Chapter 13 The second chapter of evolution Chapter 7 Non-evolutionary concept of origin-1

Almost any primitive tribe in the world has its own myths about the origin of people, trees, the sun, and the whole world.They regard creatures with supernatural powers or great fertility, such as boa constrictors, giant birds, fish or lions, as animals associated with origin.When religions that believed in specific gods arose, these gods were the creators of all things. In ancient Greece, Zeus (the main god), Athena (the goddess of wisdom), and Poseidon (the god of the sea) were such gods.The story of Genesis in the Bible is the prototype for this concept of origins.Most of the early legends about origins regard the creation of the world as a unique one-time event, the result of which is a static and timeless world, in which the only changes are the rotation of the seasons and the replacement of human generations.For early creationists, the evolutionary process was an entirely alien idea.Although there are differences of opinion, the true idea of ​​evolution was formed relatively late in history.

The 7th, 6th, and 5th centuries BC were an era of unprecedented prosperity for commerce and trade in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East.The Greeks, especially the colonists of Ionia in Asia Minor (located on both sides of Asia Minor), came to Egypt and Mesopotamia and gradually became familiar with Egyptian geometry and Babylonian astronomy.At that time, since people gradually realized that many phenomena originally attributed to the activities of gods could be explained "naturally", why couldn't they ask questions about the origin of matter, the earth and life? It was not scientists who asked such questions at the time, because there were no scientists in the modern sense until the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance.The place of the scientist was then occupied by the philosopher who sought the truth and tried to understand the world in which they lived.The various schools of philosophy were introduced in Chapter 3 of this book; here only a brief mention is made of the philosophers and schools associated with evolutionary thought (Guthrie, 1962).It is a pity that there are very few writings left by the philosophers before Socrates. From these incomplete documents, it can be inferred that what they discussed or taught was obviously only a part of the tradition of Babylon or Egypt.

The first philosopher was Thales (Thales of Milet c. 625-547 BC).Primarily an astronomer, geometer, and meteorologist, he apparently had no interest in biological phenomena.He believed that water was the first element, and Aristotle later speculated that Thales did so because water has a very important role in animal and plant life, and even semen contains water.In addition, the lives of many animals are related to water. Thales' student Anaximander (Anaximander, c. 610-546 BC), although known as a geographer and astronomer, was very interested in the biological world.He has his own complete and unique views on the origin and evolution of the universe, and believes that water, fire, earth and air play an important role in it.He thought that the first generation of living organisms was formed through metamorphosis, just as insects are transformed from chrysalis:

The first animals were spawned in damp places, encased in prickly bark.When they grow up they move to drier land; once their coats are split and shed, they live in this new way of life for a short period. Man, however, arose from another kind of creature, because other animals were quick to hunt their own food, while man required a longer period of time to be reared.If it starts out like any other animal, it will never survive.Man is thus formed in an organism like a fish and remains there as an embryo until maturity.Eventually the creature swelled and man and woman emerged and lived independently.

(Quoted from Toulmin and Goodfield, 1965) This is not, as some claim, a precursor to evolution, but rather the prototype of the theory of spontaneous generation.Subsequent generations of philosophers—Anaximenes (c. 555 BC), Diogenes (c. 435 BC), Xenophanes (c. 500 BC), and Parmenides (c. occurrence theory. Empedocles (c. 492-432 BC) proposed a bizarre theory of biological origin.He thinks that the parts of the body arose first: a head or limbs without a body, a head without eyes or mouth, and so on.These parts attract each other while floating until the complete organism is formed, and the incomplete dies.It would be ludicrous to call it a precursor to Darwin's theory of natural selection, since the combination of complementary parts does not involve selection, and the disappearance of incomplete organisms is not a process of selection. Empedocles may have originally inspired him to propose this theory due to the legend of the two-headed bull monster.

The phenomenon of adaptation is first conceived in the writings of Anaxagoros (c. 500-428 BC) and Democritus (c. 500-404 BC). An-axasoras believes that the driving force that drives the world is a non-material spirit (Nous), but it does not guide the future process of the origin of things.Some people think this is a creationist design theory, but it is not.Democritus seems to have appreciated the phenomenon of adaptation in organisms, but was careful not to mention any directional factors.Instead, he thought that the structural building of the system was a corollary of the intrinsic properties of atoms.Democritus was thus the first philosopher to propose a chance mechanism as a counterbalance to an inherent goal-oriented tendency.In addition, he believed deeply in the orderliness of the world, so he posed the problem that Aristotle later tried to solve through teleology.

Two aspects stand out in the early Greek philosophers' conception of the origin of the world: (1) the role of "God to create the world" is de-apotheosis, that is, the world, life, or particular beings are not as prephilosophical as they were in the prephilosophical period. ) are, as is commonly believed, a product of God's creation, but a result of nature's productive capacity. (2) Origin is not teleological, that is, it is not based on any design or purpose; origin is simply the result of chance or irrational necessity. These philosophers thus offered for the first time "natural" explanations for phenomena in the world, that is, plausible explanations that resorted only to known forces and matter, such as the heat of the sun or water and earth.Although these explanations are so simple and primitive to modern people, it can be said that these formulations constitute the first scientific revolution, that is, they deny the idealist explanation of supernatural power and affirm the materialist thesis.

There is another fundamental difference between the worldview of the Greek philosophers and that of the biblical writers (priests).The world referred to in the Bible is young. According to Bishop Usher's later estimates, God created the world only around 4000 BC. And such a world will come to an end on the Day of Judgment.This time is of little importance in their worldview.On the other hand, the Greek philosophers were ambivalent about time.As far as we moderns see, time is change, but philosophers before Socrates regarded the world as eternal, without any major changes, at most it is only a cyclical change, and it will return to the original state sooner or later. That is to say, the world is a stable world.This was clearly the case at the time, despite Heraclitus' famous dictum that "all things change".Thus time, though infinite, had no effect on the Greek worldview; there was no need to substitute an evolving world for the origin of the world.Greek philosophers were indeed very interested in origin issues, such as the origin of the universe, the earth, life, animals, humans, and language.However, its subsequent changes are indifferent.

Hippocrates (about 460-370 B.C.) and his school of thought were quite different.Most of them are doctors, and they value observation and experimentation over reasoning.They insist on acquired inheritance on the principle of make or break. They also argue that climate and other geographical factors play a major role in how residents differ from region to region. A number of ideas favoring the development of evolutionary thought are scattered throughout the writings of the Ionian philosophers, such as the infinity of time, spontaneous generation, changes in the environment, and the emphasis on change in ontogenesis, among others.But that's about it.In fact the Greek philosophers soon changed this tendency of thought.Due to the influence of Parmenides, especially the Pythagoreans, the thoughts of Greek philosophers tended more and more to abstract metaphysics and were increasingly influenced by mathematics, especially geometry.This is the first time in the history of biology that a detrimental influence on its development has been produced by mathematics or physical science, and this detrimental influence has often appeared in the future.The preoccupation with geometry led to a search for the "unchanging realities" (Ideal gestalten) underlying changeable phenomena.In other words, leading to essentialism (see Chapter 2), this philosophical view is of course completely incompatible with evolutionary thinking.

Once the axiom that all temporary changes perceived by the senses are mere permutations and combinations of "eternal principles" is accepted, the historical sequence of events (which is part change, part individual variation) loses its essential meaning. It is valued only for giving clues to the nature of immutable substances... Philosophers are concerned with matters pertaining to general principles—the geometrical design of the celestial bodies, the mathematical forms relating to the various elements of matter... They increasingly Fascinated by the idea of ​​an unchanging cosmic order, the eternal design of nature (including society), their special task was to discover its fundamental principles. (See previous book.) These new ideas found the famous antihero of evolutionary thought (antihero) Plato as the most faithful spokesperson.Plato's mind was that of a geometer, and he obviously knew very little about biological phenomena.Four of Plato's dogmas had a particularly pernicious effect on biology over the next two millennia.The first is the aforementioned essentialism, the belief in unchanging forms (eide) and fixed ideas separate from and independent of superficial phenomena.The second was the notion of an orderly, harmonious and animated universe, which made it extremely difficult later on to explain how evolution began, since any change would disrupt the harmony.Third, he replaced spontaneous generation with a creative force, the Creator.Because Plato was a pantheist and a pagan (non-Christian), the Creator he referred to was somewhat different from the monotheistic Creator God, and did not refer to a specific god.However, it was later explained from a monotheistic point of view.And it was this interpretation that led to the later Christian tradition that "the task of the philosopher is to reveal the design of the Creator," a tradition that persisted until the mid-nineteenth century (Natural Theology, Agassiz).A fourth influential idea of ​​Plato's was his special emphasis on the "soul."Philosophers before Socrates also referred to non-corporeal factors, but never in such a unique, exhaustive, and omnipresent way as in Plato.Later, when it merged with Christian ideas, the worship of the soul made it extremely difficult to accept the theory of evolution, or at least to include man and his soul in the evolutionary scheme.People often refer to what a catastrophe Plato's writings were for biology, and indeed for evolutionary thought.

Aristotle, one of the greatest naturalists, arguably seemed the ideal person to be the first to develop the theory of evolution. He was a brilliant observer and was the first to understand the gradual changes in living nature.He believes that "nature is formed in a continuous order from non-living things through plants and finally into animals." He once pointed out that some marine animals, such as sponges, sea squirts, and sea anemones, are more like plants in comparison.Later scholars refined his opinion into the concept of "the ladder of nature" or "the great chain of nature", which prompted the idea of ​​evolution among Leibniz's disciples in the 18th century. However, Aristotle is not actually like this.He has too many ideas that are incompatible with evolutionary thinking.The movement of the world of life, from birth to death, does not cause permanent change, but only a continuation of steady states.Thus immutability and eternity are not incompatible with movement, with the extinction of the individual, with the disappearance of individual phenomena. As a naturalist he saw everywhere fixed and well-defined species, and though he also emphasized the continuity of nature, the fixity of species and their forms was eternal.Not only was Aristotle not an evolutionist, in fact he saw any supposed origin of anything as asking for trouble.For him, the order of nature is eternal and unchanging; and it seems possible that he would have appreciated Hutton's view that "there is no evidence for a beginning and no hope for an end." . It must be pointed out that the staged gradual change to which Aristotle refers is a completely static concept.More than once he objected to the "evolution" doctrine of Empedocles.Not only is there order in nature, but everything in nature has a purpose.He made it clear that man and the genera of animals and plants are eternal, neither created nor perishable.The idea that the universe might have evolved from primordial chaos, or that higher beings might have evolved from lower beings, was completely foreign to Aristotle.Again, Aristotle was opposed to any form of evolution, and biologists, including Darwin, have always admired Aristotle, yet they must admit with great regret that they cannot rank him among evolutionists.Due to the prestige of Aristotle, his position against evolution had a profound impact on the development of the situation in the next two thousand years. Among thinkers after Aristotle, some regarded the Epicureans as potential evolutionists.This is a misunderstanding, and of course it must be admitted that they, contrary to Aristotle, were interested in origins.In Lucretius' poem "Concerning the Nature of Things" it is mentioned that all things, including humans, arose naturally in a golden age in the past.But he also categorically opposes evolutionary change: Each thing has its own growth process; He thought that the earth was extremely fat, producing not only strong creatures but also monsters and weak people who could not survive and were eliminated.This process of selection is sometimes referred to as the early theory of natural selection, an interpretation which we will later find to be of course wrong. Thus, until the end of the classical period, the minds of thinkers were not liberated from static as worldviews or steady-state worldviews.At most they are concerned with origin.Historic Changes in the Biological World - Biological evolution completely transcended the conceptual structures of the time. Many historians have wondered why the Greeks were not successful in creating the idea of ​​evolution.We have actually touched on these reasons in the previous discussion: there is no concept of time, and even if there is a thought about time, it is just eternity without change, or an endless cycle of change that always returns to the same starting point.The notion of the perfection of the universe prevailed at the time.Finally there is essentialism, which is completely incompatible with the concept of change.All of these ideas must be eliminated or weakened before evolution can be conceived.Yet the Greeks did lay the groundwork for evolutionary biology in another way, and Aristotle did more than anyone else to contribute to it.Today it is understood that the theory of evolution can only be inferred from indirect evidence provided by natural history, which was founded by Aristotle. When the Roman Empire collapsed, a new ideology - Christianity - took over and dominated Western thought. Its influence and the unlimited power of the church hierarchy cannot be overstated.They established a completely different set of conceptual types and abolished freedom of thought.People can no longer think and reason as they wish.At this time, the teaching of Christianity is the standard by which all things are measured, and this teaching is revealed in the Bible, so the Bible becomes the standard by which all things are measured.What Christianity and Judaism believe in is not timeless eternity, but an almighty Creator who created the world out of nothing and will bring it to an abrupt end on Judgment Day.It took six days to form the earth, which is enough for the origin of all things, but not enough for evolution, because according to the calculation of the genealogy recorded in the Bible, the world was only 4000 BC. It was only created in a year, and the time is very short.However, there are many references to linear sequences in the Old Testament (such as the creation of the world in six days), which are more suitable as the basis for evolutionary ideas than the eternal world of the Greeks or the cyclical world. . The priests and clergymen of the early church were allowed considerable liberty in interpreting the Scriptures, because heresy posed no danger when each of them was a devout Christian, and no science existed that required a more rigorous argument. .For example, Saint Augustine (Gilson, 1960), while also acknowledging the sole authority of the Bible, took a somewhat allegorical interpretation of creation.Not only are manufactured products created in the first place, but most of God's creation, according to him, consists in endowing nature with the potential to produce living things.Although the essence of these creations was created in the beginning, they (the creations) often germinated or activated much later.All parts of nature, whether land or water, have the capacity to produce something new, whether this new thing is living or non-living.Spontaneous occurrence is therefore no problem for devout Christians and can occur at any time. The millennia after the founding of Christianity were a period of depressing intellectual stagnation.The scholastic university is characterized by an attempt to establish truth by deductive reasoning, but protracted debates in this way are doomed to failure.The new awakening came from quite different directions, from a revival of interest in nature, but also from a revival of natural history, as can be seen in the activities of Freclerick II and Albertus Magnus (see Chapter 4). Medieval Catholic scholars, Aristotelian or not, were convinced that all species were strictly fixed, though they often referred to the chain of life or the hierarchy of natural phenomena. Perhaps the most important development of the scholastic period was the split within the camp of the scholastics.A sect developed which came to be known as the nominalists, which denied the basic tenets of essentialism.Nominalists believe that there is no essence and that all we really have are names attached to things.Once you have the name "chair," you can group together anything that fits the definition of a chair, whether it's a dining room chair, a park lawn chair, or an upholstered chair.The attack on essentialism (also known as realism) by nominalists heralded the first weakening of essentialism.Some British inductive philosophers and experimentalists, from Bacon onwards, all have the color of nominalists in their thinking, which can also be said to be a continuation of ideology.Indeed, nominalism was probably the forerunner of species thinking (see Chapter 2). The Reformation represented a reaction to the development of evolutionary thinking, as the rise of Protestantism strengthened the authority of the Bible.It interprets the Bible completely word for word, which means it leads to fundamentalism.Free interpretation like St. Augustine's was then completely forbidden. Strangely, the so-called scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries (a scientific revolution largely limited to the physical sciences) did not change this attitude towards creationism at all.All famous physicists and mathematicians such as Descartes, Huyghens, Boyle, Newton, etc. have their own gods and are strict creationists.The mechanization of worldview (Dijksterhuis, 1961), the dominant conceptual revolution of the time, did not require and could not tolerate evolution.A stable, original world, held together by universal laws, is everything to the essentialist, who believes in the perfection of the universe. Philosophy is equally reactionary.There is no real thought of evolution to be found in Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza.Descartes emphasized that since God is omnipotent, everything he creates can only be perfect, and that which is perfect from the beginning cannot evolve.It is strange that theology, in the form of natural theology, has paved the way for evolutionary thought to a greater extent than philosophy. Evolution in its very sense contradicts common sense.The offspring of any living being always develop again into the likeness of the parent. Cats will always be kittens.To be honest, there were various catastrophe theories before the theory of evolution was accepted.For example, spontaneous generation theory, heterogony theory, that is, that the seeds of a certain plant (such as wheat) will occasionally give birth to another plant (such as rye).But these are theories about origins and have nothing to do with evolution.There must be a real intellectual revolution before the idea of ​​evolution can be admitted. The biggest obstacle to establishing the theory of evolution is that evolution is not directly observable like physical phenomena, such as falling stones, boiling water, and other processes that take place in seconds, minutes, or hours, during which time Change can be recorded in detail; evolution can only be inferred.And in order to infer it must first have an appropriate conceptual framework.Fossils, the facts of variation and inheritance, and the existence of natural hierarchies of organisms, etc., are evidence only after one assumes that evolution has occurred.But the prevailing and coherent reality of the world from Greek times until the eighteenth century was at odds, or at least disadvantageous, with the idea of ​​evolution.Therefore, an essential prerequisite for proposing the theory of evolution is to reform the worldview prevailing in the Western world before adopting the idea of ​​evolution.There are two main arguments for this worldview, the first is the belief that the universe was designed in every detail by an intelligent creator.The other is the notion of a world that is static and unchanging, but transient in time.These two arguments were so entrenched in Western thought at the end of the Middle Ages that it is impossible to imagine them being excluded.Yet this is exactly what gradually happened in the 1718th and early 19th centuries. What is the cause of this jaw-dropping intellectual revolution?Is this the result of scientific research or of changes permeating the cultural, intellectual background?The correct answer is obviously that both are important. There seems to be a new trend in the West from the 14th century onwards.The Age of Discovery, the discovery of ancient ideas, the Reformation, the new philosophical views of Bacon and Descartes, the development of secular (secular) literature and art, and finally the Scientific Revolution all weakened previous beliefs.The more it is emphasized that scientific revolutions in the physical sciences require rational explanations of natural phenomena, the less feasible are supernatural explanations. This change is not limited to science.All aspects are brewing.The concept of history began to take shape in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, no doubt influenced by the revival of the Greek tradition, the study of the Greek classics, and interest in traditional Greek culture and architecture.Navigation made the Western world aware of the existence of primitive tribes, which suddenly raised the question: How did civilized peoples develop from an earlier primitive state?This is the first time that the most concerned issues of modern social science are raised.Italian Giambattista Vico wrote the groundbreaking book Scienzia Nuova (New Science) in 1725.The philosophy of history is discussed. (Croce, 1913; Berlin, 1960).In his view, the various periods of human history are not different aspects of a basically identical history: they are successive stages in a continuous process, which is a process of inevitable evolution. While gradually freeing itself from the spiritual and intellectual shackles of the Church, secular literature also developed.Originally forbidden ideas are now expressed in the form of novels, and new theories about the origin of the earth, human beings, or human society also appear in the form of utopia (Utopia). Published in the eighteenth century. Two novels are particularly important in expressing new ideas, one is Bernard deFontenelle's "Conversations on the plurality of the worlds" (Conversations on the plurality of the worlds, 1686).In this novel, he uses Descartes' eddy theory to explain the origin of the world in a radical manner.He believed that other planets and moons also had living things, and deduced the characteristics of these living things according to the assumed temperature and climate conditions of these celestial bodies.In addition to our solar system, he believed that there are countless solar systems and countless spaces.Although it is not explicitly stated in the novel, since space is infinite, why is time not infinite? If Fontenelle's "Multiple Worlds" is a real novel with a strong metaphysical flavor, then de Maillet's (1748) novel "Telliamed" has a deep foundation of the author's long-term geological research, as the subtitle of this book indicates , an attempt to record "a conversation between an Indian philosopher and a French missionary about the shrinking of the oceans."This is a novel of extreme fantasy, in which the most daring and heretical ideas come from the lips of Indian philosophers.The novel consists of three dialogues, the first two of which are almost all related to geological work, which in many ways greatly surpassed the times at that time.The third conversation is the longest one, and many of them touch on the origin of life and metamotphosis. De Maillet's main geological argument is that the Earth was once completely covered by oceans, only to be exposed later, over millions of years.At first there were only aquatic plants and aquatic animals, some of which became terrestrial plants and animals once they landed.At the time it seemed that the earth was not created suddenly, but gradually formed by natural processes.The air is always full of "seeds" of living organisms: given the right environmental conditions, they will germinate into various living things.Existing species were transformed as emerging conditions demanded a change.Flying fish, for example, are transformed into birds. Human beings originally existed in the sea in the form of mermaids, and later became human on land. Indeed, all land creatures are nothing but transformed aquatic creatures.Since only pre-existing organisms can transform into new forms, there is no real concept of evolution in de Maillet's thinking.But the Telliamed is important because it shows how far eighteenth-century thinkers were intellectually liberated from the fetters of previous centuries. Although the Telliamed was not published until 1748, it was actually written around 1715, roughly 30 years after Fontenelle's novel was published (1686).These two books reflect the profound influence of the works of Descartes, Newton, Leibniz and others and the scientific discoveries of Luwenhoek and other naturalists on the intellectual circles at that time. Science obviously had a major impact on the thinking of that era. Let us examine in some detail the scientific developments which have had such a profound influence on Western thought.Three relatively independent streams of scientific development in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries laid the foundations for the theory of evolution in different ways: natural philosophy (physical science), geology, and natural history (in a broad sense). The scientific revolutions in the physical sciences (from Copernicus and Galileo to Newton and Laplace) paid special attention to the fundamental and universal laws governing all physical phenomena, such as the law of gravitation.They not only explain the motion of objects including the sun and planets, but also explain the functional phenomena of living organisms.As Boyle once said: This philosophy... tells people that it is God who sets matter in motion.But God is only initially directing the movements of the parts that make up matter.So that these parts could, as a matter of course, constitute the world he designed, and then establish the laws of motion and the order of the physical world, which we call the laws of nature.The universe, therefore, was once created by God, who then determined the laws of motion, all sanctioned by his absolute will.This philosophy also tells people that various phenomena in the universe are produced in a physical sense by the mechanical properties of the constituent parts of matter, and that various phenomena interact according to mechanical laws. (Boyle, 1738:187) The widely popular Greek notion of the universe as a living being with a soul was replaced by the notion that the universe was governed by laws.This new way of thinking is called mechanization of worldview, and it permeates not only the physical sciences but also has implications for other disciplines of physiology and biology.This new concept called for a mechanical explanation of all natural phenomena.For example, if the motion of a planet in its orbit was governed by the laws of planetary motion, there would be no need for endless intervention by the Creator.The Creator God is still the original cause of all existing things, but after the creation of the world, all natural phenomena or processes are governed by "secondary causes", which can be exemplified by various laws in the physical sciences.Using these laws to explain all natural phenomena and exploring laws that have never been discovered before has become the purpose and task of science. This new way of thinking has been used with particular success in cosmology.The biblical universe, and even the universe that the Greek astronomer Ptolemy referred to was small.This perception changed after the invention of the telescope.The better the telescope, the more extended and limitless the universe appears to be.The concept of an infinite universe has been accepted by more and more people and has continued into modern astronomy.As more people embraced the concept of infinite space, it made them ask the question more often: Is time also infinite? Not only did it produce the concept that the universe is infinite in space and time, but it also later led to the idea that the universe is not fixed but is always changing.However, any state of affairs that has ever happened must agree with what is recorded in the Bible, and any new discoveries in natural philosophy must also agree with the Book of Moses in the Old Testament.The first revolutionary geology book published in England was The Sacred Theory of the Earth (1681) written by Father Thomas Burnet, which explained the entire history of the earth from the creation of the world to the time when God created it.It is written in the book that the major event of the flood was caused by the bursting of the earth's crust and the spewing of groundwater.All the events recorded in the Bible, including the fire on the Last Judgment Day, are a series of natural events arranged by God when he created the world. John Woodward's book "Essay towards a Natural History of the Earth" (Essay towards a Natural History) History of the Earth, 1695) is a more orthodox work.He thinks the Flood was the result of the direct intervention of God, but the world has stabilized somewhat since then.All the fossils are remnants of the Flood, proving that it actually happened, thus arguing the reliability of the biblical account.This is indeed a comforting explanation. William Whiston, the third author of a history of the earth, attempted to use Newtonian physics to explain biblical stories.In his "New Doctrine Concerning the Earth" (New Theory of the Earth, 1696) The most interesting speculation in the book is that the great flood in Noah's time was the consequence of comets approaching the earth. The most important point in the explanations of the above three books is to try to give a "natural" explanation of certain historical events of the earth without deviating too much from the written records of the Bible. (Greene, 1959) It was like putting a foot in the door, and philosophers and cosmologists have since speculated more freely and boldly about the history of the earth, sun, and constellations.But the idea that the universe as a whole evolved through evolution came much later.This was first proposed by the famous German philosopher Kant (1724-1804) in his early work "General History of Nature and the Doctrine of Celestial Bodies". (A General History of Nature and a Theory of the Heavens, 1755) presented systematically and eloquently.In this work Kant systematically presents the now-familiar notion that the origin of the world was the spinning of a chaotic nebula that eventually formed the Milky Way, the sun, and the planets.What is particularly noticeable in this account of Kant is the gradual nature of the whole process: "The future continuation of time (through which eternity is infinity) will fully arouse the whole space of God's omnipresence, and will gradually使之纳入正常秩序，这种正常秩序是和上帝的最优设计方案相一致的……上帝的创造永远不会结束。创造确实有过开始，但它绝不会终止。”新的星球和银河将一如既往地演变、发展下去。 这已不再是一个静止的世界，而是一个能动的、不断发展进化的世界，它只是由第二原因远远地操纵着——这在当时来说显然纯粹是一种异端思想。通过这一革命性的新思想，“康德深思熟虑地从一个侧面宣扬了牛顿的关于现行自然秩序的创造（形成）和这种秩序的保持之间的严格区别：我们所要求的创造只能是在无穷尽的时间内秩序逐渐战胜混乱的结果”（Toulmin andGoodfield，1965）。 根据布丰的估计，世界从开始到现在只有168，000年或者至多不过50万年，而康德则认为远不止此。康德显然考虑的是无穷尽（无限），因而对改变当代的思想起了重要促进作用，后来这反映在地质学家休顿（Hutton）和拉马克的着述中，虽然他们谁也没有直接读过康德的着作。 地质学中思想的转变较之宇宙学更具有根本性。研究自然的学者在18世纪才第一次充分认识到地球表面的不断变化以及过去所发生的变化。地质学这门新的科学开始兴起，它的首要任务是历史性的，即重建地球历史上所发生过的事态的先后顺序。地球表面并不是一直和现在一样（也就是说地球也有它自己的历史）的证据来自几个方面。 其中之一是发现了法国中部的死火山（已熄灭的火山）。这一发现使人们认识到广泛分布的玄武岩不过是古代的熔岩，是古时火山喷发的残余物；它还使人们认识到这种熔岩的分布很广，深层的熔岩一定很古老。 大致就在这同一时期人们第一次了解到绝大多数地质断层是成层沉积（沉积矿床）。 对这些成层沉积加以仔细研究后还发现它们往往是深达一万尺的柱状体，有时还超过十万尺。这一发现引起了人们的极大震动，因为这不可避免地使人想到地球是非常古老的，这样之深的沉积层势必需要非常悠久的时间才能形成。后来还进一步发现无论是火山沉积物还是冲积沉积物在它们沉积后都不是没有遭到破坏，一成不变的，而是随后被水冲蚀，有时形成了很深的深谷。有些沉积层后来还发生了激烈变化，产生了褶皱，有时很多沉积层甚至完全颠倒了过来。这些情况现在看来当然是容易理解的，因而很难想像在17和18世纪这样的思想和看法是多么富有革命性，起初遭遇到多少广泛的反对和责难。 关于地壳的现有形状究竟是由于水力作用（水成论）还是火山作用（火成论）造成的，两者的作用孰大孰小这些问题在地质学家的各个学派之间曾经一度发生了激烈争论。 后来终于对火山、浸蚀（以及沉积）和造山运动等各自的作用作出了恰当的估计。但是对作用于地壳的各种力的了解随后不断深化，直到晚近（60年代）提出的板块结构理论就对此作出了极为重要的贡献。不论各种地质学发现有些什么不同，但它们都有一个共同点：它们互相补充、强化了对地球是极其古老的认识。这就不可避免引起了和从字面上崇奉圣经说教的人们的冲突。 教会多少是正式承认公元前4000年是上帝创造世界的时期，因而认为任何与此有重大出入的就是异端邪说。然而布丰在他所写的《自然界的纪元》（Les epoaues de lanature，1779）一文中就勇敢地提出地球的年龄至少有168，O00年（Roger，1962）（在他未发表的一篇文章中则估计为50万年）。布丰对这类问题非常注意，并且似乎是对地球的历史具有理性而又前后连贯概念的第一位思想家。在他于1779年写就的上述一文（这是他对25年前他所出版的一篇论文作了大量补充修订后写成的）中将地球的历史分为七个“时期”（epochs）：第一个时期是地球和行星形成；第二时期，大山脉产生；第三时期，水淹没大地；第四时期，水退落，火山开始活动；第五时期（这是一个非常值得注意购时期），大象和其它热带动物在北方栖息（它们的化石曾在北方发现，但布丰并没有想到这些热带动物可能不止分布在热带，还可能栖息在其它任何气候区域）；第六时期，各大洲彼此分开（他明确地认识到北美的动物区系和欧洲及亚洲的相同，由于这些洲目前已被海洋分隔开，因而他认为以前它们一定是联结在一起的）；最后是第七个时期，人类出现。这是最后也是最近的一个时期，因为在化石记录中并没有人类化石。在布丰重建地球历史时生物学的新发现起了重要作用。下面我们就转而讨论为进化思想铺平道路的一些生物学发现。 致力于物理科学的人倾向于将十七、十八世纪理性思潮的变化完全归之于世界观的机械化（机械世界观）。这种倾向忽视了博物学各个领域的发展在这一变革中所起的重要作用。这些发展发现了许多与创造神话并不符合的新情况和新证据。因此，凡是与博物学的发展有关的事态也就是进化生物学历史的一部分。 也许最重要的莫过于中世纪之后重新发现或研究大自然。学者们日益显示出对花、鸟的爱好。大致从1520年前后开始出版了一系列附有美丽插图的关于德国南部和欧洲其它地区地方植物的着作（参阅第四章）。这就激发了不少人走向户外寻找这些植物的愿望，甚至还想发现以前没有描述过的新植物。对鸟类、鱼类以及其它自然界产物也发生了类似的浓厚兴起。这样就先后发现了圣经中和前人（如Theophrastus，亚里斯多德，Pliny等）着作中所从来没有提到过的西欧的大多数物种。人们开始怀疑：我们对我们生活的世界究竟真正了解多少？ 圣经只提到了近东的动植物，“诺亚方舟”所能安顿和拯救的这些动植物显然极其有限。但是当14、15世纪大规模航海事业开始以后，使得16世纪到18世纪的新发现有才更加惊人的发展。非洲、东印度、美洲和澳大利亚的新奇动植物的记叙使圣经的可信性遭到致命打击。这样多的动植物在方舟中怎样安顿得下？如果所有的动物都是在方舟靠岸的亚拉拉特山（位于亚美尼亚）繁殖蔓延开来的，那末全世界的动物为什么不一样？ 它们又是怎样到达被海洋分隔开的美洲和澳大利亚的？生物地理学的事实和现象向神创论者提出了一些最难解答的问题，并且最终被达尔文用来作为进化的最有利和最有力的证据（见第十章）。 化石研究的日益深入对圣经故事的可靠性也提出了新的疑问。在很早以前人们就已经知道化石。希腊人Xenophanes（生殁年代大约在公元前五百年）在意大利西西里岛西那库斯海港的采石场发现了化石鱼，在马尔它岛发现了海洋软体动物的化石。十分值得注意的是他并不认为这些化石是过去灾害的记录而是海平面逐渐变化的结果，这多少是按Anaximander的思路在考虑。亚里斯多德在他的《气象学》一书中也表达了相似的观点，因为他是坚决的反灾害论者，所以他也认为化石是由于海平面缓慢移动所形成的。 对化石的形成的原因有下面的两个错误解释一直影响到18世纪。 原先，人们普遍认为化石是“从岩石长出的”，正如晶体或金属矿那样，只不过是大自然的偶然事态。大自然或者被看作具有塑造力（vis Plastica），能够在岩石中塑造各种形状；或者化石被描述为大自然中普遍存在的“种子”（germs），这些“种子” 或者在自然发生（spontaneous generations）中表现为万物的种，或者是在岩石中表现为化石。且不提其它的人，很多着名学者如Magnus，Falloppio，Kireher，盖斯勒，悌宇列弗等等都具有这种观点。 按圣经的字面解释一切是当时的习尚，当化石是过去生物的遗迹这种看法最后被普遍接受的时候，于是化石也被看作是在诺亚洪水中消亡的动物的遗迹（尤其是Steno，Woodward和Scheuehzer坚持这种观点）。虽然达芬奇，Fracastoro，以及其它一些先驱者提出了很多证据反对一切化石都是同时出现的观点，但是地球的年龄很年轻的这一信条在很长一段时间内一直被人奉为圭臬，以致人们还不可能接受化石动物具有明确的先后顺序的看法。 后来有两件事彻底推翻了把化石看作是诺亚洪水的遗迹的愚笨而又幼稚的观点。第一件事是在化石中发现了一些前所未知的，因而被假定为已灭绝了的动物和植物，另一件是地层学的发展。灭绝动物的发现还并不是那样直接地与圣经发生冲突，而是直接与17、18世纪所特有的关于上帝的概念相对抗。根据当时绝大多数着名的思想家，特别是莱布尼茨、所服膺的完满原则（Principle of Plenitude），上帝以其大慈大悲心肠确实创造出了一切可能创造的万物。但是上帝的博爱思想也不可能让她自己创造出的任何一种动物灭绝。因此，把化石看作是灭绝生物的遗留物就提出了真正的难题，当时和以后也确实有人提出过企图解决这难题的各种方案（参阅第八章8．1节）。 第二件事是发现了化石都是一层又一层的，而且每一层化石都是独特的动物和植物化石。鉴于两千多年以前就已经知道化石，所以对化石成层的情况应当说了解得很迟。 Xenophanes曾经注意到在不同的采石场可以找到不同的化石，也就是说，不同的岩石可能含有不同的化石。其它的一些学者也曾发现类似的情况。然而只要是化石被看作是大自然的加工物或诺亚洪水的遗迹，这秤证据当然就会被忽视。18世纪地质学研究的长足进展使得这种证据再也不能被弃置不顾。很多学者，或者是独自研究，或者是互相启发，开始了解到岩石是按一定顺序存在的，而且大多数是成层的，某些岩石层还分布很广。 起初主要是按岩石的分类学特征（片岩，板岩，石灰石，白垩等）来鉴定，后来有少数观察锐敏的学者发现某些化石常和特定的矿层联系在一起。有一些地质学史还曾试图对Steno，Lister，Woodward等这样一些学者的研究予以应有的评价。遗憾的是直到现在还没有一本好的关于早期的地层学比较史。上述这些学者所发表的观察记录大都是零碎不系统的。然而目前一致认为有两位学者将当时有关化石的零碎资料加以收集整理，研究，并形成了一门新学科——地层学，他们是英国的土地测量师史密司（WilliamSmith）和法国动物学家居维叶（Georges Cuvier）史密司是一位测量师和工程师，他在修筑运河和在矿场勘探煤层及矿层时发现可以通过地层中所含的化石来鉴定地层。有时甚至能够追踪这样的地层达几百公里，尽管岩石的形成和特性不断发生变化。史密司是在1791年与1799年之间提出这些鉴定原则的，但是直到1815年他才出版了他那着名的英格兰和威尔土地层地图（Eyles，1969）。在这同一时间法国的博物学家也正在积极地收集巴黎盆地石灰石采集场的化石，居维叶和他的助手还研究清楚了这些化石（主要是哺乳动物）的确切地层情况，并非常详细地检定了每种动物。Schlotheim在德国（1804，1813）也进行了类似的研究并作出了相似结论。 法国和英国的上述发现令人无可怀疑地承认这涉及到时间上的先后顺序，而且最深层的地层是最古老的（这结论对当时的许多地质学家来说无异是一杯苦酒）。后来还认识到，如果容许现今欧洲和大洋洲（澳大利亚）的动物之间，或大西洋与太平洋的海洋动物之间存在着地区性差异，那么就有可能不仅将欧洲大陆和英国的地层、而且可以将世界大部分的地层联系起来。何况现今世界上不同地区的动物之间的差异并不像不同地质年代的动物之间（例如现代动物与中生代的动物之间，更不用说现代动物与古生代动物之间）的差异那样大。 但是，居维叶以及19世纪前半期的一些着名地质学家（包括莱伊尔）并没有根据这样的证据作出（在我们看来是不可避免会作出的）这些动物经历了长期不断的进化过程的结论。这样一来在以后的半个世纪中仍然保持着这样的观点，即每一种化石动物都是在某次灾乱中被消灭掉，然后通过特创（神造）被另一种完全新的动物取代；或者某些动物的湮灭是零碎进行的，并经由特殊的特创来代替。一句话，当时仍然保持着起源而非进化的观点。 博物学中一个又一个的新发现震撼了过去的信念。例如显微镜的发明使得列文虎克发现了一批前所未知的生物。这一发现在生物界的多样性上又增添了一个全新的领域，而且可能是前此长期追索的、跨越可以见到的生物与非生物界之间的桥梁。最为重要的是，它对自然发生学说似乎提供了强有力的支持。尽管Redi和Spallanzani已经证明如果防止苍蝇产卵在肉中就不会生蛆，然而微生物，尤其是纤毛虫，可以从无生物产生的观点仍然十分普遍。而且很快每个人都知道了产生这些微生物的处方：将一些干草放在水中，经过几天之后水中就会布满微生物。对自然发生的这种证明当然是和世界初辟时的一次性创造的信条完全冲突的。自然发生后来就成为拉马克的进化学说的主调。 最后，生物学中的另一事态发展到了适当的时候对进化思想也产生了重要影响，那就是系统学的兴起。自从切查皮诺及盖斯勒以后，动物和植物的名录、种类一直稳步上升（参见第四章）。长期以来一直以为可以将这些生物从最简的到最复杂的编排到单一的自然阶梯中去，而且这个完善无缺的阶梯看来是和18世纪的造物主的概念相吻合的。 然而随着对动、植物的知识越来越丰富，要将之安排在唯一的一份卷宗或阶梯中去就越发困难。它们倒反而适合于分到界限明确而又往往独立的类群（如哺乳类，鸟类、爬虫类以及它们的下属门类）中去；这些类群、门类在一个由阶元组成的分类体系中更容易安排。居维叶声称所有的动物恰好可以分为四门（或四个分支）：脊椎动物，软体动物，节肢动物辐射动物。他还坚决地认为这四门彼此无关，然而他也承认在这四门的每一门之中的各种动物之间有着复杂关系。在否认生物与非生物、植物与动物有任何联系这一点上，居维叶和拉马克的意见是一致的，但他还进一步否定动物只有单一的系谱。他对自然阶梯的决定性打击促使他提出了完全新的问题，并为进化分类的建立廓清了道路（参阅第四章），虽然居维叶本人并没有直接参与这项工作。