« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
accomplished should not have been implanted. If intention existed in the first germ, undesigned formation cannot develop from it, since the extent of the implanted intention can be read only at the completion of such development. Nothing less than the oak is the measure of the acorn. That only an oak will come from an acorn is certain, --can be accurately predicted. In some way the plan for the product, since certain and predictable, is enfolded in the seed. Because true that the result of each developed acorn is an oak, is it not evident that the tree is a predetermined result? In like manner is it not eminently reasonable that other results, -adaptations and contrivances,--should be implanted in primal germs ? Certainly, Development does not preclude Design.
Development presupposes Design. Such intricate combinations of force as are known to be employed in producing the infinite variety of organic adaptations presuppose that immutable laws, working individually, could not produce such results; other. wise, by the law of parsimony, nature would employ them. This barmonious working of a complex of efficient causes, producing unified results in adaptations, indicates a coördinating power, which cannot be force, since force is precisely what is coutrolled, nor an efficient cause because such are the very things whose combination is to be explained. This first cause, working from a higher level, combines and manipulates secondary causes under proper circumstances of space and time and produces such results as presuppose this first cause to be an intelligent Designer.' Therefore, while Development is the summation of those processes--variation, overproduction, struggle for existence, survival of the fittest, etc.,—which physically considered produce adaptation, it presupposes other factors which itself does not explain, and accountable for only on the supposition of Design.
Development is presupposed by Design. That is, if there is design it would probably be accomplished by means of the processes of Development. Design (in any fair sense of the word) must proceed from a conscious, intelligent Designer, who to realize his purposes in nature must have will to choose and power to accomplish.
As the preceding section shows, Development does not preclude an intelligent First Cause. However impossible immediate creation when we consider Development as cognizant only of secondary or efficient cause, this First Cause, manipulating matter and force, may have resources not inconsistent with efficient cause and go be able to create immediately. So long as the induction of a First Cause be valid, the possibility of immediate creation cannot be absolutely denied. There is nothing, however, a priori against mediate creation, since absolute immutability of law may be the most perfect means by which intelligence could accomplish it purposes. If it be said that laws are not things but statements, it is replied that they express natural relations--that if nature is true they are true.
Immutable law and uniformity of nature are expressions for the observed harmony and regularity of natural phenomena. Results in nature which are now brought to pass are by natural process. We observe only uniformity in present methods of creation. There is every probability that in the production of past phenomena the same methods prevailed. The veracity of nature necessitates the conviction that like results in nature are produced by like means. All the instances of adaptations now going on are by natural process or Development. Hence the presumption that all adaptations in nature were so produced and the conviction supported by all science which is based on the fact of uniformity in nature,—that if adaptations realize design it is by mediate creation. In other words, design in adaptations presupposes Development.
The induction of a process of creation between organic result and origin therefore in no wise destroys the evidence of design, but only that former postulate of teleology, immediate creation. In inorganic nature, geology has conclusively shown that seas, continents, etc., were slowly evolved. Their immediate creation no longer finds acceptance. The evidence in nature that the simplest means are always employed in the attainment of an end (the law of parsimony), declares against supernatural means 80 long as there are natural ones. So in organic nature, Development declares unnatural and improbable the assumption --for it is nothing more, --of immediate creation. The weight of evidence is all on one side. There is but one choice for the student of nature, who is not only nature's disciple, but of necessity the interpreter of Him whose truths are expressed in nature.
Development is evidence of Design. According to the theory of development, the whole wealth of organic adaptations is due to its processes. All the inductions of design made from adaptations are therefore due to Development, which thus becomes the sine qua non and only evidence of organic teleology.
Design is manifested in one eternal act of creation. Since natural results are accomplished only by means of natural processes, whatever evidence of design exists in the results, or adaptations, must likewise exist in the means. Designed results cannot proceed from undesigned processes. Therefore the processes of Development, equally with the adaptations which they produce, are evidence of design.
The manifestations of a First Cause or organizing Power, manipulating matter and force in the organic realm by the processes of Development, discover not only intelligent design but an ever-acting, sustaining guidance. Development teaches that now as in the past, organs and species are being brought into fresh accord with gradually changing environment. Geol. ogy has long taught that the earth is in a state of constant change. What has been accepted in reference to inorganic nature, now finds its correlate and completion in the corresponding organic evolution.
One eternal act of creation, substantiated by the readings of science in the revelation of nature, is certainly a more worthy conception of an infinite Designer, than an infinity of separate interferences. Finiteness might produce separate creations, but only infinite Intelligence can create through the long and complex processes of Development. All admit that immediate creation meant special adaptation and special design. When infinite foresight, working age-long, through indirect and complicated means, produces adaptations capable of performing highly specialized functions, do such results indicate a less or a greater degree of intelligence? When man combines natural forces in indirect, complicated, specialized machines and produces, for example, a figured tapestry, we admit there is evidence of greuter intelligence than when he throws a stone at a mark.
There is purpose in both, but the more specialized the process the higher our admiration. So with adaptations. The special adaptations of the hand to its uses are "more available as evi- . dence of design than the adaptations of a river to the bed which it has itself been the means of excavating."
In view of this one "eternal act of creation—a never-ceasing process of divine energy,” LeConte says: “There is still design
: in every object, but no longer a separate design, only a separate manifestation of one infinite design.”
Whether Development and design find acceptance or rejection, the primary purpose of this presentation concerns only their relations. The only change wrought is to purge teleology from the untenable hypotheses of immediate creation and fixity of species, and to rest the argument on the facts of nature and not on imaginative assumptions. Science has demolished all probability of this “carpenter theory” of the universe. In place of mechanical origin is substituted the nobler conception of dynamic creation. Mediate creation supplants immediate and a process replaces a chimera.
The processes of Development discover a reason for increased admiration of divine wisdom, an overwhelming sense of the glory of the infinite One—of the majesty of the Eternal, an immeasurable exaltation of the Christian's God. Increasing through the ages, divine Development realizes divine Design. Its processes are the grand attestation to the wisdom and forethought of formative Intelligence.
Neither Development nor teleology directly concern the creation (origination) of matter and force, but their use, the creation (formation) of adaptations of species and organs and instincts. Being truths, each harmonizes with the other. In nature's temple they walk hand in hand, and it is well that truth-seekers imitate their example. The fabled shield should not separate the teleologist and the evolutionist.
Materialism finds no support in Development. She can not shut out an intelligent Designer until she makes processes account for beginnings by which alone processes are possible. Until then, away with her cloak of imposture from the new science! Oberlin Seminary.
ARTICLE V.—THE EXTRADITION OF CRIMINALS,
All our problems of extradition arise out of the conflict of the claims of the several national groups in regard to fugitives from justice, who bave escaped from the territory of one group to that of another. For instance, a citizen of a particular State commits a crime within its territory and betakes himself to the territory of another State, having a different form of government, laws, and customs. Is he still, in view of both States amenable to the tribunals of the State from which he has filed? And if so, by what means can the claim to jurisdiction best be enforced ? The subject is of such a coniprehensive nature that we shall have to confine ourselves to the answer to the first only of these questions.
The strict doctrine of jurisprudence teaches that between residents of two independent States, no legal relations whatsoever exist; but notwithstanding this theory the practice has grown up of regarding citizens of different States, for purposes of jurisdiction, as members of the same political community; treaties of international copyright and postage, the German Zollverein and treaties of reciprocity in trade give proof that the old system of national exclusiveness is fast falling into decay; and it is this feeling of international citizenship that bas given rise to the extradition of criminals.
Extradition, as known to the ancients, was conducted without treaties, and for the purpose of retaking refugees accused of political crimes, chiefly ; as, for instance, the extradition of Themistocles demanded of the king of the Molossi by the Athenians and Spartans, or of Hannibal obtained by the Romans from the king of Bithynia. The modern usage, how. ever, has been to regulate extradition by treaties, curiously enough reversing the custom of the ancients by expressly excepting all political offences. The subject is one the development of which has been confined almost exclusively to modern times, and the steadiest and most rapid progress in it