WCP2247

[1]

Edinburgh

19 Inverleith Row

10 May / [18]70

Dear Sir

My correspondent Atkinson¹ having referred me to your recent volume on Natural Selection² will you excuse my offering you some of the first thoughts which it has evoked in me[?] I confess freely the force & ingenuity of your arguments & I shall be much mistaken if your Book does not³ [2] attain a position as prominent as Mr Darwins [sic] Origin of Species[.]⁴ The subject is one of the highest interest involving problems not merely of Natural History but of Natural Phil[osoph]y. Morals and Religion. I do not mean to deny that I discover what seem to me to be some weak points in your proof — & some points over-pushed[,] but these are not numerous and your conduct[in]g[?] the argument seem[s] to me worthy of you.

[3] Although there is something very painful in the breaking down of the beliefs of childhood yet so long as we can mark the evidence of design in the world we must preserve our souls in patience. I am glad therefore to observe that you do not exclude the legitimate inference of a designing Cause in the world. When we regard the variety — & what a Rich variety there⁵ [4] [p. 4]⁶ is in the world — as the Result of chance man is plunged at once into the gloom of Athieism [sic] and the best nerve of Moral improvement is cut; but if we view the law of variety, so far at least as the lower animals are concerned[,] as indicating the fact that strength and ability are in this world meant to prevail over feebleness & stupidity I feel at⁷ [5] [p. 5] once reconciled to the theory, because it is true & because moreover it guarantees the exhilerating [sic] prospect of continued progress & improvement.

Having said so much allow me now to add that I can not see that you or Mr. Darwin do very much to enable us to conceive how from one prototype the various classes of fish insects mammals &c. can possibly spring — How e.g. can the⁸ [6] [p. 6] scales of a fish or the hair of a mammal become converted into feathers — this will require some time[?] & pains to work out.

Doubtless the most difficult problem is the first introduction of self-conscious existence on the earth — for, as you say truly, self-consciousness can not be explained as the result of any molecular arrangement of unconscious atoms. Huxtey Huxley in maintaining a different opinion seems to⁹ [7] [p. 7] me not only absurd in Phil[osoph]y. but incorrect in Science for as yet we do not know of Life as the result of Molecular arrangement.¹⁰ Life, I understand — whether in protoplasm or in the finished organism is always derived from a living predecessor.

If we are to allow our reason fair play & to consider self-consciousness as the work of an unseen intelligent Cause then it¹¹ [8] seems to me that in the meantime the question What were the original creatures[;] Was there only one paleozoic [sic] tribe; or were there creatures of various type<s> in which were prefigured more or less distinctly the varieties which afterwards appeared in their descendants &c &c should be left an open question.

I have sometimes gratified my theorising propensity by conceiving that¹² [9] the almost fantastic variety of Animal forms which we observe may be caused directly by that restless spiritual principle — the mind which in the pregnant parent may influence the growth & form of the foetus. The created mind directly & the supreme mind from which all things spring, indirectly are thus installed as the cause of this evolution of which you write so confidently & so well. Excuse¹³ [10] this disjointed effusion prompted by a perusal of your Book. I shall post to you a copy of a small vol. written by me¹⁴ & which will show that I hold much the same views regarding the nature of matter as you seem to approve of. Will you please accept it from me & I am

Dear Sir | Yours Very Respect[full]y, | Robert S[?] Wyld [signature]

A R Russel [sic] Esq.

London