|
We turn now to the Hominine Animal theory. So far as we know
this theory is confined solely to New Churchmen. It seems, indeed, to have
originated in a desire to accept the theory of evolution and, at the same time,
reconcile it with the doctrine of the New Church, that man was created
immediately by God, and that between him and animals lies a discrete degree. The
theory is that after the formation of vegetable and animal kingdoms in the way
laid down by the evolution theory man was created, not by descent from an
animal, but by the creation of human seed in an animal ovum, or by impregnation
of an animal ovum by a human soul; the ovum thus impregnated would then grow in
the animal womb and be born of the animal in the ordinary way; not from
the animal, but through it.
To my mind the theory has nothing whatever to recommend it.
On the face of it, it is based not on any fundamental view of the problems
involved, but merely on the desire to reconcile a doctrinal statement with what
is held by a godless science to be the true mode of creation. It is, moreover,
directly contradictory to the earlier theory put forth by the same Swedenborg,
whose doctrinal statement is nevertheless sought to be established.
Aside from this desire I can see no raison d'être for
the theory whatsoever. It is neither scientific nor doctrinal. It receives no
confirmation from the facts of observation, and it is opposed to the doctrine
that influx is according to reception.
Let me say a word on this latter point. Animals are forms of
affection. They are, in fact, nothing but affections incorporated and playing
their part in the natural world. Each animal is, moreover, one particular
affection, and whatever the exact variety induced upon that animal by
environment and strengthened by heredity, the animal still remains internally
the form of that same affection. It cannot essentially change this form.
Now, the ovum of such an animal can be nothing more than the
form of that affection; and life, flowing into such ovum, will be manifested
according to such form. Hence "man" born in an animal ovum would not be a man,
because he would lack that essential quality of man, namely, freedom and
rationality for the formation within himself of any and every affection. This
is inevitably the consequence of the law of influx as revealed in the Writings,
and confirmed by reason. Life is one, but the forms of life are many; and
variety, differentiation of quality, depends not on life, but on the various
forms receiving life. It is as with the heat and light of the sun and the
receptive vessels of the earth. The heat and light are one; it is variety in
their reception that causes the varying phenomena of the world.
Moreover, there is something spontaneously repellant in the
thought that the animal kingdom is the mother of man. And while of itself mere
spontaneous repulsion can not be considered as an argument of preponderating
weight, still it should not be altogether put aside, for it may well be based on
a natural perception of what is in harmony with the laws of truth implanted in
the soul. Our rejection, however, does not rest on natural repulsion alone, but
on other grounds, which we have already pointed out.
The Hominine Animal theory is a separate hypotheses formed ad hoc. It is designed merely for the explanation of a single phenomenon. It
is no part or application of a universal principle of creation, whether true or
false—which is the strength of evolution. According to this theory, creation
proceeds along the lines of evolution—whether by selection, heredity, mutation
or what not—from protoplasm to plants, and from plants to animals; and then
suddenly there is a change; the law ceases to operate as before, and man is
created by some new law. It may be objected that this is not surprising, since
man is the crown of creation; but the answer is obvious that man is an animal;
and, moreover, that the law of creation is one, and proceeds according to the
same order in greatests and in leasts. For the Divine is everywhere the same.
It is this unity of the Divine Law that gives us that clear
test of the truth of a creation-theory, to which we have alluded before, namely,
that if a doctrine expresses the true law of creation, that doctrine can be
confirmed by the evidences of the same law still at work creating at this day.
Existence is continual subsistence; or, the law of creation is the law of
subsistence.
But where do we find evidence that the animal kingdom is the
mother of man? When we talk of mother-nature, our mind contemplates the
vegetable kingdom, not the animal. True, man lives on, is sustained by animal
flesh. But aside from the contention that man is not naturally a flesh-eater, it
is plain that the animal kingdom is not necessary for his existence; is not his
nursing mother. Not so, however, with the vegetable kingdom. In this kingdom we
spontaneously recognize the mother of our body, without whom we could not for a
moment continue on earth.
No! there is not a single consideration that has come to us,
that recommends this curious Hominine Animal theory, the offspring of an
unnatural union between a godless science and a doctrinal tenet. |
