THE DARWINIAN THEORY. 



417 



degrees of intelligence and sagacity. Now, either the higher natures are develop- 

 ments of the lower, or they are not. If they are mere developments, why may we 

 not regard the nature of man as a development too ? What special reasons are 

 there for supposing the nature of man to be a creation, while we regard the varied 

 and distinctive natures of the other animals as mere developments ? We perceive 

 in the old proverb, "Necessity is the mother of invention," the popular recog- 

 nition of the fact that circumstances have a certain modifying effect upon the 

 intellect of man, and that, too, in cases where, in all probability, they would fail to 

 exercise any modifying effect whatever upon the mental powers of the brute. If, 

 therefore, the developing power of circumstances acts in certain cases with even 

 greater effect upon the man than upon the brute, why may we not suppose that 

 these modifying causes might act during an almost infinite succession of ages and 

 through an almost endless chain of being, and the accumulated result be the mind 

 of man as we now find it ? 



Further, if mind of any degree can be developed, I certainly see no greater 

 difficulty in supposing that an animal, under the pressure of circumstances, might 

 modify its mental powers (as in fact is done daily in education, both in man and 

 •many of the lower animals), than in supposing that it might acquire a new member 

 or a new faculty. If, for example, the mussel can develope into the fish, as Oken 

 says it can, why may not the nature of the mussel develope into the nature of the 

 fish ? Or, if the fish can develope into the land animal, why may not the nature 

 of the fish develope into the nature of the land animal ? Or, finally, if the brute can 

 develope into the man, why may not the nature of the brute develope into the 

 nature of the man ? From a careful perusal of Lieutenant Hutton's article and 

 explanation, it appears to me that he supposes the various natures of the inferior 

 animals to be mere developments, the higher of the lower ; but how he can at the 

 same time consistently maintain that the nature of man was " given him by special" 

 act of creational power, I confess I cannot make out. Perhaps he found himself in 

 one of the "dilemmas" he speaks of, and wished to harmonize his theory with the 

 facts before him. If, however, I misapprehend his "Theory,'' and if, in reality, 

 he means to assert that mind cannot in any case be developed, then in effect the 

 " Theory of development " becomes the " Theory of creation," for a continuous 

 series of " special interpositions " is assumed, and the idea of development becomes 

 a new and very comprehensive idea indeed. 



But to return for a moment to the theological aspect of this theory, Lieutenant 

 Hutton says, that "man" was developed from some inferior animal (he does not 

 know which), but that his ' ' mental and moral powers, " that is, his soul, were 

 bestowed upon him at the proper time by a " special " act of creation. The 

 Bible says (Gen. i. 26, 27 ; ii. 7, &c) that God created man both body and 

 soul. I am aware of the use which Lieutenant Hutton makes of the word " cre- 

 ated," but I reject that use of it in this place as evidently inappropriate. I have 

 not as yet seen the pamphlet by Dr. Asa Gray, but I have read my Bible, and 

 whether I interpret it aright or Lieutenant Hutton, I leave your readers to decide. 

 For a further discussion of the theological bearings of the Development Theory, I 

 must refer your readers to Hugh Miller's " Footprints of the Creator," a work 

 containing some very good arguments on the subject. 



I have already occupied more of your space than I originally intended, and con- 

 sequently feel loath to trespass further ; still I cannot close my letter without a 

 remark or two on the actual position of geology with reference to this theory. I 

 will endeavour, however, to be very brief ; and if in consequence of this enforced 

 brevity, my arguments or illustrations should seem to any incomplete or inconclu- 

 sive, I trust they will ascribe such defects to their true cause, and not to any 

 uncertainty in the teachings of geology, which, to me at least, are plain and 

 unmistakeable. 



In my former letter, inserted in your number for June, I quoted from Darwin 

 the statement that, if his theory were true, then before the deposition of the lowest 

 Silurian strata there elapsed periods of time " probably longer than the whole interval 

 from the Silurian age to the present day," during which " the world swarmed with 

 living creatures ;" and I put to Lieutenant Hutton the question which had already 

 been put to Mr. Darwin — "What has become of the records of these vast primor- 

 dial periods ?" In reply, Lieutenant Hutton simply refers me to his very elaborate 

 VOL. IV. 2 Y 



