Nineteenth century English people communicated by the written word on paper, and Darwin and his confreres were no exception. Darwin’s extensive correspondence was collected and published by his son Francis Darwin.
In his correspondence with his foremost advocate, T. H. Huxley, Darwin revealed his scientific conviction regarding the mechanism of macro-evolution. He stated that the process must occur by innumerable tiny gradual changes, or it could not occur at all. His promoter Huxley could already see that even vast geologic ages would not support evolution by gradual small changes, and thus Huxley advocated evolution by sudden jumps (saltation) in which major physical changes resulted in one form of life changed rapidly and substantially into an entirely different form of life.
Here, with my own commentary interspersed, is the exchange between the two evolutionists, in which Darwin clearly implies that evolution by sudden and dramatic shifts in morphology is really creation and not at all evolution through natural selection.
“For the life of me I cannot see any difficulty in natural selection producing the most exquisite structure, if such structure can be arrived at by gradation, and I know from experience how hard it is to name any structure towards which at least some gradations are not known.”[1] (Italics in original)
Though his advocate, T. H. Huxley, foresaw difficulty in supporting the gradualistic mechanism of evolution by natural selection,
“. . . you have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [no jumps in nature, that is, no speciation by sudden large macromutations] so unreservedly.”[2] (Italics in original)
Darwin was firm and persistent in his insistence on small gradual changes bringing about the development of new species,
“. . . I reflected much on the chance of favourable monstrosities (i.e. great and sudden variation) arising. I have, of course, no objection to this, indeed it would be a great aid, but I did not allude to the subject, for, after much labour, I could find nothing which satisfied me of the probability of such occurrences. There seems to me in almost every case too much, too complex, and too beautiful adaptation, in every structure, to believe in its sudden production. . . Monsters are apt to be sterile, or not to transmit monstrous peculiarities. It holds, to a certain extent with domestic productions no doubt, where man preserves some abrupt change in structure. [3] (bold and Italics added)
Darwin was adamant in the gradualistic view and found the idea of “favourable monstrosities” ridiculous in the extreme, although he admitted that it would be a “great aid” to his hypothesis. But he rejected this “aid” on scientific grounds such as had been clearly proved [in a materialistic sense], as seen in his same letter referring to the concept that a crustacean egg might hatch out a fish (from Professor Parsons’ essay in Silliman’s Journal, July 1860),
. . . it gave me a cold shudder to hear of any one speculating about a true crustacean giving birth to a true fish!”[4]
And again in 1860 to Charles Lyell, Darwin expostulates,
“I cannot conceive any existing reptile being converted into a mammal.”[5]
Darwin had already dealt with the issue of macromutations in The Origin,
“He who believes that some ancient form was transformed suddenly through an internal force or tendency into, for instance, one furnished with wings, will be almost compelled to assume, in opposition to all analogy, that many individuals varied simultaneously [and in an identical fashion]. It cannot be denied that such abrupt and great changes of structure are widely different from those which most species apparently have undergone. He will further be compelled to believe that many structures beautifully adapted to all the other parts of the same creature, and to the surrounding conditions, have been suddenly produced; and of such complex and wonderful coadaptations, he will not be able to assign a shadow of an explanation. He will be forced to admit that these great and sudden transformations have left no trace of their action on the embryo. To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of science.”[6]
Here summarized in The Origin by Darwin himself is the test to distinguish between creation (the realms of miracle) and evolution (the realms of materialism). For Darwin the notion of evolution by large jumps or macromutations clearly required miraculous intervention, in other words, the operation of a supernatural agency. Elsewhere in The Origin Darwin differently formulated the same method of falsifying his theory. The potential for falsification is a necessary component of any materialistic scientific theory.
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.”[7]
The test is simple and forthright. If gradual changes leading to transmutation of species cannot be documented, then naturalistic evolution–descent with modification by natural selection–as a rational materialistic mechanism for the development of all living species on earth cannot be accepted! And its only alternative is the “realms of miracle” or supernatural creation, according to Darwin!
Darwin offered this test, because the sudden production of new species (“favourable monstrosities”) with “complex and wonderful coadaptations” could not be explained by a materialistic mechanism. Coadaptations refers to the many simultaneous changes in different parts of the body that would be required to form a fully functional substantially new organism (“favourable monstrosity”). The odds against such coadaptations are astronomical and inconceivable, a fact which Darwin recognized in his refusal to accept evolution by sudden dramatic jumps (saltation).
Yet Darwin’s “realms of miracle” are precisely the dominant mechanism advocated by many modern evolutionists today, and as signally published by influential naturalists Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge. They, like Huxley, recognize that Darwinian evolution is not possible in the time allotted by studies of the earth (4.5 billion years). To these modern evolutionists, Darwin was a self-declared creationist. They are maintaining evolutionary theory by mechanisms that are implausible to the extreme. Their motivation mimics that of Huxley and subsequent evolutionists–that the notion of God and special creation is anathema to them. The driving force of biologic evolution has always been rebellion against the Divine, as we shall see in further posts in this category.
[1] Darwin, Francis. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. Volume II. D. Appleton & Company, 1919, p. 97. Letter from Darwin to Charles Lyell, April 1860. [2] Ibid. p. 27. Letter from Huxley to Darwin after first reading The Origin. [3] Ibid. p. 126. [4] Ibid. p. 127. [5] Ibid. p. 128. [6] Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. Literary Classics Inc. New York. p.169-170. [7] Ibid. p. 123.
Leave a Reply