Page 90 (part 1)

The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol. 2 [[Vol. 2, Page 643]] BOOK II. -- PART III. ADDENDA. SCIENCE AND THE SECRET DOCTRINE CONTRASTED. "The knowledge of this nether world -- Say, friend, what is it, false or true? The false, what mortal cares to know? The true, what mortal ever knew?" [[Vol. 2, Page 644]] CONTENTS. ------- §§ PAGE I. ARCHAIC OR MODERN ANTHROPOLOGY? ... 645 ------- II. T HE A NCESTORS M ANKIND IS O FFERED BY S CIENCE ... 656 Plastidular Souls, and Conscious Nerve-Cells ... 670 ------- III. T HE F OSSIL R ELICS OF M AN AND THE A NTHROPOID A PE ... 675 Western Evolutionism: the comparative Anatomy of Man and Ape ... 680 Darwinism and the Antiquity of Man: the Anthropoids and their Ancestry ... 685 ------- IV. O N THE D URATION OF G EOLOGICAL P ERIODS, R ACE C YCLES, AND THE A NTIQUITY OF M AN ... 690 Modern Scientific Speculations thereon ... 694 On Chains of Planets and their Plurality ... 699 Esoteric Geological Chronology ... 709 ------- V. O RGANIC E VOLUTION -- C REATIVE C ENTRES ... 731 The Origin and Evolution of the Mammalia ... 734 The European Palaeolithic Races ... 738 ------- VI. G IANTS, C IVILIZATIONS, AND S UBMERGED C ONTINENTS TRACED IN H ISTORY ... 742 ------- VII. S CIENTIFIC AND G EOLOGICAL P ROOFS OF THE E XISTENCE OF SEVERAL S UBMERGED C ONTINENTS ... 778 [[Vol. 2, Page]] 645 THE NEW MASTERS OF PROTESTANTISM. ADDENDA TO BOOK II. § I. ARCHAIC, OR MODERN ANTHROPOLOGY? W HENEVER the question of the origin of man is offered seriously to an unbiassed, honest, and earnest man of science, the answer comes invariably: -- " W E DO NOT KNOW." De Quatrefages, in his agnostic attitude, is one of such anthropologists. This does not imply that the rest of the men of science are neither fair-minded nor honest, as in such case our remark would be questionably discreet. But, it is estimated that 75 per cent. of European Scientists are Evolutionists. Are these representatives of modern thought all guilty of flagrant misrepresentation of the facts? No one says this -- but there are a few very exceptional cases. However, the Scientists in their anti-clerical enthusiasm and despair of any alternative theory to Darwinism, except that of "special creation," are unconsciously insincere in "forcing" a hypothesis the elasticity of which is inadequate, and which resents the severe strain to which it is now subjected. Insincerity on the same subject is, however, patent in ecclesiastical circles. Bishop Temple has come forward as a thorough-going supporter of Darwinism in his "Religion and Science." This clerical writer goes so far as to regard Matter -- after receiving its "primal impress" -- as the unaided evolver of all cosmic phenomena. This view only differs from that of Haeckel, in postulating a hypothetical deity at "the back of beyont," a deity which stands entirely aloof from the interplay of forces. Such a metaphysical entity is no more the Theological God than that of Kant. Bishop Temple's truce with Materialistic Science is, in our opinion, impolitic -- apart from the fact that it involves a total rejection of the Biblical cosmogony. In the presence of this display of flunkeyism before the materialism of our "learned" age, we Occultists can but smile. But how about loyalty to the Masters such theological truants profess to serve, Christ, and Christendom at large? However, we have no desire, for the present, to throw down the gauntlet to the clergy, our business being now with materialistic Science alone. The latter answers to our question, in the person of its best representatives "We do not know;" -- yet the majority of these act as though Omniscience was their heirloom, and they knew all things. For, indeed, this negative reply has not prevented the majority of Scientists from speculating on that question, each seeking to have his [[Vol. 2, Page]] 646 THE SECRET DOCTRINE. own special theory accepted to the exclusion of all others. Thus, from Maillet in 1748 down to Haeckel in 1870, theories on the origin of the human Race have differed as much as the personalities of their inventors themselves. Buffon, Bory de St. Vincent, Lamarck, E. G. St. Hilaire, Gaudry, Naudin, Wallace, Darwin, Owen, Haeckel, Filippi, Vogt, Huxley, Agassiz, etc., etc., each evolved a more or less scientific hypothesis of genesis. De Quatrefages arranges them in two principal groups -- one holding to a rapid, and the other to a very gradual transmutation ; the former, favouring a new type (man) produced by a being entirely different; the latter teaching the evolution of man by progressive differentiation. Strangely enough, it is from the most scientific of these authorities that the most unscientific of all the theories upon the subject of the origin of man has hitherto emanated. This is so evident, that the hour is rapidly approaching when the current teaching about the descent of man from an Ape-like mammal will be regarded with less respect than the formation of Adam out of clay, and of Eve out of Adam's rib. For -- "It is evident, especially after the most fundamental principles of Darwinism, that an organized being cannot be a descendant of another whose development is in an inverse order to his own. . . . Consequently, in accordance with these principles man cannot be considered as the descendant of any simian type whatever. "* Lucae's argument versus the Ape-theory, based on the different flexures of the bones constituting the axis of the skull in the cases of Man and the Anthropoids, is fairly discussed by Schmidt (" Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism, " p. 290). He admits that " the ape as he grows becomes more bestial ; man . . . more human, " and seems, indeed, to hesitate a moment before he passes on: e.g ., "This flexure of the cranial axis may, therefore, still be emphasized as a human character, in contradistinction to the apes; the peculiar characteristic of an order can scarcely be elicited from it; and especially as to the doctrine of descent, this circumstance seems in no way decisive." The writer evidently is not a little disquieted at the argument.