two peduncles, or strands of nerve fibre, from the thalami, or beds of the optic nerve, is a small rounded or heart-shaped body of about the size of a pea, known as the pineal gland. It is so dest.i.tute of any evident function that Descartes, in lack of any more probable explanation of its presence, ascribed to it the n.o.ble duty of serving as the seat of the soul. Late research has been more successful in tracking this organ to its lair. It is larger in the embryo than in the adult man, still larger in some lower vertebrates, and in certain lizards has been found to exist as an eye, its parts plainly distinguishable under the microscope.