Page 93 (part 4)

Yet this Darwinian theory, correct as it is in minor particulars, agrees no more with Occultism than with Mr. Wallace, who, in his "Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection," shows pretty conclusively that something more than "natural selection" was requisite to produce physical man. Let us, meanwhile, examine the scientific objections to this scientific theory, and see what they are. Mr. St. George Mivart is found arguing that -- . . . . ". . . . it will be a moderate computation to allow 25,000,000 for the deposition of the strata down to and including the Upper Silurian. If, [[Vol. 2, Page]] 697 MIVART'S BILLIONS OF YEARS. then, the evolutionary work done during this deposition only represents a hundredth part of the sum total, we shall require 2,500,000,000 years for the complete development of the whole animal Kingdom to its present state. Even one quarter of this, however, would far exceed the time which physics and astronomy seem able to allow for the completion of this process. Finally, a difficulty exists as to the reason of the absence of rich fossiliferous deposits in the oldest strata -- if life was then as abundant and varied, as on the Darwinian theory it must have been. Mr. Darwin himself admits 'the case at present must remain inexplicable'; and this may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views entertained in his own work. . . . . "Thus, then, we find a wonderful (and on Darwinian principles all but inexplicable ) absence of minutely transitional forms. All the most marked groups . . . . . appear at once upon the scene. Even the horse, the animal whose pedigree has been probably best preserved, affords no conclusive evidence of specific origin by infinitesimal fortuitous variations; while some forms, as the labyrinthodonts and trilobites, which seemed to exhibit gradual change, are shown by further investigation to do nothing of the sort. . . . All these difficulties are avoided if we admit that new forms of animal life of all degrees of complexity appear from time to time with comparative suddenness, being evolved according to laws in part depending on surrounding conditions, in part internal -- similar to the way in which crystals (and perhaps from recent researches the lowest forms of life) build themselves up according to the internal laws of their component substance and in harmony and correspondence with all environing influences and conditions." (" Genesis of Species, " p. 142.) "The internal laws of their component substance." These are wise words, and the admission of the possibility, a prudent one. But how can these internal laws be ever recognized, if Occult teaching is discarded? As a friend writes, while drawing our attention to the above speculations: "In other words, the doctrine of Planetary Life-Impulses must be admitted. Otherwise, why are species now stereotyped, and why do even domesticated breeds of pigeons and many animals relapse into their ancestral types when left to themselves?" But the teaching about planetary life-impulses has to be clearly defined and as clearly understood if present confusion would not be made still more perplexing. All these difficulties would vanish as the shadows of night disappear before the light of the rising Sun, if the following esoteric axioms were admitted: ( a ) the enormous antiquity (and the existence) of our planetary chain; ( b ) the actuality of the Seven Rounds; ( c ) the separation of human races (outside the purely anthropological division) into Seven distinct Root-Races, of which our present European Humanity is the fifth ; ( d ) the antiquity of Man in this ( Fourth ) Round; and finally ( e ) that as these Races evolve from ethereality to materiality, and from the latter back again into relative physical tenuity of texture, so every living (so-called) organic species of animals with vegetation included, changes with every new Root-Race. Were this admitted, if even only [[Vol. 2, Page]] 698 THE SECRET DOCTRINE. along with other, and surely, on maturer consideration, no less absurd, suppositions, if Occult theories have to be considered "absurd" at present, then every difficulty would be made away with. Surely, Science ought to try and be more logical than it now is, as it can hardly maintain the theory of man's descent from an anthropoidal ancestor, and deny in the same breath any reasonable antiquity to that man! Once Mr. Huxley talks of "the vast intellectual chasm between the man and ape," and "the present enormous gulf between the two,"* and if he admits the necessity of extending Scientific allowances for the age of man on earth for such slow and progressive development, then all those men of Science, who are of his way of thinking, at any rate, ought to come to some approximate figures, at least, and agree upon the probable duration of those Pliocene, Miocene, and Eocene periods of which so much is said, and about which nothing definite is known -- if they dare not venture beyond. But no two scientists seem to agree. Every period seems to be a mystery in its duration, and a thorn in the side of the geologists; and, as just shown, they are unable to harmonize their conclusions even with regard to the comparatively recent geological formations. Thus, no reliance can be placed on their figures when they do give any, for with them it is all either millions or simply thousands of years! That which is said may be strengthened by the confessions made by themselves and the synopsis of it, found in that "Circle of Sciences," the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which shows the mean accepted in the geological and anthropological riddles. In that work the cream of the most authoritative opinions is skimmed off; nevertheless, we find in it the refusal to assign any definite chronological date, even to such, comparatively speaking, late epochs as the Neolithic era, though, for a wonder, an age is established for the beginnings of certain geological periods; at any rate of some few, the duration of which could hardly be shortened any more, without an immediate conflict with facts. Thus, it is surmised in the great Encyclopaedia (Vol. X., art. "Geology," p. 227), that "100 million years have passed . . . . . since the solidification of our Earth, when the earliest form of life appeared upon it.**" But it seems quite as hopeless to try to convert the modern Geologists and Ethnologists as it is to make Darwinian Naturalists perceive their mistakes. About the Aryan Root-Race and its origins, [[Footnote(s)]] ------------------------------------------------- * "Man's Place in Nature," p. 102 , note. ** "100,000,000 of years is probably amply sufficient for all the requirements of Geology," says the text. In France, some savants do not find it nearly "sufficient." Le Couturier claims for the same 350 million years; Buffon was satisfied with 34 millions -- but there are those in the more modern schools who will not be content under 500 million years. [[Vol.