« ПредишнаНапред »
and are so informed, indeed, in this same passage, that these several series occupy distinct strata in the earth. It must follow from these facts, that the several series lived and perished successively. Geologists tell us that the formations in which they are found, were made by gradual deposition in long periods, and at long intervals. Who can imagine, then, that the food, which continued but a few months, could have produced all these regular strata, depositing animals of the most simple structure at the bottom, and above this the remainder in regular order up to the most perfect. In order to such effects, the regularity and vastness of which can be appreciated only by the practical Geologist, one set must have lived and perished, and an interval ensue long enough to allow the formation of a complete stratum, and then be followed by a new race of animals which flourishes for an indefinite period, when it follows the fate of its predecessor. Did the Noachian deluge continue long enough, as well as intermit at various epochs, for the accomplishment of such results ?
We know of no Geologist who does not now maintain that the effects of the Deluge, if perceptible at all, are only superficial ; and that the organic remains of the secondary and tertiary formations, could not have been deposited by that flood. The fossiliferous strata constitute a series of several niiles thickness, and are composed of layers in such an order, and containing severally such distinct classes of animals, that they could not possibly have been produced by any single catastrophe. Besides, human remains have never been found among them, which would have been the case, it all these phenomena were attributable to the Deluge. Pritchard should have said, that these remains are antedemiurgic, i. e., anterior to the six days work of Creation. We are not, therefore, required by any geological facts, as Dr. N. supposes, to infer that any new creation has taken place since the Deluge. The "repeated creations," "proved by geological researches,” are those, and those only, which are ante-demiurgic;—such as are mentioned in the first of our author's "chain of propositions ;" and such as are shown in the fine extract from Buckland in his Appendix. We marvel that he should not have perceived the utter opposition of this extract to the theory of those passages derived from Pritchard, which he nevertheless says that "all Naturalists admit;" and that he did not discover he was arguing
his subject upon the assumption of two contradictory schemes of Geology. In such cases of double theories and opposing statements, which are we to regard as "a voix du ciel ?" Having now proved that our author is not acquainted with Geology, and before shown that he knows nothing of any branch of Natural History, we take the liberty of asking, by what authority or with what propriety he has so often ventured to dogmatize in the name of Naturalists, in repeated assertions that "all Naturalists admit," or "concur in," or "do not doubt," these and the other “positive, indisputable, scientific facts.”
In the aspect of the case as above presented and relieved from the burden of a false theory, it is at once perceived that we are not "compelled to distort the Mosaic account" either of the Creation or Deluge. There is nothing which requires us to "abandon" a single item in "he whole Mosaic account of the creation of the heavens, the earth, and every thing upon it,” to reconcile it with any “positive, indisputable, scientific facts” whatever. We might here apply what Professor Sedgwick, one of the ablest Geologists of the age, has said of certain writers of the day :
“There is another class of men who pursue Geology by a nearer road, and are guided by a different light. Well intentioned they may be, bat they have betrayed no small self-sufficiency, along with a shameful want of knowledge of the fundamental facts they presume to write about...... The Buggs and the Penns, the Nolans and the Formans, and some others of the same class, have committed the folly and the sin of dogmatizing in matters they have not personally esamined, and, at the utmost, know only at second hand, and of pretending to teach mankind on points where they themselves are uninstructed.”
The Lecturer next passes to, and very lightly passes over, one of the most important points in the discussion of the unity of the human race. His position is, that man could not have been changed from any one primitive type into so many varieties as now exist in the world. But when he comes to some very striking instances of a similar change in the lower orders of animals, which he could not honestly omit, he gravely asks :
“Does this prove that physical causes have the same power to change man ?" p. 21.
After having employed four pages of argument from analogy to prove his position, and three times in that space ask.
ing why man should be excepted from its application, and that, too, in cases much less pertinent and definite than in the present, he here turns short about and virtually asks us why man should not be excepted. The author has hardly shown, in the particulars before mentioned, his unfitness for arguing a "grave question” of this kind, more than in his use of analogy. There is nothing which better illustrates the difference between the sciolist and the true philosopher, than their qualification and application of general rules. Analogy is among the most valuable aids we have for determining questions which are not otherwise demonstrable, but it is a dangerous instrument in the hands of the unskilful. There are doubtless many points of analogy between man and the lower animals, but we must not limit or extend them without regard to fact or probability. Where a doubtful point is to be determined in a particular species, genus or order, we have a right to suppose the correct application to them of those general laws which are known to affect the class to which they belong, until disproved by facts. For instance, in vertebrated animals, so far as known, the blood is red. The Zoologist, therefore, would have no hesitation, on the discovery of a new genus or order of these animals, in affirming that their blood was red. So the Botanist, being presented with a new flower of the Cruciferous kind, would not hesitate in pronouncing that its seed vessel would be a silique or silicle. But the attempt to derive a law from a mere circumstance or contingency, as from the number of species in various genera of plants and animals to deduce a number of species in the genus man, is unphilosophical and ridiculous. The author himself recognizes and asserts the value of analogy in the question he discusses, and has freely used it wherever it served the purposes of his theory, and has even gone out of his way to find it where none exists. We cannot, therefore, see the justice, in the present instance, of setting aside the plain teaching of analogy which incontrovertibly shows a susceptibility of change in the animal kingdom, merely because history has not recorded upon her pages the fact of any race of men undergoing a similar change of form and color. He says :
"If climate, food, and other physical causes can thus change man, why, I would ask, have they not done it? And why cannot the written history of the world for 2000 years adduce instances ?" p. 21.
We contend that these causes have "done it,” and when
we have illustrated the possibility and the fact of such changes in other orders of the animal kingdom, it is his duty to prove that the rule cannot apply to man, and not turn upon us with the demand of proof from history. We might as properly demand of him to prove from history that the various races of men were created at different epochs and in different regions. He tells us himself, that "man, physically, is but an animal at last, with the same physiological laws that govern others :" (p. 16,) and again, though we do not allow that it is only such, that this is a "question appertaining to Natural History;" and he has, therefore, no right to discard such important evidence from the analogies of the animal kingdom, merely from the defect of historical records. Yet a very good reason can be given, why "he written history of the world” cannot "adduce instances" of such change in man. We have no written history of the whole world, nor of all time. Those nations which have undergone these changes, are the most ignorant of the human race, and have no written history. Even if they had, such changes may have been gradual, and so slow as never to have attracted attention. If they had been rapid or sudden, we might of course expect a notice of the fact, in case we had the written history of such a people. Such changes might have occurred within the last 2000, or even 1000 years, without any clue remaining for the discovery of the fact. As all the varieties of form and color have been known for more than 2000 years, if such changes had occurred, it would have been to some previously existent type and in those regions where that type was known, and it is not likely that we should be informed of it. We have no definite history of any people who have been exposed to the influence of those agencies which are supposed to have produced the varieties of the human race, which reaches farther back than the middle of the fifteenth century. Of the Phenicians and Arabs who many centuries before penetrated into central Africa, no man can now prove that their descendants do not exist in the present population on the banks of the Niger, and we have already offered reasons for supposing that such is the fact. The more positive proofs of actual change will soon be given. Europeans, it is true, have been occupying to some extent the coasts of tropical Africa for about four centuries, and Dr. N. supposes that in this period instances of change should have been furnished sufficient to settle the question :
“The human race have been living in the same places where these mighty changes have been effected in animals, and still man is comparatively unchanged. Why, in these countries, are men so much alike and animals so different? The answer is, that human constitutions are less mutable, and men have the power and means of protecting themselves by houses, clothing, fires, etc., against the action of such causes." p. 22.
In this short passage, the writer has committed the two. fold error of begging the question and refuting himself. In asserting that "human constitutions are less mutable" than those of other animals, he assumes the very question in discussion. In giving as a reason why they have not changed, that they have the "power and means of protecting themselves against the action of such causes” as are deemed the agents of change, he has very satisfactorily answered his own question. And there is an implication, that without the exercise of that power, and the use of those means, they might have changed. Now, as those tribes of men who are darkest are the most ignorant and degraded, and are not accustomed to protect themselves by houses, clothing, etc., in such a way as to secure them against all the effects of climate, bad food, filthy habits, and every thing which characterizes a brutish people, we think we may claim our author's authority for supposing such causes to have been influential in their change. If we had authentic records of any Caucasians settling in tropical Africa, and giving themselves up to all the habits of the natives, who did not nevertheless in four or five, or at most in ten centuries, become black and woolly-haired, we should be strongly tempted to yield the question. But we have no such records, while we have proofs of actual change. It should be kept in mind that the whole question, and it is so argued by Dr. N., is one of possibility, and not of necessity. If, then, we can produce a single instance of change, the question is to all intents and purposes settled, and a thousand cases of exposure without such change, would only prove that the change is not always and necessarily effected. It has not yet been ascertained, and perhaps never will be, what are the conditions of the human system, and what the exact combination of natural agencies, requisite for its production. That temperature alone is not sufficient we are well satisfied, and are inclined to believe that the change is not likely to be wrought but in a state of barbarism or savageism.
Our argument, then, is this. No law of the animal constitution has been discovered which forbids the extreme