THE ORIGIN OF MAN AND THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume X, Issue 496, 13 October 1882, Page 19

THE ORIGIN OF MAN AND THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.

(Continued.) Having examined the anatomical difference between men, the monkeys, and other animals, let us now compare the psycological phenomena of man and animals. " The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is," says Mr. Darwin, " is certainly one of degree, and not of kind." — (Charles Darwin's " The Descent of Man," p. 105.") Is Mr. Darwin justified to speak with so much confidence ? Are we, then, to believe with Dr. Be>ard, that man ia "a mammiferovs-nionodelphio bimana" differing in mind, as Mr. Darwin explains it, " in degree but certainly not in kind from ether animals." [Mr. Darwin says explicitly "that man is here, not to prepare himself for a better world . . . but simp'y to be here one might aid, to be happy and comfortable here." He does n»t believe in Christianity. "Christianity must he destroyed," he says, "the civilised world hasout-grown that religion." — " Hints and Facts," by Pfns M«lia. D.D. ; chap. ll.] Are we to believe in " Vhomme Machine" of Julian Off ray de la Mettrie ? or with Arisiotle, Plato, Boetius, Bnffon, Linne, Lawrence Jussieu, and the most eminent philosophers of ancient and moderi timps? Are we to consider human reason as a special prerogative of man, distinguishing him, not in degree only, but in kind, from all animals ? This, I shall have you to decide when you have h'-ard my observations on the subject in question. I grant that the instinct of animals is most wonderful. [Mr. Darwin mentions a monkey able to crack a w^luut with a stone ; another who could open the lid of a large box with a stick. He also mentions baboons fighting one another with stones. — " The Descent of Man " ; vol. 1, chap II Mr. E. L. Layard, of the British consulate, Noumea, relates an interesting anecdote about a cat which pulled the wire of a bel, when out at night in the cold in order to be let in.—" Knowledge ;" Jan. 6, 1882.] They can communicate their emotions to each other by particular sounds ; yet they can never learn languages, express their sentiments by articulate sounds ; — in one word, they are unable to speak. The language of ani male, if we may dignify it with such a name, is invai iably the same in the same species. Dogs bark, horses neigh, oxen low, blackbirds whistle, and eagles scream, but they cannot speak. The parrot and a few other birds may j repeat short words, imitate certain sounds, but they can never realise their meaning, or be taught to make ucs of them to express their wants. Let Mr. Darwin, Haokel, Lyell, or Huxley, train a young i monkey, and, under the most experienced masters, teach it to speak i Greek, Latin. Hebrew, French, German, English, Italian, &o , then let this new philologist come and vindicate his rights to our kindred ; willingly shall we listen to him ; until then, let our friends the evolutionists permit us to believe that the differenc2 between oun and the higher animals is certainly one of kind and nut of degree. [ Trained animals show the skill of the man who has taught them ; they act only by the impression conveyed to their senses. Adogmiybe taught to arrange numbers written on a sqii-tre. bl wk ; ad mkey to beat the ground with its right leg as mmy tim-s as there shillings in a coin ; a pig to point out a card chosen by a person. But the master indicates to them by a sign to d > those things, which they have practised before. They are therefore acts of instinct, not of reason.— See *' Hints and Facts," chap XL] Man, also, is the only being in this world capable of stereotyping his ideas by means of writing, and of appropriating to himself the ideas of others by readin?. No monkey, if it were kept ia the be3t school for twenty years could ever learu to read or write. Arts and sciences are also the special prerogative nf man. I should like very much to see some mandrill, marmoset, chimpanzee, orangoutang, or gorilla — our would-be venerable progenitors — able to plaj' on the violin, the guitar, the harmonium or piano. I should bs delighted to hear from their lips a lecture on botany, geology, astronomy, chemistry and other sciences. Until these things come to pass, Mr. Darwin and bis learned friends, by showing the affinities of animated creation from the protozoa, infusoria, spongioe, rhizopoda, entozoa. echino dermata, vermes, molusca. fishes, birds and mammalia, and even man, may indeed thereby display their erudition, and show their own spirit, but surely not that of beasts. Mr. William Denton, in bis book on the origin of man, says that " it is most reasonable to suppose that all forms of life, including man, have come into existence by natural process" (Wm. Denton's " Is Darwin Right," p. 16) : and explaining this natural process, he tells us that, "from invisible gelatinous globules that floated in the primal seas, life has advanced to ciawling worm, balancing fish, hopping batruchian, tree-climbing marsupial, mimicking ape, to the man and woman of this age."— (lb., p. 103.) The same Mr. Denton, in order to demonstrate that the brute is the father of man, shows that all animals are alike to the eye when in their primitive egg state, and because the human "ovum " ia like that of the fioh, of the biri, and of the brute, he concludes therefrom that " the brute is the father of the man." But Mr. Denton is mistaken ; although apparently alike, the various " ova " must differ essentially, since the creatures they produce are invariably different, and neither Mr. Denton nor any of his learned friends will be able to show that at any time of the world's history the egg of a fish has produced anything but a fish, and the egg of a bird anything but a bird. No conclusion, therefore, can be drawn against primitive creation from the facts relat2d by Mr. Denton in bis chapter on metamorphosis of animals. " But," <^tf\nues Mr. Denton, " if man did not come inte existence as a of some pre-existing and inferior beings, how was it done '/" We are told that man was made by God. There is no objection to this, if a rational idea goes with the word. "If by God is meant nature, then man was doubtless made by God. and made oat of dust, but it passed through myriads of forms to arrive at the man." —(William Denton's "Is Darwin Bight," p. 98.) In order to deny creation by God. as related by Moses, Mr. Denton admits of millions upon millions of miracles, each more incredible than the Mosaic cosmogony. For instance, he says : "We live in a world teeming with Ufe." But he does not even attempt to tell us how this world came into existence ; who gave it its vitality, its modifications, its

symmetry; how elements are directed in their natural selections : by what mysterious agency the metamorphosis of animals, he so much magnifies, is accomplished. He affirms that the cosmoccUie history of Moses is "a Lilliputian chronology, insisted upon only by antiquated theologians." He adds, with an air of triumph, " that the young but lusty science of ge»logy has made great havoc with this venerable idea of creation, and torn down the curtiin oar ignorance had woven. —(William Denton's "Is Darwin Right," p. 77.) Indeed, the ignorance of all past generations must have been very great, for (Ist) all nations of the world attributed creation to a supreme god. Z.Mis, according to the Greeks, is the first of all the gods, the principle of all things, and the ruler of all.— (Plutarque ♦« Opin.," Phil, lv.) bocrates, m •' Xenophon," says that a supreme being made all things from the beginning.— ('Xen>pb. Mem. Soc," 1., c. iv.) According to the Egyptians, the first of the goda is the principle of all things and the father of all m n.— (•' Jamblicus De Myst. .Egypt.") lhe Persians believed In one supienuo god, called Ormusda, by whom all things were made. The Penj.mtrau, the moat ancient religious book of the Indians, distinctly affirms theie is a god who made a'l things. The Chinese, with Confuoi is. b lieve that Jai-ki or Vou-ki whom they style the Great Spirit, who oas neither shape nor fi<mre, 7^, the ,? r^ at ?^ of nll thi °gg d — ( ' tech sur k* Liv. Sac. de ZVri." 1843, p. 14.) [Voltaire himself confessed th it learned Chinese are deists, believing in one God and in Providence.] B fore the arriviag of the Incas in Peru, the ancient inhabitants be.ieved in a supreme being, called Pacha-chamack (the creator), who gave life to all things. 2nd.— For the creation of man iv a perfect state, we could quote numberless authorities ; l«t a few suffice : Confucius said that the Great Spirit create! man an ! woman.— (M.O. " Les Chinois," i* ) According to the Arabs. God created mankind out of the earth.— (Herbelot Bibhoth, p. 281.) Brama is said by the Indians to have made the first man. The traditions of the Scandinavians, the Greeks, and the Romans confirm this truth. [At Alba Julia, in Tranaylvani? the following ancient Roman inscription* have been found :— "Dse mag no ceterno " : "To the great, eternal God." •• Jovi optimo, matciiiw terraton, conservator^ ': -'To the most excellent and great Jupiter, the regulator, and preserver of the universe."— One of the finest geniuses of ancient Rome, Horace, speaks of the Deity in the following terms :— " Unde nil majus generatur ipso ; Nee viget quidquam simile, aut Becundum ": " Nothing greater than Him was ever produced ; He has no equal, He has none like to Him."~Siadi, a Bactrian pjet, has the following passage on God : — " The child He sketches in ite mother's womb, From east to west His hand transports the sun. The massy mountains He with rubie3 sows," etc. Here is a Bramin prayer : " I adore that Beiug, the origin and cause of all other beings, that supports the universe."— Phil. Cate. 1., 155, 136.] This universal testimony— concerning the origin of nua- is a very strong argiimmt against evolutionists. Wh v men living at different times, inhabiting different ountries, speaking difforent langu igos, are agreed about any fact, this fact should bo considered as historical'y tr le. Evolutionists are quite mistaken in siyiug that man in the early stage of his existence had all the brutal charaoEristics of his savage orig.n. History shows, on the contrary, primitive man were quite as intelligent as those of the present time. It is not quite clear that mca bufore the flood did not surpass in knowledge our greatest scientists. Botany, astronomy, agriculture, architecture nourished thousand of years before the Christian era. la poetry, music, and reuny other things, our ancestors were like .vise very advanced. Who could form an idea of the beauty of B.ibvlon, and ite suspended gardens, of Nineveh, of the temple of "Diana of Ephesin, of the pyrami Is of Egypt, ef the paintings and statues of H;rcuijeneum aa-i Pompeii? [In the M-sopo'aoiiiu Valley most beautiful antiquities bare been excavated ; sculptured slabs, statuea, fragments of terra cotta, etc., also inscriptions in cuneiform characters. These wonderful discoveries Bhow that it is not an invariable rule thtt the greater the antiquity of relics of the past, the greater the inferiority of execution they present.—" Knowledge," Jin. 27, [ 1882, p. 268, 269. We fin'l in all the pyramids of Egypt the evidence of an astronomical plan carried out with great skill— in accordance with astrouomical observations of great accuracy. ■' Knowledge," Jan. 6, 1882, p. 193. The eminent Bgypto'ogist, Vlr.Chaba^ h\s published an essay to prove that the ancient Egyptians were »<•• , quainted with the movemeut of the earth r mnd the suu.— 'Know- | ledge," March 3, 1882, p. 379.] Although our ancestors had no | railway, no electric telegraph, no telephone, wen* th;y not, on the whole, as perfect and intelligent as wo? Away, then, with the j theory of our simian origin. No, man is not a brute. If I rea-l history attentively everywhere I see man, by his genius and reason, ruling over all animated creation ; nowhere do I perceive the brute of Darwin or of Denton. j (Concluded in our next.)