On the Genesis of Species | Page 8

an example of his onesidedness, it may be remarked
that he compares the skulls of the American monkeys (Cebus apella
and C. albifrons) with the intention of showing that man is of several
distinct species, because skulls of different men are less alike than are
those of these two monkeys; and he does this regardless of how the
skulls of domestic animals (with which it is far more legitimate to

compare races of men than with wild kinds), e.g. of different dogs or
pigeons, tell precisely in the opposite direction. Regardless also of the
fact that perhaps no genus of monkeys is in a more unsatisfactory state
as to the determination of its different kinds than the genus chosen by
him for illustration. This is so much the case that J. A. Wagner (in his
supplement to Schreber's great work on Beasts) at first included all the
kinds in a single species.
As to the strength of his prejudice and his regretable coarseness, one
quotation will be enough to display both. Speaking of certain early
Christian missionaries, he says,[8] "It is not so very improbable that the
new religion, before which the flourishing Roman civilization relapsed
into a state of barbarism, should have been introduced by people in
whose {14} skulls the anatomist finds simious characters so well
developed, and in which the phrenologist finds the organ of veneration
so much enlarged. I shall, in the meanwhile, call these simious narrow
skulls of Switzerland 'Apostle skulls,' as I imagine that in life they must
have resembled the type of Peter, the Apostle, as represented in
Byzantine-Nazarene art."
In face of such a spirit, can it be wondered at that disputants have
grown warm? Moreover, in estimating the vehemence of the opposition
which has been offered, it should be borne in mind that the views
defended by religious writers are, or should be, all-important in their
eyes. They could not be expected to view with equanimity the
destruction in many minds of "theology, natural and revealed,
psychology, and metaphysics;" nor to weigh with calm and frigid
impartiality arguments which seemed to them to be fraught with results
of the highest moment to mankind, and, therefore, imposing on their
consciences strenuous opposition as a first duty. Cool judicial
impartiality in them would have been a sign perhaps of intellectual gifts,
but also of a more important deficiency of generous emotion.
It is easy to complain of the onesidedness of many of those who oppose
Darwinism in the interest of orthodoxy; but not at all less patent is the
intolerance and narrow-mindedness of some of those who advocate it,
avowedly or covertly, in the interest of heterodoxy. This hastiness of

rejection or acceptance, determined by ulterior consequences believed
to attach to "Natural Selection," is unfortunately in part to be accounted
for by some expressions and a certain tone to be found in Mr. Darwin's
writings. That his expressions, however, are not always to be construed
literally is manifest. His frequent use metaphorically of the expressions,
"contrivance," for example, and "purpose," has elicited, from the Duke
of Argyll and others, criticisms which fail to tell against their {15}
opponent, because such expressions are, in Mr. Darwin's writings,
merely figurative--metaphors, and nothing more.
It may be hoped, then, that a similar looseness of expression will
account for passages of a directly opposite tendency to that of his
theistic metaphors.
Moreover, it must not be forgotten that he frequently uses that
absolutely theological term, "the Creator," and that he has retained in
all the editions of his "Origin of Species" an expression which has been
much criticised. He speaks "of life, with its several powers, having
been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into
one."[9] This is merely mentioned in justice to Mr. Darwin, and by no
means because it is a position which this book is intended to support.
For, from Mr. Darwin's usual mode of speaking, it appears that by such
divine action he means a supernatural intervention, whereas it is here
contended that throughout the whole process of physical evolution--the
first manifestation of life included--supernatural action is assuredly not
to be looked for.
Again, in justice to Mr. Darwin, it may be observed that he is
addressing the general public, and opposing the ordinary and common
objections of popular religionists, who have inveighed against
"Evolution" and "Natural Selection" as atheistic, impious, and directly
conflicting with the dogma of creation.
Still, in so important a matter, it is to be regretted that he did not take
the trouble to distinguish between such merely popular views and those
which repose upon some more venerable authority. Mr. John Stuart
Mill has replied to similar critics, and shown that the assertion that his
philosophy is irreconcilable with theism is unfounded; and it would

have been better