• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 1845 0

all faculties to be results of accumulated modifications caused by the intercourse of the organism with its environment, we are obliged to admit that there exist in the environment certain phenomena or conditions which have determined the growth of the religious feeling, and so are obliged to admit that it is as normal as any other faculty. Add to which that as, on the hypothesis of a development of lower forms into higher the end towards which the progressive changes tend, must be adaptation to the requirements of life, we are also forced to infer that this feeling is in some way conducive to human welfare. Thus both alternatives contain the same ultimate implication. We must conclude that the religious sentiment is either directly created or is developed by the slow action of natural causes, and whichever conclusion we adopt requires us to treat the religious sentiment with respect.

-First Principles ( 1862 )

JEAN LOUIS RODOLPHE AGASSIZ

The world has risen in some way or another. How it originated is the great question, and Darwin’s theory, like all other attempts to explain the origin of life, is thus far merely conjectural. I believe he has not even made the best conjecture possible in the present state of our knowledge.

—Evolution and Permanence of Type ( 1874)

SAMUEL ATKINS ELIOT

The scientific world and a large surrounding district, including many who, without being investigators themselves, take a deep interest in the results of investigation into the laws of nature, have been thoroughly aroused and excited by the publication of Mr. Darwin’s speculations. Many are dazzled by the ingenuity which he displays, and do not at once see that facts are wanting for a sufficient basis of so broad a theory; and not only so, but that facts inconsistent with his theory are carefully kept out of sight, and are left to be brought forward by others, who discern the difference between the actual laws of nature and those processes which Mr. Darwin has so ingeniously proposed to substitute for them, and for the creative action of a Supreme Being. The constant demands of Mr. Darwin upon our belief, his constant assumption that what may have been has been, and his frequent errors in statements of fact, are distinctly pointed out in the brief extract from the coming volume of Agassiz, which has appeared in Silliman’s Journal; and we congratulate ourselves that the views we have heretofore expressed have been so much confirmed by this high authority....

The diversity of form and character in plants and animals is very great at the present day; and at the same time the resemblance of individuals of the same species, and in many cases of allied species, is so great as to be instantly recognized by the student of nature. If all are derived from a common ancestor, how has the diversity been produced? The ancestors of each existing species, so far as we know, had at least a general resemblance to their descendants. Flocks and herds, bears and lions, were the same creatures, with the same differences five thousand years ago as to-day. We have reason to infer that other animals were also the same then as now; and we are led to inquire how far back the similarity, which is the evidence of consan guity, begins to appear. As far as we can trace the history of man and animals, we find no symptom of any change in races; nor do we perceive that the difficulty of understanding the work of creation is in the least diminished by reducing the number of original and distinct formations, from which all others have been derived, to one pattern or a half-dozen patterns of animals. The difficulty of creating, or rather of imagining the creation, of one, is as great as that of imagining the creation of many. The same power and wisdom which could create a race or an individual, could create many such; and a creator is as necessary for one as for many, unless we suppose the unphilosophical absurdity of self-creation.

There is one animal about whose origin Mr. Darwin has said little or nothing; leaving his readers to infer for themselves how far his theory